Sony joins EA and Ubisoft in considering limitations on used games

[Scott_Arm]

Gamestop only does what other stores do. They put a price on a product and lower that price if people don't buy it. Why should the devs profit from used game sales? Seriously, why? I can't think of any good reason. There is a used market for just about every material good you can purchase and none of them send money back to the original manufacturer. Why are games different?

Is this about charging to help pay for online gaming infrastructure? No. Selling used games does not increase the number of players of a particular game. It only maintains it, or lowers it if the used copies sit on a shelf in Gamestop. This is just a grab at money because the publishers think a perfectly legitimate pro-consumer market is somehow unfair.

If I have to pay to add online features to Madden, will I ever try Madden again? Nope. By the time the new copies come down in price, the next years version is already out and nobody plays the old one.

 

[Scott_Arm]

Yes, it's not just the publishers and the consumer, but the merchants too. Taking Scott's bike example, if you went into a Bike shop to get a new bike, and was offered a brand spanking new bike for $1000, or exactly the same bike for the same condition 2nd hand for $800, which would you buy? That doesn't happen for 2 reasons - 1) Bikes get wear and tear which means to buy second hand, you will be buying a lesser product. There are advantages in buying new. 2) Bike's are a long term investment. You don't buy a bike now to sell it a month later to buy the next model bike. Typically a bike is used until it's well worn, and bike shops don't get lots of returns to pass on.

Incidentally, can eBooks be passed on to other people, or have they zero resale value?

Well, if you believe that you can't buy high-quality used products that are essentially mint, then yes you are correct. I know a ton of bike fanatics that could hook me up with a used bike that would be indistinguishable from a new bike.

That's true about ebooks, which is one of the reasons I'd never pay any considerable amount of money for them. The fact that I can't resell them means I'm not going to pay nearly as much money for them.

 

[Scott_Arm]

Not only that but in the case of Gamestop they will give you $400 for the bike a month old or less then turn around and sell it for $800.

Yes, stores that sell used goods buy them for less than they sell them for. If people are willing to sell and buy for those prices, then what's wrong?

 

[Xenus]

Scott you act like the used market is such a good deal. Customer to customer it is but chains like gamestop routinely rip you off. I really don't have a problem with developers finding a way to get a cut of that. Honestly any solution that isn't downright moronic is likely to be at worst as bad of a deal as gamestop.

What's wrong is I'm sure publishers would love to buy their used games back from you and sell it for twice the price you they paid for it. Every time someone decides to save $5 on a used copy they lose a their cut of a sale. Obviously their has to be a better solution if only it be that a game within a 6 months or a year of release is subject to a publishers tax if resold at a gamestop.

 

[corduroygt]

Scott you act like the used market is such a good deal. Customer to customer it is but chains like gamestop routinely rip you off. I really don't have a problem with developers finding a way to get a cut of that.

If gamestop is such a rip off, customers won't go there and eventually they'll have to adjust their prices or go out of business. Similar to exchange programs that are offered by some studios, which lets you send in your DVDs and get the blu-ray version of the same movie for only a few bucks, publishers could do the same. For example, send a copy of Madden 10 to EA and get Madden 11 for $15, I'm sure it'd be very popular.

 

[Xenus]

Gamestop is a terrible deal for recent games they are a good deal for older games. However what I don't get about half these arguments is they seem okay with gamestop ripping them off but as soon as the publishers or devs want to do something similar it's outrage. Where is the logic in that? If anything the devs are making the product so you'd think it be the opposite way around.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

There is a used market for just about every material good you can purchase and none of them send money back to the original manufacturer. Why are games different?

Games are not a material product. Games are the content on the disc. We just happen to have a material distribution system.

Games as entertainment are equivalent to traveling entertainers of old, where in order to be entertained, you had to pay the entertainers. You could not be entertained without paying them - no-one could pass on that same experience to someone else. This is different to material goods where a manufacturer is paid to create the goods, the cart or the wheelbarrow or the pot. Once the goods are created, their work is done. An entertainer's work is per show, per user experience, and not per product created. The distribution method is now different and as a result, the experience is recyclable, but the principle is the same, in that these people work to provide an experience, and everyone who enjoys their creation ought to provide them something in return.

That's true about ebooks, which is one of the reasons I'd never pay any considerable amount of money for them. The fact that I can't resell them means I'm not going to pay nearly as much money for them.

But this also shows how the whole creative industries are trying to address the issues of mass publication. We are used to a world where we can lend/buy/borrow books and CDs and DVDs for free, but that doesn't make it right (note I'm not saying it's wrong either, but playing devil's advocate here). The medium means the experience of the travelling performers can be recycled and passed on, meaning no-one needs to pay for the travelling performers.

Consider other non-material entertainment experiences. A theme park has a material ticket to get in, but that ticket is not what you pay for. It also has an expiry date. If it didn't, someone could buy a ticket, visit Disneyland, pass it to someone else who visits, who passes it to someone else who visits...all getting that experience without paying those providing it. That's the same as games, only the ticket is a plastic disk that doesn't time-out after a day/week, and the experience is on that disk built out of vectors rather than built out of steel.

 

[Dural]

Gamestop is a terrible deal for recent games they are a good deal for older games. However what I don't get about half these arguments is they seem okay with gamestop ripping them off but as soon as the publishers or devs want to do something similar it's outrage. Where is the logic in that? If anything the devs are making the product so you'd think it be the opposite way around.

You seem to be under the impression that everyone only uses Gamestop for used games.

What I'd like to hear is why those that defend this believe the games industry should be treated differently in regards to the second hand market. I can't see any logical reason why games are any different than anything else.

 

[Xenus]

I'm using Gamestop as an example. The vast majority of used sales come through retail which is pretty much universally a bad deal for recent games and becomes an increasingly better deal as the game gets older except in those cases of a niche title with a cult following. Customer to customer used game sales tend to be a better deal for both involved but however the volume is not their compared to retail.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

I can't see any logical reason why games are any different than anything else.

I present an explanation in the post preceeding your own.

 

[corduroygt]

Games are not a material product. Games are the content on the disc. We just happen to have a material distribution system.

Games as entertainment are equivalent to traveling entertainers of old, where in order to be entertained, you had to pay the entertainers.

But game developers don't write code every time we want to play a game do they?

Games are just like movies or music, you have every right to sell CD's or DVD's that you don't want, and I don't recall the movie and music industries complaining about used DVD/CD sales.

However, if you go see a play or a concert, you pay for admittance, since you're paying for that night's performance. Unfortunately there is no equivalent of a Play or a Concert, nor a Theatrical release in the gaming world (although arcades could have been considered the equivalent of Movie Theaters in the late 80s, early 90s), so software developers don't have such avenues of revenue generation. On the other hand, games provide many hours of entertainment compared to movies or music and cost more.

 

[Dural]

But game developers don't write code every time we want to play a game do they?

Games are just like movies or music, you have every right to sell CD's or DVD's that you don't want, and I don't recall the movie and music industries complaining about used DVD/CD sales.

Exactly.

Current gen games retail for $59.99, DVDs and BDs are significantly cheaper so there is your discrepancy in regards to no theatrical release for games.

 

[Xenus]

Indeed for every argument there will be counter point that's why their is debate on it. If there was a slam dunk answer it would already have been done.

However just for the sake of argument let's say there is a 5% of sale publisher/dev tax on all used games less then a year old sold from retail. Let's take a company like Square Enix and arbitrarily say there will be 1 million transactions and the average price of the used game is $40. That would mean $2 million into Square Enix's coffers. 2 dollars per sale is nothing retail could easily cover that by dropping 2 dollars on the price they give you for trade in's or charging a 2 dollars more for games over 1 year old. Yet the publisher/devs made a significant amount of money they would of never seen before. This shows how much money is out there in the used game market and how something very small could make a significant difference.

 

[Scott_Arm]

Games are not a material product. Games are the content on the disc. We just happen to have a material distribution system.

Games as entertainment are equivalent to traveling entertainers of old, where in order to be entertained, you had to pay the entertainers. You could not be entertained without paying them - no-one could pass on that same experience to someone else. This is different to material goods where a manufacturer is paid to create the goods, the cart or the wheelbarrow or the pot. Once the goods are created, their work is done. An entertainer's work is per show, per user experience, and not per product created. The distribution method is now different and as a result, the experience is recyclable, but the principle is the same, in that these people work to provide an experience, and everyone who enjoys their creation ought to provide them something in return.

But this also shows how the whole creative industries are trying to address the issues of mass publication. We are used to a world where we can lend/buy/borrow books and CDs and DVDs for free, but that doesn't make it right (note I'm not saying it's wrong either, but playing devil's advocate here). The medium means the experience of the travelling performers can be recycled and passed on, meaning no-one needs to pay for the travelling performers.

Consider other non-material entertainment experiences. A theme park has a material ticket to get in, but that ticket is not what you pay for. It also has an expiry date. If it didn't, someone could buy a ticket, visit Disneyland, pass it to someone else who visits, who passes it to someone else who visits...all getting that experience without paying those providing it. That's the same as games, only the ticket is a plastic disk that doesn't time-out after a day/week, and the experience is on that disk built out of vectors rather than built out of steel.

I really don't buy that argument at all. How long have phonographic records existed? 100 years or more? They are essentially the performance of a travelling entertainer on disc. You could make the same argument about books, being the written record of what would normally be performed by an orator, at least in some cases. Books have been mass produced for hundreds of years. Essentially what these publishers are saying is that the used goods market for those products that have existed for hundreds of years is all wrong, and they should be entitled to some of that money. Bullshit.

Sure, Gamestop overcharges for used games. People should look for better deals. But this policy affects the used market as a whole. I trade games with friends, trade-in games, sell on newsgroups at work etc. This policy effectively diminishes my ability to do any of those things. All that means is I'll be able to play less games, and less new games. I sell off my games religiously so I can play as many games as possible. I'll just have to be more selective if this takes hold.

I try to support developers by buying games new. Some games I'm just not sure about, and new games tend to stay at high prices for a long time, so I find used copies or trade with friends instead. There's absolutely nothing wrong with that. This isn't something that's suddenly started to happen. That market has existed before these people got into the business. Suddenly they're whining, but they should have developed their business around the market. They shouldn't be trying to change the market to suit their business.

If there are a ton of used copies on the shelves, it means the game sold well in the first place. If there aren't any used copies, it means the game failed on its own merit.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

But game developers don't write code every time we want to play a game do they?

That's just a side-effect of the medium; it would not be possible to recreate the game experiences realtime as performances. The fundamental difference is creating an experience versus creating a material possession.

Games are just like movies or music, you have every right to sell CD's or DVD's that you don't want, and I don't recall the movie and music industries complaining about used DVD/CD sales.

Because they can't. Given the option to move to pay-to-play download only, they want to in order to change the distribution method and get a return for every person who views their creations.

However, if you go see a play or a concert, you pay for admittance, since you're paying for the performance. Unfortunately there is no equivalent of a Play or a Concert, nor a Theatrical release (although arcades could have been considered the equivalent of Movie Theaters in the late 80s, early 90s) in the gaming world, so software developers don't have such avenues of revenue generation. On the other hand, games provide many hours of entertainment compared to movies or music.

Right. People coming at this from the perspective of "you can trade books and CDs just fine" and basing their opinions on an acceptance of the status quo without considering if the status quo is actually the right way to do things. Jsut because it is that way and no-one's complaining, doesn't mean it's the best way.


Consider this hypothetical progression of the medium. Tell me at which point the artists are wrong to do what they do, and why.

1. A troop of players put on a show. They charge a viewing fee for everyone who sees. If you visit again, you are charged again.
2. They put on a show in a theatre and sell tickets in advance. These tickets can only be used once so that everyone who sees the show has to pay. If you want the same experience again you have to buy another ticket.
3. The troop put on a much, much bigger show costing $300,000. It's very popular and they are limited by the number of people who can visit to not making much money, so they charge more per ticket, still one viewing per ticket.
4. They have an idea for a $20 million show that would be loved by millions. It would take 2 years to prepare and would be utterly exhausting such that they could only manage to perform it once. They cannot get the millions who would want to see it inside a theatre, so invent a machine to capture the experience. They provide thousands of kiosks and individuals come and buy a ticket to sit in a kiosk and watch this experience. Anyone wanting to have that experience again has to buy another ticket.
5. Just as 4. above, but they realise creating kiosks for people to come and visit isn't the most economical solution, nor the most convenient for their audience. Instead they create a small projector that people can take home and watch. This projector can tell how many people are there, and only plays the show when everyone has paid the same ticket price.
6. As 5, except the projector cannot tell who's in the room, and can be used lots of times. People start passing it around instead of buying their own or paying for the own tickets. The troop of players continues to make productions for decades and everyone is used to getting free viewings, until a new projector comes along that allows detecting of viewers and allows only one view per person per ticket, so they switch to this new format.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

I really don't buy that argument at all. How long have phonographic records existed? 100 years or more? They are essentially the performance of a travelling entertainer on disc. You could make the same argument about books, being the written record of what would normally be performed by an orator, at least in some cases. Books have been mass produced for hundreds of years. Essentially what these publishers are saying is that the used goods market for those products that have existed for hundreds of years is all wrong, and they should be entitled to some of that money. Bullshit.

See my reply to corduroygt and answer the same question with regards the hypothetical scenario.

 

[upnorthsox]

I thought this thread was about online MP which is an extended service by the developer and who are under no obligation to honor your access when you by their product secondhand. Just like it would be if you bought a cable box or cellphone used.

 

[Scott_Arm]

I thought this thread was about online MP which is an extended service by the developer and who are under no obligation to honor your access when you by their product secondhand. Just like it would be if you bought a cable box or cellphone used.

Is multiplayer an extended service or is it the core element of the game? To be honest, I think a lot of games have offline modes as a secondary experience.

 

[Gradthrawn]

I thought this thread was about online MP which is an extended service by the developer and who are under no obligation to honor your access when you by their product secondhand. Just like it would be if you bought a cable box or cellphone used.

What about when I buy their product first hand and can't let a friend borrow it and play online? Without giving him my account that is, and allowing him to log on as me. Which, IIRC, would be a violation of the platform holder's TOS.

 

[Scott_Arm]

That's just a side-effect of the medium; it would not be possible to recreate the game experiences realtime as performances. The fundamental difference is creating an experience versus creating a material possession.

I'm still not sure I understand the distinction. If I buy sports equipment, that allows me the privilege of enjoying the experience of that particular sport. What exactly is the difference? I could make the same argument for paintings, hardwood floors, automobiles, jewelry etc.

Because they can't. Given the option to move to pay-to-play download only, they want to in order to change the distribution method and get a return for every person who views their creations.

To be fair, music and movie industries are trying to cripple your rights to sell and use the albums or movies that you own. Look up ACTA. At least in the case of pay-to-play and download only, they are creating a new market with new financial structure and pricing. They are not tampering with an existing market that is completely fair.

Right. People coming at this from the perspective of "you can trade books and CDs just fine" and basing their opinions on an acceptance of the status quo without considering if the status quo is actually the right way to do things. Jsut because it is that way and no-one's complaining, doesn't mean it's the best way.

I'd be more interesting in understanding what is wrong with the current market for used goods. As far as I can tell, nothing. The only argument against it is that producers could make more money if the market was skewed in their favour. I'm far more interested in protecting consumer rights.

Consider this hypothetical progression of the medium. Tell me at which point the artists are wrong to do what they do, and why.

1. A troop of players put on a show. They charge a viewing fee for everyone who sees. If you visit again, you are charged again.
2. They put on a show in a theatre and sell tickets in advance. These tickets can only be used once so that everyone who sees the show has to pay. If you want the same experience again you have to buy another ticket.
3. The troop put on a much, much bigger show costing $300,000. It's very popular and they are limited by the number of people who can visit to not making much money, so they charge more per ticket, still one viewing per ticket.
4. They have an idea for a $20 million show that would be loved by millions. It would take 2 years to prepare and would be utterly exhausting such that they could only manage to perform it once. They cannot get the millions who would want to see it inside a theatre, so invent a machine to capture the experience. They provide thousands of kiosks and individuals come and buy a ticket to sit in a kiosk and watch this experience. Anyone wanting to have that experience again has to buy another ticket.
5. Just as 4. above, but they realise creating kiosks for people to come and visit isn't the most economical solution, nor the most convenient for their audience. Instead they create a small projector that people can take home and watch. This projector can tell how many people are there, and only plays the show when everyone has paid the same ticket price.
6. As 5, except the projector cannot tell who's in the room, and can be used lots of times. People start passing it around instead of buying their own or paying for the own tickets. The troop of players continues to make productions for decades and everyone is used to getting free viewings, until a new projector comes along that allows detecting of viewers and allows only one view per person per ticket, so they switch to this new format.

For this last point, I say if you are going to invest heavily into a product with an established market, you should probably make sure you can turn a profit in that market. If you take a huge risk, be prepared for failure. Expect consumers to walk away if you impose rules about how they can use your product.

There is nothing wrong with #5, but they have to expect it to fail if the consumer is not interested. If you change the way the product can be used, then the value of the product has changed and the price has to be adjusted accordingly.

In all of this argument, do you think that the price of games from Sony or EA or Ubisoft will drop because of their diminished resale value? If you had two comparable products and one had little to no resale value and the other one could be sold to recoup some of your expense, which would you buy? If they decide to cripple the used market then I'll buy less games. I have a finite amount of money I can spend, and selling allows me to stretch that money. The value of a new game has dropped if I can not sell it. Will they adjust their pricing? Definitely no.