Sony joins EA and Ubisoft in considering limitations on used games

[Scott_Arm]

I disagree. You wouldn't sell games like any other product you purchase because everything else begins to break down over time. Cars , books , tvs all suffer damage and wear while used and you can't recoup as much from their sales and they have a finite amount of use before it wont work for anyone.

Its also the game publisher's right to charge for whatever they want. You as the customer has to decide if its worth it.

There is so much complaining in this thread and I don't get why. Mabye because I'm a pc gamer and we haven't had trade ins for a long time but just be smarter with your money, it will serve you well in life if your smart with your money.

Well, I take care of my stuff and I've sold all kinds of things for good money. Sure, you don't get 100% back, but I find most things actually retain their value longer than games. To get enough money from selling used games to buy new ones, you have to sell fairly quickly.

And I agree publishers can charge whatever they want, and I'll decide whether it's worth it. I'm smart with my money. Like I said earlier, I see this as a short-sighted cash-grab which will not be long term positive for the game industry. Gaming suddenly becomes a much more expensive proposition for a lot of people if they can't rent, trade for or buy used games to play online without paying an additional fee.

 

[patsu]

IMHO, there is nothing wrong with the consumer behaviour per se.

I think Gradthrawn hinted at the source of the problem. It's the observation/fact that the retailers do not share their used game income with the publishers and developers. That's the only "wrong" thing here (in my view of course).

Tangible goods can wear out or be consumed. They are usually not traded by the consumers in huge proportion (relatively speaking). Digital content are more durable or forever in pristine condition, and can be resold over and over again. It is natural for the publishers and developers to want a share in these sales.

As for how to get retailers to share their gold, heh heh...

 

[eastmen]

Well, I take care of my stuff and I've sold all kinds of things for good money. Sure, you don't get 100% back, but I find most things actually retain their value longer than games. To get enough money from selling used games to buy new ones, you have to sell fairly quickly.

And I agree publishers can charge whatever they want, and I'll decide whether it's worth it. I'm smart with my money. Like I said earlier, I see this as a short-sighted cash-grab which will not be long term positive for the game industry. Gaming suddenly becomes a much more expensive proposition for a lot of people if they can't rent, trade for or buy used games to play online without paying an additional fee.

its not short sighted , they fully know that next gen there wont be any used game sales because they will go with a format that doesn't allow it or will get users so used to entering codes this gen that next gen it will be required to even play single player.

Movies and books are both going towards non sell digital formats and music is already there pushing it foward. I think buyers will just need to get used to the fact.

 

[Squilliam]

If they defeat the used game market, would that not harm their retail penetration if Gamestop is forced to close hundreds/thousands of unprofitable sites? The used game market is a proxy for the low margins retailers get on games. If they cannot sell used games, they might be forced to give higher margins, 25% for instance instead of the usual 20% for instance.

 

[AntShaw]

I'm a little shocked at some of the responses in this thread. Secondary markets have proven that they only bolster the primary market not devalue it. It's pretty naive to think that getting rid of the secondary market will make all those people primary buyers. It doesn't work that way in any industry/market. Used game sales only help the industry as a whole. It keeps more people buying your product, and just may turn some of them into the 'mega-fan' that will now go buy on Day 1 instead of a year later.

In regards to the original content makers getting a share of secondary market sales, thats pretty silly. In the US the First-Sale Doctrine dictates that once a piece of copyright is sold, the change of ownership falls into the purchasers hands. Thus negating any 'right' to get any additional revenue off secondary market sales.

I think patsu said back in the beginning that if EA and Sony want to charge an additional $10 to play multiplayer for games sold in the secondary market, they are well within their right to do so and the market will determine if this is worth it to them. In my opinion only, it's a slap in the face to fans who want to purchase your game. It's ten dollars. How much is that going to make up in the grand scheme of things? Corporations as a whole have lost touch with being able to connect with their fans and it seems they keep trying to push them further away.

 

[Scott_Arm]

IMHO, there is nothing wrong with the consumer behaviour per se.

I think Gradthrawn hinted at the source of the problem. It's the observation/fact that the retailers do not share their used game income with the publishers and developers. That's the only "wrong" thing here (in my view of course).

Tangible goods can wear out or be consumed. They are usually not traded by the consumers in huge proportion (relatively speaking). Digital content are more durable or forever in pristine condition, and can be resold over and over again. It is natural for the publishers and developers to want a share in these sales.

As for how to get retailers to share their gold, heh heh...

There's absolutely nothing with selling used goods and not returning money back to the original creator. And not all used goods decrease in value over time, or even wear and tear in a significant manner. Artwork would be a good example. Paintings, if well cared for can remain in pristine condition and increase in value. None of the money, when sold, returns to the original artist. Is that wrong? I don't think so. Comic books tend to degrade over time, but they're also a used good that increases in value.

Another thing I'd like to point out, in this plan to charge for multiplayer on used games, is who is actually being screwed a little bit. It's the person who buys the new copy, not the person that buys the used copy. Yes, the person who buys the used copy has to fork over the money for multiplayer, but what they're going to do is underpay for the used disc. The person using the used disc will basically pay the same amount of money they paid before, but into different hands. The person who sells their new copy is going to get less money. Now, if they decided to make the new copy more expensive, then the publisher/dev gets their money and the person selling their disc can still compete fairly with the sticker price on the new copies. The person buying the new copy recoups their money, and the person buying the used copy is still getting a deal relative to the new price. I'm guessing the studios know people will be hugely turned off by prices going up, in general, so they came up with this stupid plan instead. The other thing they could do is sell the discs at a cheaper price, and not include the fee for multiplayer. That way if I sell the used disc, which does not include multiplayer, I'm still competing on price with even footing against the new copies in the store. I'm sure that would also be unpopular and end up leading to more expensive games.

Have to agree with AntShaw on this one. Good post.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

There's absolutely nothing with selling used goods and not returning money back to the original creator. And not all used goods decrease in value over time, or even wear and tear in a significant manner. Artwork would be a good example. Paintings, if well cared for can remain in pristine condition and increase in value. None of the money, when sold, returns to the original artist. Is that wrong? I don't think so.

Van Gogh's painting's sell for millions. He lived an impoverished life and eventually couldn't hack it any more and killed himself. You're saying that that's fair, that he didn't deserve any money for his works because the market wasn't appreciative and he should have got a job doing whatever people would pay him for? Likewise it's fair that someone else who finds one of his paintings in their loft and sells it for $1 million, getting money for doing absolutely squat, benefitting from Van Gogh's labours and suffering?

 

[patsu]

Title based business is also risky. If they have a hit on-hand, they'd want to get as much mileage as possible from the title to cover for games that don't sell. Helps to encourage experiments.

I believe Gamestop said they'd adjust their price if demand dropped too low. So this won't be the last we hear of it.

 

[Scott_Arm]

Van Gogh's painting's sell for millions. He lived an impoverished life and eventually couldn't hack it any more and killed himself. You're saying that that's fair, that he didn't deserve any money for his works because the market wasn't appreciative and he should have got a job doing whatever people would pay him for? Likewise it's fair that someone else who finds one of his paintings in their loft and sells it for $1 million, getting money for doing absolutely squat, benefitting from Van Gogh's labours and suffering?

You can find extreme examples in everything. Not every artist is impoverished and suicidal. Yeah, what happened to him was unfair in that he was not properly appreciated in his time and couldn't earn a living doing what he loved. The thing is, he was already dead when his paintings started selling for millions. It's not like people were getting rich off his paintings while he was still alive and walking around. If they were, he would have been able to make new paintings to sell for millions and would have been rich. Maybe the next person who sells one of his paintings should use that money to invent a time machine, so they can send him a bit of coin and alter history.

 

[AntShaw]

Van Gogh's painting's sell for millions. He lived an impoverished life and eventually couldn't hack it any more and killed himself. You're saying that that's fair, that he didn't deserve any money for his works because the market wasn't appreciative and he should have got a job doing whatever people would pay him for? Likewise it's fair that someone else who finds one of his paintings in their loft and sells it for $1 million, getting money for doing absolutely squat, benefitting from Van Gogh's labours and suffering?

These apples/oranges comparisons don't translate to the video game industry. Scarcity of goods isn't a major driving factor in the current video game market. Even a majority of the 'Limited Edition' packages are hardly limited. But, thehe developers/publishers charge a premium in those instances and people pay. This is well within their right and the market helps drive this price. To think they deserve any additional revenue when that item is later sold on a secondary market makes no sense.

 

[patsu]

Appreciation of used goods is typically because of limited production. Digital content does not have this limitation unless the publisher caps it.

To think they deserve any additional revenue when that item is later sold on a secondary market makes no sense.

It's their business. They can create the rules if they feel that it'd help them. Consumers and partners will react.

 

[AntShaw]

Appreciation of used goods is typically because of limited production. Digital content does not have this limitation unless the publisher caps it.



It's their business. They can create the rules if they feel that it'd help them. Consumers and partners will react.

No it's against the law. Original copyright holder can not garnish revenue on a 2nd sale of a product. I won't digress into a copyright debate because that's a whole other can of worms. They can't make the rules however they want. It doesn't work that way.

 

[patsu]

Not sure if the law helps here, but it'd be debated in the courtrooms if they so desire.

There are ways to workaround it.

 

[Scott_Arm]

No it's against the law. Original copyright holder can not garnish revenue on a 2nd sale of a product. I won't digress into a copyright debate because that's a whole other can of worms. They can't make the rules however they want. It doesn't work that way.

I guess the argument the publishers are making is that online gaming is not part of the game, but a bonus that's provided to you and offered only free if you buy the game new. Or they'd say you're paying for a client, but the privilege of the service is only available free to people that buy the client new.

 

[AntShaw]

There's 2 issues through this thread:

1. Can publishers charge for online pay after an item has been sold?
2. Can publishers collect revenue on secondary market sales.

In the case of 1, they are well within their rights as publishers to charge $10 to play the online portion of a game. I'm 100% OK with this. If you don't want to buy the game because of this, the buyer is well within their means to not buy it. Playing games is a privilege and not a right.

For #2, it's plain and simple against the current US law. Under no circumstances are Publishers allowed to generate direct revenue off secondary market sales. It's been fought in the courts multiple times and upheld. Even specifically dealing with software. Even on top of it being against the law, it's preposterous to think that any original copyright holder has a 'right' to any additional revenue after they have sold their original product. In any circumstance, for any market.

 

[Svensk Viking]

If Sony ever makes PSN a pay to play service, I absolutely can't see this working...There is no way I can see anyone buy a used game and pay twice to be allowed to play online
But who knows, there are people paying for Live...

 

[corduroygt]

As I said earlier, Sony could waive the $10 online fee for PSN+ subscribers, improving its value proposition.

 

[Scott_Arm]

As I said earlier, Sony could waive the $10 online fee for PSN+ subscribers, improving its value proposition.

That would work for Sony published games, but not THQ, EA, Ubisoft. Unless they share that money with those publishers, which I doubt would happen.

 

[patsu]

There's 2 issues through this thread:

1. Can publishers charge for online pay after an item has been sold?
2. Can publishers collect revenue on secondary market sales.

In the case of 1, they are well within their rights as publishers to charge $10 to play the online portion of a game. I'm 100% OK with this. If you don't want to buy the game because of this, the buyer is well within their means to not buy it. Playing games is a privilege and not a right.

For #2, it's plain and simple against the current US law. Under no circumstances are Publishers allowed to generate direct revenue off secondary market sales. It's been fought in the courts multiple times and upheld. Even specifically dealing with software. Even on top of it being against the law, it's preposterous to think that any original copyright holder has a 'right' to any additional revenue after they have sold their original product. In any circumstance, for any market.

They can get a percentage of it via a high enough "Online Pass" fee though. They don't have to charge for all the resales. 70% of PS3 folks are online based on their published number. Even if it's a small sum (for individual copy), it's already an improvement from the current situation where they get $0.

In my view, the developers and publishers may need the $$$ for online infrastructure, and dealing with more "risky" titles as a whole.

 

[AntShaw]

So instead of giving more value to your fan base, it's a better idea to segment that fan base even more? All to make an extra $10 for an 'Online Pass'?

Can they do this? Surely...

Is it worth it to possibly drive people that play your games to play another game instead?? Hardly

Taking value away from the consumer and charging a premium instead only alienates your fan base and angers them. IMO it ends up doing more harm in the long run...all over trying to get an additional $10 off used game sales.