Sony joins EA and Ubisoft in considering limitations on used games

[patsu]

Whether it's worthwhile I can't say because I don't have their internal numbers. As a consumer, I'd love to see more "weird" titles from Sony. The online infrastructure probably needs more aggressive expansion. I have not sold my used games (yet), but I can see myself doing it periodically for house/office cleaning. Only sold MLB The Show 2009 to get 2010. I did buy 2-3 used games, but have always wished that some of the money goes to the developers.

The Gamestop people already know how to deal with the Online Passes. So I think they will eventually find a way to maximize it for everyone's interest (e.g., lower price or do promo).

 

[wco81]

More than likely, EA saw this as a way to boost their microtransactions revenues. They try to sell various other DLC, including selling online modes that used to be available in previous years as an extra. And that was to people who had paid full retail.

Madden has a good online following but still a very small percentage of buyers go online so this is a way to test things. You hope it flops so that other publishers don't try this crap.

When I redeemed my code, it did a small download. Wonder if that file is transferrable or tied to my PSN ID.

 

[patsu]

You can transfer the promo codes.

EDIT:
Best Buy begins used game trade-in program:
http://www.joystiq.com/2010/08/26/best-buy-begins-used-game-trade-in-program/

 

[Shifty Geezer]

You can find extreme examples in everything.

It's the exctremes that challenge thinking and push the understanding of principles. There's an acceptance of the status quo, some fringe incident doesn't fit it in, there's a period of arguing as people start considering if that status quo is actually as things should be or not, and then there's a change or not.

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...

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

Is it really right to look to the law to know what's right and wrong, what's fair and unfair? Of course that's a question for the RSCPA forum! But then ultimately the whole discussion when it comes to whether this is fair or not really belongs there as it can't be considered without the whole morailty of buying, selling, ownership, the free market, whether law-courts are the ultimate moral compass, yada yada.

 

[AntShaw]

Is it really right to look to the law to know what's right and wrong, what's fair and unfair? Of course that's a question for the RSCPA forum! But then ultimately the whole discussion when it comes to whether this is fair or not really belongs there as it can't be considered without the whole morailty of buying, selling, ownership, the free market, whether law-courts are the ultimate moral compass, yada yada.

Given everything we currently have, it's really the only true thing they have to go by. Whether it's 'right or 'fair' doesn't matter. Unless they lobby to get said laws changed, they have to work inside those frameworks. Copyright/Patents in todays market usually stymies innovation instead of inspiring it. The only people winning are the lawyers, not the content creators.

 

[eastmen]

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.

Would it ? Gamestop is like a cancer they sell more used than new and they push used games like no ones busness. The whole store i set up to get you to buy used and only if your stuborn and want new does it switch over to getting you to reserve games.

IF gamestop bellys up other stores will take its place , targets and toys r us and bestbuys will be happy to get gamestop's buyers. But gamestop wont belly up , they will be forced to close stores that are to close to each other (in a 10 minute drive i can hit about 15-20 gamestops) . Heck garden state plaza up until recently had 3 gamestop stores in it... its one mall. Willbrook for a time had 4.

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'd love for you to tell me of any industry where the second hand market has as many stores as gamestop has and the biggest second hand pusher is also the largest first hand seller .

By me Barnes and Nobles which is the biggest book store in the states as far as I know has 3 locations and only 1 of them sells used books and unlike gamestop the used section is 1/10th the size of the new section and is all the way in the back tucked away from everything else. The other big book store chain Borders has 3 or 4 locations near by and none sell used books. With music and movies the only place in the area is Fye but before that you had coconuts , gamestop , fye , cd world that would do this. fye bought cd world then coconuts and then in the last 2 years 70% of the locations in the area went belly up and closed even. Gamestop stoped with movies because it wasn't profitable for them compared to games.

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.

The only fans they care about are people willing to support them. You aren't a fan if you buy used games because that is a sale that developers wont see a penny of. It may be great that you get a discount and get to enjoy their work and you might even love their work . But your just harming the company.

Those who support the company only have to type in a code and nothing changes for them.

I think its the fans that are pushing the developers further and further away . They demand more and more and more and they don't want to pay for it. So devs need to find a way around that to continue making games for their true fans that actually support the developers.

 

[Richard]

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.

It doesn't matter they argue that particular feature is free versus all the other features that are not free. If you can only get the "free" features by paying for something else, they're all paid features.

If that didn't work like that, consider the following: you buy a TV, take it home and connect all the cables, you turn it on and nothing happens. You take it back but they say they don't provide technical support for "free" products. You paid 2000 euros for the remote, the TV itself was "free".

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.

Doesn't make a difference. The Exaustion law, AKA First-sale, (over here, continental Europe, I'm not familiar with other places, IANAL, etc. etc.) doesn't make a distinction between a product or a license: you're buying something (product/license) and you can transfer that product/license to a third-party without having to pay the seller.

The problem, as I've been saying for a while, is people have been throwing away their rights so it won't be long until every game is like this. Vote with your wallet.

 

[RobertR1]

I buy my games new becuase I like to play them day 1. However, I sell games after I'm done with them. I'm not a collector by any means. I play, have my fun and sell the game.

I can generally do well. I buy off amazon and other places with deals for new games. Then after I'm done, I see where the price is best for selling. Either gamestop trade in deals or craigslist. Then I use that money to buy new game and the cycle repeats.

If my resale value goes to shit, then I'll simply be very picky about what games I buy and really cut down on my purchase habits.

 

[botjeter]

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

Wouldnt that be an incentive to buy used games rather than new and further compound the problems?. Your not understanding the issue at all.

The online passes will drive down the huge margins for retail making it a much lesser insentive to have 80% of your stores devoted to used games. Some parity needs to be brought back into the equation.

 

[AntShaw]

I'd love for you to tell me of any industry where the second hand market has as many stores as gamestop has and the biggest second hand pusher is also the largest first hand seller .

By me Barnes and Nobles which is the biggest book store in the states as far as I know has 3 locations and only 1 of them sells used books and unlike gamestop the used section is 1/10th the size of the new section and is all the way in the back tucked away from everything else. The other big book store chain Borders has 3 or 4 locations near by and none sell used books. With music and movies the only place in the area is Fye but before that you had coconuts , gamestop , fye , cd world that would do this. fye bought cd world then coconuts and then in the last 2 years 70% of the locations in the area went belly up and closed even. Gamestop stoped with movies because it wasn't profitable for them compared to games.

Where I'm currently located, I have 5 used book stores closer to me than any major book selling brick and mortar store. I know of more antique furniture stores in my area instead of major retailers. Same with automobiles.

The only fans they care about are people willing to support them. You aren't a fan if you buy used games because that is a sale that developers wont see a penny of. It may be great that you get a discount and get to enjoy their work and you might even love their work . But your just harming the company.

Those who support the company only have to type in a code and nothing changes for them.

I think its the fans that are pushing the developers further and further away . They demand more and more and more and they don't want to pay for it. So devs need to find a way around that to continue making games for their true fans that actually support the developers.

We can discuss art, and developers making games for the sake of art...but in all reality it doesn't work that way. Instead, they are developing a product to sell on market. If you want your product to sell, it better be good or at least offer some type of value for the price you are charging. Luckily for us fans/consumers there is much more information available before we buy a product. Consumers now have a much easier path to circumvent PR and get right to the nuts and bolts of things. This alone is why Beyond3D strives in the community. 15 years ago game developers didn't have to worry about a forum diagnosing reduction in resolution and poor FPS. Without the fans, the developers will have no one to develop for.

 

[botjeter]

If my resale value goes to shit, then I'll simply be very picky about what games I buy and really cut down on my purchase habits.

Your resale value has already gone to shit. It's why gamestop and the likes are currently laughing all the way to the bank.

 

[deathindustrial]

On a related note, is part of the issue here that retailer margins on games are simply not high enough to sustain a brick and mortar retail business? It sounds like the consensus here is that Gamestop would go belly-up without used game sales. If that is the case, I cannot see it being good for the industry to be entirely reliant on mass market retailers like Walmart or Zellers or the like to allocate them shelf space. Does the game industry really want Walmart (et all) to have significant clout when it comes to games distribution?

edit: sorry Squilliam, missed that you had basically said the same thing a few quotes back.

Cheers

 

[Scott_Arm]

Your resale value has already gone to shit. It's why gamestop and the likes are currently laughing all the way to the bank.

That isn't true at all. I regularly sell games or trade them in for $25-40 per game.

 

[Scott_Arm]

I agree with what you're saying, Richard. I'm just saying that's the arguments they'll put forth. PC games have keys that are usable on one machine, or however that works. They say it's to prevent piracy, but it also prevents online play for rentals and used games.

...
The only fans they care about are people willing to support them. You aren't a fan if you buy used games because that is a sale that developers wont see a penny of. It may be great that you get a discount and get to enjoy their work and you might even love their work . But your just harming the company.

Those who support the company only have to type in a code and nothing changes for them.

I think its the fans that are pushing the developers further and further away . They demand more and more and more and they don't want to pay for it. So devs need to find a way around that to continue making games for their true fans that actually support the developers.

I think this attitude on the issue is bogus. To say a person is not a fan or a customer because they've purchased a used game is not fair. For one, maybe they've bought many games from that publisher or developer before, and are already a repeat customer. Maybe they buy the used game and purchase DLC for it, which would also make them a direct customer. Maybe they play the used game, and love it so much they decide to buy the next one on day 1. To say a person is not a customer, just because they happened to buy a used game is a pretty sure way to piss that person off. This attitude that buying a used game is equivalent to piracy is a complete fallacy. There is nothing wrong or illegal about buying a used game. There is no stealing involved. I hate to go back to the analogies with other products, but if I buy a used sofa, is that the same as stealing a sofa? No, it isn't, and everyone knows that. The person that sold it to you owns it, and you compensated them fairly.

 

[Richard]

I agree with what you're saying, Richard. I'm just saying that's the arguments they'll put forth.

*nods* I know, this just makes my blood boil. Until there's a class action lawsuit about this they'll just keep coming. Fat chance of that happening though, people just want to play their newest CoD with half the maps tied to a console/steam account/whatever.

PC games have keys that are usable on one machine, or however that works. They say it's to prevent piracy, but it also prevents online play for rentals and used games.

Exactly. You can't transfer games from your Steam account to someone else's even though that wouldn't help piracy at all. I'd say the limitation is there purely to deny first-sale rights.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

Given everything we currently have, it's really the only true thing they have to go by. Whether it's 'right or 'fair' doesn't matter.

And by that same token, some people shouldn't have entered this thread saying, "that's unfair!"

 

[Richard]

On a related note, is part of the issue here that retailer margins on games are simply not high enough to sustain a brick and mortar retail business? It sounds like the consensus here is that Gamestop would go belly-up without used game sales.

Gabe Newell, CEO of Valve, estimated in 2002 that $30 gross profit can be made from a $50 game sold over Steam, much greater than the $7.50 profit made from games sold through retail.

Hmm... unless things changed dramatically from 2002 I don't think that is true. Which reminds me, when are we going to have DD games cheaper than what I can find on brick and mortar stores? There's a few exceptions sure, but in my experience they're (much) more expensive online.

 

[patsu]

I suspect economics is a better tool to solve this rather than class action lawsuits. Vote with your dollars and the parties will adjust their plans.

Legal may be too blunt a tool to apply here.

 

[eastmen]

Where I'm currently located, I have 5 used book stores closer to me than any major book selling brick and mortar store. I know of more antique furniture stores in my area instead of major retailers. Same with automobiles.

its very diffrent over here in New Jersey. In fact I don't know of any small used book stores in the area anymore. Its a dieing industry there isn't much margin anymore when paper backs are $3-7 new and more and more people are adopting e-books. Even automobiles (really?) have found ways to make money off the used market. Since its a product that actually breaks down and needs repairs they make money off that and they introduced certified used cars so that dealers and the production company makes money off the used busniess. The similaritys to what the game producers are doing is stagering.

We can discuss art, and developers making games for the sake of art...but in all reality it doesn't work that way. Instead, they are developing a product to sell on market. If you want your product to sell, it better be good or at least offer some type of value for the price you are charging. Luckily for us fans/consumers there is much more information available before we buy a product. Consumers now have a much easier path to circumvent PR and get right to the nuts and bolts of things. This alone is why Beyond3D strives in the community. 15 years ago game developers didn't have to worry about a forum diagnosing reduction in resolution and poor FPS. Without the fans, the developers will have no one to develop for.

Please resolution reductions are only used in forum wars. As long as the game is fun and looks good people will buy it. People bought millions ofcopies of cod mw 2 dispite its poor frame rate and low resolution and people buy wiis by the bucket load dispite having graphics on par with 10 year old consoles.

 

[eastmen]

Hmm... unless things changed dramatically from 2002 I don't think that is true. Which reminds me, when are we going to have DD games cheaper than what I can find on brick and mortar stores? There's a few exceptions sure, but in my experience they're (much) more expensive online.

Steam is very good for cheaper prices. At first its on par with retail but very quickly you start to see sales on new releases s much as $20 off . I think as long as retail continues to be the driving force of sales DD will be priced on par with it for awhile after a games launch. You might say hey what do pc developers care about it as dd is now half the market and growing. But most pc devs have console ports to worry about.

I think this attitude on the issue is bogus. To say a person is not a fan or a customer because they've purchased a used game is not fair. For one, maybe they've bought many games from that publisher or developer before, and are already a repeat customer. Maybe they buy the used game and purchase DLC for it, which would also make them a direct customer. Maybe they play the used game, and love it so much they decide to buy the next one on day 1. To say a person is not a customer, just because they happened to buy a used game is a pretty sure way to piss that person off. This attitude that buying a used game is equivalent to piracy is a complete fallacy. There is nothing wrong or illegal about buying a used game. There is no stealing involved. I hate to go back to the analogies with other products, but if I buy a used sofa, is that the same as stealing a sofa? No, it isn't, and everyone knows that. The person that sold it to you owns it, and you compensated them fairly.

how are they a repeat customer if they are buying used. They aren't a customer if they aren't purchasing a game from the developer. But now the developer is spending money to keep the game up to date and someone who hasn't added funds to it are now profiting. If you buy a used sofa the sofa has physical wear and is not a valuable to you or the person selling it as a digital good that still plays just as good (or better dpending on patches and other things released since the original purchase) . The sofa could have dog piss on it , broken springs , pulled fabric a broke n leg.


I truely believe that it was doing this or charging for every type of content and bug update for online thus squeezing new buyers even more and still getting used buyers.