Sony to sell software "license" only, no pre-owned games
- Thread starter expletive
- Start date
RancidLunchmeat
Veteran
I don't see how such an application wouldn't result in decreased sales.
Only a small percentage of people who buy used games are going to pay full price for a new game. A percentage of people who use trade in value to buy new games will no longer be able to.
Simply put, every person who buys used games now will not buy games new under these conditions. It will be a certain subset that will say 'well, can't buy used any more.. have to pay full price for a new one.'
Every person who uses trade in value to buy new games won't continue to buy new games without the trade in value. Again, it'll be a subset.
Every person who buys a "crappy" game knowing that they'll play it for a while and then trade it on on something else later, won't continue to purchase the "crappy" games. They'll be more restrictive in their purchases knowing they can't get rid of them.
I see this as leading to less sales, perhaps more game rentals, and the implications of what happens when a consumer goes to Gamestop to buy a 360, Wii or PS3 and they see that they can buy used Wii and 360 games and trade in used 360 and Wii games but they can't do so for the PS3.
Only a small percentage of people who buy used games are going to pay full price for a new game. A percentage of people who use trade in value to buy new games will no longer be able to.
Simply put, every person who buys used games now will not buy games new under these conditions. It will be a certain subset that will say 'well, can't buy used any more.. have to pay full price for a new one.'
Every person who uses trade in value to buy new games won't continue to buy new games without the trade in value. Again, it'll be a subset.
Every person who buys a "crappy" game knowing that they'll play it for a while and then trade it on on something else later, won't continue to purchase the "crappy" games. They'll be more restrictive in their purchases knowing they can't get rid of them.
I see this as leading to less sales, perhaps more game rentals, and the implications of what happens when a consumer goes to Gamestop to buy a 360, Wii or PS3 and they see that they can buy used Wii and 360 games and trade in used 360 and Wii games but they can't do so for the PS3.
Naboomagnoli
Newcomer
RancidLunchmeat said:
If it leads to lower RRP's for games (as it should, with the back of trade-in revenue loss severely broken) then I could see why sales could be boosted.
Having said that, surely more people rent crappy games than buy and return crappy games?
In some cases I find that with places like HMV you could complete a console game within 2-3 weeks and then return it and get all of your money back - essentially that's free rental.
RancidLunchmeat said:
It really depends how much people want a game. I mean, I have seen it happen plenty of times that people have looked for a game used, and when we didn't have it, they went on to buy it new anyway, or a platinum game. In terms of net sellers, there really isn't much of a gain there if for every one new game you're buying off the back of 2 or 3 used game sales, results in x number of lost new sales.
I'd say the rise of console game demos online would also be Sony's answer to the notion of "buying a crappy game" - with try before you buy, you can't really complain as effectively anyway!
Plus some stores here, at least, have 10 day no quibble return policies anyway.I do think it'd piss off some people, no doubt, and I do think it'd be a bold move if they did it, but I can see how Sony might weigh up those risks and decide to go ahead.
I'm not supporting any of these, but since it is up for discussion...
The issues are "Control" and "Share".
If implemented properly, Sony (or publishers ?) can later grant special contracts to selected entities to trade pre-own games. Unlike previously, a portion of the sales can then go back to Sony and/or publishers (who previously got nothing out of used game sales).
To the consumers, there may or may not be any differences.
The other different but related route is game rental.
Media companies occassionally play with their business models to see if they can optimize revenue.
The issues are "Control" and "Share".
If implemented properly, Sony (or publishers ?) can later grant special contracts to selected entities to trade pre-own games. Unlike previously, a portion of the sales can then go back to Sony and/or publishers (who previously got nothing out of used game sales).
To the consumers, there may or may not be any differences.
The other different but related route is game rental.
Media companies occassionally play with their business models to see if they can optimize revenue.
Last edited by a moderator:
Everybody is trying to guess what the gamer will do.
Hasn't anyone thought about how certain retailers will act?
If Gamestop/EB can sell used 360 and Wii games, but they can't sell PS3 used games, which systems do you think they are going to push hard to sell, and which system do you think they'll shove into the back corner and only carry a very small selection of games? And how is the casual gamer going to react when they walk into said store and can find several shelves of 360 and Wii games and accessories, and the PS3 is stuffed away like an unwanted stepchild?
Used games are the true earners for most dedicated gaming stores. If Sony takes that away from them they are not going to be pushing hard to sell Sony stuff. They will want to stock absolute minimal quantities and reserve shelf space for the products that will generate them the largest amount of income.
Hasn't anyone thought about how certain retailers will act?
If Gamestop/EB can sell used 360 and Wii games, but they can't sell PS3 used games, which systems do you think they are going to push hard to sell, and which system do you think they'll shove into the back corner and only carry a very small selection of games? And how is the casual gamer going to react when they walk into said store and can find several shelves of 360 and Wii games and accessories, and the PS3 is stuffed away like an unwanted stepchild?
Used games are the true earners for most dedicated gaming stores. If Sony takes that away from them they are not going to be pushing hard to sell Sony stuff. They will want to stock absolute minimal quantities and reserve shelf space for the products that will generate them the largest amount of income.
I don't think it will happen...while it is really attractive to publisher's standpoint, but for the specialty retailers that is going to cut into their earnings, and severely limiting consumer's choice.
But I do think that kind of licensing system will happen eventually, since piracy is getting worse and worse.
But I do think that kind of licensing system will happen eventually, since piracy is getting worse and worse.
RancidLunchmeat
Veteran
Powderkeg said:
I thought I had? No.. Guess not, thought it was implied in my message above, but you're right.. it was slanted towards the consumer prospective not the retailer.
But as I was thinking about this and its impact on renting games, I also came to the realization (smack forehead) that rental outlets make a great deal of money through resales as well.
They buy 7 copies of a title they believe will be popular and they rent them out. Once the game isn't popular any more, they put 3 or 4 (or however many) on the shelf in their 'previously played section' and keep the remainder out for rent, until demand drops again and then they sell off the rest keeping only a copy or two in their library.
Now think that video game rental outlets (not only video game retailers) can no longer sell their games. Are they still likely to buy 7 copies of the title, knowing they have to retain all 7 copies for eternity? Or are they going to buy less copies because they don't want to be stuck with them?
The result of that would be that the PS3 games that rental outlets can't resell will be out of stock, while the corresponding 360 and Wii games will be in stock because the outlets will be more inclined to purchase additional copies of those games.
Which means the shelves at the rental outlets will be the reverse of what they are now, when they are predominately PS2 games.
So once again the perception of the gamer will be 1) can't buy used games 2) can't rent the games.
Also.. as I was thinking through I realized that for rental outlets their business model (buy copies, rent copies, sell pre-played copies when demand drops and keep only a limited number in stock in their library) is the same business model they use for movie rentals.
The question becomes.. how are video games different than movies? If Sony can make it so one can't sell a used game because they are only purchasing the license for 'use' rather than ownership, why can't Sony do the same thing for their video library making it illegal for all these rental outlets to sell the copies of their movies?
Doesn't the same 'logic' as to why it's good for developer/publisher in the game industry also apply to Hollywood?
Actually, I would imagine that dedicated gaming stores would cease selling Sony products altogether. There's not enough margin. There's barely enough margin for them to compete now which is why they keep merging and focus so heavily on strategy guide sales, extended warranties, and resale of used games. Sony would be relegated to only being sold in stores that currently don't make money off of the above things... the mega outlets like Target, Walmart, Best Buy, etc.
scooby_dooby
Legend
I love this idea, drive the sleazy used-game rip-off artists at gamespot out of business. Hopefully encourage a more peer to peer buying/selling of games, eliminate the middle man and his 200% profit while we're at it.
The only question is, why didn't someone think of this earlier?
The only question is, why didn't someone think of this earlier?
RancidLunchmeat
Veteran
scooby_dooby said:
How so? Want ads in the paper? If Gamestop can't do it, Ebay can't do it, and any major website that attempted to put people in contact with each other would also get shut down.
Peer to peer buying/selling of games would become no less illegal than P2P sharing of music.
Powderkeg said:
It depends on who has better leverage. If some retailers carry fewer/no PS3 games, other retailers will sieze that opportunity, and also sell more PS3 peripherals due to upsell and cross-sell effort. There are also Walmart, BestBuy, Target and other online stores to balance things out.
In general, a retailer will try to carry as much stock as they can sell.
<shakes Magic 8-Ball>
Hey, it says "Doubtful"!
Hey, it says "Doubtful"!
scooby_dooby
Legend
RancidLunchmeat said:
Local message boards always work
scooby_dooby
Legend
PSman said:
Not debunked:
""this is false speculation and that PlayStation 3 software will not be copy protected to a single machine but will be playable on any PlayStation 3 console." "
This rumour never claimed it would be limited to a single console.
It would kinda have to be to be problematic, because what are they going to do otherwise? Make you re-validate keys? Insert a password? Not having matters like that invisible to the user would be COMPLETELY retarded over the already retarded levels of discussion being talked about right now.scooby_dooby said:
The one thing I might expect to see that's related to this, though, would be if they so lock your ability to install a game to your HD and play it off that alone, if the game makes it possible. Certainly to prevent piracy I could see them wanting to heavily restrict that capability. (Essentially, and "install once" but "play off disk anytime.") If they can garner enough control of that, they may actually be willing to let games pull off that feature--which would kick ass.
Last edited by a moderator:
scooby_dooby
Legend
cthellis42 said:
You're missing the point. This would be a legal measure intended to prevent the re-sale of used games, it would primarily affect stores like EB games and Gamestop. It's not intended to prevent sharing among friends, nor could it prevent under the table resale of games.
mckmas8808
Legend
ROG27 said:
I think some people want this to be true.
Me on the other hand will wait for Sony to actually say they will do this before I start to give up on them.
RancidLunchmeat
Veteran
scooby_dooby said:
Exactly.
I don't understand the difficulty in realizing we're talking about two different things here.
The first is that the games would somehow be electronically coded to the first PS3 they come into contact with preventing them from being used on other PS3s.
That rumor has been nixed by Sony in rather strong terms.
The second is that Sony will take legal measures, enforcing the idea that what you buy is not simply a product that you can do with what you please, but rather a license for usage that is not transferable.
Again, this isn't anything software or hardware related. It's simply legal. It doesn't prevent anybody from giving (or selling) their disc to somebody else. What it does prevent, however, is from retailers re-selling the disc to somebody else because now there's a paper trail and that paper trail is all Sony would need to sue the infringing companies for violating the terms of the licensing agreement.
Which means, essentially, either somebody would need the balls enough to actively violate the licensing agreement and then go to court against Sony in the hopes of winning, everybody will just stop re-selling games in order to comply with the licensing agreement.
While I agree with Scooby on a great many things, his statements here, I totally disagree with.
This isn't going to lower the price of used games by removing the middle man.
For example, as it currently stands, my neighbor won't buy my used copy of FFVVXXIII that I paid $60 for at $50 because he can buy it at Gamestop for $40.
Why does Gamestop sell it for $40? Because they paid my other neighbor $30 for it, and along with RE15 (that they also paid him $30 for), he bought a new copy of GT:26 and paid nothing.
Now, take away the fact that Gamestop can buy and resell games. What happens?
My neighbor will now buy my used copy of FF:VVXXIII for $50 because it's perfectly fine and he saves $10 and really wants the game.
But guess what? I can only sell that game to people that I know, because all major retailers will have been shut down. So the available market for my game has now been reduced. I used to be able to sell the game at any time, easily, for $30. My neighbor used to be able to buy the game used, easily, for $40.
Now, as an individual, I make more money.. but only if I have a network that includes people who want to purchase the particular games that I own.
In the meantime, the reduction of available games for purchase and rent as a result of this policy will result in a restriction for initial sales of all the games to begin with.
The reason that nobody has pressed this since Nintendo sued and lost over the idea of renting games, is because it's absolutely a lose/lose proposition for everybody involved.
Game producers and developers and license holders won't profit from this strategy, they'll lose money because less games will be sold.
The consumer won't win from this strategy because less games will be available to them, and to believe that "more profit because more games sold = lower game price" is rather gullible, IMO.