Sony to sell software "license" only, no pre-owned games

[Naboomagnoli]

Game producers and developers and license holders won't profit from this strategy, they'll lose money because less games will be sold.

I don't see how fewer games will be sold as far as the publishers are concerned. If you mean that people will be worried about making the commitment of buying a game and not being able to trade it in after a couple of months (for a severely reduced fee in most cases), then I would have thought that free online demo distribution would make the deciding process far easier than it was for the PS2.

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.

Fewer games from the perspective of not being able to buy cheaper pre-owned versions, or fewer as in actual titles on sale at any price? I heartily disagree with the second meaning. I still think it'd be wrong of Sony not to allow the publishers (or Sony themselves) to sell their pre-owned games, keeping some of the functionality of trade-in games but still keep the games shops from profiting at publishers' expense.

I don't see why thinking there "might" be a slight reduction on price as a result of this would be gullible, when this whole article has been discussed in relative depth for a number of pages without any concrete (well, anything thicker than hot air) evidence that it is true.

 

[Titanio]

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.

Most PC game EULA's contain words to the following effect:

You may not rent, sell, lease, barter, sublicense or distribute the Software.

Me clicking on "I Agree" is all that's needed to make it illegal for GAME or Gamestop to trade these games. No technical preventative measures at all..the law is powerful enough.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

Me clicking on "I Agree" is all that's needed to make it illegal for GAME or Gamestop to trade these games. No technical preventative measures at all..the law is powerful enough.

Depending on where in the world you live. AFAIK these EULA's haven't been tested in a law court yet, and IIRC in EU law you actually need to sign a contract for it to be binding. That's certainly the case in the UK. So those EULA's basically mean squat and it's consumer law that governs these products. There's no law stopping me seling on a copy of WinXP say, even if I've clicked a box saying I agree it's illegal to - at the moment software companies don't make the laws, no matter how they may want to believe otherwise...

 

[Titanio]

Depending on where in the world you live. AFAIK these EULA's haven't been tested in a law court yet, and IIRC in EU law you actually need to sign a contract for it to be binding. That's certainly the case in the UK. So those EULA's basically mean squat and it's consumer law that governs these products. There's no law stopping me seling on a copy of WinXP say, even if I've clicked a box saying I agree it's illegal to - at the moment software companies don't make the laws, no matter how they may want to believe otherwise...

But it works, at least where I am. The retailers don't seem to want to test those waters either. My local GAME eagerly sells preowned console games, but doesn't for PC.

Then again, other retailers might fancy their chances more. We were talking about this on another board, and someone pointed out that his local Gamestation was selling used PC games (but also, occasionally the odd pirated game too, so..err...).

 

[Powderkeg]

I don't see how fewer games will be sold as far as the publishers are concerned. If you mean that people will be worried about making the commitment of buying a game and not being able to trade it in after a couple of months (for a severely reduced fee in most cases), then I would have thought that free online demo distribution would make the deciding process far easier than it was for the PS2.

I thought he was very clear on what he meant.

Gamestop/EB Games/Gamerush won't stock as many copies because they only make about $1.50-$2.00 profit per copy vs. $15-$25 per copy of profit for a used game.

Blockbusters/Hollywood Video won't buy as many copies because they can't sell their overstock once demand for the game drops.


The ends results is tens of thousands fewer copies of each game sold to retailers, which means they simply aren't available to sell to consumers.

 

[Titanio]

I thought he was very clear on what he meant.

Gamestop/EB Games/Gamerush won't stock as many copies because they only make about $1.50-$2.00 profit per copy vs. $15-$25 per copy of profit for a used game.

I don't know if this makes a lot sense. They don't stock any more copies than they would otherwise because they can subsequently sell them used.

If you're saying there'd be less demand..a net-seller may be less inclined to buy new games, but net-buyers of used games may be more inclined to buy more new games than they would have before (buying 1 new game versus 3 used is still one more new sale than before!). I don't think it's clear that these wouldn't balance out or result in a net increase in new game sales - afterall the proceeds of used game sales do not result in anywhere near the same number of new game sales as those that are potentially lost to those buying used games. I doubt Sony would pursue this if they didn't see it resulting in an increase in sales of new product, business is business afterall, and mere principles often lose to that In this instance, I'm sure from Sony's POV the business case would support the principle if they were to go ahead with this.

 

[Sis]

Most PC game EULA's contain words to the following effect:



Me clicking on "I Agree" is all that's needed to make it illegal for GAME or Gamestop to trade these games. No technical preventative measures at all..the law is powerful enough.

Unless I'm under age and the license isn't legally binding...or, unless I chose to not agree to the EULA and now trying to sell it to someone who would...

 

[Titanio]

Unless I'm under age and the license isn't legally binding...or, unless I chose to not agree to the EULA and now trying to sell it to someone who would...

There's all sorts of loopholes you can use, undoubtedly. You can also say "I'm selling the disc, not the software on it or the license" etc. But my point is that regardless of these loopholes, these agreements have been enough to deter retailers from facilitating their trade, at least where I am.

 

[Sis]

There's all sorts of loopholes you can use, undoubtedly. You can also say "I'm selling the disc, not the software on it or the license" etc. But my point is that regardless of these loopholes, these agreements have been enough to deter retailers from facilitating their trade, at least where I am.

I'm not trying to point out loopholes, I'm trying to suggest that this doesn't seem to be enforceable by law. The only way I could see it happening is if a law was created that literally banned re-sale of video games.

 

[Titanio]

I'm not trying to point out loopholes, I'm trying to suggest that this doesn't seem to be enforceable by law. The only way I could see it happening is if a law was created that literally banned re-sale of video games.

I see that point. But as is, these agreements seem to be enough to ward retailers off from potentially testing them in court. The practical situation is that I don't know of any store that sells used PC games. Maybe the CD-key situation is a further deterrent for them in that space, though.

It sure would be very interesting to see if there was a (legal) challenge made, in the event that Sony did push ahead with this.

 

[Sis]

I see that point. But as is, these agreements seem to be enough to ward retailers off from potentially testing them in court. The practical situation is that I don't know of any store that sells used PC games. Maybe the CD-key situation is a further deterrent for them in that space, though.

It sure would be very interesting to see if there was a (legal) challenge made, in the event that Sony did push ahead with this.

I understand your point, and the retailers would have to do some kind of risk analysis: If revenue generated from sales of used copies is greater than potential lawsuit/legal costs then continue with sales, otherwise stop sales of used copies.

I actually don't know how big the used game market is and I sympathize with the developers and publishers who feel they lose money. It's one of the reasons why I buy new for games that I want to "support."

 

[Shifty Geezer]

I see that point. But as is, these agreements seem to be enough to ward retailers off from potentially testing them in court. The practical situation is that I don't know of any store that sells used PC games.

Is that because of these license agreements? I don't recall PC software being sold second hand in most game stores before this license fashion, but I wasn't ever on the look out for that back then. GAME and the like only sprouted up after PS and friends appeared I think.

 

[Mmmkay]

http://www.gamesindustry.biz/content_page.php?aid=17283

A report from website GamesRadar claiming that it will be illegal to sell used software for the PS3 has been officially denied by Sony today, with a spokesperson telling GamesIndustry.biz that it is "false speculation."

GamesRadar yesterday reported that Sony was warning high street retailers that the sale of pre-owned games would be illegal due to the licensing terms of PS3 software, which would mean that discs technically remained the property of Sony.

However, a Sony Computer Entertainment UK spokesperson today outright denied that any such message had been conveyed to retailers - telling GamesIndustry.biz that following conversations with the firm's European parent company, neither division has "any knowledge" of such a strategy.

"We have definitely not been communicating that," UK spokesperson Jennie Kong confirmed. "It's false speculation. We don't have any further knowledge about this topic - either officially or unofficially, to be frank."

It would appear that the report is based on the resurrection of a much earlier rumour in this regard, which surfaced most recently last November with claims that PS3 software would "bind" to the first machine it was played on, and would be unusable on any other system.

At the time, Sony completely debunked the rumour - telling UK newspaper The Guardian in no uncertain terms that: "PlayStation 3 software will not be copy protected to a single machine but will be playable on any PlayStation 3 console."

Speaking to us this afternoon, Kong confirmed that "there has been no official comment on this since the story that came up a few months ago - it hasn't changed since then, and we're quite surprised by why this has popped up again, to be honest."

Jennie sounds like she needs a holiday.

 

[mckmas8808]

Who cares? People will still want to bash Sony over it. I bet this story will come back up before the PS3 is released.

 

[expletive]

Regarless of whether or not Sony is doing this now or later its still a worthwhile discussion. This thread shouldnt be about 'bashing' anyone, its about discussing a business model that we are inexorably heading towards. The % of titles that are sold via digital distribution will continue to grow over this gen, and discussing how it impacts gamers and retailers is still worthwhile imo.

Like it or not, microsoft IS doing this NOW.

 

[mckmas8808]

Oh I agree as long as we all are on the same page knowing that there's no ounce of truth to the original story then I say precede.:smile:

 

[NavNucST3]

Regarless of whether or not Sony is doing this now or later its still a worthwhile discussion. This thread shouldnt be about 'bashing' anyone, its about discussing a business model that we are inexorably heading towards. The % of titles that are sold via digital distribution will continue to grow over this gen, and discussing how it impacts gamers and retailers is still worthwhile imo.

Like it or not, microsoft IS doing this NOW.

But MS is binding to your gamertag, not to a specific machine. So whether I play upstairs or downstairs, if I sign in with my gamertag on the other 360, I can still re-download my games at no additional cost, while the other machine will just have the games in DEMO mode.


EDIT: Of course, if you would turn on your 360 so I could get some rematches, you would know this, lol.

 

[Titanio]

It is an interesting discussion, for sure. I mean, I hadn't thought of the adoption of the PC 'licensing' model before into the console space, but since the thought was raised with this rumour, I'm almost wondering why they haven't tried to do so earlier given how much the industry complains about it. But maybe simple conceptual licenses isn't enough, and you need some level of enforcement as further deterrent (e.g. cd keys) and perhaps that's a bridge too far for the platform holders currently.

But yeah, digital distribution will make the point moot anyway. But for now it seems Sony won't be pursuing it (used games sales ban) on the traditional retail front.

 

[TheChefO]

It is an interesting discussion, for sure. I mean, I hadn't thought of the adoption of the PC 'licensing' model before into the console space, but since the thought was raised with this rumour, I'm almost wondering why they haven't tried to do so given how much the industry complains about it. But maybe simple conceptual licenses isn't enough, and you need some level of enforcement as further deterrent (e.g. cd keys) and perhaps that's a bridge too far for the platform holders currently.

But yeah, digital distribution will make the point moot anyway. But for now it seems Sony won't be pursuing it on the traditional retail front.

Does anyone know the cost of traditional distribution per game in todays market? I'm trying to get an idea of how much could potentially be saved off retail game cost by going all download.

 

[expletive]

But MS is binding to your gamertag, not to a specific machine. So whether I play upstairs or downstairs, if I sign in with my gamertag on the other 360, I can still re-download my games at no additional cost, while the other machine will just have the games in DEMO mode.


EDIT: Of course, if you would turn on your 360 so I could get some rematches, you would know this, lol.

Actually i think anyone on that machine can play an XBLA game where your gamertag resides. So if your gamertag in on xbox 360 #2314ag17, anyone else who logs in to that machine either anonymously or with a gamertag can play it.

Did you have to tell the whole FORUM i've been slacking on my gaming lately? Its embarrassing enough as it is....