No More Pre-owned PS3 games?

[Leaving Hope]

Games Radar (http://www.gamesradar.com/), in an article (http://www.gamesradar.com/gb/ps3/game/news/article.jsp?articleId=20060524153157765035&sectionId=1006) titled Sony makes moves to stamp out lucrative second-hand market, is reporting that Sony may be adopting a new licensing model that will make it "illegal for customers to sell any next-gen PlayStation games that they've bought."

The Inquirer (http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=27568) and Joystiq (http://www.joystiq.com/2005/11/08/playstation-3-wont-play-used-games/) have similar articles that describe how "Sony has secured a patent for a disk technology that prevents the use of used, as well as pirated, software."

[Hg-203]

I’m not sure, but isn’t this old news. I remember a story like this reported months ago… if not a year or two ago.

[Klade]

Because they hate their customers? Really I can't say I'm surprised. My everquest days gave me lots of experience in how sony likes to abuse their customers in favor of making another dollar. I'm confident this will be cracked but that doesn't do any good for all the kiddies who don't want to mod their box (or can't). Plus I wonder what this will do to returns, usually those discs are repacked and sent back out. Now though..

[dotbomb]

Wow, there goes any hope of me buying a ps3 if that's the case. I'm a fan of ebay for cheap used console games.

[Skjef]

More bad news from Sony. However, I'd take this with a grain of salt.High street games shops have been told by Sony that there will be no PS3 pre-owned sections in their stores as it will be illegal for customers to sell any next-gen PlayStation games that they've bought, retail sources have revealed to GamesRadar.Survey says: shittiest source ever.

[Evil Avatar]

I’m not sure, but isn’t this old news. I remember a story like this reported months ago… if not a year or two ago.

You are correct, this isn't the first time Sony has discussed this. They are talking about a CD-Key like technology that binds an individual copy of a game to a specific Playstation 3 system.

[Mason]

Before the outrage, let me state: This removes an element of consumer freedom, but game platforms and publishers are being forced into this change by the parasitic business model of game stores, who push their (far more profitable) used games like a lending library.

Direct your ire at the stores which bilk both developers, publishers, and consumers by buying back games for $5 and reselling them for $45. It undercuts new sales (without saving the consumer much money) and impoverishes the people who actually make the games.

Okay, now explode in righteous fury.

[Harlan Hoyt]

It seems like the videogame industry is on a campaign to ensure that no one will ever wish to purchase their products. From the inability to find a game unless you preorder it, to your inability to sell it back, to raising prices. I mean, seriously -- can you image if books or films acted this way? If you didn't preorder the latests (supposed) bestseller that it would be almost impossible to get a hold of if it wasn't a massive, staggering success? If bookstores only stocked a tiny fraction of availabe content? If books were only available for the first few weeks after release? And then if, after all that, you were no longer able to sell books to used booksellers? Seems like a screwy way to run an industry to me.

[Zurik]

Well with Sony's track record on quality systems(Since most people have had a PS2 break down on them at least once)that means we'd be screwed with all the games we've bought. I think this discussion happened before, but if Sony is really gonna do this, they mine as well hand the market over to Microsoft and Nintendo. $600, plus no used games? Who in their right mind will support that?

[Ayup]

Before the outrage, let me state: This removes an element of consumer freedom, but game platforms and publishers are being forced into this change by the parasitic business model of game stores, who push their (far more profitable) used games like a lending library.

Direct your ire at the stores which bilk both developers, publishers, and consumers by buying back games for $5 and reselling them for $45. It undercuts new sales (without saving the consumer much money) and impoverishes the people who actually make the games.

Okay, now explode in righteous fury.

But what about Blockbuster? I like to rent games to see if I am going to like them. What kind of impact would that have?

Also, my sister and her husband buy a lot of games and let me borrow them from time to time. This sort of thing would not allow me to even do this I would guess.

[Serapth]

Before the outrage, let me state: This removes an element of consumer freedom, but game platforms and publishers are being forced into this change by the parasitic business model of game stores, who push their (far more profitable) used games like a lending library.

Direct your ire at the stores which bilk both developers, publishers, and consumers by buying back games for $5 and reselling them for $45. It undercuts new sales (without saving the consumer much money) and impoverishes the people who actually make the games.

Okay, now explode in righteous fury.

I understand the reasoning behind it, but the solution is brutal. Not only would it take away the stores ability to resell games, it would also remove the ability to rent games ( unless special rental versions are pressed ), trade games or even bring your game to a friends house.

The real way they should solve the retail problem is by tiering their prices so game stores that dont resell used games get a better price point then those that do. Stores have nothing to lose now for reselling used games, but if they saw their profit margins go to almost zero on new games, they would reconsider the practice in a hurry!

[Roc Ingersol]

The Inquirer and Joystiq have similar articles...
dated November 2005...

[Skjef]

Well with Sony's track record on quality systems(Since most people have had a PS2 break down on them at least once)that means we'd be screwed with all the games we've bought. I think this discussion happened before, but if Sony is really gonna do this, they mine as well hand the market over to Microsoft and Nintendo. $600, plus no used games? Who in their right mind will support that?More likely, they'd tie it to the login of their online service, meaning you could bring your games over to your friend's house if you logged in to their PS3. At least, that's how I'd do it.

[Yama]

Securing a patent is one thing, following through on it is another. They might have thought this was a good idea at one point, and even if they don't add this to the PS3 they might just sit on it anyways in case someone else wants to make use of the patent.

Aside from the backlash against Sony by customers, I think this would be a bit of a nightmare to handle. Returned discs would have to go back to Sony, who would either have some hardware to remove the burnt-in lock on the disc, or they'd have to toss the disc in the garbage. If you send in your PS3 for servicing, they would have to send you the exact same PS3 or someone else's refurbished PS3 that's had its identification chipset altered so that it pretends to be the same one you sent in. You wouldn't be able to get a replacement from a store, they'd have to send it in and you'd have to wait for Sony to receive it, process it, do one of the two options above, then ship it back.

Fun fun fun!

[Steve_Erhardt]

You are correct, this isn't the first time Sony has discussed this. They are talking about a CD-Key like technology that binds an individual copy of a game to a specific Playstation 3 system.
So... what happens when your PS3 craps out (for whatever reason) and you buy a new one to replace it? Sounds like uneeded trouble for a legitimate customer, but I guess that's nothing new, really, in the world of copy protection and such.

[Swat]

Bwahahahahahaahha!

Seriously though, this is the final nail in the coffin for me and the PS3. I love buying used and renting. Full retail price is reserved for games I truly care about. I refuse to buy a game that isn't a AAA title without renting it first.

Bye Sony.

[lurker4hire]

Don't many jurisdictions have consumer rights legislation that specifically protects a consumers right to resell? Didn't PC software vendors try to bar the resale of their product in a similar manner and get shot down all over the place? After all, what's next, your car comes with an EULA barring resale?

And just imagine the problems with a system that trys to enforce this technologically?

[Mason]

I understand the reasoning behind it, but the solution is brutal. Not only would it take away the stores ability to resell games, it would also remove the ability to rent games ( unless special rental versions are pressed ), trade games or even bring your game to a friends house.

The real way they should solve the retail problem is by tiering their prices so game stores that dont resell used games get a better price point then those that do. Stores have nothing to lose now for reselling used games, but if they saw their profit margins go to almost zero on new games, they would reconsider the practice in a hurry!
I agree that there's collateral damage to the solution, but when I visit an EB Games the day after a game's release and they're hassling me to get the used version, something is completely broken.

And you or I aren't privy to the various negotiations between publishers and retailers, so we don't know how much leverage anyone has. I get the feeling that if there was a nicer way to handle this, it would've been worked out by now, as it has been a problem for years. The presence of brute force technical solutions might indicate that retailers aren't willing to talk things out. Hell, even a threat to refuse to distribute games to exploitative retailers might not work, as they could probably still thrive just reselling games originally bought by consumers from Wal-Mart or Best Buy.

[Roc Ingersol]

Ah, there it is!
Let me save us all some typing:
http://www.evilavatar.com/forums/showthread.php?t=6912

[Deadend]

I really doubt this will be on the PS3.

If it by some weird twist of fate does exist, I will probably be declining a PS3, at least until I find a way to break the copy-protection.

But I really, really doubt this is in the PS3.

Even though this could be the real reason they are $500 and $600...

[jacktion]

Wow, please don't even try to defend this. It is pathetic.
"Customers would not own the media, only lease it"?
That is ridiculous. If I spend 70 dollars for a crappy playstation game I do not want anyone telling me that I can't sell it to a kid next door for 10 bucks. And now I hear that you can't even let anyone borrow it because it will be locked to your system only?
Sony has got to be the most parasitic, narrow-minded company ever. If they make it out of this decade alive I won't know how.
Nintendo has done it's fair share of stupid moves to garner a crowd of haters, but Sony... Sony is just in another league of ineptitude. It leaves a potential customer speechless.

[fastnoid]

If we truly could not purchase used games I would be angry, as 90 percent of my game library is used. I don't see how this would work, though. Unless all systems were connected to the internet, how would it know if the game has been used on another system?

[eth3rton]

Bwahahahahahaahha! Seriously though, this is the final nail in the coffin for me and the PS3.


I seriously doubt that..... Sony seems to have an endless supply of those laying around here lately...

Travis





Oh and............ ROTFLMAO......!!!

[Kelegacy]

If this ever happened, it would be ruinous. If publishers lowered game prices considerably I'm sure more people would be willing to pay retail prices. But I'm one of the guys that likes used games. Cheap is cheap, bitch.

[Mozgus]

Just last night my friend was asking me if Sony still planned on doing this, and I told him that we hadn't heard anymore on it for months, and that Sony must have sobered up for once. How wrong I was.

[InstaPete]

Jesus, why is this being posted as news? wasn't this "revealed" and promptly discredited nearly 6 months ago???

[Leaving Hope]

My concern is that I won't be able to rent games from Blockbuster if this technology becomes commonplace. Many times I want to try a game out before I buy it; others, I just don't feel like a the game is worth $59.99 and can only justify the rental price.

This technology, if implemented, would end the game rental business.

[Serapth]

If we truly could not purchase used games I would be angry, as 90 percent of my game library is used. I don't see how this would work, though. Unless all systems were connected to the internet, how would it know if the game has been used on another system?

Not to defend Sony on its actions, but if what you say is true, frankly Sony doesnt give a shit about you as a customer. Sony makes NO money off you since the consoles are sold at a loss. Basically your purchasing habits are exactly why Sony is (possibly) implementing draconian measures that keep people from creating a secondary market.

[Soap]

The only Positive I can see out of this is that when I walk into a Gamestop or EB, I won't be asked by the Sales Monkey:

"Did you bring in any used PS3 games to trade in?"

[RMan]

If publishers lowered game prices considerably I'm sure more people would be willing to pay retail prices.
This is the only solution, IMO, that would truly work. If game prices were lower, then the retailers profit margin on used sales would be lower, and at a low enough price it wouldn't be profitable. The movie industry doesn't have this problem, and the reason is that thier product doesn't cost $50-$60.

[Zeal]

And how the hell could the PS3 tell if a game has been "pre-played"? This is nonsense.

[eth3rton]

I agree that there's collateral damage to the solution, but when I visit an EB Games the day after a game's release and they're hassling me to get the used version, something is completely broken.


That would be because when you trade a game in they give you almost nothing for it. They make considerable more profit from a used title compared to a new one. They give you $10 (if your lucky) for a used game and to buy it new from the publisher its (probably) more like $30-40....

[askheaves]

Nearly completely unrelated, but I'm looking for an excuse to post it:

http://lexluthor.ytmnd.com/

[phantomhitman]

you know what, i hate used games.

why?

because they are only $5-10 (at most) cheaper up to a year after release. The game stores are making money hand over fist off of ignorant gamers with the trade in policy as well. There should be a set amount of moeny a game trades at, not $5 cheaper when they bought it for $15-20 cheaper.

[Demo_Boy]

The retail price point for first run titles is higher than I'm willing to pay.
So I wait.
Sometimes the title comes out as a platinum hit for 25 then I buy it.
Othertimes the title is available used for 25 bux then I buy it.

As a customer the only thing I loose by buying a no used PS3 is the confidence that they will drop the retail prices of games rapidly enough to offer me the entertainment I want within a timeframe I deem reasonable.

Maybe attach rates will increase by 20% but console sales will decrease by 50% since there are competitors without these constraints.

[Roc Ingersol]

And how the hell could the PS3 tell if a game has been "pre-played"? This is nonsense.
The first BD-ROM to read the disc copies the activation key to its internal memory and then overwrites the key space on the original disc with garbage? Every subsequent player would recognize it as not having an activation key, thus being 'pre played'/'pre owned' and could refuse to play it, or only play it in a crippled mode.

It's trivial, technically.

[theguido]

Before everyone gets in a tizzy, we should make sure that it is in fact true. It could be total speculation on the part of the owners, or could a residual effect from the rumor that came out about in November of last year for which there has been no proof as of yet.

[Jack B]

Games Radar (http://www.gamesradar.com/), in an article (http://www.gamesradar.com/gb/ps3/game/news/article.jsp?articleId=20060524153157765035&sectionId=1006) titled Sony makes moves to stamp out lucrative second-hand market, is reporting that Sony may be adopting a new licensing model that will make it "illegal for customers to sell any next-gen PlayStation games that they've bought."

The Inquirer (http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=27568) and Joystiq (http://www.joystiq.com/2005/11/08/playstation-3-wont-play-used-games/) have similar articles that describe how "Sony has secured a patent for a disk technology that prevents the use of used, as well as pirated, software."

IMO, Sony will likely adjust some of their announcements between now and launch. Sure, they stumbled terribly at E3, but they will adjust where they can.

I believe they won't implement this... At least not initally, maybe later if things go well in 2007.

I sure hope not, because I've bought about 9 games and rented about 20 from Gamefly.com. If they don't allow rentals (akin to resold), then that would be a big bummer for me.

[Sazime]

In other news, Sony alienates it's consumers.

Did you hear that? I think 100 champagne bottles opened simultaniously in Redmond.

[digitalErich]

Don't try to defend the publishers because they are losing money due to the used market. If that is the case, that is an issue for the publishers and retailers to work out...this is NOT an concern to the consumer and as such the consumer should not be impacted by these difficulties.

Retailers push used copies because they get more profit. Oh noes!!, when I went to buy a TV, the Circuit City guy tried to push a more expensive model on me...nothing new. If you don' think the trade in value or resale value of a used game is worth it, then don't buy used from a retailer. Given the runaway success of the second-hand market in the states, enough people don't seem to feel that way.

Personally, I do feel that Gamestop is a rip-off and guess what? I don't sell or buy used games from them.

[Leaving Hope]

Jesus, why is this being posted as news? wasn't this "revealed" and promptly discredited nearly 6 months ago???

Because it's obviously still an issue. If Sony is telling companies and users they can't buy or sell used PS3 games, and they're updating their licensing policy, it's a very real, current issue that isn't going away. The links to the Inquirer and Joystiq may have been old, but the Games Radar article is from today.

Whether or not Sony chooses to implement it is their perogative, as it's ours to express concern over the possibility of their including it in the PS3. By continuing to express our dissatisfaction, we can hopefully dissuade them from using the technology.

The fact is Sony has been awarded this patent. That means they've atleast thought about it.

[Tohoya]

If this happens, and the PS3 ends up coming out on top, Gamestop is FUCKED. And good riddance to Gamestop in my opinion. They're parasites who don't contribute to the well-being of the industry. If all the sales that went toward used product when toward new products, development houses, especialyl small ones, wouldn't be in such a precarious financial situation. And better financial security for game makers means more games, as well as more willingness to take a risk on new ideas. This could be at least one pluis for Sony winning this console war, if indeed they do.

OTOH, and unfortunately, Gamefly is absolutely fucked if they do the encoding deal.

[VenomUSMC]

I'll wait to see how true this is.

[torrefaction]

I used to buy used games. No longer. I gave it considerable thought, and came to the same conclusion that I did when I decided to never spend another dollar at Walmart. The harm it does to things I care deeply about is not worth it.

[bapenguin]

this is definitley old news. But it seems it's resurfacing. I thought before it was pretty much not going to happen, but...maybe it really is.

[GunnyMo]

I seriously doubt this will ever come to fruition and if it does it won't last. I can see a huge customer backlash against Sony from all sides if they try to force people to only buy their new games.

[Johan]

This is a horrible idea, and makes my lack of interest in a PS3 become entrenched in my brain; about 80% of my 120 some-odd games are new, so I'm a big supporter of developers, but I like the option of buying used as well, and of unloading games I no longer want (which, admittedly, I rarely do). Combined with their price point and Blu-ray cram-it-down-our-throat-ology, I'm highly uninterested in a PS3.

[vivafletcher]

I woke up this morning and said to myself: Viva, you've been very disappointed in what you've heard about the PS3 but you still might buy one. To save yourself about a grand (counting games and peripherals) you need one more piece of news to put you over the top-- one thing to make you say "Thanks, but no thanks."

Well, thank you, Sony. Most gamers are loyal but rational. Wii can find better ways to spend our money.

[theguido]

Could simply be some people spreading FUD, honestly. Until it shows up on other newssites with some kind of source it should be treated as a rumor.

[Tohoya]

I will say one more thing about the used market- it is a parasite upon the video gaming industry. The artists, the people who matter, the people who deserve the cash, the people who create the game, see ZIP NADA ZILCH from used game purchases. You may as well be pirating the game for all the good you're doing them. Buying used games fundamentally represents a theft from the artists, in the same way that piracy does. The only thing that used games benefits are the middlemen, the retailers, those fucking annoying gamestop employees. Digital distribution would cut out the middle man, enable higher profit revenues for the game companies. Which ultimately benefits us all, since a financially stable game company is more likely to take chanses on innovative games, less likely to churn out sequel after sequel, less likely to overwork their employees to the point of exhaustion, less likely to be swallowed into the gaping maw that is EA, and simply more likely to produce fun games.

[fastnoid]

The first BD-ROM to read the disc copies the activation key to its internal memory and then overwrites the key space on the original disc with garbage? Every subsequent player would recognize it as not having an activation key, thus being 'pre played'/'pre owned' and could refuse to play it, or only play it in a crippled mode.

It's trivial, technically.

How possible could this be when someone, for whatever reason, gets a new console? I just don't see how this could possibly be a viable business model. It inconveniences the consumer way too much.

[F9Phoenix]

Sony: Hi customer

Customer: Hi

Sony: *Boom! Headshot!*

[torrefaction]

Sony: Hi customer

Customer: Hi

Sony: *Boom! Headshot!*

HAHAHAHAHAH. Your officially responsible for my first sig.

[Heretic Machine]

Perigon makes a move to stamp out his use of Sony products!

[Johan]

I will say one more thing about the used market- it is a parasite upon the video gaming industry. The artists, the people who matter, the people who deserve the cash, the people who create the game, see ZIP NADA ZILCH from used game purchases. You may as well be pirating the game for all the good you're doing them. Buying used games fundamentally represents a theft from the artists, in the same way that piracy does.

Give me a break...ever bought a used car? A used book? Ever live in a home that wasn't brand new when you moved in (you didn't benefit the 'developer' on that one, either)...I'm a big financial supporter of developers/publishers (as I said in my previous post), but give me a break...used is okay; it's not radioactive, or a betrayal, or piracy, or some such crap...it's just USED. It's not my patriotic duty to pay through the nose...I often choose to, but it's a CHOICE, not an obligation.

[Serapth]

Give me a break...ever bought a used car? A used book? Ever live in a home that wasn't brand new when you moved in (you didn't benefit the 'developer' on that one, either)...I'm a big financial supporter of developers/publishers (as I said in my previous post), but give me a break...used is okay; it's not radioactive, or a betrayal, or piracy, or some such crap...it's just USED.

Ever been to a new book store, like Chapters or Barnes & Noble and had the person behind the sales desk try and push a used copy over a new one?

[CaptStu]

Perigon makes a move to stamp out his use of Sony products!
You have a follower in me. Bye-bye Wega TV. See you later home audio components.

[fastnoid]

Ever been to a new book store, like Chapters or Barnes & Noble and had the person behind the sales desk try and push a used copy over a new one?

Barnes & Noble sells used books?

[Johan]

Ever been to a new book store, like Chapters or Barnes & Noble and had the person behind the sales desk try and push a used copy over a new one?

Yeah...I see the connection...NOT. So what if a major book retailer doesn't resell books, but a major video game retailer does. Books are still readily available USED, as is just about ANY product in existence. If we really want to benefit point-of-origin, who's watching out for the lumber mills that produce the paper for the books in these games, and the plastic producers. Tell you what...let's just break down the contents of a video game and send a little to each point of origin on the list. That'll cover it.

[Zechs01]

Is this the thing that when a game is first played on a console it erases something on the disc and it wont work on any other consoles?

[torrefaction]

Yeah...I see the connection...NOT. So what if a major book retailer doesn't resell books, but a major video game retailer does. Books are still readily available USED, as is just about ANY product in existence. If we really want to benefit point-of-origin, who's watching out for the lumber mills that produce the paper for the books in these games, and the plastic producers. Tell you what...let's just break down the contents of a video game and send a little to each point of origin on the list. That'll cover it.

That is a complete failure logically. The plastic components don't rely on people to buy a cingular product. They don't invest millions in the hopes consumers buying their product. They invest in ensuring they have enough output to meet the needs that their given. There's not the R&D risk associated with game development. The way the business model is, it could drive smaller publishers/developers out of business. I'm not arguing that there should be protections. There shouldn't. I'm not arguing that there should be no used game market. What there should be is a line drawn. These retailers rip off EVERYONE. They make huge margins on ZERO work. Then they push this product over the newer product. That is a fucking scam.

[Tohoya]

Yeah...I see the connection...NOT. So what if a major book retailer doesn't resell books, but a major video game retailer does. Books are still readily available USED, as is just about ANY product in existence. If we really want to benefit point-of-origin, who's watching out for the lumber mills that produce the paper for the books in these games, and the plastic producers. Tell you what...let's just break down the contents of a video game and send a little to each point of origin on the list. That'll cover it.

My take on it:
The primary motivator for paying for games as opposed to pirating them is, so far as I can tell, ensuring that the game developers are profitable enough to continue making their games. Yes, piracy is illegal, but who has been arrested for pirating a game? Who has even been fined? The pirated material is out there, it's free, and it's damn easy to get. So the only reason why people buy games is out of loyalty to the companies and hoping that they can make more. The used market strips away even that rationale, since it just goes into the pockets of Gamestop instead of the company's. As such, I really can't understand why the buyers of used games just don't pirate their stuff, or if they care about the fairness so much, buying the games new.

I'll say it again: used game sales are just as damaging to game companies as piracy is.

[Vandenh]

Old news... don't think Sony is even considering this. They surely never mentioned it anywhere.

[jdugan83]

That would be because when you trade a game in they give you almost nothing for it. They make considerable more profit from a used title compared to a new one. They give you $10 (if your lucky) for a used game and to buy it new from the publisher its (probably) more like $30-40....

First off, this isnt happening. This will either A) Destroy Sony as a company or B) They are just want to patent this technology. Look at Rootkit.....once morons realized how stupid that was they shit on it.

In reference to used games Im launching www.goozex.com to take care of asshats like EB games and Gamestop who rip you guys off. We want to allow our gamers to trade their games that are worth $30-40 for other games that are worth $30-40. Let you guys use the full equity in your games and not the brick and mortar stores! Hope you guys will like it.

[WileE.Coyte]

This really sucks if it is true. Me and a friend of mine have been trading games for the last two console generations. Once in a while we will both buy the same game if it's good enough or we want to be greedy. If Sony pushes this even for selected games this could be the final straw.

[jdugan83]

That is a complete failure logically. The plastic components don't rely on people to buy a cingular product. They don't invest millions in the hopes consumers buying their product. They invest in ensuring they have enough output to meet the needs that their given. There's not the R&D risk associated with game development. The way the business model is, it could drive smaller publishers/developers out of business. I'm not arguing that there should be protections. There shouldn't. I'm not arguing that there should be no used game market. What there should be is a line drawn. These retailers rip off EVERYONE. They make huge margins on ZERO work. Then they push this product over the newer product. That is a fucking scam.

Right on point with that one

[Johan]

I don't pirate games, I pay for new about 80% of the time, and I still say that the idea of locking out used games from use on the PS3, or any console, would be as ridiculous as doing that for movies, cds, or books (let's have a retinal scan to be sure you're the primary/initial purchaser of the book). I don't purchase my games as a patriotic lemming and/or loyal cultic member of the "Developer X" fan club, though I have my favorites. Developers and publishers live and die by the same rules as any other companies in a capitalistic society: make a good product and you will succeed; make a lousy product and you will fail. There are exceptions (Psychonauts sold for Sh%# and was a great game...and a few others), but all this talk of loyalty and support is not real life. Even fanboys don't buy their systems if there are no games for them; they buy systems because they like the games for them...i.e., people make monetary decisions out of self-interest. And, by the way, whether Sony or any other company does this or not, you can be sure it will be out of SELF-INTEREST, and not out of loyalty to any of us. They'll do what the suits say is best for their own business model, not for my (or your) game library.

That is a complete failure logically. The plastic components don't rely on people to buy a cingular product. They don't invest millions in the hopes consumers buying their product. They invest in ensuring they have enough output to meet the needs that their given. There's not the R&D risk associated with game development.

Plenty of businesses invest millions (billions in the auto industry) to develop products which are often sold used at no benefit to their business...I already mentioned a few biggies, like homes and autos. I stand by my logic.

In fact, 'used' homes and autos compete directly with newer ones and not only undercut them, but depress the price point of new homes and autos in many markets. That's a fact, and logic.

[motor]

Here's my question: If doing this brought down the price of games, at what point would you be happy? Suppose games came down to $40, but no rentals or used market (there would still be demos so you could try out the game, but no more play the game over the weekend for $4). Would that be a good trade? How about $30? Because frankly, killing the used market might be worth losing half the price.

[Snowmit]

Direct your ire at the stores which bilk both developers, publishers, and consumers by buying back games for $5 and reselling them for $45. It undercuts new sales (without saving the consumer much money) and impoverishes the people who actually make the games.

Okay, now explode in righteous fury.


I call bullshit on that argument. Specifically, I call bullshit on the grounds of the analogy that you use in your first paragraph: lending librarys. I can got to my library and get free books, movies and CDs. I can also buy used CDs and used books and used movies. None of these things have destroyed any of these markets, there is no reason to think that used games will destroy games publishers (in fact, so far we've managed to avoid that problem).

In fact I'll go ahead and argue that the used games market props up the prices of new games. One of the reasons that I am willing plunk down money (a lot of money) on a game is that I know that if I don't like it I can trade it in and use that recovered money to buy something else that I might like.

I am not going to take $70 risks on games that I can't return or sell if I don't like them. I sure as hell won;t do it if I'm not even allowed to SHARE the game with my friends by lending it to them. What if my PS3 breaks? What if there is a fire and I need to buy a new PS3?

[Serapth]

See, I have no big issue with used game sales... I do have a HUGE issue when the primary point of new game sales, is also a point for used game sales. Then I especially have an issue where that vendor pushes the used over the new.

See, thats where the used book analogy is flawed. Used book can be bought, but they cant be bought at the same point as used books. It becomes a completely secondary market and their is no conflict of interest. Used game stores selling used games, that im sorta ok with. New game stores selling used games ( over new ) just hurts the industry.

[DoubleUranium]

Direct your ire at the stores which bilk both developers, publishers, and consumers by buying back games for $5 and reselling them for $45. It undercuts new sales (without saving the consumer much money) and impoverishes the people who actually make the games.

Okay, now explode in righteous fury.

This doesn't make sense to me at all. Why should anyone be mad at EB/Gamestop? Do you not believe in capitalism? Do you support the EULA/license bullshit that says you don't actually own the copy of the game you just bought? If you want to be mad at someone, be mad at the morons who buy used games for $5 less than a new one. EB/Gamestop have every right to make as much money as they can extract from stupid consumers.

I know developers/publishers/etc don't like used games, but too damn bad. People have been buying used books for hundreds of years, and shockingly, people still buy new books, and it's still profitable to be in the book producing business. Games are no different. If the publishers/developers hate Gamestop/EB so much, how about not selling them new copies of games for them to sell in the first place. How long would they last if EA sold only to Walmart/Best Buy?

I'm not going to cry a river for the poor publishers/game developers. Capitalism rocks.

"If you don't like it, go to Russia!" -Homer

[Serapth]

Here's my question: If doing this brought down the price of games, at what point would you be happy? Suppose games came down to $40, but no rentals or used market (there would still be demos so you could try out the game, but no more play the game over the weekend for $4). Would that be a good trade? How about $30? Because frankly, killing the used market might be worth losing half the price.


See, thats a classic mistake aswell. People say they wouldnt buy used if new was cheaper, but reality doesnt reflect that. Lets say right now the average new game is 50$ and used is 40$. Now, lets say they drop the price of new games down to 40$ to combat the used game sales... what happens? Used game prices go down to 30$ ( which the person trading the game in can justify, as they paid less for the game in the first place ). Net result, less profit for the game company and still a 10$ savings to buy used over new.

[Johan]

If you want to be mad at someone, be mad at the morons who buy used games for $5 less than a new one. EB/Gamestop have every right to make as much money as they can extract from stupid consumers.

I'm not going to cry a river for the poor publishers/game developers. Capitalism rocks.

Right on...I'm with you 100%. Well put.

[Zechs01]

I like new because ive bought used and they already have scratches and some dont have the case or instructions sometimes.

[Mason]

Give me a break...ever bought a used car? A used book? Ever live in a home that wasn't brand new when you moved in (you didn't benefit the 'developer' on that one, either)...I'm a big financial supporter of developers/publishers (as I said in my previous post), but give me a break...used is okay; it's not radioactive, or a betrayal, or piracy, or some such crap...it's just USED. It's not my patriotic duty to pay through the nose...I often choose to, but it's a CHOICE, not an obligation.
Car manufacturers are the main car retailers, and they have "official" or "certified" used dealerships which no doubt profit the manufacturer. The independent used lots aren't a major competitor.

Books have overall relatively low production costs, and even ones that sell moderately well are profitable for both the author and publisher. A surprisingly small number of games really turn a profit in comparison. Most best-selling novels involve a few man-years of effort, while modern game development requires many, many man-years of work, using highly specialized skillsets. Half-Priced Books isn't bankrupting Stephen King, or even random low-selling cookbook authors, simply because the cost of writing them is pretty negligible compared to the cost of publishing them, and publishers can do limited runs of a book to avoid risking too much.

Games differ. They cost ridiculous amounts to produce, and the used copies don't depreciate significantly (just enough to undercut the new copies). And this is all being handled by an unaffiliated retailer, unlike with certified used cars. Also, other than episodic content there isn't a way to do a limited run of a game in order to gauge its success; a half-produced game is worthless. So most games are simple rehashes of previously successful formulae, because by their nature they're very risky to finance.

[torrefaction]

This doesn't make sense to me at all. Why should anyone be mad at EB/Gamestop? Do you not believe in capitalism? Do you support the EULA/license bullshit that says you don't actually own the copy of the game you just bought? If you want to be mad at someone, be mad at the morons who buy used games for $5 less than a new one. EB/Gamestop have every right to make as much money as they can extract from stupid consumers.

I know developers/publishers/etc don't like used games, but too damn bad. People have been buying used books for hundreds of years, and shockingly, people still buy new books, and it's still profitable to be in the book producing business. Games are no different. If the publishers/developers hate Gamestop/EB so much, how about not selling them new copies of games for them to sell in the first place. How long would they last if EA sold only to Walmart/Best Buy?

I'm not going to cry a river for the poor publishers/game developers. Capitalism rocks.

"If you don't like it, go to Russia!" -Homer

I don't think anyone's arguing that there should be a law or a system to stop this (I'm extremely free market oriented). Only that Gamestop shouldn't be doing it. And yes, the publishers *SHOULD* punish Gamestop, and so should consumers. They are ripping off consumers, and if you're really for capitalism, you should realise that. You shouldn't be defending bad business practices.

I made an argument the other day that American's are taught to worship the dollar, and not respect it. If only more people realized that their dollars are the equivalent of a vote.

Bah.

[torrefaction]

Also. Capitalism does indeed rock :)

[motor]

See, thats a classic mistake aswell. People say they wouldnt buy used if new was cheaper, but reality doesnt reflect that. Lets say right now the average new game is 50$ and used is 40$. Now, lets say they drop the price of new games down to 40$ to combat the used game sales... what happens? Used game prices go down to 30$ ( which the person trading the game in can justify, as they paid less for the game in the first place ). Net result, less profit for the game company and still a 10$ savings to buy used over new.

Please don't mistake what I'm saying. Developers aren't going to hope the used market dies because of the goodness of your hearts. Developers are going to kill the used and rental market with better tech, and they're going to be damn happy when it dies. What I'm asking is, when they do it, it will obviously piss off a number of consumers. What amount of discount would you consider a fair trade? Since a large number of people seem happy to buy a $50 used for $40 at EB and sell it back for $5 (you guys are pretty crappy businessman) it seems that if the price goes down $15, and there are no more used sales, everyone should be happy. Right?

[MosBen]

I don't have time to wade through seven pages of comments, but I'm pretty sure I know the arguments being made. Here are my thoughts.

I buy almost all of my games used. There are a few games that I have made a point to buy new (Psychonauts) where I really want to support the developer and a few games that I specifically buy used, even if there's little savings, (anything from EA) because I don't want to support the company. That said, the reason I don't pirate games comes down to a few reasons 1) It's illegal and I avoid breaking the law as often as possible. 2) Used games are way more convenient to procure than pirated games. 3) Sometimes I am only able to find sleeper hits as used games. I don't think I could have found Deathrow new, and I certainly couldn't find The Longest Journey when I was looking for it a couple months ago, when I picked them up.

The bottom line for me is that I don't have the kind of money were I can afford many mistaken game purchases. Occassionally I'll pick up something for full price on a whim and be dissapointed, but used games give me the opportunity to try out games at a substantially reduced price and not feel the sting quite as bad if they don't turn out to be great. If this did happen, it would almost certainly guarrantee that I don't pick up a PS3 until the price has dropped significantly and there is a large line of very inexpensive "Greatest Hits" games.

[Serapth]

Please don't mistake what I'm saying. Developers aren't going to hope the used market dies because of the goodness of your hearts. Developers are going to kill the used and rental market with better tech, and they're going to be damn happy when it dies. What I'm asking is, when they do it, it will obviously piss off a number of consumers. What amount of discount would you consider a fair trade? Since a large number of people seem happy to buy a $50 used for $40 at EB and sell it back for $5 (you guys are pretty crappy businessman) it seems that if the price goes down $15, and there are no more used sales, everyone should be happy. Right?


Ahh, so basically your saying if used market got killed of, thus the publishers would make more money, what pricing level would be fair to set their product at as a result? That makes more sense, but to some degree I think the pricing structure in games is insane as it is, so you cant really apply a simple formula. For example the cost of creating Oblivion was probrably many times higher then say, SSX snowboarding. Why do they sell for the same amount? This I have never understood... with games or movies.

[Rakael]

The current used model is broken, I will readily agree. However, I do and should have the right to buy games or anything else used. The fact that anyone is buying into this corporate propoganda about how used games are destroying the market is staggering. It isn't used games, but stores like Gamestop that push a $5 cheaper used game that they bought for pennies on the dollar. It is also the inflexibility and greed of the publishers.

This whole industry is broken, and going to collapse before too much longer if nothing changes I'm afraid. No one saw the original game-market crash coming either.

[Mason]

This doesn't make sense to me at all. Why should anyone be mad at EB/Gamestop? Do you not believe in capitalism? Do you support the EULA/license bullshit that says you don't actually own the copy of the game you just bought? If you want to be mad at someone, be mad at the morons who buy used games for $5 less than a new one. EB/Gamestop have every right to make as much money as they can extract from stupid consumers.
This is the real world, you don't ward off all consequences just by chanting "capitalism!" Game retailers are all acting in their short-term benefit, which could very easily end up being to the long-term detriment of the game industry upon which they're dependent.

And how precisely can you "believe" in a capitalism which allows retailers to resell used games, but not a capitalism which also allows publishers to build their products in such a way that they can't be resold? Both are corporations acting in their own financial interest, how is it you call one capitalism and not the other? Hell, if EBGames just grabbed some DVD presses and started stamping out their own replicas of game discs for sale in their stores, what about that wouldn't be capitalistic, either? Buy a single copy of a game and resell it infinite times, sounds like a pretty great business to me.

If you say "because it'd be illegal", the irony police will be paying you a visit. With cudgels and truncheons.

[motor]

Ahh, so basically your saying if used market got killed of, thus the publishers would make more money, what pricing level would be fair to set their product at as a result? That makes more sense, but to some degree I think the pricing structure in games is insane as it is, so you cant really apply a simple formula. For example the cost of creating Oblivion was probrably many times higher then say, SSX snowboarding. Why do they sell for the same amount? This I have never understood... with games or movies.

Yes, exactly! If microsoft were to come to this forum and say, "So, we're going to kill off the used and rental market in the xbox 720, but in exchange, we've talked to all of the major publishers and the price for a new xbox 720 game is going to be $40. What do you guys think?" What would be the general response in the forum? What if they said $30? What is people's feel for the market value of selling or buying a used game. How much value is the average game losing by not being resellable?

As for the same price thing. I think if you look at the time for the price to drop and multiple that by units sold at each price point you'll find that there is a broad range of "real price versus time after release" for most games. For example, some games are down to $20 after a few months (happened to one of mine :( ) and some games stay at nearly full price for years (Halo for example).

[Johan]

Mason:

Cars: Every heard of CarMax? There is a vital, viable, large used car market which does not benefit automakers at all...fact.

Houses: You skipped over that one...developers don't get any money from the resale of the homes they build, and in fact compete on price...fact.

Games: I don't think it should be any different...opinion, but supported by analogous facts.

[Zanzibar]

This is the real world, you don't ward off all consequences just by chanting "capitalism!" Game retailers are all acting in their short-term benefit, which could very easily end up being to the long-term detriment of the game industry upon which they're dependent.

And how precisely can you "believe" in a capitalism which allows retailers to resell used games, but not a capitalism which also allows publishers to build their products in such a way that they can't be resold? Both are corporations acting in their own financial interest, how is it you call one capitalism and not the other? Hell, if EBGames just grabbed some DVD presses and started stamping out their own replicas of game discs for sale in their stores, what about that wouldn't be capitalistic, either? Buy a single copy of a game and resell it infinite times, sounds like a pretty great business to me.

If you say "because it'd be illegal", the irony police will be paying you a visit. With cudgels and truncheons.
Check out the big brain on Mason! Both Gamestop and Sony working towards using capitalism in their own way? Brilliant.

I am truly torn here. As a developer, I hate Gamestop and the racket they run for their used games. I also hate Sony and hope they fail miserably.

[Eran Hawke]

I hope sony implements this protection scheme. I never buy used discs. I mean, how do you know where they've been? That's disgusting.

Only REAL gamers with real jobs and a real interest in gaming will get the PS3, and real gamers don't buy used.

Right, HumpYourWayToTheTop?

Who's with me! down with used games and the ability to re-sell games.

[JudasGoat]

Who's with me! down with used games and the ability to re-sell games.

Funny, that. I never buy used games, but I sell them frequently. For 5 bucks i'd rather give the majority of my money to the developer/publisher than gamestop. Yet, I also like getting rid of garbage.

[Mike Jones]

Old..Old news. Joystiq and Inquirer are news lol lol


The Sony Playstation 3 will still be able to run pre-owned, rented and borrowed software. Responding to the latest rumors, Sony has denied that a new Digital Rights Management system, which would not allow gamers to play previously used games on their console, will be employed in the PS3.

Sony Computer Entertainment’s UK PR Manager Jennie Kong stated,

“I would like to clarify that [the Playstation 3 locking out used game discs] 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.”

Reports suggested that Sony had planned to use the new technology in an effort to combat video game piracy. The reports arose after a patent for a disc technology surfaced with Sony President, Ken Kutaragi, listed as an inventor.

If the new system had been adopted, Playstation 3 software would have only been accessible to the first machine it was run by. Once an authentication code was read, it would have become unplayable on all other consoles.

The news comes as a huge relief to gamers who feared the end of trading games and multiplayer sessions with friends.




You wouldn't be able to rent game if they did this...pleaaase

[Mason]

However, I do and should have the right to buy games or anything else used. The fact that anyone is buying into this corporate propoganda about how used games are destroying the market is staggering. It isn't used games, but stores like Gamestop that push a $5 cheaper used game that they bought for pennies on the dollar.
Nobody is saying that this is fair to the independent neighborhood game shops, which used to be the sole source of used titles. But on the other hand, most of those (at least in my area) have been crushed by EB/GS/WM/BB anyways, so any tears we want to shed for such shops should have dried a long time ago.

GS/EB are the problem, but other than the game industry getting a bunch of lobbyists together to send politicians against the used game chains (a slow and soul-corrupting process), I don't know what the other options are. Negotiations would be better for everyone, but it's possible that this slice of the pie is just too large for both sides to act in the consumer's benefit.

Gamers are screwed no matter what happens. I'd just rather be screwed in a world where companies can afford to keep making great games. The plus side is that this is an issue where PC gaming has natural solutions, so hopefully a few of the companies which made great PC titles and crappy console games will take this as a sign to shift their focus back.

[Johan]

I think some of us are also assuming here that Sony (and MS, and Nintendo) somehow care about developers as well. If that were true, we wouldn't be entering another console generation, because the past year has been horrendous for developers DUE TO the console conversion (slow pace due to availability of 360s, early death of Xbox from lack of MS support, delays in the PS3). Every new console generation is extremely difficult for developers...where's the love for developers from Sony?MS?Nintendo? Oh, I forgot...they operate on their own self-interest!!!

[Zanzibar]

Mike, where did you get that? I'm sure the reds here would like that link so they can bunko this story.

[Mason]

analogous facts.
No such thing exists. Fact.

[Cha-Ka]

Yes, exactly! If microsoft were to come to this forum and say, "So, we're going to kill off the used and rental market in the xbox 720, but in exchange, we've talked to all of the major publishers and the price for a new xbox 720 game is going to be $40. What do you guys think?" What would be the general response in the forum? What if they said $30? What is people's feel for the market value of selling or buying a used game. How much value is the average game losing by not being resellable?

Price point aside, isn't this more-or-less what Xbox live arcade is doing?

[Johan]

No such thing exists. Fact.

Good night...stop posting stupidity. Check http://www.yourdictionary.com

Analogous (adj): Similar or alike in such a way as to permit the drawing of an analogy.

An analogy is a comparison...such as comparing developers and their investments in housing, autos, or...GAMES. Duh.

You probably shouldn't tell an English teacher there's no such thing as an analogy or analogous comparisons...it doesn't work out well.

[Zeal]

Does Sony enjoy making stupid and illogial business decisions or what. It's just getting laughably stupid at this point.

[motor]

Price point aside, isn't this more-or-less what Xbox live arcade is doing?

Get that boy a cookie! :) Now are you starting to see where this is all going? Higher and higher quality games on arcade as the price inches slightly upwards. $40 for a full commercial quality game that you download in the background while you play other games or at night. I wonder where that leaves EB and Gamestop? No one complains aout not being able to resell their arcade games.

[motor]

Does Sony enjoy making stupid and illogial business decisions or what. It's just getting laughably stupid at this point.

Zeal, please. Actually contribute to the thread or get out.

[Rakael]

Nobody is saying that this is fair to the independent neighborhood game shops, which used to be the sole source of used titles. But on the other hand, most of those (at least in my area) have been crushed by EB/GS/WM/BB anyways, so any tears we want to shed for such shops should have dried a long time ago.

GS/EB are the problem, but other than the game industry getting a bunch of lobbyists together to send politicians against the used game chains (a slow and soul-corrupting process), I don't know what the other options are. Negotiations would be better for everyone, but it's possible that this slice of the pie is just too large for both sides to act in the consumer's benefit.

Gamers are screwed no matter what happens. I'd just rather be screwed in a world where companies can afford to keep making great games. The plus side is that this is an issue where PC gaming has natural solutions, so hopefully a few of the companies which made great PC titles and crappy console games will take this as a sign to shift their focus back.


That is what bothers me the most, everyone seems to be forgetting the customer. We are the lifeblood of this industry and yet everything done screws us in one way or another. That is why I am "fortelling" the downfall of the industry. Sooner or later there will be a serious consumer backlash.

I also agree with most of what you say about Gamestop/EB. Still, I feel that publishers could do more instead of just sitting back and bitching.

[Cool AN]

This is a old article that was releaved to be untrue. The SCEE director (I think it was him), said that they have the technology but they aren't using it in the PS 3.

[Reanimated]

Sony has been trying to pressure retailers into killing 2nd hand game sales for YEARS, so this isn't exactly news.

Just another reason why I never understood how there are actually people out there who WANT Sony to dominate the games industry. Smart ones, that lot.

[Mason]

Good night...stop posting stupidity. Check http://www.yourdictionary.com
Analogy is not a form of proof, nor is it generally accepted as a strong logical argument. It's a logical fallacy to assume such a thing. There's no such thing as "analogous facts", because if something can't be shown outside of an analogy, it isn't a fact.

[Cool AN]

Sony has been trying to pressure retailers into killing 2nd hand game sales for YEARS, so this isn't exactly news.

Just another reason why I never understood how there are actually people out there who WANT Sony to dominate the games industry. Smart ones, that lot.

Most publishers are pushing for that. I don't know what Microsoft's and Nintendo's stand are on it but I doubt it is that different.

[Bad_Buddha]

See, I have no big issue with used game sales... I do have a HUGE issue when the primary point of new game sales, is also a point for used game sales. Then I especially have an issue where that vendor pushes the used over the new.

What's the big deal if they are both sold at the same location. I have a spine; if I want to buy a new game and they offer me the used one I can hold my head up proud and say "No thank you!" If you cave in and buy what they want you to buy with no regard for your own needs and requirements then you deserve what you get.

Let them push all they want, I'll purchase what I want to. I'm not in their store to help them with their bottom line, I'm there to fulfill a need of my own. If their offer does not coincide with my need then they can lose a sale.

[51|RandoM]

My concern is that I won't be able to rent games from Blockbuster if this technology becomes commonplace. Many times I want to try a game out before I buy it; others, I just don't feel like a the game is worth $59.99 and can only justify the rental price.

This technology, if implemented, would end the game rental business.

Actually, it wouldn't neccessarily.

Really, as software licenses go, you don't actually *buy* the software, you buy a license to use said software. Places like blockbuster get different licensing than the consumer does. Their licenses allow rentals, etc.

This move may not be specifically to prevent transfer of license, just to hamper piracy. What I mean by this is that they'll have to maintain some system to keep track of systemid vs. locked title, and presumeably they'd have a way to transfer that lock, at least a few times.

[Johan]

Analogy is not a form of proof, nor is it generally accepted as a strong logical argument. It's a logical fallacy to assume such a thing. There's no such thing as "analogous facts", because if something can't be shown outside of an analogy, it isn't a fact.

Okay...then let's go down your road and you can try to refute my one statement (which I stand by) rather than trying to refute the 99% of the rest which you can't actually find a way of logically disputing...let's deflect from the topic all you like, since, frankly, that's where that post of yours was headed...nowhere, and wrong.

And you must be kidding anyway...all of Western civilization is based upon linear, comparative logic...give me a break; study Roman or Greek society. We argue that if A=B and B=C, then there's quite a likelihood that A=C...in this case, my comparison of the investment by developers in HOMES, AUTOS, and GAMES...all logical and analogous and fact.

It is a fact that developers in each industry put tremendous amounts of time and money into their products, and all three are hurt by the sale of used versions of their products. Want to be logical? Ban all used goods, if we follow the initial logic of those who are against used games.

[Reanimated]

Most publishers are pushing for that. I don't know what Microsoft's and Nintendo's stand are on it but I doubt it is that different.



Only the Japanese publishers. It's a much larger problem in Japan than it is here.

[Mason]

Okay...then let's go down your road and you can try to refute my one statement (which I stand by) rather than trying to refute the 99% of the rest which you can't actually find a way of logically disputing...let's deflect from the topic all you like, since, frankly, that's where that post of yours was headed...nowhere, and wrong.
Did you make any argument that passed the giggle test? If so, would you please rephrase it?
And you must be kidding anyway...all of Western civilization is based upon linear, comparative logic...give me a break; study Roman or Greek society. We argue that if A=B and B=C, then there's quite a likelihood that A=C...in this case, my comparison of the investment by developers in HOMES, AUTOS, and GAMES...all logical and analogous and fact.
Wow. It is a fallacious argument to state that because A and B share property p, they must necessarily share property q, which is the very nature of an argument by analogy. You're making me angry at public education.

[ruceree88]

To all of you saying buying used games cuts out the developer/middle man, etc…
I have for you the used music CD business. If this is true where will it stop? Does that mean that the music people are going to get up in arms and try to ban the sale of used music CD’s?
This is crazy and if it is true Sony deserves to lose all of their market share. If I cannot rent, buy, or otherwise inquire about used stuff then its moot.

This is the first real step I have seen where the big companies are trying to tell you what you can and cant do with the stuff you “bought” and paid for.

If this is true I suggest that everyone put their fanboyism aside and vote with your wallets and NOT buy the PS3.

[Cool AN]

Only the Japanese publishers. It's a much larger problem in Japan than it is here.

That is probably true, but I have heard Western publishers complain about it to.

[Cha-Ka]

Get that boy a cookie! :) Now are you starting to see where this is all going? Higher and higher quality games on arcade as the price inches slightly upwards. $40 for a full commercial quality game that you download in the background while you play other games or at night. I wonder where that leaves EB and Gamestop? No one complains aout not being able to resell their arcade games.

While I'll never turn down a cookie, I can't say I'm in favor of restricting used sales of games whether it's achieved via digital distribution or with wierd voodoo discs like this post suggests. I like to physically own the things I pay for.

[Dag-Sabot]

I read this whole thread only to be confronted with Don King arguing with a monkey. -Must be the boss level.

[Johan]

giggle test?

Let me put this more simply for you...and try to bring you back on topic, as all of my posts have been...yours not so much; facts are comparable. You take a fact, you compare it with another (analogous facts). I compared the investment of developers in housing, automobiles and games, because the argument was made that developers of video games suffer from the used market, and something should be done about that (various ideas to solve the problem...too many to mention, some perhaps slightly more palatable, some quite bad). Logically, a similar kind of risk (in large housing or skyscrapers, a much larger risk that can approach hundreds of millions, not just tens of millions, for game developers) is taken in many other industries (I named two...there are others). Used autos (to a lesser extent) and used housing (to a terrifically large extent) hurt developers of new autos and housing. Why not, therefore, rectify this situation? It's a rhetorical question...the answer is there should be no intervention. I disagree with any intervention, though I have said a number of times that I support developers wholeheartedly, with upwards of 80% of my purchases of games being new games. How about focusing on the issue, not quibbling with "analogous facts" and "giggle test" crap, eh? Deal with my ideas...don't try to shit on my word choice or grammar...which have both been quite correct to this point, anyway.

[Goronmon]

WTF is going on? Wasn't this rumor debunked like a year ago? Even ignoring that fact, the source is terrible. GameRadar talks to some High street games shops? What the fuck kind of source is that?

My buddy next door says the PS3 controller has a rusty pole that rapes you in the ass while you play. Yeah, that has about the same credibility as this "newspost."

Seriously, people need to wait for at least some cauthoritive response on this issue before going nuts on Sony.

[Cha-Ka]

High street games shops? What the fuck kind of source is that?

You may be onto something there, Goronmon. Maybe that's just a fancy code-word for "guy who trades weed for used games". That might also explain why the author found the news so distressing.

[Mason]

How about focusing on the issue, not quibbling with "analogous facts" and "giggle test" crap, eh?
The issue keeps whizzing over your head. Cars are not books are not games are not houses. The details of these various businesses are completely relevant to whether or not used sales seriously cripple the industry, and your illogical statements ignore those distinctions, even after I pointed out plenty for you.

This is why argument by analogy is considered weak and is generally avoided. Complex objects have many properties, and just because two objects share one property doesn't imply that they share all others. I can't spell it out any more clearly for you, without drawing pictures.

[DoubleUranium]

This is the real world, you don't ward off all consequences just by chanting "capitalism!" Game retailers are all acting in their short-term benefit, which could very easily end up being to the long-term detriment of the game industry upon which they're dependent.

And how precisely can you "believe" in a capitalism which allows retailers to resell used games, but not a capitalism which also allows publishers to build their products in such a way that they can't be resold? Both are corporations acting in their own financial interest, how is it you call one capitalism and not the other? Hell, if EBGames just grabbed some DVD presses and started stamping out their own replicas of game discs for sale in their stores, what about that wouldn't be capitalistic, either? Buy a single copy of a game and resell it infinite times, sounds like a pretty great business to me.

If you say "because it'd be illegal", the irony police will be paying you a visit. With cudgels and truncheons.

I have to say you've totally lost me. Where did I advocate breaking the law with copyright infringement? Your thing about EB pressing their own copies has nothing to do with them reselling existing copies that were lawfully purchased. Both corporations are acting in their own capitalist self interest. This is ok with me. I don't have to like what they do, but they're playing within the rules. If you want to change the rules, talk to your local politician. You clearly have strong feelings about this, so act in your own self interest. Don't shop at EB. Don't let your friends shop at EB. But you still haven't convinced me that EB is doing anything wrong. Immoral perhaps, but they have a duty to their shareholders to maximize their revenue.

If Sony or anyone restricts used copies/etc it's entirely within their rights. I don't have to like it, but I can vote with my wallet. It's already happened to movies. I love seeing movies in movie theaters but they've changed their business model to be ad revenue & concession whoring based, so I no longer support their business. If I wasn't allowed to buy used DVDs I wouldn't buy new ones either. But it's entirely within their rights as a company to run their business that way, I just won't patronize them.

I also don't understand why I keep hearing that the industry is in crisis and on the verge of collapse, let alone because of used games being sold. We just had E3 and things were looking pretty good to me.

[Johan]

Who said that the actual products (cars, books, games, houses) are the same? I said the freaking investment is analogous (comparable), and if you want to limit the availability of a used product in one sector of our economy, by logical extension, you should/would be willing to extend it elsewhere. It makes no sense to do that. I'm also getting angry with/at public education...but for slightly different reasons ;)

I'm ignoring your insults and hoping you'll outgrow their necessity...and, ironically, that I can do the same, as I did call you stupid ;) I still think you're stupid, but I'm sorry I do ;)

Edit: To Mason

[ruceree88]

Mason:

Cars: Every heard of CarMax? There is a vital, viable, large used car market which does not benefit automakers at all...fact.

Houses: You skipped over that one...developers don't get any money from the resale of the homes they build, and in fact compete on price...fact.

Games: I don't think it should be any different...opinion, but supported by analogous facts.

I can add a few more....

Used clothes do not benefit the manufacture.
Used music does not benefit the artist/RIAA.
Used movies does not benefit the studio/actors
Buying used electronics from eBay does not benefit the manufacture
Buying used anything from an outside source does not benefit the original creator.
Why should video games be exempt?

[Johan]

I can add a few more....

Used clothes do not benefit the manufacture.
Used music does not benefit the artist/RIAA.
Used movies does not benefit the studio/actors
Buying used electronics from eBay does not benefit the manufacture
Buying used anything from an outside source does not benefit the original creator.
Why should video games be exempt?

This is my point as well...where does it end? And why begin with games? Isn't housing more important and more expensive and a greater investment (if in a large development)? Let's eliminate used housing...you have to burn it down when you move, so developers can build a new one and make money off of it directly...and not have to compete with the used homes on sale.

[DoubleUranium]

I don't think anyone's arguing that there should be a law or a system to stop this (I'm extremely free market oriented). Only that Gamestop shouldn't be doing it. And yes, the publishers *SHOULD* punish Gamestop, and so should consumers. They are ripping off consumers, and if you're really for capitalism, you should realise that. You shouldn't be defending bad business practices.

I made an argument the other day that American's are taught to worship the dollar, and not respect it. If only more people realized that their dollars are the equivalent of a vote.

Bah.

Didn't I say that though? Publishers should stop selling to Gamestop if they don't like Gamestop selling used games and pushing them on consumers. Whether or not Gamestop is ripping off their customers is up for debate. The morons buying $45 used games don't feel like they're getting ripped off or they wouldn't buy them - they're just morons and I don't have a lot of sympathy for them. The market will decide if it's a bad business practice. I don't shop there because I despise Gamestop/EB, and if enough other people feel that way, they'll go under. If EA stopped selling them games, they'd go under. Gamestop is not a monopoly on selling games. It will sort itself out like it's supposed to.

[Serapth]

I can add a few more....

Used clothes do not benefit the manufacture.
Used music does not benefit the artist/RIAA.
Used movies does not benefit the studio/actors
Buying used electronics from eBay does not benefit the manufacture
Buying used anything from an outside source does not benefit the original creator.
Why should video games be exempt?

Ok... follow along here... how many of those items can you buy along side there new version? Hmmmmmmmmm... none! So why is it accepted with videogames?

[thecrazyd]

Ok... follow along here... how many of those items can you buy along side there new version? Hmmmmmmmmm... none! So why is it accepted with videogames?
So your big argument is that they should have seperate store for used and new games? Sounds like a hassle for the user.

[ruceree88]

This is my point as well...where does it end? And why begin with games? Isn't housing more important and more expensive and a greater investment (if in a large development)? Let's eliminate used housing...you have to burn it down when you move, so developers can build a new one and make money off of it directly...and not have to compete with the used homes on sale.

Indeed. If the game developers are getting their arm twisted that much from the sale of used games/software. Perhaps it's time for them to adopt something akin to the "certified used car" model where they still make a buck from the sale of their used copy. But to say that video games should be exempt from being sold as used is crazy. I cant see this passing without the used business's screaming bloody murder.

[Serapth]

What's the big deal if they are both sold at the same location. I have a spine; if I want to buy a new game and they offer me the used one I can hold my head up proud and say "No thank you!" If you cave in and buy what they want you to buy with no regard for your own needs and requirements then you deserve what you get.

Let them push all they want, I'll purchase what I want to. I'm not in their store to help them with their bottom line, I'm there to fulfill a need of my own. If their offer does not coincide with my need then they can lose a sale.


See your looking at this only from the consumer perspective. As a consumer, there is no big deal, as a publisher there is a huge conflict of interests!

[Tohoya]

This doesn't make sense to me at all. Why should anyone be mad at EB/Gamestop? Do you not believe in capitalism? Do you support the EULA/license bullshit that says you don't actually own the copy of the game you just bought? If you want to be mad at someone, be mad at the morons who buy used games for $5 less than a new one. EB/Gamestop have every right to make as much money as they can extract from stupid consumers.

I know developers/publishers/etc don't like used games, but too damn bad. People have been buying used books for hundreds of years, and shockingly, people still buy new books, and it's still profitable to be in the book producing business. Games are no different. If the publishers/developers hate Gamestop/EB so much, how about not selling them new copies of games for them to sell in the first place. How long would they last if EA sold only to Walmart/Best Buy?

I'm not going to cry a river for the poor publishers/game developers. Capitalism rocks.

"If you don't like it, go to Russia!" -Homer


Your capitalism argument fails once we reach the point of piracy. Under your reasoning, piracy is the logical conclusion of the capitalist system. After all, I can get an awesome product for free! Why would any capitalist reject such an offer, especially when the laws concerning them are never enforced? Damn the consequences to the game studios!

[Serapth]

So your big argument is that they should have seperate store for used and new games? Sounds like a hassle for the user.

It is, but it keeps the market viable. Is having no games to buy because so many devs went out of business a better scenario for the user?

Look at any other industry and you will see it is infact two seperate stores, and two completely seperate ecosystems ( aka, you can only trade used for used ), it causes less damage. Moreso, it prevents a huge conflict of interest. The alternative is the Microsoft, Nintendo and Sony get so fed up with competing against their own (used) products, the just stop selling to EB Games completely, leaving Walmart and Bestbuy as your only source for games. That is even more of a hassle for users. But if EB and Gamestop dont cut this shit out, I wouldnt be shocked to see it happen.

[ruceree88]

Ok... follow along here... how many of those items can you buy along side there new version? Hmmmmmmmmm... none! So why is it accepted with videogames?

Ok the answer is of the items i listed 3. This is beside the point though as you are saying that games/software should be exempt form being sold as used because EB charges $5 less then the new version? I agree that the business model is flawed however that should not mean that it gets abandoned alltogether.

[Johan]

Here's an idea, and it may be totally out there...why don't the developers offer to buy back product at specified mark-downs, depending upon the strength of the product as a new sale, the length of time on the market, etc...Could this work? I just thought of it...stupid or potentially useful? Whaddya all think? They could resell it themselves, or give a small percentage off another of their new products...

[Vanthar]

Games radar is a shit site. This story was debunked a while ago when it first came out.

[Serapth]

Ok the answer is of the items i listed 3. This is beside the point though as you are saying that games/software should be exempt form being sold as used because EB charges $5 less then the new version? I agree that the business model is flawed however that should not mean that it gets abandoned alltogether.

Agreed 100%. Im in no way supporting sonys mythical protection system. I am just pointing out that game resales at the same source as new game sales is bad for the industry. So, so far as blaming someone for used games, more then anything, EB Games deserves the hate for being so greedy as to act stupid. AKA short term profits in exchange for long term viability.

[GunnyMo]

The alternative is the Microsoft, Nintendo and Sony get so fed up with competing against their own (used) products, the just stop selling to EB Games completely, leaving Walmart and Bestbuy as your only source for games. That is even more of a hassle for users. But if EB and Gamestop dont cut this shit out, I wouldnt be shocked to see it happen.

You make it sound like they are the bad guys. Who is buying all of this used product? That is my question. :D

[Serapth]

Here's an idea, and it may be totally out there...why don't the developers offer to buy back product at specified mark-downs, depending upon the strength of the product as a new sale, the length of time on the market, etc...Could this work? I just thought of it...stupid or potentially useful? Whaddya all think? They could resell it themselves, or give a small percentage off another of their new products...

That could work for big publishers ( infact I think Activision tried it in the past ), but only the biggest could get away with it. Plus, it would only really work if used games sales didnt exist in the first place ( Why trade 2 of company X's products for a different product from company X, when you can trade 2 of company X's products in to EB for any product from any company? )

[Serapth]

You make it sound like they are the bad guys. Who is buying all of this used product? That is my question. :D

Yeah but pointing out consumer stupidity is a waste of time. In the end, the consumer almost never takes the long view and always opts for the cheapest option. Look at Walmarts going into small towns and killing all local businesses as a classic example.

[Mason]

I have to say you've totally lost me. Where did I advocate breaking the law with copyright infringement? Your thing about EB pressing their own copies has nothing to do with them reselling existing copies that were lawfully purchased. Both corporations are acting in their own capitalist self interest. This is ok with me. I don't have to like what they do, but they're playing within the rules.
Here's the funny part you missed: saying that of course EB Games should obey the law is fundamentally anti-capitalist, since in this case the law is acting against the will of the free market. EB Games could buy a DVD press at a certain price and turn a huge profit printing games for sale, if laws didn't prevent such a fine capitalist action. And in the process, their "capitalist self-interest" would kill off the game industry, as developers and publishers would see no return on their investment.

So, in this case, the game market only survives because of anti-capitalist intrusion into the market, in the form of civil law. Only by having their freedom restricted can these corporations form stable markets, and without those restrictions their self-interested actions would quickly lead to collapse. A little object lesson to hopefully drain some of the magic out of an apparently misunderstood word.

[Tohoya]

Let me put this more simply for you...and try to bring you back on topic, as all of my posts have been...yours not so much; facts are comparable. You take a fact, you compare it with another (analogous facts). I compared the investment of developers in housing, automobiles and games, because the argument was made that developers of video games suffer from the used market, and something should be done about that (various ideas to solve the problem...too many to mention, some perhaps slightly more palatable, some quite bad). Logically, a similar kind of risk (in large housing or skyscrapers, a much larger risk that can approach hundreds of millions, not just tens of millions, for game developers) is taken in many other industries (I named two...there are others). Used autos (to a lesser extent) and used housing (to a terrifically large extent) hurt developers of new autos and housing. Why not, therefore, rectify this situation? It's a rhetorical question...the answer is there should be no intervention. I disagree with any intervention, though I have said a number of times that I support developers wholeheartedly, with upwards of 80% of my purchases of games being new games. How about focusing on the issue, not quibbling with "analogous facts" and "giggle test" crap, eh? Deal with my ideas...don't try to shit on my word choice or grammar...which have both been quite correct to this point, anyway.

The answer to your analogies is that those industries are relatively healthy. Yes, used sales are negatively affecting all those industries you listed, but all of them are profitable enough to take it. The video game industry isn't. Look at all the publishers and developers folding; look at all the smaller shops that have disappeared into the formless corporate void that is EA. Our industry is dying, and EB/GS is at the heart fo the corruption.

The one exception is that the American auto industry is not sound, but then, the used car trade is not quite analogous. For one thing, a used car is significantly deteriorated from a new car, where a used game is not very much worse off than a new game.

[Saladin]

See, thats where the used book analogy is flawed. Used book can be bought, but they cant be bought at the same point as new books

Been to Amazon.com lately?

[Soap]

Ever been to a new book store, like Chapters or Barnes & Noble and had the person behind the sales desk try and push a used copy over a new one?

Nope, but Barnes & Noble has recently implemented one of those Credit Card schemes when you make a purchase. I'm not talking about the B&N Member Program, which I've got. I mean actually pushing Credit Cards to you.

S l i g h t T h r e a d D e r a i l

What do you think of EB/Gamestop opening up a NEW game to use as a display copy, then trying to sell the OPENED game as New?

[Jack B]

Games radar is a shit site. This story was debunked a while ago when it first came out.

I'd be interested in a URL to the debunking info. Thanks in advance.

[Serapth]

Been to Amazon.com lately?

Online sites are a completely different story all together, but I bet the big 3 think of amazon about as highly as they think of EB games these days.

[motor]

I'm glad so many people here are law and order. So of course none of you will have a problem if the contract you agree to by purchasing a game is reworded to say, "You may not resell this product in any way. You also may not rent this product, or in anyway make money off the use or transfer of this product. If you do not abide by this stipulation, acme game publishing will be able to sue you for $1000." If you don't like the new contract then feel free not to buy the game.

I'm really hoping that none of you are stupid enough to say "I bought it, I own it". No, when you purchase something you are agreeing to a contract, and that contract can be anything they person who produces it says. You are welcome not to buy it. If I want to sell my house on the condition that you burn it down rather then resell, I am perfectly in my rights to do so and you are in your rights to not purchase it. The same thing goes with any transaaction. I can make the rules that you must agree to to purchase it, and so long as you are fully aware of those conditions, you are bound by them.

[GunnyMo]

Here's another question that has popped to mind: say in some mythical world the buying/selling of used games and/or CDs and/or DVDs is outlawed or made not commerically viable. Where does all of the "used" product go? Do you just throw a game away when you are done with it? You can't resell it because greedy publishers want every nickle from their new games. It also would come across as not very environmentally sound as now there would be no more "recycling" of used games as only new ones are allowed to be purchased. Used product has been around for decades in the music industry and it hasn't hurt them at all. Their current problems are due to the RIAA being shortsighted in regards to digital distribution. How many people have bought subsequent new albums by an artist after they picked up a previous one on the cheap used? If anything, I think the used market is a benefit to the entertainment industry not a hinderance.

I'm not the defender of GS/EB I was a few months ago but I will say that it is highly unlikely any publisher will stop selling to them because of used product. GS/EB has too much pull now within the video game industry for that to happen. They are gathering a much larger market share and are a sales force to be reckoned with and publishers know that. Best Buy and Wal-Mart are both buying/selling used product now so to use them as an example of holier -than-tho-only-selling-new-stores doesn't work.

It is illogical and ignorant to think that used media of any kind will "not be allowed". If anything, the consumers won't allow it.

Whether or not the large amount of new game elitists that lurk about here at EA think that used games are overpriced at many retailers the fact is you are in the minority. Is a five dollar difference much a break on the price for a used game? Not really yet people keep buying them. Blame consumers not the retailers.

[Johan]

Tohoya: You make some good arguments against my comparisons...I would dispute the idea that the industry is dying, though. This has been a tough year (console transitions usually are tough periods...very predictably cyclical in that respect), but the industry as a whole is a heckuva lot bigger than a decade or two ago. It is tougher for small developers than in the past (the investment is huge for a AAA title), but perhaps this could change with Live Arcade and PS3's 'Live-like' service as well. In fact, someone mentioned previously in this thread that downloads of games (which is probably the future of the industry, at some point...disks could go bye-bye at some point) could eliminate the used market anyway, because nobody is complaining they can't sell the games they've finished on Live Arcade.

[Goronmon]

I'd be interested in a URL to the debunking info. Thanks in advance.
http://www.neoseeker.com/news/story/5163/

http://www.gamespot.com/pages/news/show_blog_entry.php?topic_id=23921409&page=5
[UPDATE] While US Sony reps think the best way to deal with gossip is silence, Sony Europe spokespersons have apparently decided to put this particular rumor to rest. According to the London Guardian's
tech blog, SCEE PR manger Jennie Kong blasted the rumor as " false speculation." "PlayStation 3 software will not be copy protected to a single machine but will be playable on any PlayStation 3 console," she told the Guardian.

[Mason]

You make it sound like they are the bad guys. Who is buying all of this used product? That is my question. :D
Let's think about this. If the game industry collapsed because no one could afford to make games anymore, you and I would watch some more movies and catch up on our reading, but basically survive (with some grumbling about the "good old days"). Game retailers, publishers, and developers would see a catastrophic collapse to their core business. Who has more invested here?

Publishers don't have any leverage on the consumer (we've got tons of other entertainment options), so outside of technical restrictions there's no real way to negotiate with us and get us to eschew available used games. Look at the MPAA and RIAA campaigns. Publishers and retailers are in the same car, though, and if it goes over the cliff Thelma-and-Louise style, they'll all go splat. Thus, since retailers have so much more to lose, their short-term greed is all the more ill-advised.

[Soap]

If the Video Game Industry somehow collapsed....Board Games would make a comeback.

Time to whip out that Risk game.

[Johan]

p&p D&D games, too....

[Jack B]

http://www.neoseeker.com/news/story/5163/

http://www.gamespot.com/pages/news/show_blog_entry.php?topic_id=23921409&page=5

Thanks Goronmon.

Noticed both debunking URL's are 6 months old. Sony has made some reversals of prior statements in the last 6 months, so I hope they come out with a statement if this is a new rumor.

[DoubleUranium]

Here's the funny part you missed: saying that of course EB Games should obey the law is fundamentally anti-capitalist, since in this case the law is acting against the will of the free market.

I don't understand your implication that capitalism = anarchism. We live in a capitalist system whose rules are based on laws. If we're not in agreement on that then I don't see the point in arguing this any further.

[Soap]

p&p D&D games, too....

Oooh P&P Battletech or Car Wars would be SWEET :p

[vallor]

in this case, my comparison of the investment by developers in HOMES, AUTOS, and GAMES...all logical and analogous and fact.

It is a fact that developers in each industry put tremendous amounts of time and money into their products, and all three are hurt by the sale of used versions of their products. Want to be logical? Ban all used goods, if we follow the initial logic of those who are against used games.

This is true, however keep in mind that homes, autos, and the like are intended to recoup the investment in a single sale (or be used to drive further specific sales). A developer rarely sells a house for less than it took him to make it. An auto maker rarely sells a new car for less than cost of goods. The technology developed for one car is much easier to translate and use across an entire model line or year, or multiple years to spread out the hurt of RnD.

Automobiles and homes also have multiple teirs with different cost barriers. If someone goes through the time and energy of researching and developing a solar powered home, they can add a preimum. If someone wants Quattro Turbo in their Audi they pay extra for that functionality. Want leather seats? You get to pay for it, etc. Games are set at only a couple price points.

In the games industry only a tiny fraction of the actual money used to buy each copy of a game goes toward paying off the investment in creation. The secondary market bypasses this checkpoint.

For every copy sold used the developer loses out on that incremental contribution to paying off the huge initial investment.

Books are perhaps one of the better comparisons, but as was pointed out earlier compared to creating, publishing, and distributing a modern video game the costs are miniscule.

[Johan]

We could also just drive on a typical highway or visit an urban ghetto to get at least a taste of the Burnout or GRAW experience firsthand, too...

[ProfPuppet]

"Games Radar today produced Sony's latest marketing plans for shooting their PR campaign in the foot. Ken Kutaragi reportedly cackled with glee, turned into a large bat, then flew off into the night with a reporter clutched in his claws."

[GunnyMo]

Look at all the publishers and developers folding; look at all the smaller shops that have disappeared into the formless corporate void that is EA. Our industry is dying, and EB/GS is at the heart fo the corruption.



You make it sound as if games will be gone in a few months. GS/EB and their ilk have been around 20+ years and the industry as a whole continues to grow by leaps and bounds. I don't remember exact figures but the video game industry, as a whole, is projected to surpass most other forms of entertainment for dollars earned within the next few years.

Specialty retail is a necessity to a growing industry. Do you really think games would be as big as they are if only Wal-Mart and Best Buy were selling them? Doubtful.

As far as publishers and developers folding I think that is the nature of the buisness as it grows in size. You compete or you don't. That's the nature of capitalism, I think. You could compare it to department stores. If memory serves they went through a similar phase as their type of industry grew. Bigger stores bought out smallers ones, others merged, etc. What I also object to is the thought, with used games, that publishers/developers are the poor, little, downtrodden children sitting out in the rain. FYI: they are in it for the money as well. When it comes to capitalism no one is the good guy, friends and neighbors. Here's a wrinkle: say used games are "outlawed". What is to stop a publisher from jacking prices on new games as there is no alternative? Are you willing to pay $100 a game?

And to the argument that Sony is going to create a new licensing agreement on their games and start suing gamers for selling their games? Laughable. I think we will eventually see a backlash to these types of agreements from consumers. Once you buy something it is yours to do with as you will as long as you don't violate copywrite, imho.

[Mason]

I don't understand your implication that capitalism = anarchism. We live in a capitalist system whose rules are based on laws. If we're not in agreement on that then I don't see the point in arguing this any further.
How can you justify some restrictions on corporations pursuing their self-interest (EB selling duped games) and not others (EB disallowed from pimping used games)? Just because one law is currently on the books and the other isn't? Irrelevant, a couple lobbyists from EA and a few dead hookers could change that.

Both scenarios put restrictions on a free market, and both have the intention of making sure developers get their fair share of game profits, thus preserving the health of the game industry as a whole. You used an appeal to capitalism to support one and not the other. This, I view as a contradiction.

[Saladin]

http://www.neoseeker.com/news/story/5163/

http://www.gamespot.com/pages/news/show_blog_entry.php?topic_id=23921409&page=5

Both of those are dealing with the hardware/disc locking and not the licence agreement change that the Gameradar article is talking about.

[Saladin]

And to the argument that Sony is going to create a new licensing agreement on their games and start suing gamers for selling their games? Laughable. I think we will eventually see a backlash to these types of agreements from consumers. Once you buy something it is yours to do with as you will as long as you don't violate copywrite, imho.

They wouldn't go after individual gamers selling a used game to their mates, just as they don't go after individual pirates. They'd hit up the retailers like EB and on-line auction sites.

[RMan]

Look at all the publishers and developers folding; look at all the smaller shops that have disappeared into the formless corporate void that is EA. Our industry is dying, and EB/GS is at the heart fo the corruption.
No, this is absolutely not true. First off, used game sales hurt bigger games more than smaller games. Second, if used games were a big part of the problem with turning a profit, then why on earth would the industry react in the seemingly worst way they could, by raising prices and production costs? Used games are a problem, but it is not in any way at the heart of the problem you describe, if it were the industry’s response would be the opposite of what we’re seeing.

[DoubleUranium]

How can you justify some restrictions on corporations pursuing their self-interest (EB selling duped games) and not others (EB disallowed from pimping used games)? Just because one law is currently on the books and the other isn't? Irrelevant, a couple lobbyists from EA and a few dead hookers could change that

Isn't the fact that one set of laws is on the books and one isn't the entire point? We could have an infinite discussion if we are going to talk about theoretical laws. The laws that exist right now are the only ones I'm talking about. Capitalism as it exists is just another game, and we're talking about playing within the existing rules. We've gotten quite off track.

[GunnyMo]

They wouldn't go after individual gamers selling a used game to their mates, just as they don't go after individual pirates. They'd hit up the retailers like EB and on-line auction sites.

Hmmm, yeah. I can see Sony suing one of the best distribution points for their games. That makes good financial sense. :rolleyes:

[Zanzibar]

Isn't the fact that one set of laws is on the books and one isn't the entire point? We could have an infinite discussion if we are going to talk about theoretical laws. The laws that exist right now are the only ones I'm talking about. Capitalism as it exists is just another game, and we're talking about playing within the existing rules. We've gotten quite off track.

Let me make sure I'm hearing this correctly.

In the interests of Capitalism, EBGames/Gamestop buy games from consumers and re-sell them.

In those SAME INTERESTS of Capitalism, Sony creates a technology that prevents re-selling of Sony games, so that if a consumer wants to play a Sony game, they have to buy it new, not used.

Are either of those goals 'wrong' while the other is 'right'?

Personally, I hope Sony does it. Screws over EBGames/Gamestop and also pisses off the consumers. But I'm biased, if you haven't guessed ;)

[pomeroy]

See your looking at this only from the consumer perspective...

You're right, I am. I'm a consumer.

[DoubleUranium]

That's the way the system works - those two companies can fight it out according the current set of rules. It's the right move for both of those companies, self interest. It's not "right" for me, but not being a major shareholder in either company, too bad for me. But I still have my dollar as a vote so it just means I don't do business with either company.

[Thenetcase]

But what about Blockbuster? I like to rent games to see if I am going to like them. What kind of impact would that have?

Also, my sister and her husband buy a lot of games and let me borrow them from time to time. This sort of thing would not allow me to even do this I would guess.

No, you sir would be in violationg of the newly imposed CORPORATE LAW by Sony Inc. You would be subject to prosecution for USING a barrowed game or letting someone borrow one of yours.

Although the federal courts might see otherwise, if you hadn't actually violated the REAL law.

-TNC-

[Zanzibar]

Are CD keys legal? Steam/HL2? Why is it ok for PC games and software and not console games?

I really should just get the hell out of this thread. I don't really care one way or the other, I'm never gonna buy a PS3 anyways, but I'm really interested in this "Used games represent Capitalism, Capitalism is cool, therefore Sony sucks because they're behaving like Capitalists" mentality by some people here.

[Mason]

Isn't the fact that one set of laws is on the books and one isn't the entire point? We could have an infinite discussion if we are going to talk about theoretical laws. The laws that exist right now are the only ones I'm talking about. Capitalism as it exists is just another game, and we're talking about playing within the existing rules. We've gotten quite off track.
Here's what you said:
Why should anyone be mad at EB/Gamestop? Do you not believe in capitalism?...EB/Gamestop have every right to make as much money as they can extract from stupid consumers.
Our current set of laws are not sacred, they can be changed. Since this whole topic is about changes to the rules governing the sale of used games, your statement that supporting such changes implies "not believing in capitalism" demonstrates the contradiction I've been flogging.

Such a change isn't removing EB's "right" to pursue their self-interest, but rather redefines the ways in which that interest can be pursued. If you want to use the term "capitalism" to refer to both the market and the rules which define permissible market interactions (a pretty poor definition, but whatever), then advocating a change to those rules which promotes the health of that market (more profitable games=good) would seem to embody the very spirit of capitalism.

Our existing laws weren't handed down on stone tablets, they were written in response to situations like this. Hydraulic despots get their dams kicked down so that everyone can drink.

[Dr Quincy]

Home taping is killing the record industry.

[motor]

Are CD keys legal? Steam/HL2? Why is it ok for PC games and software and not console games?

I really should just get the hell out of this thread. I don't really care one way or the other, I'm never gonna buy a PS3 anyways, but I'm really interested in this "Used games represent Capitalism, Capitalism is cool, therefore Sony sucks because they're behaving like Capitalists" mentality by some people here.

Yes, this unfortunately is devolving into "My capitalism is better then yours!" The truth is there is nothing wrong with EB selling used games, I think it is bad for the developers (actually I know it is bad for developers). And there is nothing wrong with any publisher selling a game with a stipulation that you are not allowed to resell it. If you don't want to be bound by that stipulation then don't buy the game. But PLEASE do not think that you have some inherent possesion is 9/10's of the law right to do with any object you buy as you see fit. Purchasing a game, like anything else, is a contract and the person who makes the game can put any restrictions on that product they want so long as the consumers knows about them at the time of purchase. So don't get indignant or feel that you have some right to sell games if Sony or anyone else decides that you are not allowed to resell them. Don't buy them. Frankly, the only thing stopping publishers from doing it right now is the bad PR and the fact that EB and Gamestop will stop selling their games if they did. And for now,k EB and Gamestop are still viable places to sell games (I'm thinking that won't be true for a whole lot longer).

[Serapth]

Are CD keys legal? Steam/HL2? Why is it ok for PC games and software and not console games?

I really should just get the hell out of this thread. I don't really care one way or the other, I'm never gonna buy a PS3 anyways, but I'm really interested in this "Used games represent Capitalism, Capitalism is cool, therefore Sony sucks because they're behaving like Capitalists" mentality by some people here.

I myself dont have any interest in the PS3 right now either ( too expensive while not offering me much ), but I am interested in the underlying argument. Frankly EB whoring used games over new has always struck me as wrong and short sighted, that I guess is my argument here.

[Serapth]

You're right, I am. I'm a consumer.

And like I said in another thread, consumers are only concerned with themselves and price. Most people cant look at the big picture and see that the short term gain they are getting now has long term ramifications.

[EvoG]

This is rather baffling to read the mypoia and self-interest so prevalent amongst our readers here. Thrilled to see the few of you like Mason, Serapth and Tohoya defending this on principle and not arbitrary bias. (BTW, I'll be saying some of the same things a few of you have mentioned, so forgive me that I don't give you the credit, but feel free to take it! :D)

Regardless of your opinion on Sony, including my distaste for their arrogance, I actually would love to see Sony do this, mainly because I see nothing more that they can really lose. Ah but wait, before you yell of "public backlash" and "consumer ire" keep in mind its only the people that DO buy used games that would backlash, as they(and the retailers) have the most to lose.

What does Sony lose by doing this? Nothing really, as you're not their customer by buying used games, you're the retailers customer. So big deal, go cry.

They don't lose regular customers as they'd be none the wiser, and short of those consumers that MUST bring their new games to a friends house only to find it wont run, this is going to be invisible to the masses that buy these games new.

Conclude that this isn't much different than Valves Steam setup, which, occasional irritants aside, has grown and works remarkably well for what it has to do.

Now for the comparisons to other markets, namely homes, autos, music, books and movies:

Homes cost FAR less to make than they do to sell, so "development" money is recouped and then some...no point in using "homes" as a comparison anymore.

Cars, cost much less to make than they do to sell PLUS, as mentioned by Tohoya, the deterioration of the product is significant compared to a game, which has zero deterioration(it either works or it doesn't due to scratches). A used car is less attractive when it can have defects, lack of "new car smell" and depretiation...sure it may have to be an option for someone who needs a car or wants a nicer car than they can afford. In contrast, there is NOTHING different about a new game or a used game, so on that, what WOULD compel the consumer from buying a new game when a used game is exactly the same, though 5 - 10 bucks cheaper? Other than loyalty to the developer that is?

Books, cost almost NOTHING to "develop", and those used books for sale had to be new books at one point, of which very few need to sell to be profitable to the publisher. This and their cost isn't so prohibitive to many that buying a new book isn't a huge drain on the wallet.

Music, more or less same as books, though I could add that like books, these aren't sold in the same places as their newer counterparts, so now you can talk of consumer accessibility. The mainstream retailer is far more prolific than the used store market, so the customer is less likely to go far out of their way when they can find a BestBuy practically everywhere and get the CD right away, and again as with books, not prohibitively expensive.

Lastly, Movies, which is pretty easy to define for you; they are released in a venue that requires everyone to pay to see them...theatres. The movie will do as well as it will and THEN be sent to DVD, at which point its up to the retailers to fight it out. For the most part studios recoup their costs and see some profit in the theatres, and if not there, almost assuredly some money when releasing the DVD's through distribution. At that point the money to be made was made its 2 generations removed from the studio.



Now, just to be as objective as possible, I'll note a few things.

First off if your PS3 is defective, how do you play your library of games on the new machine? So a destructive form of encryption on the original DVD isn't a great idea...once the drive goes so does the game.

In order for their TO be a used market, there has to be a NEW market, as I mentioned about used book reselling. In other words, in order for there to be used games, someone had to buy them new, and one could argue that those that bought it new always intended to buy it new, and those that wait to buy it used would never buy it new. Then AGAIN, those that only buy used would have no choice but to buy new or not buy at all if Sony attempted this, so there actually are sales to gain, not lose, from the used-copy-consumer.


Cheers

[torrefaction]

And like I said in another thread, consumers are only concerned with themselves and price. Most people cant look at the big picture and see that the short term gain they are getting now has long term ramifications.

I said something to this effect earlier. Consumers (Us American's in particular) are trained to worship the dollar, not respect it's power. Saving yourself $15 dollars now can cost you the enjoyment of this hobby/passion we all have for gaming down the road. At the most extreme, it could lead to the industry being crippled. At the very least, the returns the developer's get will force the price up. Keep in mind when you talk about used games, that's exactly what EB/Gamestop is doing. Driving down the profit margin on development, drives up the overall cost of development, which drives up the price for consumers.

[Hijinx]

Stores have nothing to lose now for reselling used games, but if they saw their profit margins go to almost zero on new games, they would reconsider the practice in a hurry!

The profit margin for new titles is already next to nothing. Only one thing beats out new games as profit loss leaders......new systems. Now Canned Air is the real consumer eff'er...and don't get me started about bottled water!

Lets direct our collect ire towards Poland Spring & the Huffers. Sounds like a killer band name...its mine:) :cool:

[[VSK]BadCRC]

Okay, we can throw this one into the debunked heap, I just read the following at GameSpot:


[UPDATE] While US Sony reps think the best way to deal with gossip is silence, Sony Europe spokespersons have apparently decided to put this particular rumor to rest. According to the London Guardian's tech blog, SCEE PR manger Jennie Kong blasted the rumor as " false speculation." "PlayStation 3 software will not be copy protected to a single machine but will be playable on any PlayStation 3 console," she told the Guardian. [Thanks Lefein and stoner02]


You can read the full article here (http://www.gamespot.com/pages/news/show_blog_entry.php?topic_id=23921409).

[pomeroy]

And like I said in another thread, consumers are only concerned with themselves and price. Most people cant look at the big picture and see that the short term gain they are getting now has long term ramifications.

I said something to this effect earlier. Consumers (Us American's in particular) are trained to worship the dollar, not respect it's power. Saving yourself $15 dollars now can cost you the enjoyment of this hobby/passion we all have for gaming down the road. At the most extreme, it could lead to the industry being crippled. At the very least, the returns the developer's get will force the price up. Keep in mind when you talk about used games, that's exactly what EB/Gamestop is doing. Driving down the profit margin on development, drives up the overall cost of development, which drives up the price for consumers.


I love this argument. Because I don't want to spend $50-$60 dollars on a new game every time I want something new to play, I must be some stupid, simple-minded American. Or it could be that, like Kelegacy said, cheap's cheap, bitch.

[Paranoia]

BadCRC']Okay, we can throw this one into the debunked heap, I just read the following at GameSpot:

You can read the full article here (http://www.gamespot.com/pages/news/show_blog_entry.php?topic_id=23921409).

Sony also said "Spring 2006", No Dual SKUs, 2 HDMI output, 2 Gigabit ethernet port, etc.

Yeah...

[theguido]

Sony also said "Spring 2006", No Dual SKUs, 2 HDMI output, 2 Gigabit ethernet port, etc.

Yeah...

So, what you're saying is we should believe a random internet source over an official Sony source, ya know, the guys who are actually are in charge of producing the console. Good work.

Why don't we stop worrying so much about "facts" and just believe what we want to? Sounds like fun, eh?

[torrefaction]

I love this argument. Because I don't want to spend $50-$60 dollars on a new game every time I want something new to play, I must be some stupid, simple-minded American. Or it could be that, like Kelegacy said, cheap's cheap, bitch.

Did I say that you were stupid or simple-minded? No. Small-minded could be used. You don't have the foresight to see that your actions could lead to the downfall of the hobby you obviously love, or you wouldn't be posting here.

Again, never argued against used games either. Trade online! Barter! Sell your damn games on EBay! But don't let Gamestop get away with ripping you and the developer off. You know what...on second thought, if after giving this serious thought, you ever buy a used game there again, you are a stupid, simple-minded person. And that doesn't matter what damn country your from.

[Tohoya]

You make it sound as if games will be gone in a few months. GS/EB and their ilk have been around 20+ years and the industry as a whole continues to grow by leaps and bounds. I don't remember exact figures but the video game industry, as a whole, is projected to surpass most other forms of entertainment for dollars earned within the next few years.

Specialty retail is a necessity to a growing industry. Do you really think games would be as big as they are if only Wal-Mart and Best Buy were selling them? Doubtful.

As far as publishers and developers folding I think that is the nature of the buisness as it grows in size. You compete or you don't. That's the nature of capitalism, I think. You could compare it to department stores. If memory serves they went through a similar phase as their type of industry grew. Bigger stores bought out smallers ones, others merged, etc. What I also object to is the thought, with used games, that publishers/developers are the poor, little, downtrodden children sitting out in the rain. FYI: they are in it for the money as well. When it comes to capitalism no one is the good guy, friends and neighbors. Here's a wrinkle: say used games are "outlawed". What is to stop a publisher from jacking prices on new games as there is no alternative? Are you willing to pay $100 a game?

And to the argument that Sony is going to create a new licensing agreement on their games and start suing gamers for selling their games? Laughable. I think we will eventually see a backlash to these types of agreements from consumers. Once you buy something it is yours to do with as you will as long as you don't violate copywrite, imho.


Gross sales =/= profit. While the sales of games have been rising, the cost of making them has risen faster, so profit is much smaller. Also, GS/EB have been around for a long time, but their aggressive push for the second-hand market and the rip-off prices they charge therein are new; exlusive, IMO, to this most recent console generation.

Saying that the folding of development studios is the end result of capitalism doesn't necesarily mean it's a good thing. A great many artistic endeavors, from symphony to painting, would quickly go out of buisness if left to the free market. Thank goodness for public endowments in those cases. Unfortunately, the powers that be aren't convinced of the artistic merits of games, so we must endeavor to create such conditions as will engender creativity within the industry. The free market is wholly incapable of fixing such a messed up industry, and if we leave the industry to selfish, pecuniary motives, the end result will be enriched Gamestop CEOs and a destitute Miyamoto. The free market does not egender the future stability of the industry; rather, in its incessant competition it encourages the parts of the industry to constantly stake out a greater peice of the pie, to the detriment of all the others. Retailers clearly have too much at the moment, and the result is the afforementioned folding and mergers. The uber software giant EA certainly does not, and a video gaming future where every developer is either subsumed into EA or in a sequel-churning, franchise-abusing mode similar to EA just to keep up is almost as bad as an outright crash.

I say that there is a good guy in this situation. We ought to structure the industry such that the maximum amount of revenue goes to the source that will ensure the continued production of games and continued innovation within those games. The people that do this are undoubtedly the developers. Retailers, and to a lesser extent publishers, are chaff, bureaucracy, wastefulness. Their only service is the distribution of goods, and now that that function can be made wholly obselete via Arcade and other similar features, they are entirely parasitic in nature. Every dollar that goes to the retailers is a dollar not going toward the developers. And every dollar not going towards the developer is one less dollar that's spent on actually making the game as good as it could be.

[Abash Alarmist]

Or perhaps have it so that the stablished companies have to pay a certain % of the user game to the parent company...They still make bank, the developer makes extra money,and the consumer gets something cheap. And to enforce it, just make it that if the company doesn't do it, then they no longer get any games from that publisher until it is enforced. Excluding eBay.

[Goronmon]

Both of those are dealing with the hardware/disc locking and not the licence agreement change that the Gameradar article is talking about.True, but that doesn't change the fact that this information is only a baseless rumor at this point.

[Tohoya]

Or perhaps have it so that the stablished companies have to pay a certain % of the user game to the parent company...They still make bank, the developer makes extra money,and the consumer gets something cheap. And to enforce it, just make it that if the company doesn't do it, then they no longer get any games from that publisher until it is enforced. Excluding eBay.

That would be an acceptable solution. The only problem is, how is Sony or other developers supposed to force Gamestop to fork over some of their profits from used game sales? It's too lucrative to relinquish voluntarily, and there's no hardware solution in this vein like there is in the proposed heavy handed solution. The only thing I can think of is Sony and the other console makers threatening a change like this unless Gamestop agrees to pay royalities on used game sales. Moreover, such a change would drive up the used game prices at Gamestop. And that would simply lead to joe consumer buying off of Ebay or some other used trading post.

One other thing. There is far more to this dillema than the coarse pecuniary motive of a few CEOs. By the virtue of the fact that we're all here, debating for 18 pages about this issue, tells you something. It tells you that we love the gaming industry; it is our passion. And it is the passion of the coders, as well; they would not put up with the sweatshop conditions they are employed under unless they were doing it for love of the game, not money. Countless coders put their blood, sweat, tears, hopes, dreams, and artistic talent into creating the games you buy at gamestop; there can be no greater denigration of their sacrifice and artistic talent than reducing it to vulgar economics. A change such as this affects the entire body of game players. It would be a terrible crime to leave a game industry sapped of artistic and creative talent to our posterity because we had to let the free market take its course.

[DevilsFang]

Let's not forget that part of the reason games have exploded over the last several years is at least partly because of trade ins. Its easier to take a risk on a new game knowing that you can recoup some of your money if it sucks. Before eBay and EB games trade ins I dont know how many aweful games I purchased and had nothing to do with them afterwards. Think of it this way, can you imagine a world where you were required to by a new car, and once purchsed you could not resell it. To make this work at all, Sony would have to bring down the price of games and make demos more readily available.

[Laughing_Penguin]

Ok... follow along here... how many of those items can you buy along side there new version? Hmmmmmmmmm... none! So why is it accepted with videogames?


Well, to interject a real-world example, I went into a FYE the other day. For those who don't know, FYE sells music primarily, along with movies, video games, and assoretd electronics and such (although music is their main business). Not only do they buy and sell used CDs, but they display them in the same racks, usually going as far as mixing the used copies directly in with the new copies under each artist, complete with large, orange stickers displaying a marginally cheaper price, and in fact you need to puch the used copies out of the way to reach the new versions of the exact same CDs. Both the staff and marketing materials push the used CDs heavily. Is this somehow different than Gamestop selling used video games? (Incidentally, FYE sells used DVDs and video games as well, I just wanted to stay on point here).

FYE is not alone in doing this, I recall an article that certain Best Buy stores were testing the logistics of this model as well. Should there be a similar outrage now for music and movies as well? Many have declared that they used movies, doesn't this also take money away from the producers of that film? It's the exact same situation as Gamestop, just across more types of media, and without the same large level of success right now, should we march on FYE to shut them down?

Video games are not alone in this, even with the "push used along new" practice. When people stop buying used CDs and downloading free MP3s to their systems, perhaps they'd have a better basis to be outraged over used game sales...

[torrefaction]

Well, to interject a real-world example, I went into a FYE the other day. For those who don't know, FYE sells music primarily, along with movies, video games, and assoretd electronics and such (although music is their main business). Not only do they buy and sell used CDs, but they display them in the same racks, usually going as far as mixing the used copies directly in with the new copies under each artist, complete with large, orange stickers displaying a marginally cheaper price, and in fact you need to puch the used copies out of the way to reach the new versions of the exact same CDs. Both the staff and marketing materials push the used CDs heavily. Is this somehow different than Gamestop selling used video games? (Incidentally, FYE sells used DVDs and video games as well, I just wanted to stay on point here).

FYE is not alone in doing this, I recall an article that certain Best Buy stores were testing the logistics of this model as well. Should there be a similar outrage now for music and movies as well? Many have declared that they used movies, doesn't this also take money away from the producers of that film? It's the exact same situation as Gamestop, just across more types of media, and without the same large level of success right now, should we march on FYE to shut them down?

Video games are not alone in this, even with the "push used along new" practice. When people stop buying used CDs and downloading free MP3s to their systems, perhaps they'd have a better basis to be outraged over used game sales...

In my eyes it's very simple.

Retail stores should stay the hell out of used markets.

*EDIT* I care significantly more for games than any other entertainment media. So, I'm more likely to take action where they are concerned. I've grown up with a passion for games, and their potential. The potential that is JUST NOW beginning to be realized. Many of us saw these games in the 16-bit games we played years ago. I'll be damned if I'll be silent while watching the industry tear itself apart.

[antoniogaud]

BadCRC']Okay, we can throw this one into the debunked heap, I just read the following at GameSpot

How does an article posted on November 10, 2005 debunk an article written May 24th, 2006? This (http://www.gamesradar.com/us/ps3/game/news/article.jsp?articleId=20060524162421512039&sectionId=1006&releaseId=20060314115917309058)is the article you were looking for.

[Johan]

Why don't we just go back to arcades? No more consoles...no more consoles...no more consoles...and thus, no used games or need for encryption technologies.

Of course, then the evil consumer could just tape a piece of tinsel to the quarter, lower it in carefully, and click...click...click...rack up 99 credits (who would do such a thing?).

I think it's interesting how some here feel it is our duty/responsibility (or similar word) to support developers with our money. As I've said previously in this thread, I purchased upwards of 80% of my game collection new, I enjoy games as a pretty hard core hobby, and I want the industry to do well, but I don't feel any responsibility to make my purchase decisions based upon that at all. If some of you do, that's a perfectly legitimate choice, of course, but I feel a responsibility to my four kids and wife, to protect as much of our income as possible for my childrens' educations, bills, food, etc...

I also am curious if there is any other industry or product where consumers feel such loyalty that they feel the need to make purchasing decisions based upon what's best for the businesses involved. I just don't get that; the industry will not die; this is not the early '80s prior to the NES. There will always be video games. In thirty years the companies may be different (probably will), but the industry will, in some form or shape, survive.

I guess when it comes to my money, I make most decisions (not including charity giving) based upon my own self-interest. I think that's fairly common, and I think it works for the best.

[Tohoya]

Why don't we just go back to arcades? No more consoles...no more consoles...no more consoles...and thus, no used games or need for encryption technologies.

Of course, then the evil consumer could just tape a piece of tinsel to the quarter, lower it in carefully, and click...click...click...rack up 99 credits (who would do such a thing?).

I think it's interesting how some here feel it is our duty/responsibility (or similar word) to support developers with our money. As I've said previously in this thread, I purchased upwards of 80% of my game collection new, I enjoy games as a pretty hard core hobby, and I want the industry to do well, but I don't feel any responsibility to make my purchase decisions based upon that at all. If some of you do, that's a perfectly legitimate choice, of course, but I feel a responsibility to my four kids and wife, to protect as much of our income as possible for my childrens' educations, bills, food, etc...

I also am curious if there is any other industry or product where consumers feel such loyalty that they feel the need to make purchasing decisions based upon what's best for the businesses involved. I just don't get that; the industry will not die; this is not the early '80s prior to the NES. There will always be video games. In thirty years the companies may be different (probably will), but the industry will, in some form or shape, survive.

I guess when it comes to my money, I make most decisions (not including charity giving) based upon my own self-interest. I think that's fairly common, and I think it works for the best.


If you are not motivated by loyalty, what prevents you from piracy? Are you loyal enough to the law not to break even if you know it won't be enforced, as the piracy laws are? If you're going on your own self-interest, getting a game for free is about as good as it gets.

[Abash Alarmist]

That would be an acceptable solution. The only problem is, how is Sony or other developers supposed to force Gamestop to fork over some of their profits from used game sales? It's too lucrative to relinquish voluntarily, and there's no hardware solution in this vein like there is in the proposed heavy handed solution. The only thing I can think of is Sony and the other console makers threatening a change like this unless Gamestop agrees to pay royalities on used game sales. Moreover, such a change would drive up the used game prices at Gamestop. And that would simply lead to joe consumer buying off of Ebay or some other used trading post.

One other thing. There is far more to this dillema than the coarse pecuniary motive of a few CEOs. By the virtue of the fact that we're all here, debating for 18 pages about this issue, tells you something. It tells you that we love the gaming industry; it is our passion. And it is the passion of the coders, as well; they would not put up with the sweatshop conditions they are employed under unless they were doing it for love of the game, not money. Countless coders put their blood, sweat, tears, hopes, dreams, and artistic talent into creating the games you buy at gamestop; there can be no greater denigration of their sacrifice and artistic talent than reducing it to vulgar economics. A change such as this affects the entire body of game players. It would be a terrible crime to leave a game industry sapped of artistic and creative talent to our posterity because we had to let the free market take its course.

Make it a legally binding contract of exchanging money. If Gamestop/EBGames/Hastings don't give money to the publisher, they will be sued and on top of that, they will no longer get the games from the publisher. If VU stopped shipping out Half-Life 2 and World of Warcraft or any other big name franchize, the companies will be in trouble as they no longer will have the revenue for it; but the people will continue to go to places where they are able to acquire them. The only draw-back would be lesser known publishers won't be able to hold them by the scrotum, thus making it big name publishers only in game stores (like it isn't now, but hey) and have them rely on online distribution (Which would be best actually, cut out the middle man entirely).

[jonat3]

Not sure if this has been mentioned before, but this topic seems to be false speculation. Check the update in 1up's article:

http://www.1up.com/do/newsStory?cId=3151016

Edit: Seems the 1up article addresses a different matter entirely. Got this from the gamefaqs board.

jonat3, the 1up update is the same mistake engadget posted, which is them quoting a Sony response from last years rumor found here http://www.playfuls.com/news_3827.html

I guess I’ll have to say it again.

This quote addresses a totally different rumor like has been pointed out all over the place, and doesn’t debunk the current rumor. Gamespot so far are the only ones who have gotten this one right.

There has been no official word yet from Sony about this rumor which is a completely different one. Is it really that hard for people to differentiate the two? There should be an Official word on this tomorrow hopefully.

[Johan]

If you are not motivated by loyalty, what prevents you from piracy? Are you loyal enough to the law not to break even if you know it won't be enforced, as the piracy laws are? If you're going on your own self-interest, getting a game for free is about as good as it gets.

I've never pirated a game...I'm motivated by self-interest, and when that happens to converge with a developer and a game I like, I have no problem giving them my money in exchange for their product...but I won't impose that upon others who prefer used games or rentals or any other legal avenue. Piracy is, in my opinion, the real elephant in the room here, but it's not mainly a North American or European problem. Yes it exists here, but it's crazy out of control in Asia. And I don't pirate, so I have no problems.

Some would call me a sucker for paying at all (the pirates would), but if I like a product and I can afford it, I'll buy it happily. I don't think I should get something for nothing, and I never have with games (and I have a lot of games...too many to actually play).

[GunnyMo]

Again, never argued against used games either. Trade online! Barter! Sell your damn games on EBay! But don't let Gamestop get away with ripping you and the developer off.

Whoa, whoa, here! How is selling a USED game online or via Ebay any different than buying/selling at EB/GS? You think you don't get ripped off online? If you are buying USED anywhere you are still hurting the almighty and greatly wronged developer/publisher, right? If GS/EB is ripping off the developer selling used then how are YOU not doing the same by selling used?

What this continually comes across as to me is this: many people on this site hate specialty retail like EB/GS for whatever reason. I've seen it for the many years I've been here. Now a rumor comes around that Sony might try and take away the used market for PS3 and you folks are like wolves on a dead rabbit. Death to GS/EB because they sell used games! ((but keep buying/selling used games online 'cause that is ok.))

Despite what all the naysayers and doomsday prophets proclaim the video game industry is increasing exponentially every year and has been for the past 20 years. Will there be dips and changes? Sure. Will there be this mythical crash many of you are prediciting based only, I might add, on the fact that used games are sold in stores? Not likely. Games didn't crash in the 80's because of used games.

I will reiterate and say used games help keep the video game business thriving. Used games let people who aren't hardcore gamers (aka mainstream public) get into the hobby for cheap, let's them see what it's about and then they will buy new, used and probably both. Used games expand our gaming army, so to speak, but not excluding the non-hardcore gamer or wealthy.

Is it the best theory out there? No. But used games as a business model have been growing steadily these past 20 years right along with the new game business. I don't think it is a coincidence.

[Johan]

I will reiterate and say used games help keep the video game business thriving. Used games let people who aren't hardcore gamers (aka mainstream public) get into the hobby for cheap, let's them see what it's about and then they will buy new, used and probably both. Used games expand our gaming army, so to speak, but not excluding the non-hardcore gamer or wealthy.

GunnyMo, I agree with the above quote...An example in music would be The Grateful Dead, when Jerry Garcia was alive and they were touring. They allowed everyone and anyone to record their concerts and share them around, and they made a mint, because having a taste made people desire the product even more, and to seek out more and more material. Now we wouldn't want to allow wholesale copying of the game disks, but used games do give newer gamers the opportunity to get their feet wet and build the kind of blinding obsession which has entrapped so many of us in its wonderful tentacles ;)

[nonchalance]

Look at any other industry and you will see it is infact two seperate stores, and two completely seperate ecosystems ( aka, you can only trade used for used ), it causes less damage.

I can buy a new house from the same real estate agent I can buy an old house from. I can trade in my old car for a new car. I can trade in my old mobile phone for a new one. There are many stores that sell both new and used jewellery, and will buy your old jewellery from you. Musical instruments, too.

Do I have to keep finding examples, or is that enough one store/one ecosystem examples for you?

Here's the difference, though. In all those cases (except housing), used equipment is sold at a much lower price point than new equipment. Even in housing, you get similar price points, but you have to wait for the new one to be built, costing you money.

Used games should cost two thirds or half of what new ones do.

[Darkman]

I can buy a new house from the same real estate agent I can buy an old house from. I can trade in my old car for a new car. I can trade in my old mobile phone for a new one. There are many stores that sell both new and used jewellery, and will buy your old jewellery from you. Musical instruments, too.

What you are forgetting though is that all the things you are talking about also hold value for a much longer period of time and are an investment.

Games have 1 possilbly 2 revenue streams and are NEVER an investment. Movies, Books, Music have MANY revenue streams.

Houses, Jewellery, and even Musical instruments are an INVESTMENT and can MAKE money for you because of scarcity. Games can't do that.

[nonchalance]

What you are forgetting though is that all the things you are talking about also hold value for a much longer period of time and are an investment.

True.
The point, though, is that lots of industries sell used alongside new.
That is NOT the problem.

One of the problems, as you point out, is lack of alternative revenue streams.
Another is the high price point of used games.
A third is the high development costs.
A fourth is the level of control a game's rating has over its production.

[Darkman]

I agree this whole Sony thing does nothing but hurt the consumer.

What should be done is Developers and Publishers should force companies who want to sell new Hardware and Games to not sell used.

Its that simple.

Buying and selling used games would still be perfectly legal. But without the traffic brought in by the newest games and hardware, these companies would fold. I would think more money is lost for both Publishers and Developers by having companies pushing used games in the same space as new ones, then is lost by piracy.

Games are a limited lifespan comodity if there is such a thing. They Rarely hold value due to the nature of what they are. Most have only 1 revenue stream which is the initial release. More work is being done by Publishers and Developers to make additionl revenue streams available by selling rights for movies, toys, comic books, etc.

[opusdeath]

The story has now been proved false:

http://www.gamesradar.com/us/ps3/game/news/article.jsp?articleId=20060524162421512039&sectionId=1006

EDIT: Apologies to [VSK]BadCRC, missed your original post in amongst it all! :o

[jonat3]

The story has now been proved false:

http://www.gamesradar.com/us/ps3/game/news/article.jsp?articleId=20060524162421512039&sectionId=1006

EDIT: Apologies to [VSK]BadCRC, missed your original post in amongst it all! :o

You missed my post on the previous page too. It seems that it hasn't been really debunked, since that quote is about a half year old and was referring to DRM. There's a good chance it applies to this matter at hand as well, but we still need confirmation that is atleast CURRENT.

[Paranoia]

So, what you're saying is we should believe a random internet source over an official Sony source, ya know, the guys who are actually are in charge of producing the console. Good work.


Thanks. I'll keep my skeptism in check.

[Citizen Philip]

I don't think it is feasible for any company to start doing this until there is a wifi-net large enough to encompass most of the target consumer areas.

You WILL see this implemented in the next or next-next generation where your console and PC (if there is distinction anymore) will have built-in wifi recievers and hooked into the network. Everything will be like Steam. And everyone will be in on it. Except smaller publishers (if they exsist anymore) and successful independent studios.

Since I buy all my games anyways, this has zero impact on me. As others have said, I have nothing against the secondary market but I despise the retail stores that purposefully fuck over the developer and publisher to pimp their used games instead.

They are biting the hand that feeds them and being greedy pricks all at once.

[EternalGamer]

Mason, the problem I have with this solution is that it is incredibly "ad hoc" in that it does nothing to address the heart of the problem. You brought up the problem of consumers willingness to buy and sell used games even though they are incredibly taken advantage of with low buy back prices and high used prices. But you never stopped to ask what drives these consumers to engage in this seemingly "irrational" behavior in the first place.

The truth is when you look at it closely, it's not really irrational at all, and it is due to a fault with the current products the industry is offering. Essentially most current games have two characteristics that are contradictory from a consumer point of view: 1) they are expensive and 2) they are "throw away" entertainment: once you play through a game once, there is rarely a desire to ever use it again.

Most developers have tried to address the second of these problems by tacking multiplayer options or "replay value" onto their games, but since this industry is still one driven heavily by the latest fads in technology, this is ultimately an attempt to swim against the tide. It doesn't matter how much replay value you add to your title, when it becomes old, it becomes less appealing in the never ending quest for the new. Even if you pack your game full of great replay or multiplayer features, chances are that your game will still only be able to hold the consumers' attention for a very limited time span before they gravitate to something else thereby making your product worth no more than the $5 Gamestop will pay them for it. There are certainly titles that have successfully made their stay more permanent (MMO's like World of WarCraft) but again, I don't think this is a model that will work for most products. It's just counterintuitive to the current nature of the industry.

And since it doesn't seem feasible to attempt to buck this trend--to make games not be just "throw away" entertainment--we are stuck with option number 1: to price it comparably to other forms of throw away entertainment. Others in this thread had it right, price certainly is the reason the film, book, and music industries don't have such large problems with used product sales. Their products are cheap enough that people don't care to hunt out cheaper versions--they are at or below the impulse buy mark.

Addressing price is feasible and there are a number of ways to go about it. Two of the leading atttempts as of late being the use of episodic content and the attempt to make more simple games that lack the huge overhead (cell phone, Wii, Live Arcade etc.). Other related attempts include Nintendo's newly found strategy of attempting to expand the market (this is how Hollywood is able to succeed with $15 DVDs despite R&D costs that are, on average, 10'x the cost of game development). Sony also did an admirable job of attempting to curb the problem in the past by introducing "Greatest Hits" line of titles (akin to the Paperback book model). But these re-packagings come too late in the products life cycle, long after the majority of the target audience has moved on, to really be a solution to the problem.

Regardless of how it is addressed, price is the issue that needs addressing and the fact that so many people are willing to put up with the bullshit used rackets places like Gamestop offer is the strongest of all possible arguments towards that fact.

[motor]

It's also important that everyone understands that Gamestop and EB are dinosaurs. This used market move is about the only reason they are still in business. Now that video games have moved from speciality stores to the web and WalMart there really isn't much of a place for them anymore. So if developers, publishers or console makers can figure out a way to end the used market, EB and Gamestop are pretty much finished.

Just a point of information.

[Morratut]

I haven't read the full thread yet but if this was true i would never buy a PS3.

I have paid £40 to £50 for a game. It's mine and if I want to sell it on after I beat it then thats upto me.

[RMan]

Well said, EternalGamer, very well said.

[MasterEvilAce]

Want to destroy Sony?
Buy a PS3! Just don't buy any games.

Maybe we can trick Sony into pumping more money into games, and blu-ray. $600 a pop is an awesome price to take down a giant.

Just get linux on that, and use it as a very compact and decently powered computer.


I don't know if anyone will suggest it, but they might have "Blockbuster" copies of a game that can be played over and over on any console.. but those would become the pirated copies--not the consumer copies, so it would essentially fail itself in that respect.

And I agree with Eternal completely. Games are pretty much throw-away entertainment these days. Even looking at HL2.. the only thing keeping me using the engine are the free mods. I even think to myself about playing a lot of games I have again, the single-player compaigns. However, whenever I do that I find out the game isn't as awesome as it seemed when I first played it.

such as FEAR. Looking back, the game was a whole lot of "get to the area that's right next to you, but blocked by a locked door".. Requiring you to spend essentially 15 minutes to wind up on the opposite side of a baracade. Half-Life 2 even had a lot of this. Infact, I can't stand HL2 single-player, now. It's too scripted and way too bland. Such as the water boat. A good 30-45 minutes of the game are spent in it, and it's just to get to another place. There's a lot of filler-content out there. It's just not worth owning longer than enough to play it through once. MODs keep it alive

[theguido]

You missed my post on the previous page too. It seems that it hasn't been really debunked, since that quote is about a half year old and was referring to DRM. There's a good chance it applies to this matter at hand as well, but we still need confirmation that is atleast CURRENT.

Well, the quote from the Guardian at the end is from the November article, certainly, but it should be noted, of course, that in the article they call around to retailers and insiders in order to try and get independent confirmation and they can't get any. While it may not be a straight debunking, the statement from November in addition to their inability to find any source whatsoever that backs up these claims makes the possibility that is in fact true highly, highly unlikely.

[antoniogaud]

After sleeping on this issue, I think I see the light. While the PS3 lock-outs may have been debunked, the idea that Sony will make 'illegal' selling used games is most likely true. I have often wondered why game companies haven't done this before.

Most people don't know that Blockbuster pays upwards of $100 per DVD they offer for rental via a rental agreement. While movie studios lose sales to rentals, the rental agreements bring the studios the equivalent worth of several sales.

The gaming industry has no such rental agreement, and does not make ANY additional money from sales - which always puzzled me. Compound this with a very robust resale market at EBGames/Gamespot and some serious money is being lost.

Sony can easily, and most likely will, restructure their sale agreements to prohibit STORES from reselling games. In the states, this is likely intended to directly impact EBGame/Gamespot as they are the leading 'culprits'. I doubt Sony is interested in prosecuting people selling games on Ebay, although that will undoubtedly become a bigger problem.

If this policy works, expect every other gaming publisher to do the same.

[Tohoya]

Mason, the problem I have with this solution is that it is incredibly "ad hoc" in that it does nothing to address the heart of the problem. You brought up the problem of consumers willingness to buy and sell used games even though they are incredibly taken advantage of with low buy back prices and high used prices. But you never stopped to ask what drives these consumers to engage in this seemingly "irrational" behavior in the first place.

The truth is when you look at it closely, it's not really irrational at all, and it is due to a fault with the current products the industry is offering. Essentially most current games have two characteristics that are contradictory from a consumer point of view: 1) they are expensive and 2) they are "throw away" entertainment: once you play through a game once, there is rarely a desire to ever use it again.

Most developers have tried to address the second of these problems by tacking multiplayer options or "replay value" onto their games, but since this industry is still one driven heavily by the latest fads in technology, this is ultimately an attempt to swim against the tide. It doesn't matter how much replay value you add to your title, when it becomes old, it becomes less appealing in the never ending quest for the new. Even if you pack your game full of great replay or multiplayer features, chances are that your game will still only be able to hold the consumers' attention for a very limited time span before they gravitate to something else thereby making your product worth no more than the $5 Gamestop will pay them for it. There are certainly titles that have successfully made their stay more permanent (MMO's like World of WarCraft) but again, I don't think this is a model that will work for most products. It's just counterintuitive to the current nature of the industry.

And since it doesn't seem feasible to attempt to buck this trend--to make games not be just "throw away" entertainment--we are stuck with option number 1: to price it comparably to other forms of throw away entertainment. Others in this thread had it right, price certainly is the reason the film, book, and music industries don't have such large problems with used product sales. Their products are cheap enough that people don't care to hunt out cheaper versions--they are at or below the impulse buy mark.

Addressing price is feasible and there are a number of ways to go about it. Two of the leading atttempts as of late being the use of episodic content and the attempt to make more simple games that lack the huge overhead (cell phone, Wii, Live Arcade etc.). Other related attempts include Nintendo's newly found strategy of attempting to expand the market (this is how Hollywood is able to succeed with $15 DVDs despite R&D costs that are, on average, 10'x the cost of game development). Sony also did an admirable job of attempting to curb the problem in the past by introducing "Greatest Hits" line of titles (akin to the Paperback book model). But these re-packagings come too late in the products life cycle, long after the majority of the target audience has moved on, to really be a solution to the problem.

Regardless of how it is addressed, price is the issue that needs addressing and the fact that so many people are willing to put up with the bullshit used rackets places like Gamestop offer is the strongest of all possible arguments towards that fact.

Used games aren't the only way prices get lowered, in fact, the price of new games drops pretty rapidly after the initial launch. The greatest hits line is but the culmination of a gradually decreasing cost point of new games. Case in point: Jade Empire, new at Gamestop, for 20 bucks, without the greatest hits logo (http://www.ebgames.com/product.asp?product%5Fid=210572). LOTR, third age, for only 20 dollars new (http://www.ebgames.com/product.asp?product%5Fid=281050). It can be hard to find these new, but it's only because the secondary market crowds out new sales so much that it's not feasible to print many more games beyond their inital printing. If the used market vanished overnight, you'd still have new games depreciating in value. I see a lot of people here associating new games with 50 bucks apiece and used with 20; but the differences are not that huge (9 dollar difference between new and used JE, 5 dollar difference between used and new LOTR). Time will ensure that the games reach a pricepoint that casual gamers can afford, whether there is the secondary market or "greatest hits" line or not.

[Crenor]

Sweet, no more rentals :)

With the high price and no rental features, it is sure to win the hearts of all Xbox360 owners

[MasterEvilAce]

No, not really. The games that people stop talking about gets price drops. Such as Serious Sam. Awesome game from such a small dev team.. but people always talk about HL2, BF2, etc, instead of Serious Sam. BF2 has been out for a damned long time now and it's still $40. I think I checked a couple months ago and it was $50.. still more than what I'd want to pay for.. Battlefield 2.

[Tohoya]

No, not really. The games that people stop talking about gets price drops. Such as Serious Sam. Awesome game from such a small dev team.. but people always talk about HL2, BF2, etc, instead of Serious Sam. BF2 has been out for a damned long time now and it's still $40. I think I checked a couple months ago and it was $50.. still more than what I'd want to pay for.. Battlefield 2.

Give it time; it's only been a year. And besides, the problem remains whether or not there is a second-hand market. On the 360, the difference between the two is only 5 dollars (http://www.gamestop.com/product.asp?product%5Fid=200148).

[GunnyMo]

Well said, Eternal. You make some excellent points.

I think a great example of your price point argument was the ESPN 2k5 games. Brand new titles, at launch, for $20 and they did phenomenal. I think they proved that it could be done. They did it so well, in fact, that it scared the crap out of EA. EA realized that if the ESPN games kept coming out with better titles at $30 less on launch EA would be losing a lot of money. So they throw dumptrucks of money at the NFL and buy the license out from under the 2k series. I think this shows that EA knows it's possible to market a new, AAA title for $20 and it will sell but that if there is no alternative consumers will be forced to spend $50.

PSP is another great example. Sony thought they could come into the handheld market and sell $50 games and $24.99 movies and make a killing. They were proven wrong. The handheld and movie markets have already set their price points and consumers know that.

Bottom line: most publishers know they would make just as much, if not more money (through a higher volume of sales), by lowering the cost of games (as you suggest Eternal) but they don't want to do it. Every game doesn't have to be $20 but a drop to $30 could do wonders for the industry.

Unfortunantly, with the next gen games we see the industry going the exact opposite direction with $60 games. In essence, the new game publishers are driving the used market to greater sales with higher new game prices.

[Major Dan]

I don't buy many used games, just not really in my nature. I still miss the days when I could return a game to Gamestop, that was the best, to bad somehow that got ruined.

But Sony is trying really hard to piss me off right now, I can't believe their arrogance. And you know it wont stop at the retail level, they will be busting on E-bay like the RIAA. This is really a sad turn of affairs for gaming.

Corporate greed is running rampent it seems and it looks like Ninentdo is the only company left that is in it for the games. I am still sore with the $60 price tag for 360 games, (I really like my 360 too) I buy them, I am just buying less of them. I guess I will have to wait longer to buy the A and B grade titles that interest me. Although somehow I think this is counter intuitative to growing the video game market. There is only so much disopable income I and everyone else has to throw around. So if I have to spend more on each game, I can be less games then before thus shrinking the over all market.

I agree with the disposable entertainment argument, once your done with a game you rarely go back to it, there are excpetions as always, I kind of hope SiN does well and more people use that model. Conversly, more game like Oblivion that come out the better, I finally finished the main quest at 95+ hours and I can't be more happy. If all games are that GOOD I don't mind paying $60. I have a feeling Bioshock & Mass Effect will both be that way so I am really happy to have my 360.

Overall I am sadden by this, and hope it doesn't start the decline of my hobby, I have loved for 28 years.

[Cool AN]

It has been denied (http://gamesindustry.biz/content_page.php?aid=17283).

[GunnyMo]

I don't buy many used games, just not really in my nature. I still miss the days when I could return a game to Gamestop, that was the best, to bad somehow that got ruined.



Interesting you bring that up. We stopped taking returns on new games, in new condition because a couple of Shrink Wrap Nazis decided to sue GS because the "new" game they bought wasn't in plastic. Yeah, yeah, I know the argument: If it's open, it's not new, blah, blah, blah. My response to that is: if the game is in perfect shape what does it matter if there is no shrink wrap? Whiney bitches. :p

That was a great policy that allowed new games to be purchased with a fallback option if they sucked. Less risk for the consumer meant they would be more apt to buy a new game which is the whole point of this thread, I believe.

So, if you think about it, new game fanatics sued GS to get rid of a policy that was actually driving new sales. With the removal of that policy used sales have increased. D'oh!

[Major Dan]

I don't know, that is only from a UK spokesperson. :confused: and :(

I would like to hear word for someone in Japan.

[GunnyMo]

With the firm already making massive gambles on factors such as the price point of the system and the popularity of the Blu-Ray next-gen DVD format, it's perhaps unsurprising that it's not keen on gambling on removing used games - often cited as a key factor in driving the mass-market acceptance of gaming - from the equation as well.

Exactly what I have been saying. :D

[Major Dan]

Interesting you bring that up. We stopped taking returns on new games, in new condition because a couple of Shrink Wrap Nazis decided to sue GS because the "new" game they bought wasn't in plastic. Yeah, yeah, I know the argument: If it's open, it's not new, blah, blah, blah. My response to that is: if the game is in perfect shape what does it matter if there is no shrink wrap? Whiney bitches. :p

That was a great policy that allowed new games to be purchased with a fallback option if they sucked. Less risk for the consumer meant they would be more apt to buy a new game which is the whole point of this thread, I believe.

So, if you think about it, new game fanatics sued GS to get rid of a policy that was actually driving new sales. With the removal of that policy used sales have increased. D'oh!

Those F---ing whiney bitches, really ruined a good deal. There was many a time I bought a game, turned out it sucked and use the money to get another game. But overall, I was much more liberal in my spending, knowing I could take it back.

OOh, I haven't tried Gamefly, but I really like to keep my the games, I guess you might call me a collector. I still have a copy of Panzer Dragoon Saga. So yea, it might even pay off once in a while. :)

[Serapth]

Interesting you bring that up. We stopped taking returns on new games, in new condition because a couple of Shrink Wrap Nazis decided to sue GS because the "new" game they bought wasn't in plastic. Yeah, yeah, I know the argument: If it's open, it's not new, blah, blah, blah. My response to that is: if the game is in perfect shape what does it matter if there is no shrink wrap? Whiney bitches. :p

That was a great policy that allowed new games to be purchased with a fallback option if they sucked. Less risk for the consumer meant they would be more apt to buy a new game which is the whole point of this thread, I believe.

So, if you think about it, new game fanatics sued GS to get rid of a policy that was actually driving new sales. With the removal of that policy used sales have increased. D'oh!

Hell I just figured you all had shrink rap machines in your back rooms. I now one my local EB games does. Actually almost all the local stores open all the games, but the media/booklet in a secured area and only the empty box is out of display. When you buy it, they put it all back in the box, re-shrink rap it and send you on your way. Always seemed like alot of work, but I bet shoplifting is pretty heavy otherwise.

[theguido]

I don't know, that is only from a UK spokesperson. :confused: and :(

I would like to hear word for someone in Japan.

Well, considering that the rumor originated in the UK, I'd say word from a Sony Europe spokesperson should be sufficient.

Unless you think Sony reps from Japan were the ones calling the stores in the UK.

[Roc Ingersol]

How possible could this be when someone, for whatever reason, gets a new console? I just don't see how this could possibly be a viable business model. It inconveniences the consumer way too much.
Don't get me wrong - it's a terrible idea.
I was just saying that technically it's pretty easy to do.

[torrefaction]

Whoa, whoa, here! How is selling a USED game online or via Ebay any different than buying/selling at EB/GS? You think you don't get ripped off online? If you are buying USED anywhere you are still hurting the almighty and greatly wronged developer/publisher, right? If GS/EB is ripping off the developer selling used then how are YOU not doing the same by selling used?


I've said this numerous times. It's about greed. Gamestop buys the game at far below a fair price from the consumer (A ripoff), and then sells it at above a fair price (A ripoff.). On top of this, they push these games over the new games. Corporations who try to take advantage of their customer and their source of income need to be punished. In addition, a responsible company would kickback to the publisher at the margins they're making. It's freakin ridiculous.

Because you're the consumer, and you paid for the product. I believe in a free market. I myself wouldn't do this. But I am well aware I have significantly more disposable income than probably most gamers. I wouldn't want to punish a 16 year old gamer who simply did NOT have the money to spend.

But Gamestop is being an irresponsible corporation, doing damage to the very industry that spawned it. It's short sighted and stupid, and so is encouraging their bad business practices.

[xcalibur]

This has been denied by Sony

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


-X

[Serapth]

This has been denied by Sony

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


-X


Meh, doesnt matter, the meta conversation going on has little to do with the origonal posting. Its more about how fucked the industry is in general and that EBGames is the spawn of satan.

[AniAko]

I agree that there's collateral damage to the solution, but when I visit an EB Games the day after a game's release and they're hassling me to get the used version, something is completely broken.

And you or I aren't privy to the various negotiations between publishers and retailers, so we don't know how much leverage anyone has. I get the feeling that if there was a nicer way to handle this, it would've been worked out by now, as it has been a problem for years. The presence of brute force technical solutions might indicate that retailers aren't willing to talk things out. Hell, even a threat to refuse to distribute games to exploitative retailers might not work, as they could probably still thrive just reselling games originally bought by consumers from Wal-Mart or Best Buy.


I WAS privy to to that kind of information being an assistant manager at an EB. We were told Pre-owned sales, and accessory sales was what kept us in business, it was soon after I found out why. I was helping out with inventory one year and our store accidentally recieved a scanning gun that still had the warehouse programming on it.

What this meant was when we scanned an item, it showed not only the unit price... but also the unit cost. Did you know that at BEST a store like EB makes only $10-20 off of each console sold? The margin for games is even smaller. Yet at any given moment, 2 employees (manager and emp usually) are being paid about $20 an hour to mind the store.

Since the store is usually in a stripmall, or mall, they pay nice high rent costs each month, plus utilities.

In the end I talked to our DM who verified that if it wasn't for the obscene markups we were entitled to on accessories and pre-owns, we probably wouldn't be in business (pre-owns ususally carried at LEAST a 100% markup.) By entitled I mean we can charge high prices because other stores are doing the same, so we can compete. For instance, we sold Poke-mon cards, when they were new and hot, for a 400% markup. That was ok, because every other single store that sold them, sold them for the same price.

Late in the game EB started a "hi-visibility" and "vendor-of-the-month" business campaigns. Basically they would *RENT* floor space to paying publishers. Hey nintendo, you want a 9 foot stand up of mario tennis stand in the front glass, and every nintendo game on the first shelves, and mario tennis at eye level all around the store, and have all our employees suggest the title? Give us $X.xx and we'll do it for a month straight.

It was HORRIBLE being an EB employee at that time. You had to push games because they were "vendor-of-the-month" even though the game sucked so bad it would take the chrome off of car bumpers. It's at this time EB stopped being the friendly neighborhood game store, and it became the money grubbing goliath most of us know it as today.

In the beginning the pre-owns were a means to provide a service to the customer, and benefit the store. Today, the only reason I go to EB is because I'm friends with the manager, and I owe HIM my business because he doesn't treat me, or many of his other customers for that matter, with the disrespect game stores typically do.

I was actually told by a Game Crazy employee once that if I "didn't buy the PSP today... I'd have to buy all the components in the box seperate.. EVEN THE WRIST STRAP AND BATTERY!!!" I wanted to knock his fucking teeth out so bad....

[GunnyMo]

Meh, doesnt matter, the meta conversation going on has little to do with the origonal posting. Its more about how fucked the industry is in general and that EBGames is the spawn of satan.

lol very true, very true on both points. :D

[vivafletcher]

Please don't mistake what I'm saying. Developers aren't going to hope the used market dies because of the goodness of your hearts. Developers are going to kill the used and rental market with better tech, and they're going to be damn happy when it dies. What I'm asking is, when they do it, it will obviously piss off a number of consumers. What amount of discount would you consider a fair trade? Since a large number of people seem happy to buy a $50 used for $40 at EB and sell it back for $5 (you guys are pretty crappy businessman) it seems that if the price goes down $15, and there are no more used sales, everyone should be happy. Right?

No, I'm happy when I buy something and I'm allowed to exercise my rights as owner-- including the right to sell it to someone else when I'm done with it.

I also don't like that you can't do that with professional sports tickets-- although technically you can. Just not for a profit. I don't think anyone makes a profit selling games anyway (by a long shot) so I still have more options with tickets than I would if selling used games weren't allowed.

See, it's not my responsibility to make sure the developers make a profit. The idea that we'll lose our good games unless we make sure they're profitable is silly. It's THEIR responsibility to be profitable. All WE have to be is a market with money we're willing to spend-- and I'm pretty sure everyone knows we're out there. If one publisher just can't make it...they'll fail. And another will take their place. If Rockstar goes under, someone else will buy the GTA series, hire the developers and keep it going-- because they know we're out there. We're a market they want to tap.

If we have any responsibility, it's to not support pirated games. Developers have the right to sell their product and make money from it. But as the owner, I have the right to sell it to someone else. If that doesn't work for them-- too bad. Make it work-- or someone else will.

Capitalism doesn't mean the companies serve up whatever they feel like serving on their terms and the market quietly supports them out of a fear that they might not serving up more crap if they're not profitable.

[torrefaction]

Capitalism doesn't mean the companies serve up whatever they feel like serving on their terms and the market quietly supports them out of a fear that they might not serving up more crap if they're not profitable.

No, what it means is that we have a responsibility as consumers to ensure that we don't fund companies with bad business practices. Like I said, trade your games online, sell them on ebay. Do whatever you have to do. But don't support these companies with incredibly fat profit margins on something they do NO WORK ON to deserve it. To defend this practice is bullshit, and I hope that you have enough commonsense to recognize that Gamestop doesn't deserve to make almost as much on a used game as the developer did on the game when it's bought new.

That's bullshit.

[Tohoya]

No, I'm happy when I buy something and I'm allowed to exercise my rights as owner-- including the right to sell it to someone else when I'm done with it.

I also don't like that you can't do that with professional sports tickets-- although technically you can. Just not for a profit. I don't think anyone makes a profit selling games anyway (by a long shot) so I still have more options with tickets than I would if selling used games weren't allowed.

See, it's not my responsibility to make sure the developers make a profit. The idea that we'll lose our good games unless we make sure they're profitable is silly. It's THEIR responsibility to be profitable. All WE have to be is a market with money we're willing to spend-- and I'm pretty sure everyone knows we're out there. If one publisher just can't make it...they'll fail. And another will take their place. If Rockstar goes under, someone else will buy the GTA series, hire the developers and keep it going-- because they know we're out there. We're a market they want to tap.

If we have any responsibility, it's to not support pirated games. Developers have the right to sell their product and make money from it. But as the owner, I have the right to sell it to someone else. If that doesn't work for them-- too bad. Make it work-- or someone else will.

Capitalism doesn't mean the companies serve up whatever they feel like serving on their terms and the market quietly supports them out of a fear that they might not serving up more crap if they're not profitable.


I reiterate: if you don't care at all for the health of the gaming industry, why not just pirate? Cause from the perspective of the developers, buying used games are as bad as piracy. They see no money from it. In fact, it's worse since you now have 30-some less dollars to spend on games.

[Major Dan]

I reiterate: if you don't care at all for the health of the gaming industry, why not just pirate? Cause from the perspective of the developers, buying used games are as bad as piracy. They see no money from it. In fact, it's worse since you now have 30-some less dollars to spend on games.

This doesn't hurt the car industry?? Why should they get money from a used game sale and why shouldn't I be able to sell it to whomever I please? I don't get it.

As I have said earlier, I mainly buy new and don't resell. But some games I just don't want to keep and usually trade them in.

[vivafletcher]

No, what it means is that we have a responsibility as consumers to ensure that we don't fund companies with bad business practices. Like I said, trade your games online, sell them on ebay. Do whatever you have to do. But don't support these companies with incredibly fat profit margins on something they do NO WORK ON to deserve it. To defend this practice is bullshit, and I hope that you have enough commonsense to recognize that Gamestop doesn't deserve to make almost as much on a used game as the developer did on the game when it's bought new.

That's bullshit.

I would never do business with Gamestop. In fact, I like to go in there and mess with the salespeople like I'm going to buy a bunch of used games. Other times I'm a new gamer who wonders what system to buy. Sometimes I got a 360 as a gift and I was wondering what peripherals I should get. Then after I've wasted enough time...I leave. I'm weird like that, but it makes me feel all warm inside. It's a good use of free time while the gf shops at the strip mall.

But as gamers, we don't have any responsibility except to not break the law. Developers need to innovate if they want to make more money. That doesn't always mean a bigger team to make a bigger game. Maybe it's a special edition making-of DVD for hard-core fans. Maybe it's the soundtrack. Maybe it's something else. But it's NOT trying to take away my rights as an owner of the game.

[Johan]

Games have 1 possilbly 2 revenue streams and are NEVER an investment. Movies, Books, Music have MANY revenue streams.

Actually, NEVER might be a tad bit strong...some games hold their value and even rise in price. Ogre Battle for the Nintendo 64 is quite expensive for such an old cartridge-based game, and there are many others that I know of. Of course, they're not worth as much initially (typically 50, rather than thousands like a car or jewelry), but some people do make good money off of rare, collectable games.

I would never do business with Gamestop. In fact, I like to go in there and mess with the salespeople like I'm going to buy a bunch of used games. Other times I'm a new gamer who wonders what system to buy. Sometimes I got a 360 as a gift and I was wondering what peripherals I should get. Then after I've wasted enough time...I leave. I'm weird like that, but it makes me feel all warm inside. It's a good use of free time while the gf shops at the strip mall.

I understand the impulse to do this, but you're really only giving an average Joe or Jane a hard time, while the suits and stockholders of the company...the ones that really deserve your ire...get a free pass. How about buying their stock and voting against all of their favored policies, or sending letters to their executives expressing your displeasure? Don't give the $6.00/hour schmuck a hard time; the don't deserve it.

[torrefaction]

I would never do business with Gamestop. In fact, I like to go in there and mess with the salespeople like I'm going to buy a bunch of used games. Other times I'm a new gamer who wonders what system to buy. Sometimes I got a 360 as a gift and I was wondering what peripherals I should get. Then after I've wasted enough time...I leave. I'm weird like that, but it makes me feel all warm inside. It's a good use of free time while the gf shops at the strip mall.

This just makes you a dick. Those people are just gamers, who want discounts. That's it. You're not doing anything useful, or responsible here.


But as gamers, we don't have any responsibility except to not break the law.

I *HATE* this attitude. As consumers, we have a fucking responsibility to ensure that our dollars go to the right companies. That's what competition is for. Again, I hate the idea of enforced restriction, what I'm talking about here is not giving money to a company that's raping the industry.

Ever consumer in a society based on capitalism has a huge responsibility. The problem is no one fucking recognizes it.

[vivafletcher]

I understand the impulse to do this, but you're really only giving an average Joe or Jane a hard time, while the suits and stockholders of the company...the ones that really deserve your ire...get a free pass. How about buying their stock and voting against all of their favored policies, or sending letters to their executives expressing your displeasure? Don't give the $6.00/hour schmuck a hard time; the don't deserve it.[/QUOTE]

Maybe you don't understand. I do it because it's fun. They choose to work there and they choose to push used product. I don't feel badly for anyone.

The suits and stockholders don't deserve the ire, either. It's the stupid gamers who actually do business there. But I can't punish them...so I do what I can.

Sorry about the crappy cut and paste.

[vivafletcher]

<<This just makes you a dick. Those people are just gamers, who want discounts. That's it. You're not doing anything useful, or responsible here.>>

I'm having fun. That's all I'm really concerned about, and I'm not doing anything wrong. Who knows? Maybe if they leave me alone for five minutes I might actually buy something. Maybe.
But feel free to cry a river of tears for the good folks at Gamestop. That and $45 will get you a used game. Enjoy.


<<I *HATE* this attitude. As consumers, we have a fucking responsibility to ensure that our dollars go to the right companies. That's what competition is for. Again, I hate the idea of enforced restriction, what I'm talking about here is not giving money to a company that's raping the industry.

Ever consumer in a society based on capitalism has a huge responsibility. The problem is no one fucking recognizes it.>>

Wrong, wrong, wrong. We have no responsibility except to ourselves-- that is, to get value for the money we choose to spend. And not to break the law, of course. In a capitalist society, the responsibilities are on the business-- to advertise properly, produce a product that people will want and to build a business model that keeps you profitable.

Consumers have no obligation to show brand loyalty-- that has to be earned by a business. Competition is NOT about making sure business goes to the right companies-- it's businesses fighting with each other to attract consumers.

I think you're confusing what you believe consumers SHOULD do-- that is, reward companies that meet our needs and reject those who fail to do so. But consumers don't make a purchase unless they think it will meet their needs. Maybe Gamestop is in a convenient location and they don't want to hunt for a better deal. Maybe saving $5 or $10 sounds like a good deal to them, so they buy a used game. Maybe the sales monkey did a good job and the person decided to buy. Whatever it is, the consumer isn't doing anything wrong because they have no responsibility other than to themselves.

Sorry about the bad cut and paste-- haven't mastered that yet.

[torrefaction]

Whatever it is, the consumer isn't doing anything wrong because they have no responsibility other than to themselves.


It's this ignorant attitude that leads to companies running all over consumers, and the country. Consumers DO have a responsibility, it's just most people have your lame attitude about their dollars. Just because something is cheaper does not mean there is not a high price associated with it.

Walmart comes to mind.