Developers Fight Against Used Game Sales

[modeps]

Shacknews (http://www.shacknews.com/onearticle.x/55084) has a story about the continuing trend by developers looking to combat used game sales with one-time only redemption codes and other features. Besides Gears of War 2 (http://evilavatar.com/forums/showthread.php?t=66114) and Rock Band (http://evilavatar.com/forums/showthread.php?t=65875) which we have reported on previously, they also outline NBA Live 09 and Burnout Paradise.

After years of lamenting that they see no kickback from the extremely lucrative used game market, game makers have launched a counter-attack by packing new games with one-use codes for extra content.

EA Canada's NBA Live 09 utilizes a similar strategy. The game's much-touted 365 functionality, which brings daily roster and stat updates to the PS3 and Xbox 360 editions, will only be free for those that buy a new copy and redeem the included code. Without the code, that feature will cost $19.99.

These moves are pretty darn smart. I have a feeling we're going to see much more of this.

[cppcrusader]

While a clever move, I'm a little uneasy at the prospect of this catching on. Its a method that could be easily abused by publishers.

[menage]

365? What's that?

[menage]

Fuck, try reading first insead of multitasking stupid. (yells at self)

[DangerousDaze]

How many car manufacturers get money from second-hand car sales? Or house builders, or basically anyone else who makes stuff that has any kind of resale value? I'd love for developers to make money from such sales but that's just not how used sales work.

[lost]

How many car manufacturers get money from second-hand car sales? Or house builders, or basically anyone else who makes stuff that has any kind of resale value? I'd love for developers to make money from such sales but that's just not how used sales work.

Agreed. But then car manufacturers will try and convince you to buy new. I guess this is the same policy.

[Boom Doc]

How many car manufacturers get money from second-hand car sales? Or house builders, or basically anyone else who makes stuff that has any kind of resale value? I'd love for developers to make money from such sales but that's just not how used sales work.

A lot actually, They might not get money from the Car sale itself but for a lot of those sales those people are going to have to buy the parts from them as they wear out. Same deal here. You can buy the game but your not going to get that Pristine nothing wrong with it game anymore. It has depreciated value now similar to a car. You can get it fixed so it has full functionality but it will cost. you. Just like cars or houses.

[Kem0sabe]

How many car manufacturers get money from second-hand car sales? Or house builders, or basically anyone else who makes stuff that has any kind of resale value? I'd love for developers to make money from such sales but that's just not how used sales work.

Exactly. Developers are coming off as whinny bitches.

When i purchase a game, that game is mine to do with as i wish, if a publisher or developer has any problems with this simple fact, then they are welcome to try and dispute it on any European court, they know they dont have a prayer.

[MasterEvilAce]

A lot actually, They might not get money from the Car sale itself but for a lot of those sales those people are going to have to buy the parts from them as they wear out. Same deal here. You can buy the game but your not going to get that Pristine nothing wrong with it game anymore. It has depreciated value now similar to a car. You can get it fixed so it has full functionality but it will cost. you. Just like cars or houses.

DLC is like car parts then ?

[Varsity]

"Hey! Let's compare digital ideas to physical objects!"

[menage]

Hey, these are just incentives to buy a new one, you don't have to right? Although I think the Gears extra is a lot better than the EA solution. A is giving you something if you buy new, 2 is excluding it imo.

Oh and 19.95 is a total rip off.

[FearTheReaper]

Call it a hunch, but I'm willing to bet this could become the next big sticking point (after DRM).

[vherub]

If they want to reward people buying new, much like a preorder bonus, great.
If this leads to crippling used games by having these special codes unlock bonus content like "final boss" or online co-op, then trouble is a-coming.

[Flatpicker]

Exactly. Developers are coming off as whinny bitches.

I don't think this fight is really against the buyer, but against the Gamestops out there. The players just get the shaft, as usual.

That's why when this whole industry goes DD it won't be soon enough for me.

[chirz]

Sell better products for less money, and maybe I'll stop looking for the cheaper alternative!

[Lutheran]

I can't blame the dev's for wanting people to buy the games new instead of 5 dollars cheaper at Gamestop. Gamestop is making money hand over fist on the backs of these developers hard work. I know you can bring up the car dealer scenario and other scenarios ( which by the way is bogus as they sell used cars all the time that they originaly sold new at one time or another ) but lets face it , its in our best interest that the developers make as much as possible and get to stay in business or our hobby will suffer. Not to say that I don't want to be able to sell my used games but I don't want to make companys like Gamestop rich while we see month after month Dev's going out of business.

[Meusli]

So what happens in multiplayer games when these maps come up to play?. I imagine these people will be booted from the game, which is not very nice.

[BalekFekete]

While I can understand how the whole used game scene really rubs developers raw, if something like this gets widely adopted, it will impact their new sales from a gamer like me.

Here is why - I have A.D.G.D. (Attention Deficit Gaming Disorder). I rarely play any given game more than a few weeks before something new and shiny grabs my attention, making the older game fall by the wayside. So, I routinely sell off titles that are still relatively fresh for 40-60% of their retail value. I count on that revenue to help finance new purchases. If that were to dry up, I would have to account for that in my purchases, making them fewer and farther in between. I don't think that's what the publishers want either...

Damned if they do, damned if they don't I suppose, but that's the reality.

[biosc1]

I understand where the developers are coming from. I also understand why places like Gamestop exist.

A lot of people buy a new game with the idea of being able to trade it in and put that money towards another new game. A lot of people only buy used games and rarely trade them back in. Then there are the people in between.

Basically, ideas like harm more people than the developers initially think. If the people who buy new, trade in and then buy another new game can't trade in the initial game, they may think twice about the initial price tag. Paying $60 and knowing you can get $30 back and put that towards another games is much better than paying $60 all the time.

What this means is that the "new game buyer" may purchase less games from less development studios in the end. So...now you think that the "used game buyer" may have to start purchasing new games and become a "new game buyer", but there will be a lot of people who can't afford the same amount of games anymore. Some may leave the hobby completely.

The trickle down affect is that less games will be in the hand of game player's and the developer will probably not see any more (and probably less) money. What the developer will see will probably be a decline in it's online community, lessening the overall value of games that have online components.

I hope that makes sense, I'm not through my first copy yet and I just dislike the "new car vs new video game" argument.

[biosc1]

^ Nice.

BalekFekete just help solidify my point.

I wasn't just blowing hot air...

[alienchild]

This is a problem that will solve itself within a console iteration or two (and most likely even before that on PC). For example, how many used copies of Silent Hill Homecoming PC version do you think will get sold in NA? Zero, unless it is the imported EU version. It simply isn't sold boxed in NA.

Digital distribution will ultimately be the demise of stores like GameStop. It will also create new revenue for developers who are now better able to reach gamers with their entire back catalogues, without the user having to even leave his home.

[Johan]

Two thoughts:

1. How will GameStop customers (of which I am NOT one) know that the code in their 'new' game (which is often opened) is actually valid and unused?

Solution: Please don't shop at GameStop!

2. I think this is a clever idea and I'm not automatically opposed to it. I will, however, be very, very put out if a new game that is a year or so old has this kind of 'extra' removed. In other words, if you want to encourage new purchases, that's fine, but don't pull the use of codes when your game drops to $20, which is when I normally buy them. I dislike preordering bonuses for just this reason; they're attempting to maximize their dollar-extraction-ability, which I am trying to MINIMIZE due to being broke. I buy most of my games new, but I buy them older and cheaper.

I'm enjoying my $20 Blue Dragon like crazy. Nothing extraordinary; just a fun game.

Edit: Also, great point above about potential losses in new game sales from this type of policy. Nice posts.

[Sammael]

I can't believe how much money GS must be making on used games.
New - 60

Trade-in 35 (usually less?)

Used - 55 (i still don't get how people think this is a bargain. what bullshit)

So the moment someone trades in a copy of a relatively new game, the developer just lost a sale. That sucks.


It is an evil practice, and since there really seems to be no retail competition when it comes to used and traded games, they can rape everyone at the counter that they want.

Sure there is Ebay, etc, but many people cannot be bothered with it...


BTW, `as a side note, I just firgured I would mention I am an ex- GS customer. I have been boycotting them for some time now.

[LordFu]

I understand the motivation, but it's highly unfair to the consumer. Games, like movies and music, are consumable goods. After you've watched, listened or played, you may no longer desire to own them. This goes back to the flawed, IMO, philosophy of EULAs. When I buy a game, just like movies and music, I expect to own the physical property I purchased. I'm not renting the damn thing, and the publisher of said content should have no influence over what I do with said property after I purchase it.

TL;DR: Anger is the result!

[Flatpicker]

Sell better products for less money, and maybe I'll stop looking for the cheaper alternative!

Or as a purchaser, be more choosy as to what you buy? Solves your problem right there.
The price is not the issue IMO. If you look at dev, pressing and marketing costs they are considered fair market value.

I always figured that the players were much louder whiny bitches than the devs have been for years. Dr. Smart excluded.

We complain about:

Initial Price
Sub par mechanicals (ie installation issues or DRM and bugs)
Difficulty (either way)
DLC price
Length (Either way)
Story
Enemy variety or variety in general
The physics
The graphics
The sound
The manual
The freebies
The CE's or LE's or SE's.
The achievements or lack there of
the trophies or lack there of
the characters
the dialog

They complain about:
Us copying their work illegally
Us not paying the price they set.
Us asking for too much at to little cost and to short a delivery schedule.

I think were the issue in this one.

[Judas]

these game developers are effectively starting the end of their industry with this action. having worked in the car industry, used car sales dont help the factory unless the manufacturer buys the game back themselves and resells it as a certified product with warranties. a used game trades for less then the additional content price game developers want to charge. when was the last time you got 19.99 for a trade in, which is more than the wholesale price of these games. then you are asked to pay the full wholesale price of an unlockable. I don't think many gamers will be persuaded to purchase under that business model.

Here's a word to the industry, I'm looking for work and have real ways to save our beloved games industry from shooting itself in the foot and can show you how to increase your revenues in a friendlier way. reply to this e-mail if interested.

[Planetbuster]

Sell better products for less money, and maybe I'll stop looking for the cheaper alternative!

I kind of agree with you. A 10 hour game just isnt worth 60 bucks to me. What happened to the long games I used to play and love......some arnt like that, GTA4 was a good buy but those are few and far between.

[Justin_Bailey]

A lot actually, They might not get money from the Car sale itself but for a lot of those sales those people are going to have to buy the parts from them as they wear out. Same deal here. You can buy the game but your not going to get that Pristine nothing wrong with it game anymore. It has depreciated value now similar to a car. You can get it fixed so it has full functionality but it will cost. you. Just like cars or houses.

That is a really good comparison. The "We should get a piece of used game sales" whining is tiresome, but this seems like a fair way to combat it.

Digital distribution will ultimately be the demise of stores like GameStop. It will also create new revenue for developers who are now better able to reach gamers with their entire back catalogues, without the user having to even leave his home.

Yeah... no. It will take a long time for digital distribution to be a viable avenue for every new game on every console. Broadband penetration is not there yet. Broadband speeds are not there yet. Hard drive space is not affordable enough yet. File sizes for games continue to rise.

People need to realize digital distribution will be a niche market (albeit a growing one) for a long time.

[Flatpicker]

People need to realize digital distribution will be a niche market (albeit a growing one) for a long time.

Understood,
There is gong to be a real long rampup till some type of equilibrium size vs speed is reached.

Either way, I'd still like to see GS take it in the teeth.

[Podfork]

Exactly. Developers are coming off as whinny bitches.

When i purchase a game, that game is mine to do with as i wish, if a publisher or developer has any problems with this simple fact, then they are welcome to try and dispute it on any European court, they know they dont have a prayer.

Actually, that''s not quite right.

What you purchase is not the game. You buy the media the game comes on and you also buy the right to use the game under the specific terms of a licence (usually detailed in very small print in the manual that nobody ever reads).

You haven't bought the game. The software doesn't belong to you, it's still the property of the publisher. In just the same way as when you buy music - you don't own that music, you own the right to play back that music or use it under specific terms.

The assumption that consumers own the software is the greatest fallacy in all these arguments.

Do you really think that $30m of software development cost is just going to be handed over to you and the publisher will give up all ownership of it for a (relatively) few bucks?

Yes, you own the media, not the data on it. Go and (re)sell your media wherever you like - just not the data on it.

Also, copyright law, more often than not, tends to forbid the resale of the product it applies to. Second hand games are resold goods and, technically speaking, infringing on copyright law.


Why don't all the publishers and developers come down heavy on the entire second hand market if it's their right to do so? Bad press and near riots. Look how animated gamers get (and how quickly they resort to melodrama by calling other parties "whiny") when they mistakenly believe their rights are being infringed upon.

By all means, do what you wish with the things you own. That's not unreasonable. It shouldn't be deemed unreasonable for a publisher to do what they wish with what they own either. Works both ways.

[alienchild]

Yeah... no. It will take a long time for digital distribution to be a viable avenue for every new game on every console. Broadband penetration is not there yet. Broadband speeds are not there yet. Hard drive space is not affordable enough yet. File sizes for games continue to rise.

People need to realize digital distribution will be a niche market (albeit a growing one) for a long time.

I agree on broadband, and this is especially a problem in the US afaik. In the scandinavian countries we get everything from 10mbit to 100mbit with no download limit, cheap as heck. Hell, in Norway there was a distributor who are now offering 1000mbit, although I think that was just to a select few customers as a test before they start delivering to everyone who have fiber. I still can't understand why it's a viable business model to do this sort of thing in my home town, with 100k+ people living VERY spread out, and about 80% got fiber now which supplies TV, phone, internet and home alarms... but you can't do it in the large metropolises in the US. 10 bucks says they are making too much money off you right now to even care.

Diskspace though, I disagree on. HD space is CHEAP! A 500gb external USB disk costs around $100 where I live, and that is exactly the same price that 1 new game costs (which is why I buy'em on steam for half the price or less).

[Mysterio]

As someone who always purchases my PC and console titles new, and has never traded in a title or purchased a used one, I'm happy to see this.

[Micasa]

2. I think this is a clever idea and I'm not automatically opposed to it. I will, however, be very, very put out if a new game that is a year or so old has this kind of 'extra' removed. In other words, if you want to encourage new purchases, that's fine, but don't pull the use of codes when your game drops to $20, which is when I normally buy them. I dislike preordering bonuses for just this reason; they're attempting to maximize their dollar-extraction-ability, which I am trying to MINIMIZE due to being broke. I buy most of my games new, but I buy them older and cheaper.

It's EA - they won't pull the code after a year, they'll just stop updating 'Live 365' entirely.

Dropping it will, of course, coincide with the release of the next version of the game...

[Kem0sabe]

Or as a purchaser, be more choosy as to what you buy? Solves your problem right there.
The price is not the issue IMO. If you look at dev, pressing and marketing costs they are considered fair market value.

I always figured that the players were much louder whiny bitches than the devs have been for years. Dr. Smart excluded.

We complain about:

Initial Price
Sub par mechanicals (ie installation issues or DRM and bugs)
Difficulty (either way)
DLC price
Length (Either way)
Story
Enemy variety or variety in general
The physics
The graphics
The sound
The manual
The freebies
The CE's or LE's or SE's.
The achievements or lack there of
the trophies or lack there of
the characters
the dialog

They complain about:
Us copying their work illegally
Us not paying the price they set.
Us asking for too much at to little cost and to short a delivery schedule.

I think were the issue in this one.

Well, when:

Developers stop releasing unfinished games that need extensive patching to be playable.

Developers stop advertising features in their games that are either missing or unplayable when the game is released.

Developers stop pricing the digital copy as much as the hard copy with manual, box and extras included.

Developers stop limiting how many times i am able to install something i bought and is legally mine.


When all those above stop happening, then consumers will be much less vocal.

[Bugsplatter]

[QUOTE=biosc1;1662906]
The trickle down affect is that less games will be in the hand of game player's and the developer will probably not see any more (and probably less) money. What the developer will see will probably be a decline in it's online community, lessening the overall value of games that have online components.
QUOTE]


Actually, it is worse than that. What will happen is that triple A games like GOW will be the primary ones who can get away with this. It may work and a company like Epic could make more money, but buying these titles will leave gamers with much less cash to spend on less well know publishers or franchises.

[II ZoiD II]

Im all for these new tactics. Make it enticing for the customer to buy the game new. If you want to save your money and buy used thats fine, just put a price tag on the DLC or whatever extras you're giving the customers that are buying brand new. On a side note I hate DLC and how they nickel and dime us, but if you choose to buy used then you deal with the fact you're missing out on some extras.

[Bugsplatter]

I think were the issue in this one.

We're never the issue. We are the consumer. It's our money, they want it, and they can go jump off a cliff if they don't like we have to say about what they're selling. If there is no whiney me, there is no Epic games and the big fat bonus that guys like Mark Rein get.

[Bugsplatter]

Actually, that''s not quite right.

What you purchase is not the game. You buy the media the game comes on and you also buy the right to use the game under the specific terms of a licence (usually detailed in very small print in the manual that nobody ever reads).

You haven't bought the game. The software doesn't belong to you, it's still the property of the publisher. In just the same way as when you buy music - you don't own that music, you own the right to play back that music or use it under specific terms.

The assumption that consumers own the software is the greatest fallacy in all these arguments.

Do you really think that $30m of software development cost is just going to be handed over to you and the publisher will give up all ownership of it for a (relatively) few bucks?

Yes, you own the media, not the data on it. Go and (re)sell your media wherever you like - just not the data on it.

Also, copyright law, more often than not, tends to forbid the resale of the product it applies to. Second hand games are resold goods and, technically speaking, infringing on copyright law.


Why don't all the publishers and developers come down heavy on the entire second hand market if it's their right to do so? Bad press and near riots. Look how animated gamers get (and how quickly they resort to melodrama by calling other parties "whiny") when they mistakenly believe their rights are being infringed upon.

By all means, do what you wish with the things you own. That's not unreasonable. It shouldn't be deemed unreasonable for a publisher to do what they wish with what they own either. Works both ways.

Wow, i don't even know where to begin.

A) Ever been to a used book store? How about a used car dealership? Just because a company claims rights in an EULA doesn't mean they exist.

B) Your reason why they don't shut down the used games market is just as bad. The reason they don't try is because it would get them into a long and expensive law suit they could not win, and worst of all, would expose their worst fear. It would put their EULA's on trial once and for all and reveal them to not be worth the time they took to write.

[Flatpicker]

Wow, i don't even know where to begin.

A) Ever been to a used book store? How about a used car dealership? Just because a company claims rights in an EULA doesn't mean they exist.

B) Your reason why they don't shut down the used games market is just as bad. The reason they don't try is because it would get them into a long and expensive law suit they could not win, and worst of all, would expose their worst fear. It would put their EULA's on trial once and for all and reveal them to not be worth the time they took to write.

By law, he is right.
You own the media, not the IP.
Until this is challenged and defeated in court, they have the right of it.

[grimgore]

Its all good if they lower the original purchase price to compensate the consumer for the trade in losses they will incur

[Kem0sabe]

Wow, i don't even know where to begin.

A) Ever been to a used book store? How about a used car dealership? Just because a company claims rights in an EULA doesn't mean they exist.

B) Your reason why they don't shut down the used games market is just as bad. The reason they don't try is because it would get them into a long and expensive law suit they could not win, and worst of all, would expose their worst fear. It would put their EULA's on trial once and for all and reveal them to not be worth the time they took to write.

Your right, none of the draconian EULA's you see on mmorpg's and other software are legally binding on European courts.

Over here, if you pay for something, then thats legally yours, and thats it, no clauses and "you only bought the right to use it under certain circumstances".

[Flatpicker]

We're never the issue. We are the consumer. It's our money, they want it, and they can go jump off a cliff if they don't like we have to say about what they're selling. If there is no whiney me, there is no Epic games and the big fat bonus that guys like Mark Rein get.

I'm not telling you to spend your money.
All I've said is if you don't want to meet the price and feature set that they are asking/offering. Then don't.

Just don't spend it and then spend the rest of the time bitching about what you spent.
You weren't deceived, or coerced to spend it. So Shaddup about it.

[Flatpicker]

Well, when:

Developers stop releasing unfinished games that need extensive patching to be playable.

Developers stop advertising features in their games that are either missing or unplayable when the game is released.

Developers stop pricing the digital copy as much as the hard copy with manual, box and extras included.

Developers stop limiting how many times i am able to install something i bought and is legally mine.


When all those above stop happening, then consumers will be much less vocal.

You are right, but haven't addressed most of the common complaints that people have.
Most console players didn't have to put up with your points but complained anyway.
Seeing as this is more of a console based change ie, Gamestops involvement. I based my list off of that.

BTW, they won't be much less vocal. People just like to spend money and then bitch about it. It's what the internet seems to be full of.

[DangerousDaze]

Your right, none of the draconian EULA's you see on mmorpg's and other software are legally binding on European courts.

MMORPGs are actually often a special case. For example, we offer the client completely free and encourage people to copy and distribute it as much as they please. After all, it's completely worthless without an account on the server and a monthly subscription. ;) It becomes a bit trickier with selling in-game stuff, characters or items, for real-world money but that's a different argument.

[Bugsplatter]

I'm not telling you to spend your money.
All I've said is if you don't want to meet the price and feature set that they are asking/offering. Then don't.

Just don't spend it and then spend the rest of the time bitching about what you spent.
You weren't deceived, or coerced to spend it. So Shaddup about it.


Oh exactly. For instance, Spore. Though I was looking forward to it, the DRM stopped it from being a day 1 purchase for me. After reading peoples evaluations, i probably will never end up buying it. I guess in your world, I didn't buy it, so I have the right to bitch now?

But your statement was that we are the problem. To the extent that there even IS a problem, it isn't us. Carrying on the dreadful car analogy, I would suggest that car buyers are even bigger whiners (there are whole magazines dedicated to the topic) but the auto industry knows to shut up and listen. Game devs haven't figured that out yet.

[Flatpicker]

Eh,
Don't mind me today.
Got a nasty cold, that is making me grouchy.

[Justin_Bailey]

By law, he is right.
You own the media, not the IP.
Until this is challenged and defeated in court, they have the right of it.

But does this matter? The media and the IP are only separated when a game is released through digital distribution. And in that case, the DRM protects the game industry's rights to prevent copying of their property.

But in the case of media (which is what everyone is bitching about when they talk about "used game sales"), the game industry owns the rights to squat. They cannot legally prevent anyone from selling tangible property they purchased and they cannot legally force GameStop to give up some of the green they've earned from it.

All they can do is add more DRM, which in the console world, would likely blow up in their face spectacularly.

[Podfork]

But does this matter?

To the people that genuinely own the IP and have probably invested upwards of $20m into its production, I'd imagine it does, yes.

As for "why don't they act on people who break the rules then?" sometimes they do. Lik Sang's demise is a good example of rules being broken and the agreement holders acting within their legal rights to do something about it.

One party acted the victim. They even went so far as to publish confidential details (not very professional if you ask me). But who got made out to look like the bad guy? Not Lik Sang.

So that's why it doesn't happen much. Overwhelming negative publicity and a lot of whiny internet reactionaries making judgement calls based more on pantomime good-guy/bad-guy logic than legal logic.

Just because a lot of people get away with breaking a common rule doesn't mean they're in the right. But I'm constantly amazed at the bluff and bluster they'll go through in order to make themselves look like the ones being wronged.

Now, if anyone genuinely cares about this or their rights they can go and start getting things done about it. But I suspect nobody really gives a shit beyond ranting on the internet or going to the enormous effort of clicking the 1-star rating at Amazon.com. If you give a hoot, get off you asses and make a difference. Nobody's going to offer it to you on a silver platter though.:rolleyes:

[ElektroDragon]

Fine with me, I despise the used game market. All those bins in Gamestop used to filled with older new games at big discounts. Now they're full of used junk. It's a travesty. I fully support this measure.

[AversionFX]

Since I never received an answer in the last thread about this, I'm going to ask it again:

How do used sales hurt devs? I've always been under the impression that once a game is sold, the devs no longer have financial rights to it. To me, this is akin to devs wanting a cut from people selling the game to friends, through Ebay, etc.

And to echo someone else's sentiment from the same thread, this is the same as car manufacturers wanting a cut from used car sales. I think this is a bogus, and I don't think devs deserve a cut from used sales. It's beyond greedy.

[Justin_Bailey]

To the people that genuinely own the IP and have probably invested upwards of $20m into its production, I'd imagine it does, yes.

But what does that have to do with someone selling a used game to GameStop? Which is the point of this thread after all. Game companies can't stop that and they'd laughed out of court if they tried.

And as I said before, they could try to add DRM to console games requiring online verification or something, but the game buying public would revolt. Search your feelings, you know it to be true.

[ResistanceAddict]

I can't blame the dev's for wanting people to buy the games new instead of 5 dollars cheaper at Gamestop. Gamestop is making money hand over fist on the backs of these developers hard work. I know you can bring up the car dealer scenario and other scenarios ( which by the way is bogus as they sell used cars all the time that they originaly sold new at one time or another ) but lets face it , its in our best interest that the developers make as much as possible and get to stay in business or our hobby will suffer. Not to say that I don't want to be able to sell my used games but I don't want to make companys like Gamestop rich while we see month after month Dev's going out of business.

People bashing Gamestop are blind. So you're whining that... we're being sold games for a robust 60 bucks a pop and a business sells them at the same price, but a bit lower for used copies. That is their right and they make money as well. So think of it this way... you people bashing Gamestop are defending game companies (which are BUSINESSES) for trying to regulate ANOTHER BUSINESS??? Unless I'm missing some legality issue (which I doubt since used-game business have been around for... what? Two decaded at LEAST?), please explain to me what the real problem is. Each business makes their money. The game devs should stop being so greedy. As has been said numerous times, there are libraries that lend games/movies/music out for free and there are used car dealers and rentals for so much else, where businesses make money buy selling/loaning other products. Show me where video games are any different and I'll gladly shut up. Why should they be any different? Devs should stop being whiny bitches.

[Flatpicker]

How do used sales hurt devs? I've always been under the impression that once a game is sold, the devs no longer have financial rights to it. To me, this is akin to devs wanting a cut from people selling the game to friends, through Ebay, etc.

And to echo someone else's sentiment from the same thread, this is the same as car manufacturers wanting a cut from used car sales. I think this is a bogus, and I don't think devs deserve a cut from used sales. It's beyond greedy.

Ok, using the car analogy I think I'll try to explain it as I understand it.

If I buy a GM used, GM does not get a cut.
If I need to fix a GM, I still have to get GM produced parts. Thus GM makes some money for having that car in continued existence.

If I buy a used game, the only people who get anything are the second party sellers.
Also, If the game is still being worked on in terms if new modes, roster updates or gameplay changes that do cost the dev/publisher money to work on. Then the company could call the resasle a loss from that perspective.

So, the way I look at it, is either we stop resale or someone will devise way to make us pay for functionality patches or bug fixes.

[Justin_Bailey]

Also, If the game is still being worked on in terms if new modes, roster updates or gameplay changes that do cost the dev/publisher money to work on. Then the company could call the resasle a loss from that perspective.

So, the way I look at it, is either we stop resale or someone will devise way to make us pay for functionality patches or bug fixes.

Why? The original copy of the game was still sold and the dev team/publisher decided to work on a patch or bug fixes based on that number.

Also, in the console realm (which is what this article is talking about), new modes cost money. Money which the devs/publishers get. And if the original owner is sick of the game (which he must be if he sold it) and the new owner is not, maybe they would be interested in buying the DLC.

[Podfork]

But what does that have to do with someone selling a used game to GameStop? Which is the point of this thread after all. Game companies can't stop that and they'd laughed out of court if they tried.

You own the media. Not the data on the media. That owner of the code remains the publishers. Just like the owner of a movie on the DVD you buy remains in the ownership of Warner or Fox or whoever.

Why should you sell what you don't own? Why should you profit from its sale? Particularly when this your profit damages the revenue of the people that actually DO own the software? Furthermore, why should you break copyright law?

If people are so fond of saying "Ownership is nine tenths of the law" then so be it. The crux of the matter is: the software (the code, zeroes and ones, whatever you want to call it) does not belong to you. The disc does, not its contents. Copyright law extends this further - particularly when it expressly forbids resale of the material it covers.

And as I said before, they could try to add DRM to console games requiring online verification or something, but the game buying public would revolt. Search your feelings, you know it to be true.

Well, the "game buying public" demographic is a much larger one than the "complains endlessly on the internet" demographic. Sure, they sometimes overlap but they're quite different animals. Check the sales of Spore to see what I mean.

And just because people kick up a stink about something doesn't mean they're in the right. Just that they don't like being reminded of who owns what when they were too lazy to check the small print in the first place.

As for "how does second hand game sales harm developers?" it's not quite as cut and dried as that.

The financial food chain of games roughly follows developers get paid by publishers > publishers get paid by distributors (buying their product) > distributors get paid by retailers (stocking the product) > retailers get paid by consumers.

When you buy a first-hand videogame many people get a slice of that revenue. The money goes back into numerous sectors of the industry and gets reinvested. Big first-hand sales of a game will reward all those in the food chain - all the way back to developers.

First hand sales are tracked by EPOS. Developers may not get a large slice of the revenue back but if they can secure a new publishing deal by demonstrating how well their last game sold then they can stay in business for longer and strike more lucrative deals with future publishers.

So what happens with second hand games?

Consumer gets paid by retailer (who buys back the game at a lowered price) > Retailer sells game (at comfortable mark-up).

That's it.

The retailer scoops big fat profit and doesn't have to share it with anyone. Not only that, they can profit from the same BOX being sold numerous times:

Jonny buys Halo 3
Jonny sells Halo 3 to store
Store sells Jonny's copy of Halo 3 to Davey
Davey sells Halo 3 back to store
Store sells Davey's (previously Jonny's) copy to Petey
..and so on.

Maybe not the case with Halo 3. But a single copy of an shitty/average game can (and is) sold repeatedly. The retailer scores bigtime.

"Oh well, the developer should make a better game then" says the internet. Yes. But they've gone bust now because even though their game sold 100,000 times it only sold first hand 30,000 of those times. The retailer pocketed all the revenue from the other 70,000 sales.

The financial food chain is butchered and stops at the retailer (who takes a pretty large chunk of the cut from a first-hand sale anyway). This is a short term win because its cutting off revenue from the rest of the industry beyond the retailer. The retailer doesn't believe in re-investing in the industry - they're there to sell a box and pocket the profits. Twice, three or four times over if they can. It'll ruin the industry if the industry doesn't adapt and find a way to keep the cycle of revenue going in order to reinvest and sustain itself.

Which is precisely what is happening.

DLC. In game advertising. Digital distribution. Subscription based services. More and more revenue streams are being worked on in order to get back some of that money that is being siphoned off into the cash register. It's easy to read something about in game adverts and cry about how the industry is just trying to get fatter and fatter by giving you less game or spoiling your fun. It's a conveniently simplistic perspective. Development costs are crazy, revenue is being stifled by second hand sales and, yes, piracy. The industry needs to adapt or it'll price itself out of existence. Unless you want to pay $200 for a CD-based game with 1995 production values that is.

Retailers WILL be squeezed out of the equation because they're fucking the rest of the industry over in favour of a quick buck and a short term win. The chains will adapt and move on. The independents (who may or may not indulge in resales) will be wiped out completely.

So, when you start to weigh up a lot more of the factors in the situation developers aren't quite so whiney. A lot of them just want to keep their jobs rather than see their employer be forced to close its doors.

From a consumer level, second hand games are great. They're win-win.
From an industrial and commercial level the only good thing is they maintain a lively interest videogames that first-hand sales can make a percentage from.

Give it another decade and see what traditional retail looks like compared to today for videogames. Assuming any videogames can still afford to be made in a decade that is ;)

(Sorry for the long post - but the questions being asked involve detailed answers as a lot of factors aren't often taken into account.)

[Flatpicker]

People bashing Gamestop are blind. So you're whining that... we're being sold games for a robust 60 bucks a pop and a business sells them at the same price, but a bit lower for used copies. That is their right and they make money as well. So think of it this way... you people bashing Gamestop are defending game companies (which are BUSINESSES) for trying to regulate ANOTHER BUSINESS???
You are right.
It comes down to either you support the used retail channel or the devs in this argument.

Either side can produce numbers to show that they are correct. and in their world view, they are.
Myself, I had decided to agree with the devs and not the used retail channel. It's just a matter of choice.

[AversionFX]

If I buy a used game, the only people who get anything are the second party sellers.
Also, If the game is still being worked on in terms if new modes, roster updates or gameplay changes that do cost the dev/publisher money to work on. Then the company could call the resasle a loss from that perspective.

So, the way I look at it, is either we stop resale or someone will devise way to make us pay for functionality patches or bug fixes.

That still doesn't really make sense to me. I buy a copy of Crysis. Crytek/EA(whoever) gets my 49.99. They made their sale.

In my mind, the sale is made, the dev got their money, and now the physical product that I bought no longer belongs to them. Does Coca Cola deserve money for me serving drinks to others with the soda that I've bought from them? I don't think so.

Obviously, my grasp on the legality or ethics of the topic is probably lacking. However, I'm of the belief that they got their money, and now it's no longer their property. So long as copies of the game are not being produced and distributed, etc.

I think it's greedy that devs/publishers expect a cut from the game being sold after they've already gotten their initial money off the same product. How can you expect money multiple times for a single product selling? Greedygreedy.

[Flatpicker]

That still doesn't really make sense to me. I buy a copy of Crysis. Crytek/EA(whoever) gets my 49.99. They made their sale.

In my mind, the sale is made, the dev got their money, and now the physical product that I bought no longer belongs to them. Does Coca Cola deserve money for me serving drinks to others with the soda that I've bought from them? I don't think so.

Obviously, my grasp on the legality or ethics of the topic is probably lacking. However, I'm of the belief that they got their money, and now it's no longer their property. So long as copies of the game are not being produced and distributed, etc.

I think it's greedy that devs/publishers expect a cut from the game being sold after they've already gotten their initial money off the same product. How can you expect money multiple times for a single product selling? Greedygreedy.

It's all greed. Both sides.
You just have to decide who get's a bigger piece of the pie.
I don't resell or buy used games. So I'm not the target audience anyway.
If I want a game cheaper,I'll either wait for greatest hits or clearance sales. But understand, That's just me. YMMV.

[Podfork]

Oh, I should add that there is no detailed EPOS-like tracking of second hand sales.

This means there's no reliable evidence of a developers game maintaing interest and popularity so they can't even take their (second hand) successful figures and present them at contract negotiations because nobody is tracking the data properly.

The nobodies in question, specifically, are the retailers doing the second hand trade. They don't need to track this sort of information beyond a simplisitic breakdown of the bottom line because they've no interest supporting the industry beyond their own parasitic sector.

[AversionFX]

It's all greed. Both sides.
You just have to decide who get's a bigger piece of the pie.
I don't resell or buy used games. So I'm not the target audience anyway.
If I want a game cheaper,I'll either wait for greatest hits or clearance sales. But understand, That's just me. YMMV.

Yeah, seems so. I don't buy used games either, so I'm not a demographic, but I'm not really keen on devs trying to milk money from a source that I don't think belongs to them in the first place.

[ResistanceAddict]

You are right.
It comes down to either you support the used retail channel or the devs in this argument.

Either side can produce numbers to show that they are correct. and in their world view, they are.
Myself, I had decided to agree with the devs and not the used retail channel. It's just a matter of choice.

Exactly. No logic in bashing someone for their own line of business. Trying to regulate another business is stupid. By this logic, although I'm being dramatic, logically you'd have to ban garage sales, close down (or reconfigure) libraries, stop reselling cars and everything else. Am I wrong?

[gojira]

That's why when this whole industry goes DD it won't be soon enough for me.

DD? Digital Download? Or Dunkin Donuts?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DD

[Flatpicker]

DD? Digital Download? Or Dunkin Donuts?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DD

Both.
Get me an great one hazelnut extra extra while I'm DL'ing my new games.:D

[Sensei-X]

The retailer scoops big fat profit and doesn't have to share it with anyone. Not only that, they can profit from the same BOX being sold numerous times:

Jonny buys Halo 3
Jonny sells Halo 3 to store
Store sells Jonny's copy of Halo 3 to Davey
Davey sells Halo 3 back to store
Store sells Davey's (previously Jonny's) copy to Petey
..and so on.

Maybe not the case with Halo 3. But a single copy of an shitty/average game can (and is) sold repeatedly. The retailer scores bigtime.

"Oh well, the developer should make a better game then" says the internet. Yes. But they've gone bust now because even though their game sold 100,000 times it only sold first hand 30,000 of those times. The retailer pocketed all the revenue from the other 70,000 sales.


ROFL, are you serious?! So what you're saying is that a developer that makes mediocre and/or shit games needs to be rewarded with our hard earned cash so they can get a chance of possibly, just maybe, if the planets align, and the red sea parts, make a better game sometime in the future? NEWSFLASH!! that's not the way the system works, you make shit, you get crap sales, your game fails, you take that as a hint to try harder next time, and if your company goes broke because of it, well that's a damn shame, good-riddance to bad rubbish. Honestly this whole argument about used games seems to be about developers/publishers worrying that their games are so subpar that they will be sold back a few days/weeks after they release and will affect new sales. Any really good game should stay in a player's library for months if not the lifetime of the console and beyond.

[Justin_Bailey]

You own the media. Not the data on the media. That owner of the code remains the publishers. Just like the owner of a movie on the DVD you buy remains in the ownership of Warner or Fox or whoever.

Why should you sell what you don't own? Why should you profit from its sale? Particularly when this your profit damages the revenue of the people that actually DO own the software? Furthermore, why should you break copyright law?

Used game sales do not "damage" publishers/devs and saying it does it a joke for the same reason record companies get laughed at when they equate every pirated song as a lost sale. A few years ago I bought Metroid Prime used for $9. Great deal right? Would a new copy ever have been that price? No, therefore I wouldn't have had the spare cash to buy it and no sale would have ever happened. Did Nintendo lose money? Of course not.

And the media and the data are forever linked. Saying you own the disc but not the game is semantic masturbation that has no place in a real business discussion.

[Podfork]

Used game sales do not "damage" publishers/devs and saying it does it a joke for the same reason record companies get laughed at when they equate every pirated song as a lost sale. A few years ago I bought Metroid Prime used for $9. Great deal right? Would a new copy ever have been that price? No, therefore I wouldn't have had the spare cash to buy it and no sale would have ever happened. Did Nintendo lose money? Of course not.

And the media and the data are forever linked. Saying you own the disc but not the game is semantic masturbation that has no place in a real business discussion.

Sorry but, aside from assumptions and assertions, you're quite wrong. When you get into the nuts and bolts of the financial flow of the industry between the sectors from development to retail you'll see what I mean. And by that, I mean speaking to a larger portion of people that consumers and retail store clerks.

Media and data are very separate. As much as you want to believe EA has just given you their $20m opus for 60 bucks and given up all control of it to you, they haven't. You don't own it. The publisher does. Basic common sense and the merest shred of business acumen tells you this is true.

You have the Star Wars movie in your collection somewhere? Guess what? That disc is yours. The movie still belongs to George Lucas, not you.

Enjoy your shiny disc but the data isn't yours. It's even less yours when you agree to the licence terms that apply to it. Your belief that you have this disc so the contents must be yours to do with as you wish is deep and profound. But it's simply not true. Not by today's legal standards anyway.

If you seriously want to OWN the software, buy it from the publisher. See what they'll be asking for it. It'll be more than $60, I can assure you.

Or, you can continue to slam your internet fists and assert how right you are in your assumptions without actually checking anything out for certain.

Again, it's really really obvious when you stop and think about it from your own self-serving perspective: why would any business give ownership of the product of $20m of investment for $60?

Just think, if you TRULY owned this stuff then the publisher would have no responsibilty to take care of it after it was sold!

Bugs? Tough shit. It's not their problem any more. They sold it to you. You have total control. It's all yours. Why should a publisher invest more time and money into fixing something they don't even own? You own it, you fix it.

Think it through. Deep down you know that you don't own the software. You know who keeps rights to DATA. You know there's a very clearly defined difference between media and data. These arguments are always narrowly presented and self serving in the interest of the consumer who, typically, has never bothered to read or understand the terms of the licence that they've already agreed to.

Bluff and bluster and assertiveness is all very impressive on the internet. It doesn't change a damn thing in real life. You and I can talk this through forever, but it won't change the facts of how things actually work in today's climate. So we'll leave it here and you can enjoy your $9 Metroid and believe everything is fine and dandy. :)

[landshark42]

Ok, I don't think I've seen a single post in this thread that has accurately discussed the legal issues at play here, namely copyright and EULAs.

Video games are considered literary works, just like books, under copyright law. Thus, the first sale doctrine applies to them, which in a nutshell exhausts the rights of the copyright owner of the underlying work in the particular copy sold. You can do just about anything you want with a legitimately purchased copy except make a new copy that you give to someone else. So, just like books, once a legitimate copy of a video game is sold, it can be legitimately resold by the new owner. This is why the practice of reselling games does not violate any aspect of copyright law. This is also why EULAs exist.

EULAs are attempts to circumvent the limits of copyright law by use of contract law. Essentially, most EULAs are drafted to bind the purchaser of a software product under a contract (ie a license). The terms of the contract usually restrict redistribution. Now, this is an agreement between the purchaser and the seller (ie end user and publisher) and thus third parties like gamestop wouldn't be bound by the contract. There may be some tortious interference but that another matter. EULAs enforceability aren't universally recognized. Thus, for publishers to try to really utilize them, they would need to be filing lawsuits against the original purchasers in those jurisdictions that recognized EULAs. This simply isn't a feasibly or cost effective strategy for game publishers.

ok. hope that straightens that out.

[ResistanceAddict]

ROFL, are you serious?! So what you're saying is that a developer that makes mediocre and/or shit games needs to be rewarded with our hard earned cash so they can get a chance of possibly, just maybe, if the planets align, and the red sea parts, make a better game sometime in the future? NEWSFLASH!! that's not the way the system works, you make shit, you get crap sales, your game fails, you take that as a hint to try harder next time, and if your company goes broke because of it, well that's a damn shame, good-riddance to bad rubbish. Honestly this whole argument about used games seems to be about developers/publishers worrying that their games are so subpar that they will be sold back a few days/weeks after they release and will affect new sales. Any really good game should stay in a player's library for months if not the lifetime of the console and beyond.

DING DING DING!

[Justin_Bailey]

Media and data are very separate. As much as you want to believe EA has just given you their $20m opus for 60 bucks and given up all control of it to you, they haven't. You don't own it. The publisher does. Basic common sense and the merest shred of business acumen tells you this is true.

Bugs? Tough shit. It's not their problem any more. They sold it to you. You have total control. It's all yours. Why should a publisher invest more time and money into fixing something they don't even own? You own it, you fix it.

Devs/publishers do not HAVE to do anything when it comes to bugs or patches. They sold it, you bought it. Gamer goodwill (and the ensuing outcry from shipping a broken game) are the only things that convince a publisher it is worth it to fix those things.

And the first sale doctrine (which all games fall under) guarantees that gamers are allowed to do with the game disc as they chose. They only thing they are not allowed to do is copy it. Reselling it is perfectly allowed as the game disc is now their property. And the data (the final, compiled game) is theirs with full backing of the federal government. Game companies have zero claim to it and, again, if they tried they would be laughed out of court.

The IP (including characters, stories, the underlying code, yadda yadda yadda) are all protected by copyright. Copyright does not protect against the individual resale of a product (and that's what games are, much to developer's dismay) as the publishers have already sold it to a store and the store has already sold it to you.

When you look at it that way, every game is a used game.

[lockwoodx]

I love this idea. 1 time codes are great for devaluing used games.... untill gamestop pays companies for extra codes and jacks the prices back up.

[Flatpicker]

ROFL, are you serious?! So what you're saying is that a developer that makes mediocre and/or shit games needs to be rewarded with our hard earned cash so they can get a chance of possibly, just maybe, if the planets align, and the red sea parts, make a better game sometime in the future? NEWSFLASH!! that's not the way the system works, you make shit, you get crap sales, your game fails, you take that as a hint to try harder next time, and if your company goes broke because of it, well that's a damn shame, good-riddance to bad rubbish. Honestly this whole argument about used games seems to be about developers/publishers worrying that their games are so subpar that they will be sold back a few days/weeks after they release and will affect new sales. Any really good game should stay in a player's library for months if not the lifetime of the console and beyond.

If your analysis was correct about the market punishing subpar games then I would agree with you.
The fact of the matter is that the quality of the game != sales.
That's why Psychonauts tanked and Madden is a multi million seller.
Or when SW TFU, which is a stereotypical not good game sells 1.5 million in a week.
Marketing dollars are bigger than development dollars nowadays.