Club PA 2.0 has arrived! If you'd like to access some extra PA content and help support the forums, check it out at patreon.com/ClubPA
The image size limit has been raised to 1mb! Anything larger than that should be linked to. This is a HARD limit, please do not abuse it.
Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

[Video Game Sales] 1st Sales Doctrine? We Doan Need No Steeking 1st Sales Doctrine!

2456714

Posts

  • LilnoobsLilnoobs Alpha Queue Registered User regular
    edited February 2013
    emnmnme wrote: »
    Lilnoobs wrote: »
    2 years is a quick time for a price to go down?

    Uh. Okay.

    Go down by two thirds or more.

    In 2 years the industry has usually crafted itself a sequel, case in point Dead Space 3. So I see Dead Space 2 and Dead Space 3 sitting next to each other on the shelf, wouldn't it be unusual to see them at the same price? Who would pick up 2 over 3? Doesn't it actually help the developer to price the older one lower, so that the consumer buys the lower priced game, but now they are invested in the series so they were more likely pick up DS3?

    Bulletstorm really didn't sell that well, so I'm guessing there's just a lot of unsold copies out there that stores need to get rid of. I'm unfamiliar with Kirby's and Civ 5. I don't think this is caused by the used games market, but rather just a symptom of the climate the developers have built themselves, i.e. developers/publishers have dug their own hole and want to blame someone else.

    Plus, it might just be another indicator that the $60 price point is just too much.

    Lilnoobs on
  • AspectVoidAspectVoid Registered User regular
    Syrdon wrote: »
    poshniallo wrote: »
    It saddens me that some media people, e.g. G&T, think secondhand sales are somehow wrong. And I wonder, is there legal protection for the right to resell a physical product?
    You're looking for First Sale Doctrine or Right of First Sale. I'd type up a big thing but I'm sure the wikipedia article does a reasonable job and I'm tired.

    edit: as a quick note though, these sorts of consumer protections tend to be stronger in the UK than the US. Couldn't begin to guess how they far in the rest of the world though.

    In the US, the first thing the courts need to rule is whether or not you are buying a physical product. Right now there's something of an undercurrent battle going on to determine whether when you purchase software if you are actually buying a physical product, or if you are buying a license to use a product and are then being given a copy of that product on a physical medium.

    If you are buying just the license to use a product, than first sale does not currently apply in the US. The US Copyright Office position is that the degradation of a physical product over time is critical to the First Sale laws, and that since digital information does not degrade over time, it does not fall under the First Sale laws. This is why Steam does not have to let you resell games in the US.

    To be honest, I think we really need one of the console manufacturers to lock their games down to block Used Game Sales just so we can get this issue in the courts and finally get it resolved. Personally, I think we need a complete overhaul of both First Sale and Copyright laws in order to account for the digital age, but it'll never happen until a court ruling gives it a kick in the pants and forces it to.

    PSN|AspectVoid
  • Vincent GraysonVincent Grayson Frederick, MDRegistered User regular
    I didn't see it mentioned elsewhere, but Sony has already confirmed that this is not a thing, at least not in the PS4. Used games will remain viable, though it sounds like they'll have every new title as a digital release but only "some" as physical discs.

  • DiannaoChongDiannaoChong Registered User regular
    Syrdon wrote: »
    poshniallo wrote: »
    It saddens me that some media people, e.g. G&T, think secondhand sales are somehow wrong. And I wonder, is there legal protection for the right to resell a physical product?
    You're looking for First Sale Doctrine or Right of First Sale. I'd type up a big thing but I'm sure the wikipedia article does a reasonable job and I'm tired.

    edit: as a quick note though, these sorts of consumer protections tend to be stronger in the UK than the US. Couldn't begin to guess how they far in the rest of the world though.

    Valve is targeted in a lawsuit in germany, for the right to resell your steam game when you want. I don't see this ever happening in the US with how courts view liscences vs products.

    steam_sig.png
  • ElkiElki get busy Moderator, ClubPA mod
    edited February 2013
    I don't buy used games, but games flow freely between me and my friends, and I suspect there are a lot of people in the same boat. If there was a way to lend/gift licenses between friends' accounts, that would be a hassle but better than nothing.

    I really hope it doesn't happen, even though I want GameStop to disappear in some dark hole.

    Elki on
    smCQ5WE.jpg
  • shadowaneshadowane Registered User regular
    I didn't see it mentioned elsewhere, but Sony has already confirmed that this is not a thing, at least not in the PS4. Used games will remain viable, though it sounds like they'll have every new title as a digital release but only "some" as physical discs.
    They haven't though. Right after the reveal, one of their guys said it would play used games, but they immediately starting back pedaling from that statement. At this point, it's vague comments and they are just non-committal. They have not come straight out and said it.

    Rich on Beer - I talk about drinking beer. You read about it.
  • ElkiElki get busy Moderator, ClubPA mod
    I didn't see it mentioned elsewhere, but Sony has already confirmed that this is not a thing, at least not in the PS4. Used games will remain viable, though it sounds like they'll have every new title as a digital release but only "some" as physical discs.

    Sony's statements on this are really waffly.

    smCQ5WE.jpg
  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    The implication seems to be that they could if they wanted to, but they aren't. Maybe. The publishers mgiht be able to decide to block used games.

    It's actually a route I didn't think of but one that really makes sense. It gets the job done while taking the heat off the console makers.

  • AspectVoidAspectVoid Registered User regular
    Syrdon wrote: »
    poshniallo wrote: »
    It saddens me that some media people, e.g. G&T, think secondhand sales are somehow wrong. And I wonder, is there legal protection for the right to resell a physical product?
    You're looking for First Sale Doctrine or Right of First Sale. I'd type up a big thing but I'm sure the wikipedia article does a reasonable job and I'm tired.

    edit: as a quick note though, these sorts of consumer protections tend to be stronger in the UK than the US. Couldn't begin to guess how they far in the rest of the world though.

    Valve is targeted in a lawsuit in germany, for the right to resell your steam game when you want. I don't see this ever happening in the US with how courts view liscences vs products.

    I took a bit more look into this for the US, and during "Vernor v Autodesk, Inc" the US 9th Circuit created a 3 step process to determine whether something was a license (and thus not covered by First Sale) or a sold product (thus covered by First Sale). The steps are:
    1) whether copyright owner specifies that a user is granted a license;
    2) whether the copyright owner significantly restricts the user's ability to transfer the software to others;
    3) whether the copyright owner imposes notable use restrictions on the software.

    Using this as a guideline, then it is perfectly legal for Microsoft and Sony to kill the used game market as long as they add some stickers to their cases to cover item 1 and modify their consoles to cover 2 and 3.

    That really blows.

    PSN|AspectVoid
  • Vincent GraysonVincent Grayson Frederick, MDRegistered User regular
    shadowane wrote: »
    I didn't see it mentioned elsewhere, but Sony has already confirmed that this is not a thing, at least not in the PS4. Used games will remain viable, though it sounds like they'll have every new title as a digital release but only "some" as physical discs.
    They haven't though. Right after the reveal, one of their guys said it would play used games, but they immediately starting back pedaling from that statement. At this point, it's vague comments and they are just non-committal. They have not come straight out and said it.

    I can't find anything later than this: http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2013-02-21-sony-tells-eurogamer-playstation-4-will-not-block-used-games

    Which seems to say plainly that it will play used games.

  • ShadowfireShadowfire Vermont, in the middle of nowhereRegistered User regular
    AspectVoid wrote: »
    Syrdon wrote: »
    poshniallo wrote: »
    It saddens me that some media people, e.g. G&T, think secondhand sales are somehow wrong. And I wonder, is there legal protection for the right to resell a physical product?
    You're looking for First Sale Doctrine or Right of First Sale. I'd type up a big thing but I'm sure the wikipedia article does a reasonable job and I'm tired.

    edit: as a quick note though, these sorts of consumer protections tend to be stronger in the UK than the US. Couldn't begin to guess how they far in the rest of the world though.

    Valve is targeted in a lawsuit in germany, for the right to resell your steam game when you want. I don't see this ever happening in the US with how courts view liscences vs products.

    I took a bit more look into this for the US, and during "Vernor v Autodesk, Inc" the US 9th Circuit created a 3 step process to determine whether something was a license (and thus not covered by First Sale) or a sold product (thus covered by First Sale). The steps are:
    1) whether copyright owner specifies that a user is granted a license;
    2) whether the copyright owner significantly restricts the user's ability to transfer the software to others;
    3) whether the copyright owner imposes notable use restrictions on the software.

    Using this as a guideline, then it is perfectly legal for Microsoft and Sony to kill the used game market as long as they add some stickers to their cases to cover item 1 and modify their consoles to cover 2 and 3.

    That really blows.

    The Autodesk case includes some caveats that don't really apply to used games, though. Part of their case against Vernor was that these were old versions of software that had since had upgrades applied. So, take a full version copy of Win 7, for instance, and upgrade to Win 8, Microsoft would contend that the Win 7 license would no longer be valid. That's kind of what was going on in Vernor v Autodesk, IIRC.

    WiiU: Windrunner ; Guild Wars 2: Shadowfire.3940 ; PSN: Bradcopter
  • ShadowfireShadowfire Vermont, in the middle of nowhereRegistered User regular
    Lilnoobs wrote: »
    emnmnme wrote: »
    Lilnoobs wrote: »
    2 years is a quick time for a price to go down?

    Uh. Okay.

    Go down by two thirds or more.

    In 2 years the industry has usually crafted itself a sequel, case in point Dead Space 3. So I see Dead Space 2 and Dead Space 3 sitting next to each other on the shelf, wouldn't it be unusual to see them at the same price? Who would pick up 2 over 3? Doesn't it actually help the developer to price the older one lower, so that the consumer buys the lower priced game, but now they are invested in the series so they were more likely pick up DS3?

    Bulletstorm really didn't sell that well, so I'm guessing there's just a lot of unsold copies out there that stores need to get rid of. I'm unfamiliar with Kirby's and Civ 5. I don't think this is caused by the used games market, but rather just a symptom of the climate the developers have built themselves, i.e. developers/publishers have dug their own hole and want to blame someone else.

    Plus, it might just be another indicator that the $60 price point is just too much.

    Games have always had a very short tail, somewhere on the order of a couple weeks. After that first couple of weeks, if it didn't sell, it wasn't likely to. This was the case when Super Nintendo games were still on the market, back when GameStop (then NeoStar) was still trying to figure out how the used game market could work (and failing miserably), so it is nothing new at all.

    WiiU: Windrunner ; Guild Wars 2: Shadowfire.3940 ; PSN: Bradcopter
    RedTide
  • ElkiElki get busy Moderator, ClubPA mod
    shadowane wrote: »
    I didn't see it mentioned elsewhere, but Sony has already confirmed that this is not a thing, at least not in the PS4. Used games will remain viable, though it sounds like they'll have every new title as a digital release but only "some" as physical discs.
    They haven't though. Right after the reveal, one of their guys said it would play used games, but they immediately starting back pedaling from that statement. At this point, it's vague comments and they are just non-committal. They have not come straight out and said it.

    I can't find anything later than this: http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2013-02-21-sony-tells-eurogamer-playstation-4-will-not-block-used-games

    Which seems to say plainly that it will play used games.
    Sony vice president of Worldwide Studios Michael Denny has promised the company will "do the right thing" with regards to used games on PlayStation 4. Speaking to CVG, the executive described the issue as one of serious importance.

    "It's a massively important issue and I understand why it's one that keeps coming up and will keep coming up, because people want to know what the exact stance is," Denny said.

    "In relation to points like that, of course we're mindful of what the game development community wants and what the wider industry issues are with those things. I think in good time that will become clearer," he added.

    http://www.gamespot.com/news/sony-on-ps4-used-games-we-are-going-to-do-the-right-thing-6404470

    smCQ5WE.jpg
  • Vincent GraysonVincent Grayson Frederick, MDRegistered User regular
    Interesting. Even an activation fee would be better than nothing. I've always contended that if console developers were serious about killing used games, they'd go to a serial #/cd-key/etc solution like PC gaming did more than a decade ago.

    Mostly, I just want to know that if I blow $60 on a game, I can recoup a good chunk of those costs when the game isn't any good, I get tired of it, etc.

  • shadowaneshadowane Registered User regular
    edited February 2013
    shadowane wrote: »
    I didn't see it mentioned elsewhere, but Sony has already confirmed that this is not a thing, at least not in the PS4. Used games will remain viable, though it sounds like they'll have every new title as a digital release but only "some" as physical discs.
    They haven't though. Right after the reveal, one of their guys said it would play used games, but they immediately starting back pedaling from that statement. At this point, it's vague comments and they are just non-committal. They have not come straight out and said it.

    I can't find anything later than this: http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2013-02-21-sony-tells-eurogamer-playstation-4-will-not-block-used-games

    Which seems to say plainly that it will play used games.

    Yes, that was the first statement. They've backed away from that quite a few times now. I'm too lazy to find them again so if you want to feel like you're right, go ahead.

    edit: Well Elki found one for me.
    edit2: Also if I ever have type a 20 character string into a console again it'll be too soon. That shit is such a pain in the ass.

    shadowane on
    Rich on Beer - I talk about drinking beer. You read about it.
  • AspectVoidAspectVoid Registered User regular
    Shadowfire wrote: »
    AspectVoid wrote: »
    Syrdon wrote: »
    poshniallo wrote: »
    It saddens me that some media people, e.g. G&T, think secondhand sales are somehow wrong. And I wonder, is there legal protection for the right to resell a physical product?
    You're looking for First Sale Doctrine or Right of First Sale. I'd type up a big thing but I'm sure the wikipedia article does a reasonable job and I'm tired.

    edit: as a quick note though, these sorts of consumer protections tend to be stronger in the UK than the US. Couldn't begin to guess how they far in the rest of the world though.

    Valve is targeted in a lawsuit in germany, for the right to resell your steam game when you want. I don't see this ever happening in the US with how courts view liscences vs products.

    I took a bit more look into this for the US, and during "Vernor v Autodesk, Inc" the US 9th Circuit created a 3 step process to determine whether something was a license (and thus not covered by First Sale) or a sold product (thus covered by First Sale). The steps are:
    1) whether copyright owner specifies that a user is granted a license;
    2) whether the copyright owner significantly restricts the user's ability to transfer the software to others;
    3) whether the copyright owner imposes notable use restrictions on the software.

    Using this as a guideline, then it is perfectly legal for Microsoft and Sony to kill the used game market as long as they add some stickers to their cases to cover item 1 and modify their consoles to cover 2 and 3.

    That really blows.

    The Autodesk case includes some caveats that don't really apply to used games, though. Part of their case against Vernor was that these were old versions of software that had since had upgrades applied. So, take a full version copy of Win 7, for instance, and upgrade to Win 8, Microsoft would contend that the Win 7 license would no longer be valid. That's kind of what was going on in Vernor v Autodesk, IIRC.

    Actually, you could apply that to games for a hypothetical future console. Build the CD-Key into the game rather than putting it on a piece of paper inside the case. On first launch of the game, the game connects to a server and checks the CD-Key. If the key has not been used, then you apply that key to the user account of the person who launched the game and write a 1k file to the console applying the key to the console itself and upgrading the version number to 1.01. At that point, anytime the game launches, it checks for that 1k file, and if it finds it, it runs the game without needing to connect to the internet. If it does not find the file, the game connects and checks to see if the person who is logged in has the key assigned to their account. If so, it writes the file upgrading the game to 1.01 again and moves on. If not, it kills the game due to being an inoperable version.

    That system should cover both the "restricts the user's ability to transfer the software" and the "notable use restrictions on the software" clauses. I would like to also point out that Vernor v Autodesk was brought up in the case of UMG v Augusto where the "software" in question was a CD with MP3s on it. Vernor v Autodesk was ruled not to apply only because the courts ruled that a software license could not be enforced based on not returning unsolicited software.

    PSN|AspectVoid
  • ElJeffeElJeffe Moderator, ClubPA mod
    I find it ominous that the conversation (not just this thread, but in general) seems to have evolved from "used games must be allowed!" to "well, if they just make me pay extra money to play the game I just bought used, I guess that's fine."

    Maddie: "I named my feet. The left one is flip and the right one is flop. Oh, and also I named my flip-flops."

    I make tweet.
    AllforceShadowfirePhillishereRiemannLivesJobless AnarchistposhnialloHappylilElfApothe0sis
  • Knight_Knight_ Dead Dead Dead Registered User regular
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    I find it ominous that the conversation (not just this thread, but in general) seems to have evolved from "used games must be allowed!" to "well, if they just make me pay extra money to play the game I just bought used, I guess that's fine."

    I am ok with the online pass model, since in theory I am hitting up resources on the internet that the publisher is providing. However, if I have to pay money to unlock local MP or the second half of the single player if I buy a used game, that is total bullshit. Doubly so since the auth servers for these things will eventually be taken offline and there will be no way to ever play the single player again.

    Ugh. Makes me ill.

    aeNqQM9.jpg
  • SyrdonSyrdon Registered User regular
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    I find it ominous that the conversation (not just this thread, but in general) seems to have evolved from "used games must be allowed!" to "well, if they just make me pay extra money to play the game I just bought used, I guess that's fine."
    It's been a while since a large portion of the public was bitten by things like authentication servers going down for good for a game, so I think most people aren't concerned about some of the problems that killed used games entails.

    The other bit is that people really seem to treat intellectual property different than physical property. I honestly can't say why that is, but it very much seems the case. People seem to be fairly willing to rent content if the rent is low enough and the delivery method is sufficiently convenient.

  • ElJeffeElJeffe Moderator, ClubPA mod
    I am just very happy that I have an SNES and a pile of games for it sitting in a box, and I know that I can still plug it in and play Super Metroid right now if I want, and Nintendo can't say shit about it. I don't need a digital pass for it and I'm not at the mercy of some company who will retroactively decide that what I actually bought was a license to play their game on a certain physical system until such time as they decide I can't anymore.

    Maddie: "I named my feet. The left one is flip and the right one is flop. Oh, and also I named my flip-flops."

    I make tweet.
    ShadowfireRiemannLivesposhnialloIncenjucarLockedOnTargetHappylilElfSquigieAegeriAntoshka
  • Vincent GraysonVincent Grayson Frederick, MDRegistered User regular
    edited February 2013
    I absolutely would like used game sales to stay the way they are now. I think it's better for the industry because it means new and different things can be made, and I as a consumer can take a financial risk in purchasing them knowing that I can get some (usually half or more thanks to GS's frequent deals or selling to actual people) money back when a game is no good. If used goes away completely, it'd mean that new games from devs I trust and series I know would be instant purchases, while unknown games, I'd wait for sales or particularly persuasive reviews before buying.

    I worked at Gamestop many, many years ago, and I'm not sure that the general public's buying practices have changed much. And back then, people fucking *loved* the used game setup. So many families would come in with a bunch of old stuff, dump, and buy a few newer games (often also used). I think there's a lot of appeal in used-game for the budget conscious, not to mention greatly extending the market for stuff that wouldn't be given shelf space after sitting around for a few years.

    Granted, if we saw Steam-like sales happen on consoles, I'd have different feelings perhaps. The "long life" of a game is less interesting to me as an adult because I barely have time to play all the new games each year, much less be playing a bunch of older stuff. But until/unless console game prices are regularly much, much cheaper, I just don't see the majority of game-purchasing people being down with a shift to less or no used titles.

    edit: I think the willingness to "rent" content is mostly just a matter of perspective. Some gamers obviously have the idea that they want to play old games from 10 years ago now, so what happens in 10 years when they want to play current games, but those games don't work because licenses/servers/etc. I think it's a valid concern, but at the same time, most people simply don't have it. They'll buy a game, play it for a few months, and forget about it in time for new stuff to come out. If someday that game doesn't work because of a modern DRM/online/etc issue, I'd guess that most people who ever purchased won't know or won't care because it's long since faded from occupying space in their minds.

    Vincent Grayson on
  • Nova_CNova_C I have the need The need for speedRegistered User regular
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    I find it ominous that the conversation (not just this thread, but in general) seems to have evolved from "used games must be allowed!" to "well, if they just make me pay extra money to play the game I just bought used, I guess that's fine."

    It's been a while.

    Back when the Orange Box came out I made a tirade against Steam on these very forums and the inability to sell or give away a game you don't want anymore. The vast majority of people responding told me I was overreacting. I think one or two people even accused me of wanting to 'pirate' games as they felt that used games were no different than piracy.

    So this evolved a while ago.

    But the console crowd is a different beast. The PC always leads the way, for good or ill.

  • zagdrobzagdrob Registered User regular
    edited February 2013
    Syrdon wrote: »
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    I find it ominous that the conversation (not just this thread, but in general) seems to have evolved from "used games must be allowed!" to "well, if they just make me pay extra money to play the game I just bought used, I guess that's fine."
    It's been a while since a large portion of the public was bitten by things like authentication servers going down for good for a game, so I think most people aren't concerned about some of the problems that killed used games entails.

    The other bit is that people really seem to treat intellectual property different than physical property. I honestly can't say why that is, but it very much seems the case. People seem to be fairly willing to rent content if the rent is low enough and the delivery method is sufficiently convenient.

    I'm one of those people.

    I've got a shelf in my office filled with hundreds games from ~1995-2005. I'd guess that shelf has something like $5,000 in games on it.

    Other than my wife buying me the retail box of Diablo 3 last Father's Day, the last time I installed or played a game from a disc was almost three years ago when I loaded Fallout 2 back up and played it for a week or two. I get my games off Steam now, or otherwise through some form of digital download.

    I'll own all those games forever, but I'd be very surprised if the majority of them are ever going to be played again. Same thing with my wife's entire bookshelf full of CDs. In her life, she's probably spent as much on music as I have on cars...and most of them sit on a bookshelf, never to be listened to again. Same thing with my music collection (which I mostly didn't bother restoring when my 256 CD book got stolen). She plays a few songs she ripped off those CDs, and songs she buys off iTunes. Same thing with our DVD collection. Another few thousand dollars worth of media we'll own forever, but likely only ever watch a small percentage of (aside from kids movies).

    I've got a collector mentality, and I like having things that are mine, forever. But even so, in most cases it doesn't make sense to pay a premium for something I'll own forever, but will only actually use for a few days or weeks. I don't look at the 'license' model as an inherently bad thing as long as it gives me more options.

    I'm also not aware of (m)any games* that were killed by authentication servers going down for good. A multi-player game? Yeah, it's going to happen. Servers cost money - my copy of Motor City Online isn't anything but a coaster.

    *I think there are cases where authentication servers went down, but a patch was released to remove the authentication requirements. Or, you can always go the crack route...


    EDIT - Of course, I also never really cared for the 'Used Game' market.

    I bought a few used games because they were cheap, but my experience with 'Used Games' was selling half my Genesis collection to Funco land, and getting Road Rash in exchange. Great game, but definitely not worth the games I lose. I also had a cousin who bought everything - we had points where he literally couldn't pick out a PC game he didn't already own at EB, so I would borrow and play his games too.

    zagdrob on
  • Nova_CNova_C I have the need The need for speedRegistered User regular
    You know, thinking about how Steam won me over, they did it with prices and availability of titles. Old games that you could not find in stores anymore come out on Steam for less than the price of coffee. Sales of new games sometimes drop the price 50, 75, 80 percent.

    Deus Ex: HR, a game I've been thinking about getting, is $20 on XBox on Best Buy's website. But a couple weeks ago, it was on sale on Steam for under $5 I think.

    This is not unusual.

    So Steam has resulted in lower prices for games overall. Because even though big titles may release at 50 or 60 bucks, very soon most of them will be available for less than half that.

    Hell, even titles that resist that kind of price drop, like Skyrim, still have good sales. I bought it for $30. I remember the first time it went on sale for that was only a few months after it came out.

    Deebaser
  • AspectVoidAspectVoid Registered User regular
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    I find it ominous that the conversation (not just this thread, but in general) seems to have evolved from "used games must be allowed!" to "well, if they just make me pay extra money to play the game I just bought used, I guess that's fine."

    In all honesty, my opinion of used games has changed as I've gotten older since the following happened:

    1) I reached a point in my life that I started getting interested in how developers get money to make games
    2) I got an inside look at how a used market can affect a company thanks to the company I work for having to deal with it.

    I don't mind used games, but I really hate how Gamestop is pretty much just a nationwide pawn shop at this point, and cuts developers and publishers so far out of the loop. The last time I was in a Gamestop, it felt like 3/4ths of the store was devoted to used games.

    I guess most of my hate is around Gamestop selling used copies of the game on launch day. That just feels like slime to me. Personally, I think the best thing would be if the console manufacturers could cut a deal with the Gamestops of the world and restrict used game sales. Personally, I think that if Gamestop didn't sell used copies of a game for the first 6 weeks of launch, you'd see a spike in new game sales without having to kill the used game business.

    PSN|AspectVoid
  • zagdrobzagdrob Registered User regular
    I'll admit my opinion on used games probably has more to do with my money:leisure time ratio than anything else.

    Also, like Nova_C pointed out, Steam is pretty awesome.

    I stopped caring about Gamestop and similar places when they stopped carrying PC games. When Target has a better PC Game selection than a game store, something is wrong. They used to have all kinds of retail and used PC games, now you are looking at a few AAA titles and a few shovelware titles.

    Note that I haven't owned a console in over a decade.

  • Vincent GraysonVincent Grayson Frederick, MDRegistered User regular
    Gamestop does not sell used copies of games on launch day. The only way that'd happen is someone buying the game, opening it, not being allowed to return it, and deciding to just go for trade-in credit.

    I mean, it's possible, but I never once saw it happen when I worked there, and haven't seen used games for brand new titles usually for several weeks post-release unless a game was a huge flop.

  • LilnoobsLilnoobs Alpha Queue Registered User regular
    The $55 used game on launch day is a myth and I really wish people would stop toting it around as some strong evidence. It's also a myth that used games "cut" out the developers and publishers, the same line of reasoning was/is used for piracy, and, lo and behold, study after study shows us that pirates actually buy more media than non-pirates because of the simple act of sharing, so in reality piracy has promoted growth in the business, not taken away from.

    But you know, "common sense" and emotions tend to get in the way.

    Apothe0sis
  • Nova_CNova_C I have the need The need for speedRegistered User regular
    Explain to me how piracy promotes growth in the business.

    Because we're not talking about manufacturers of physical media, we're talking about video games.

  • ViskodViskod Registered User regular
    Lilnoobs wrote: »
    The $55 used game on launch day is a myth and I really wish people would stop toting it around as some strong evidence. It's also a myth that used games "cut" out the developers and publishers, the same line of reasoning was/is used for piracy, and, lo and behold, study after study shows us that pirates actually buy more media than non-pirates because of the simple act of sharing, so in reality piracy has promoted growth in the business, not taken away from.

    But you know, "common sense" and emotions tend to get in the way.

    So if I went into Gamestop today, and bought a used copy of Metal Gear Rising, how much of what I paid for it would Konami receive?


    Artereis wrote: »
    It's not your fault, Viskod. 1 out of every 10 people just happens to be a monster.
  • ShadowfireShadowfire Vermont, in the middle of nowhereRegistered User regular
    Viskod wrote: »
    Lilnoobs wrote: »
    The $55 used game on launch day is a myth and I really wish people would stop toting it around as some strong evidence. It's also a myth that used games "cut" out the developers and publishers, the same line of reasoning was/is used for piracy, and, lo and behold, study after study shows us that pirates actually buy more media than non-pirates because of the simple act of sharing, so in reality piracy has promoted growth in the business, not taken away from.

    But you know, "common sense" and emotions tend to get in the way.

    So if I went into Gamestop today, and bought a used copy of Metal Gear Rising, how much of what I paid for it would Konami receive?

    Konami already received their cut.

    WiiU: Windrunner ; Guild Wars 2: Shadowfire.3940 ; PSN: Bradcopter
    HacksawAllforceApothe0sis
  • AspectVoidAspectVoid Registered User regular
    Lilnoobs wrote: »
    The $55 used game on launch day is a myth and I really wish people would stop toting it around as some strong evidence. It's also a myth that used games "cut" out the developers and publishers, the same line of reasoning was/is used for piracy, and, lo and behold, study after study shows us that pirates actually buy more media than non-pirates because of the simple act of sharing, so in reality piracy has promoted growth in the business, not taken away from.

    But you know, "common sense" and emotions tend to get in the way.

    As I said, the last time I was in Gamestop, which was 3 years or so ago, I went after work the day after launch to pick up a game and they informed me they did not have a new copy, but could sell me a used copy for $55. I said screw you, and went down the block to Best Buy and bought a new copy. Haven't been in since. Maybe they changed, but I really don't care.

    And Used Game Sales do cut the developer out of sales. There is no way to track the exact figures (since its impossible to tell how many people would have bought a copy of the game new if a used copy was not available) but it does cost the developer sales. It is not like piracy at all, since the person who buys the used copy has already said "I am willing to spend money on this product." If they are willing to buy it used, at least some of them are going to be willing to buy it new.

    PSN|AspectVoid
  • ViskodViskod Registered User regular
    Shadowfire wrote: »
    Viskod wrote: »
    Lilnoobs wrote: »
    The $55 used game on launch day is a myth and I really wish people would stop toting it around as some strong evidence. It's also a myth that used games "cut" out the developers and publishers, the same line of reasoning was/is used for piracy, and, lo and behold, study after study shows us that pirates actually buy more media than non-pirates because of the simple act of sharing, so in reality piracy has promoted growth in the business, not taken away from.

    But you know, "common sense" and emotions tend to get in the way.

    So if I went into Gamestop today, and bought a used copy of Metal Gear Rising, how much of what I paid for it would Konami receive?

    Konami already received their cut.

    With someone's purchase of a new game, yes. Not with someones purchase of a used game, so, yes, purchasing used games, does in the instance of their purchase cut out developers and publishers. Thank you.

    Artereis wrote: »
    It's not your fault, Viskod. 1 out of every 10 people just happens to be a monster.
    shryke
  • FeralFeral MEMETICHARIZARD along with you if I get drunk well I know I'm gonna be gonna be the man whoRegistered User regular
    So It Goes wrote: »
    I'm curious how this would work.

    Would this also prevent you from taking your game over to a buddy's house to play? I guess so right, since that game isn't brand new when you pop it in?

    I think you should be able to log in to your online account on your friend's system and then have access to your library of games. At least that seems reasonable to me.

    The bigger issue is the Steam issue - many games on one account, but you can only play 1 at a time?

    I want that addressed specifically because it limits actual rights I'm supposed to have by the game EULAs.

    They really should do a family account. Up to a certain number N of usernames (say, 3 usernames or 4 usernames) all tied together with the right to play any shared purchase. And parental accounts would have the ability to set content controls and purchasing privilege controls on the subaccounts.

    It is just such an oversight that they haven't done this yet.

    every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
    the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
    shrykeHacksawMortious
  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    edited February 2013
    AspectVoid wrote: »
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    I find it ominous that the conversation (not just this thread, but in general) seems to have evolved from "used games must be allowed!" to "well, if they just make me pay extra money to play the game I just bought used, I guess that's fine."

    In all honesty, my opinion of used games has changed as I've gotten older since the following happened:

    1) I reached a point in my life that I started getting interested in how developers get money to make games
    2) I got an inside look at how a used market can affect a company thanks to the company I work for having to deal with it.

    I don't mind used games, but I really hate how Gamestop is pretty much just a nationwide pawn shop at this point, and cuts developers and publishers so far out of the loop. The last time I was in a Gamestop, it felt like 3/4ths of the store was devoted to used games.

    I guess most of my hate is around Gamestop selling used copies of the game on launch day. That just feels like slime to me. Personally, I think the best thing would be if the console manufacturers could cut a deal with the Gamestops of the world and restrict used game sales. Personally, I think that if Gamestop didn't sell used copies of a game for the first 6 weeks of launch, you'd see a spike in new game sales without having to kill the used game business.

    The real issue imo is the size of Gamestop.

    Other IP-creating industries coexist fairly comfortably with their own used market. (after initial complaints anyway) Mostly I believe because those used markets just aren't that big. And the biggest reason for that is the majority of retailers in other markets (books, music, movies, etc) are geared around selling new products.

    Video Games are basically unique in that the largest retailer of them is focused around used game sales. I think the sheer size of the market makes the content creation portion of the industry see used games as problematic. The video game industry seems to be moving in the opposite direction of other IP industries and getting more and more concerned about used games.

    shryke on
    Etiowsa
  • electricitylikesmeelectricitylikesme Registered User regular
    Feral wrote: »
    So It Goes wrote: »
    I'm curious how this would work.

    Would this also prevent you from taking your game over to a buddy's house to play? I guess so right, since that game isn't brand new when you pop it in?

    I think you should be able to log in to your online account on your friend's system and then have access to your library of games. At least that seems reasonable to me.

    The bigger issue is the Steam issue - many games on one account, but you can only play 1 at a time?

    I want that addressed specifically because it limits actual rights I'm supposed to have by the game EULAs.

    They really should do a family account. Up to a certain number N of usernames (say, 3 usernames or 4 usernames) all tied together with the right to play any shared purchase. And parental accounts would have the ability to set content controls and purchasing privilege controls on the subaccounts.

    It is just such an oversight that they haven't done this yet.

    Nah they should just allow you to run different games on the same account concurrently. The rate of people trying to share out accounts I think would be low enough to make it practical. Maybe a "burn code" system so you don't have to give out your real password for it?

  • zagdrobzagdrob Registered User regular
    Feral wrote: »
    So It Goes wrote: »
    I'm curious how this would work.

    Would this also prevent you from taking your game over to a buddy's house to play? I guess so right, since that game isn't brand new when you pop it in?

    I think you should be able to log in to your online account on your friend's system and then have access to your library of games. At least that seems reasonable to me.

    The bigger issue is the Steam issue - many games on one account, but you can only play 1 at a time?

    I want that addressed specifically because it limits actual rights I'm supposed to have by the game EULAs.

    They really should do a family account. Up to a certain number N of usernames (say, 3 usernames or 4 usernames) all tied together with the right to play any shared purchase. And parental accounts would have the ability to set content controls and purchasing privilege controls on the subaccounts.

    It is just such an oversight that they haven't done this yet.

    You're probably right.

    I would imagine at this point, the majority of Steam users have a single machine they play on or at least only play on a single machine at a time.

    Once the console comes out, you're going to have people who legitimately want to play on multiple machines (console and PC) at the same time. They've got to do something to accommodate that, because there are going to be a lot of people pissed if they can't let their kids play in one room on the console while they play something else on their machine in the office.

  • Vincent GraysonVincent Grayson Frederick, MDRegistered User regular
    shryke wrote: »
    AspectVoid wrote: »
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    I find it ominous that the conversation (not just this thread, but in general) seems to have evolved from "used games must be allowed!" to "well, if they just make me pay extra money to play the game I just bought used, I guess that's fine."

    In all honesty, my opinion of used games has changed as I've gotten older since the following happened:

    1) I reached a point in my life that I started getting interested in how developers get money to make games
    2) I got an inside look at how a used market can affect a company thanks to the company I work for having to deal with it.

    I don't mind used games, but I really hate how Gamestop is pretty much just a nationwide pawn shop at this point, and cuts developers and publishers so far out of the loop. The last time I was in a Gamestop, it felt like 3/4ths of the store was devoted to used games.

    I guess most of my hate is around Gamestop selling used copies of the game on launch day. That just feels like slime to me. Personally, I think the best thing would be if the console manufacturers could cut a deal with the Gamestops of the world and restrict used game sales. Personally, I think that if Gamestop didn't sell used copies of a game for the first 6 weeks of launch, you'd see a spike in new game sales without having to kill the used game business.

    The real issue imo is the size of Gamestop.

    Other IP-creating industries coexist fairly comfortably with their own used market. (after initial complaints anyway) Mostly I believe because those used markets just aren't that big. And the biggest reason for that is the majority of retailers in other markets (books, music, movies, etc) are geared around selling new products.

    Video Games are basically unique in that the largest retailer of them is focused around used game sales. I think the sheer size of the market makes the content creation portion of the industry see used games as problematic. The video game industry seems to be moving in the opposite direction of other IP industries and getting more and more concerned about used games.

    Part of the reason used has such traction with GS is the shitty profit margins on new games. I'm not sure if it's changed much in recent years, but when I was there, it was less than 10% of the retail cost. So on a given day where we sold say, $5000 of new stuff and $5000 of used stuff, we'd make $500 on the new and probably closer to $3000-4000 on the used stuff. My understanding is that the profit margins on systems was even worse. Stores like Best Buy, Walmart, etc can just sell a bunch of new stuff at retail price, take the small cut they get, and make bank with other products. A specialty game store, not so much.

  • FeralFeral MEMETICHARIZARD along with you if I get drunk well I know I'm gonna be gonna be the man whoRegistered User regular
    emnmnme wrote: »
    What causes the price of new videogames to drop so fast?

    In February 2011, Bulletstorm, Civ 5, Dead Space 2, Kirby's Epic Yarn were on shelves - these games were sold for the standard $60. 2 years later and now they're all $20 or less new. Doesn't matter if they're Greatest Hits or Platinum million sellers or flops; if a game was released two years ago, it's probably $20 today. But why? These aren't Madden games with obsolete rosters - aside from multiplayer lobbies that look like ghost towns, they're all still playable and enjoyable. I don't remember this happening during the N64/PSX days.

    Do lower used game prices cause all games to lose value quicker? A race to the bottom?

    I've read two competing theories about the effect of the used game market on new video game prices.

    The first theory is that the used game market keeps new game prices higher, because people are more willing to spend $X on a game if they know they can recoup some significant portion of $X in month or two.

    The second theory is that the used game market drives new game prices lower, by impacting the perceived value of titles. A used copy of Borderlands 2 sitting on a shelf for $30 next to a new copy of the same game for $55 makes the $55 copy seem too expensive.

    It's possible that both theories hold water, just at different points in the game life cycle. Early adopters might buy games at full retail price, knowing that they can trade them in soon (and use that store credit on the next new game on release day). After those early adopters have sold back a sufficient number of used copies, then those used copies put pressure on publishers to lower prices. So you have high prices for a few months, followed by a steep sloping off.

    I really have no idea what effects locking out used game resale would have on a platform. Maybe companies like Gamefly would expand. But then again, maybe they wouldn't, because part of Gamefly's business model is to sell games used after they no longer drive rentals.

    every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
    the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
  • PhillisherePhillishere Registered User regular
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    I find it ominous that the conversation (not just this thread, but in general) seems to have evolved from "used games must be allowed!" to "well, if they just make me pay extra money to play the game I just bought used, I guess that's fine."

    Yes and no. There's a lot more "I'm out this generation" talk around, with a side order of people thinking about their first gaming PCs in years and wondering about what the Steambox is going to be like.

Sign In or Register to comment.