The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules document is now in effect.
Stardock's GOO: Digital used games?
RandomEngy
Registered User regular
Registered User regular
At GDC '09 Stardock announced their Game Object Obfuscation DRM system. Basically it's a DRM system where you do a one-time activation of a game on your computer, but you have the option of "selling" it back to the digital store, by de-activating your game. There are some more details in this Joystiq article.
Now, I can see how this might be attractive to some consumers. In some way, you actually own your game and can sell it off when you're done with it. A lot of people are just used to being able to do this.
However, in my opinion, this system is just a twisted shadow of an outdated business model. You don't really own your game. You can't sell it to someone else. You sell it back to the store for a pre-set price. And the "buying" end is even weirder. There's absolutely no reason not to buy a "used" license over a new one; it's delivered digitally so it's going to be the exact same. So you have a limited pool of these "used" licenses that everyone wants, but no system to determine who gets them. Are we going to have bots polling for used game availability? Is there going to be a used games queue to wait in to get one? Why would any such system be better than simply lowering the price?
When you think more about it, you realize that the used "market" that they are providing is only a gimmick. The used market is a side-effect of games being printed on physical discs. In the digital world, that metaphor breaks down and it starts making a lot more sense just to charge someone for the experience of playing a game. Now people have complained that it's not fair to charge the same amount on a re-sellable and a non re-sellable game, and there's some point there. But there's mounting evidence with Steam that publishers could increase profits just by releasing cheaper games. It's quite possible that publishers will lower prices on non re-sellable games.
* Seller: So, you bought a PC game and now want to sell it. You go to the Impulse Marketplace and -- if you accept the "used" price -- your license will transfer back to the publisher and the game can't be played anymore. The game is "sold."
* Buyer: You want a game, but don't want to pay full price. You go to Impulse Marketplace and will be able to purchase this "used" license from the publisher through the service and download the game from the digital distribution service at a reduced price. That's it. Now you own the license and can sell it back whenever.
* Publisher: Here's why publishers will probably like this system: The companies receive almost all the money -- minus Stardock's transaction fee -- from the resold license. Essentially, the publishers get to sell the same license several times and have entered the profitable "used" games market.
Now, I can see how this might be attractive to some consumers. In some way, you actually own your game and can sell it off when you're done with it. A lot of people are just used to being able to do this.
However, in my opinion, this system is just a twisted shadow of an outdated business model. You don't really own your game. You can't sell it to someone else. You sell it back to the store for a pre-set price. And the "buying" end is even weirder. There's absolutely no reason not to buy a "used" license over a new one; it's delivered digitally so it's going to be the exact same. So you have a limited pool of these "used" licenses that everyone wants, but no system to determine who gets them. Are we going to have bots polling for used game availability? Is there going to be a used games queue to wait in to get one? Why would any such system be better than simply lowering the price?
When you think more about it, you realize that the used "market" that they are providing is only a gimmick. The used market is a side-effect of games being printed on physical discs. In the digital world, that metaphor breaks down and it starts making a lot more sense just to charge someone for the experience of playing a game. Now people have complained that it's not fair to charge the same amount on a re-sellable and a non re-sellable game, and there's some point there. But there's mounting evidence with Steam that publishers could increase profits just by releasing cheaper games. It's quite possible that publishers will lower prices on non re-sellable games.
Profile -> Signature Settings -> Hide signatures always. Then you don't have to read this worthless text anymore.
RandomEngy on
0
Posts
or something to that effect.
Seems like GOO is just a way to get the publishers in on the used game market. And guess what? If it's profitable and publishers start to use it, I wouldn't be surprised to see a resurgance of PC games. Suddenly, the whole Piracy con-arguement becomes a "Used Market We Control" pro arguement.
But yes, it's the same thing. Used vs New becomes irrelevant when you're speaking of digital goods.
I'm curious to see how this all plays out. I'll be watching to see if it's viable.
I get the impression Joystiq isn't telling the whole story or misinterpreted it.
http://www.wincustomize.com/articles.aspx?aid=345381&c=1
Seems to work just like Amazon Marketplace but the publishers get a small cut.
Here's the thing though that I see in this arrangement that hasn't been had before.
People can sell their digital license. They can get back money for basically saying "I won't be playing this game ever again. Give me money for that."
That simple fact, allowing a person to return their PC "game," if you will allow it to be called such, is what appears to be the real innovation here. Heck, it might even drive a person to be willing to try out a game since they'd be able to get back something of their initial investment. It allows me or anyone else to have something of actual monetary value in a game already installed on my hard drive or, in this particular case, in my Impulse account.
Now, if you are stating that maybe publishers should lower their prices to meet demand and spur purchases, then that's a subject completely outside the scope of GOO. That's more business theory and one that I agree with.
Okay, well it's slightly different, but everything I said still applies. You still don't own your game. You can pseudo-sell it to someone else, with the publisher taking a cut, but that is only a paper-mache replica of owning a game. Also if you insist that it's a small cut, this contradicts the explicitly stated goal from Stardock people that the used game sales system allows publishers to profit from used game sales. And you still have the absurdity of used games being exactly equivalent to new games, and the weird effects this would cause.
The whole song and dance of used digital games is just a gimmick. You have to convince publishers that creating a used game market, then taking some profits from sales is going to do better than just lowering prices and making money on every game purchase. And Steam seems to be showing that most people are willing to exchange money for the ability to play through a game.
The selling back of a license does make a bit more sense than buying a "used" license, but the concept is not without its problems. For one, it punishes developers who make games that give you a satisfying and complete single player experience. You've bought the game, taken in all the enjoyment from it and benefited from the results of all the effort from the developers, then turn around and say "Oh, but I'm not going to play this game any more. Give me money for that." Why should you get money back just for not wanting to replay a single player game?
Another weird effect of license selling is that it rewards people who just punch through a game rather than take their time and go between different games. Someone who dabbles in a game and eventually beats it is going to get back far less for their "used" license, effectively increasing the amount they had to pay for their game, just because they decided to take it slow.
Its simply a glorified and overcomplicated rental system
EULA’s for physical copies usually aren’t worth shit; they are an unenforceable attempt to modify a contract that you have already entered into at the point you paid for the game. The only way one would really be enforceable is if the actual terms(not just mention of one) in it were printed on the box or if some other legitimate method was in place to have it become part of the contract before it starts. Don’t take this to mean you aren’t still subject to copywrite laws though. DD EULA’s are worth something as you generally have to agree to some sort of EULA or user agreement to make an account before you actually purchase anything.
My question would actually be "Why shouldn't you get money back?" If you've gotten all of the enjoyment you can out of one playthrough of a game, why shouldn't you be able to get some of your investment back? I don't have a problem with that. Sounds nice.
I don't know how much I would actually use said system, as I tend to hoard games, but I like it being an option for those games that I absolutely KNOW I will not want to play again.
It seems you're assuming the resell price will decrease as time goes on. Is that the case? I don't know myself, but I assume the resell price would basically be set at a level and kept there.
Hang on, wasn't the newest Company of Heroes expansion released under GOO? Anyone got any impressions/experiences from that?
Not really. That's the way they'd like it, but courts have already ruled on EULAs multiple times. They have only been held up when:
A) Multiple copies are purchased and the EULA is agreed to on more than one copy.
B isn't going to happen simply because no game store or big box store I've been in will give you a full cash refund on an opened PC game. Unless you bought it at Walmart, I guess. A isn't going to happen either unless you're setting up a LAN / Internet cafe and no one else is helping.
Bravo to stardock for being brave.
Is that really how it's come down in the courts around the world? That's cool, I hadn't heard that. Nice to see.
As to your question, I think it works like this.
You buy Gal Civ 2+expansions digitally. (I don't think this applies to physical copies, but I could be wrong.) Your email address is tied to the executable, I assume through Impulse.
Later, you decide "Damn, I don't like Gal Civ 2" or "I don't think I'll play this ever again." You go to Impulse, click on the Sell Button (Or whatever it is, this is simplified.) If you accept the price, you get that back (I'm curious if it's just a credit or what form that takes). Then, your "copy" of Gal Civ 2 is removed from your permissions through some method I don't understand. BUT, it basically comes down to Impulse no longer saying you have Gal Civ 2.
This seems to only work, however, on digital goods. I don't think it would work with physical copies. So, I think your specific case is actually an exception to this situation.
Yep, agree fully. I realize I'm a Stardock fan boy. I hope this works out for them.
I can't comment on around the world, but those are the only two decisions I've seen on EULAs in US courts.
Yup, that's where the confusion sets in. I'm interested to see how they deal with this, because I know from Demigod that they still do the "Pay $10 more + S&H and you get the digital download plus the Collector's Edition." If my copy arrives without a code in the box, then I guess the question is answered.
Well for the consumer, ideally the game would be free. Wouldn't that be nice?
But here's the problem: by re-selling the game, you are slashing the amount of money they've made on the game. You are effectively saying that short, but incredibly enjoyable games do not deserve to be financed. However I really like to play games like Bioshock, Half-Life 2, Psychonauts and Dead Space. I think that though their price per hour of entertainment is higher than Team Fortress 2 or a really long and grindy JRPG, I still think they have worth. If you insist that they deserve less money just because you can complete them in a few days, people are going to stop making them.
Game prices lower over time. They start at $50 and go down until they are in the bargain bin for $10. The used prices will go down as well.
Yes, looking at it shallowly, it would be nice for people to sell back their games. But the problem is that this industry model is just a bad way to encourage developers to make games. Again, it would be nice if companies just gave games away for free, but in the long run people wouldn't make games anymore. Which is why I think they're going to have quite a difficult time getting many publishers on board.
Yes, looking at it shallowly, it would be nice for people to sell back their games. But the problem is that this industry model is just a bad way to encourage developers to make games. Again, it would be nice if companies just gave games away for free, but in the long run people wouldn't make games anymore. Which is why I think they're going to have quite a difficult time getting many publishers on board.[/QUOTE]
Or they get more sales because people who would previously go "That's only 6 hours? Fuck that I'm not paying $60 for that." now go "Ok, I'll buy it, beat it, then sell it back."
You can see the same sort of thing with Baen, who give away a selection of their books for free on their website. What happened? Sales of those books, and related titles, went up.
Yeah, I'm sure some people would rather buy it and sell it back than pay $50-60 for it. But when you effectively eliminate all major obstacles to selling a game used, everyone, even the ones who would have paid $60, are going to do it. Are you absolutely certain that having a lot of people effectively pay $20 instead of $60 is going to be offset by the increased number of people buying the game? Or that simply selling the game for $25 in the first place wouldn't have made more? Or that the people you entice with the ability to buy+resell aren't going to just buy the game later when it falls in price anyway?
I also don't think that you'll be able to get back $40 for selling a game back. I could see $5 or maybe $10. Also, I don't think that everyone will sell their games back.
Well I see where you're coming from about the companies not making as much money because if they sell a game they lose the money when they buy it back (for a fraction of the price of course). However, and I can only speak for myself, I never sell back games and I always buy new. That's why I don't buy from Gamestop, I don't approve of their business model and so I don't encourage it by buying from them. I actually want the developers to get my money for their hard work. I also understand that most people will just go ahead and buy the cheaper, used copy of a game instead of one for full price.
If you got $5 back out of $50-60, that probably wouldn't be too bad for the publishers. But the problem is that what they are advertising on the consumer side (you own your games and can resell them) is directly at odds with the interests of the publishers. If the publisher's cut is everything but $5, it can hardly be said that you own the game, now can it? You just have the ability to get a $5 deactivation credit. If the publisher cuts a low amount, their revenue dries up because a lot of people are selling back because it's so easy.
Yes, it's possible that some people will always buy new in order to support the publishers, but something tells me you are going to be in the minority. Adding in the system officially, aside from making it much easier to sell used games, will give it a legitimacy that will encourage widespread use.
Small steps.
Regardless, a lot of my and your thoughts on this are, at this point, conjecture. We don't know how it will play out. We don't know costs of new vs used, we don't know what you can sell back for, we also don't know if it will even be attempted.
That's why I was asking about CoH:ToV, which I thought was on GOO.
However, it being Stardock, I'm willing to let them attempt it and hope it works for them, simply because it offers more choices and more opportunities for consumers and publishers.
1) Someone hijacks your account. They sell all of your games back and pocket the money. You ask for your account to be returned and your games re-instated.
2) You sell all of your games. You pretend that your account has been hijacked and ask for your games to be re-instated.
So either you're going to make account hijackings very severe or just give anyone who wants it free money.
See now this is much more of a concern.
It seems like this system is basically allowing customers to determine a market price for individual games. This maybe makes sense as a game ages, but what about brand new games that the publisher would easily be capable of charging full price for? The publisher is going to have to give customer A who didn't like the game a partial refund and sell it to customer B for a lower price. Why wouldn't they want to charge customer B the full price?
It would make more sense to offer partial refunds on purchased games that decrease with time, but charge a standard price to all customers. If they notice a large number of people are 'returning' the game, just lower the retail price.
edit: On second thought, the proposed stardock system would mean publishers only have to give a refund if there's another customer already willing to pay for a copy. The publisher is still taking an unnecessary hit on the resale price though and could end up loosing more money based on the going 'used' price.
However I have bought plenty JRPGs I would be tempted to sell or have sold, because they were too long and too grindy.
Short and great means I have a much higher chance of going back to play something and therefore would not sell it, while long and mediocre means I probably won't go back.
Money from selling games should be sent back to the same bank/paypal account the game was bought from. Making hijacking for profit a non issue. Unless the hijacker has access to your bank account, and then those games are the least of your problems.
Getting your games reinstated after situation 2 would cost the same amount that was sent to your bank account making it also a non issue.