I imagine the Microsoft rumors are the reason that they're being vague. If MS comes out against used games then Sony can see how the market reacts and base their response on that. If the new xbox has no particular protections against used games then it would be suicidal for the PS4 to be the one next-gen console that does.
Edit:
Also, if it does turn out that Nintendo is the only console to allow used games I wonder how many publishers will be 'unable' to port their games to the Wii-U without 'some reason or other'?
Oh lord, you may be right.
That sounds likely enough, though dependent on one question: does a publisher stand to make more money selling to a smaller market without used games, or to a larger market where one pillar can buy and sell used?
This might be a situation where Nintendo having a huge install base of Wii U owners could actually be good for every consumer.
That would require that Nintendo actually have a huge install base of Wii U owners, though. I imagine that, for the majority of consumers, the first time they would realize that the PS4 and/or new xbox won't let them play a used game is somewhere around January 2014 when they go try to buy one (one used game, that is; I don't think 'won't play used games' is going to be a bullet point in the Sony/MS marketing strategy and most people don't pay attention to this sort of thing).
I'm thinking the easy solution is to include activation codes with new games that, if your game is used, you can pay a nominal fee to activate it. Like, five bucks or so. And that's money that goes straight into the pockets of Sony or whoever.
The reason I think this is an easy solution is because this is already a thing. You can't play some EA games or access certain features without an activation code.
If you're going by gamestop pricing 5 more dollars would make it cost more than a new copy :P
I'm thinking the easy solution is to include activation codes with new games that, if your game is used, you can pay a nominal fee to activate it. Like, five bucks or so. And that's money that goes straight into the pockets of Sony or whoever.
The reason I think this is an easy solution is because this is already a thing. You can't play some EA games or access certain features without an activation code.
If you're going by gamestop pricing 5 more dollars would make it cost more than a new copy :P
At my local Gamestop:
Final Fantasy XIII New: 19.99 Used: 17.99
Resident Evil 6 New: 29.99 Used: 27.99
I support the used game market and don't have the hate-on that some people have for Gamestop, but anybody who buys used at those prices needs to get slapped.
I'm thinking the easy solution is to include activation codes with new games that, if your game is used, you can pay a nominal fee to activate it. Like, five bucks or so. And that's money that goes straight into the pockets of Sony or whoever.
The reason I think this is an easy solution is because this is already a thing. You can't play some EA games or access certain features without an activation code.
If you're going by gamestop pricing 5 more dollars would make it cost more than a new copy :P
At my local Gamestop:
Final Fantasy XIII New: 19.99 Used: 17.99
Resident Evil 6 New: 29.99 Used: 27.99
I support the used game market and don't have the hate-on that some people have for Gamestop, but anybody who buys used at those prices needs to get slapped.
People do it not because it's a deal, usually, but because of the used-game ecosystem that is Gamestop.
Sure you only save $2 on RE6, but you also get points on your Gamestop Membership card toward a coupon or whatever and if you pick up both FF13 and RE6 at the same time, used, then you can get a 3rd used game for free.
I think it's mostly an instant gratification thing. You're pretty much guaranteed to get better prices if you buy used through Amazon, and maybe even better if you're willing to battle on ebay, but those options make you wait a few days to get it. Gamestop's more expensive, but you can go and get it now. Though the reward card certainly helps.
Switch: 3947-4890-9293
0
Options
syndalisGetting ClassyOn the WallRegistered User, Loves Apple Productsregular
Also, Gamestop has this retarded thing where you pay 10 or 15 bucks a month for a card that makes the used games cost 5-7 bucks less.
So AssBro is 29.99, used 27.99, Member Used 22.99
It's still a terrible deal, but if you buy tons of used games a year from them it works in your favor.
SW-4158-3990-6116
Let's play Mario Kart or something...
It's also for trade-ins -- you get more credit towards used games (at least last time I heard anyone talk about it -- I sell my games on Goozex or eBay).
As for the used game thing, if Sony said "we allow used games" then to me that's clear enough that there's nothing Sony is doing systematically. It raises a lot of questions for their other technologies, though, like downloading the game to your hard drive or whatever it is they have in store. It may be that, as others have said, you get some type of code for some shit and you need to activate the copy, which the publisher could implement if they decided to be dickwads.
I don't really see how that's Sony's fault, though. If Sony lets a publisher create a F2P game that actually costs $50 because you have to pay to even boot the sucker, that's not Sony's fault. If a publisher requires you to enter in a code to prove you bought the game from them directly -- again, not Sony's fault. I'm not trying to excuse Sony, but we've had that kind of Damocles's sword for quite a while. We even had it back in the PC days with goofy "Look on page 10 of your manual to solve this puzzle" DRM tricks.
Maybe it's splitting hairs. I'm not defending Sony in general, but just because some conspiracy theorists have made a big deal about how the PS4 could lock out used games doesn't mean Sony's going to do anything about it. It's just fearmongering.
It's also for trade-ins -- you get more credit towards used games (at least last time I heard anyone talk about it -- I sell my games on Goozex or eBay).
As for the used game thing, if Sony said "we allow used games" then to me that's clear enough that there's nothing Sony is doing systematically. It raises a lot of questions for their other technologies, though, like downloading the game to your hard drive or whatever it is they have in store. It may be that, as others have said, you get some type of code for some shit and you need to activate the copy, which the publisher could implement if they decided to be dickwads.
I don't really see how that's Sony's fault, though. If Sony lets a publisher create a F2P game that actually costs $50 because you have to pay to even boot the sucker, that's not Sony's fault. If a publisher requires you to enter in a code to prove you bought the game from them directly -- again, not Sony's fault. I'm not trying to excuse Sony, but we've had that kind of Damocles's sword for quite a while. We even had it back in the PC days with goofy "Look on page 10 of your manual to solve this puzzle" DRM tricks.
Maybe it's splitting hairs. I'm not defending Sony in general, but just because some conspiracy theorists have made a big deal about how the PS4 could lock out used games doesn't mean Sony's going to do anything about it. It's just fearmongering.
This exact conversation happened word for word in 2006. everyone basically said it would be a bad thing.
Meanwhile, everyone loves Steam.
O_o
Steam has proven that publishers are willing to sell their games for massive discounts if they are getting that money and not a 3rd party. This will hold true for consoles as well.
I cannot even imagine how many games I would own and how broke I would be if there were "Steam Sales" on my xbox.
SW-4158-3990-6116
Let's play Mario Kart or something...
It's also for trade-ins -- you get more credit towards used games (at least last time I heard anyone talk about it -- I sell my games on Goozex or eBay).
As for the used game thing, if Sony said "we allow used games" then to me that's clear enough that there's nothing Sony is doing systematically. It raises a lot of questions for their other technologies, though, like downloading the game to your hard drive or whatever it is they have in store. It may be that, as others have said, you get some type of code for some shit and you need to activate the copy, which the publisher could implement if they decided to be dickwads.
I don't really see how that's Sony's fault, though. If Sony lets a publisher create a F2P game that actually costs $50 because you have to pay to even boot the sucker, that's not Sony's fault. If a publisher requires you to enter in a code to prove you bought the game from them directly -- again, not Sony's fault. I'm not trying to excuse Sony, but we've had that kind of Damocles's sword for quite a while. We even had it back in the PC days with goofy "Look on page 10 of your manual to solve this puzzle" DRM tricks.
Maybe it's splitting hairs. I'm not defending Sony in general, but just because some conspiracy theorists have made a big deal about how the PS4 could lock out used games doesn't mean Sony's going to do anything about it. It's just fearmongering.
This exact conversation happened word for word in 2006. everyone basically said it would be a bad thing.
Meanwhile, everyone loves Steam.
O_o
Steam has proven that publishers are willing to sell their games for massive discounts if they are getting that money and not a 3rd party. This will hold true for consoles as well.
I cannot even imagine how many games I would own and how broke I would be if there were "Steam Sales" on my xbox.
Sony actually does that in a few ways. PS+ members get discounts, and there are regular sales. There's a whole section of the PS Store devoted to the current sales.
Steam has the sales, but they've done a number of other things right along the way, too. They've always (or at least as long as I've used it) had an offline mode to prevent you needing to touch their server to play games you've already bought. They have an easy, automatic, almost invisible update system for both their client and every game you buy with it. They make the process of installing on PC, which can occasionally be a pain in the ass, two button clicks. You can seamlessly and easily move your entire collection between computers. They have a record for going above and beyond to make customers happy, giving refunds and free games in situations where most corporations would just say "No, too bad for you." I'm not aware of any hacking or data theft kerfuffles they've had, if there have been any. And despite what must be some absolutely tremendous bandwidth and processing demands on their servers, I can only recall one time that I've been unable to reach Steam (and then I could still play offline).
Yeah, I wish I could loan steam games to a friend and it would be pretty cool if I could 'trade in' old games from steam... but they make every other part of the experience somewhere between 'as pain-free as it is possible to be' and 'awesome'. Shit, I can take a game I bought at Best Buy or Gamestop or wherever, plug the key into Steam when I get home, download the game from their servers, and then play it with their social interaction layer...despite the fact that they got exactly zero of my dollars out of that transaction.
I don't think anybody expects that kind of dedication to consumer happiness out of Sony or Microsoft. We only have to look as far as EA to see what another company will do in the same space that Steam occupies: Origin is fucking terrible. If I thought a no-used-games PS4 would make every aspect of the game-buying-and-playing experience as pain-free and generally pleasant as Steam does, I would have a really hard time getting up the gumption to be unhappy about it. As it is, I have all of the tedious update progress bar watching and hacking-related PSN bullshit informing my opinion of what a centralized server backed game authentication system from Sony would look like.
It's also for trade-ins -- you get more credit towards used games (at least last time I heard anyone talk about it -- I sell my games on Goozex or eBay).
As for the used game thing, if Sony said "we allow used games" then to me that's clear enough that there's nothing Sony is doing systematically. It raises a lot of questions for their other technologies, though, like downloading the game to your hard drive or whatever it is they have in store. It may be that, as others have said, you get some type of code for some shit and you need to activate the copy, which the publisher could implement if they decided to be dickwads.
I don't really see how that's Sony's fault, though. If Sony lets a publisher create a F2P game that actually costs $50 because you have to pay to even boot the sucker, that's not Sony's fault. If a publisher requires you to enter in a code to prove you bought the game from them directly -- again, not Sony's fault. I'm not trying to excuse Sony, but we've had that kind of Damocles's sword for quite a while. We even had it back in the PC days with goofy "Look on page 10 of your manual to solve this puzzle" DRM tricks.
Maybe it's splitting hairs. I'm not defending Sony in general, but just because some conspiracy theorists have made a big deal about how the PS4 could lock out used games doesn't mean Sony's going to do anything about it. It's just fearmongering.
I think you're being a little excessively generous towards Sony. Saying, "Oh hey, we totally allow used games! I mean, we developed a system to facilitate publishers disallowing anyone to play used games, sure, but they don't have to take advantage of this." Sony builds the hardware, and they have a lot of influence over how games get made and sold. If they wanted to ensure that used games were playable, they could. If publishers make you unable to play used games, it is because Sony let them.
And the PC analogy doesn't work, because it's easy to sell your manual with your used game, or in some other way transfer that code.
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
It's also for trade-ins -- you get more credit towards used games (at least last time I heard anyone talk about it -- I sell my games on Goozex or eBay).
As for the used game thing, if Sony said "we allow used games" then to me that's clear enough that there's nothing Sony is doing systematically. It raises a lot of questions for their other technologies, though, like downloading the game to your hard drive or whatever it is they have in store. It may be that, as others have said, you get some type of code for some shit and you need to activate the copy, which the publisher could implement if they decided to be dickwads.
I don't really see how that's Sony's fault, though. If Sony lets a publisher create a F2P game that actually costs $50 because you have to pay to even boot the sucker, that's not Sony's fault. If a publisher requires you to enter in a code to prove you bought the game from them directly -- again, not Sony's fault. I'm not trying to excuse Sony, but we've had that kind of Damocles's sword for quite a while. We even had it back in the PC days with goofy "Look on page 10 of your manual to solve this puzzle" DRM tricks.
Maybe it's splitting hairs. I'm not defending Sony in general, but just because some conspiracy theorists have made a big deal about how the PS4 could lock out used games doesn't mean Sony's going to do anything about it. It's just fearmongering.
It would be Sony's fault that they included the infrastructure to lock out used games at all.
And again, the "we allow used games" was almost immediately contradicted by "uh, we'll have more information about used games at E3." It's not a conspiracy theory, it's a general feeling that the Sony people don't know exactly what to say on the matter, because it's something they're at least investigating. If they weren't investigating it, they would say "yes" with no hesitation or contradiction.
As far as Steam doing the same things, that's balanced out by Steam being ludicrously good at allowing price drops and massive sales, often shortly after the game's released. That's not something any of the console publishers have done in any large amount despite the massive amount of additional sales it generates for Steam.
Again, I'm not saying that Sony is the Benevolent Savior of Used Gaming. But this current hubbub is about essentially a journalist digging into a patent filing and claiming that it's to kill off used games -- not an official stance from Sony. Even my statement is me just making shit up. We currently have heard two things from Sony, exactly what cloudeagle says: "Used OK" and "More details at E3." That's it.
I would also love if the major game manufacturers allowed for a more Steam-like experience. Honestly, I feel like that's where MS and Sony are moving, thanks to Steam's success. The PSN is much more Steam-like now than it was at the start.
Amazon and Apple allow publishers to release books with DRM. Steam is tied to Steam -- it's locked to Valve's system, which thankfully they've worked to make as seamless as possible. Blu-ray allows for region-locking, which was prevalent during the DVD era but is largely ignored now by movie studios. As I said, the current systems allow for publishers to do some really bone-headed things with their games if they decided, but none have, either because the major 3 console manufacturers disallow it or because they realize it's just dumb.
I'm saying that Sony MAY allow publishers to lock their content down and leave the decision up to them. I'm entirely making that up as a hypothetical. It may be that Sony will allow users to sell their own digital games after playing them, creating a digital marketplace for game licenses. We have no information at this point.
I'm thinking the easy solution is to include activation codes with new games that, if your game is used, you can pay a nominal fee to activate it. Like, five bucks or so. And that's money that goes straight into the pockets of Sony or whoever.
The reason I think this is an easy solution is because this is already a thing. You can't play some EA games or access certain features without an activation code.
But consumers hate that. You're effectively punishing consumers for buying used when no other industry does that.
You don't have to pay an extra few bucks to read a book you bought from your local second hand shop. You don't have to buy an activation code for the copy of RoboCop you got from the used section at FYE.
Is this not fucking over the Doctrine of First Sale in a subtle fashion?
0
Options
spacekungfumanPoor and minority-filledRegistered User, __BANNED USERSregular
Will the PS4 limit the functionality of pre-owned games?
It looked yesterday as if the answer was a resolute “no”. Then this morning that had softened into a “hmm, no, probably not”. Now that seems to have become a hugely indistinct “who knows?”.
GameSpot asked Sony Worldwide Studios boss Shuhei Yoshida in a quickfire Q&A not if PS4 would block used games but whether second hand games will require an activation code on the console.
His answer: “It's a publisher decision. We are not talking about it. Sorry.”
Now, this could mean two things. One, that publishers are obviously free to step up their existing online pass strategies to block more – or possibly all – game content from those who buy a pre-owned game without a code.
The second option is that Sony HAS incorporated tech into the PS4 that allows publishers to distinguish between new and pre-owned games. It’s then up to them if they choose to utilise it.
While seemingly denying the idea of a pre-owned block, Yoshida has certainly been seemingly elusive on the subject. In fact, the only direct evidence that such tech is definitely not included comes from an unsubstantiated comment from an anonymous Sony source on Eurogamer.
In the meantime, of course, rumours persist that Microsoft will adopt a pre-owned block strategy with its new machine.
This probably ends the conversation on whether or not used / borrowed games will ever possibly work as they used to, if it wasn't over already, meaning there will likely be some kind of technological intercessor that publishers can lean on. Obviously, PC gamers pretty much know the drill here.
As someone not yet sold on the Wii U, and generally unsold on the next tech from Sony and Microsoft, this doesn't phase me too much, but I would be curious to whom it would make a critical impact on your purchasing decisions if we had a landscape where there were strict limitations on what used or borrowed games you could play under what circumstances.
For instance, if we had a PS4, 720, Wii U cross platform game, and the Wii U version suffered visually in comparison to the big brothers, would the ability to easily pick up the game used later on, or, perhaps, to sell it later on impact your platform of choice?
I could not care even the slightest bit about this. I actually support efforts to end used game sales though. . .
Yes, but you're terrible.
Here, Sony, let me make this easy for you:
If I cannot play used games on your system, I will not buy your system.
Not only do I buy mostly used games, I also am fond of taking a game over to a friend's house to play. Pretending that this makes me some sort of thief does not exactly endear me to your brand.
So yeah, if MS and Sony decide to block used games, guess I'll be getting a WiiU as my primary gaming system.
I don't think it's even about piracy. I think its simply that the publishers don't want to lose sales to the used games market. The real question if whether the publishers get more from used game financed purchases than they lose from people buying used games instead of new games. Either way, PC gamers have been doing it this way for a very long time.
Nobody wants to lose sales to the used market, but that's irrelevant. You think Ford wants you to buy a used F-150 versus a new one? You think Panasonic wants you to buy your TV from a garage sale instead of from Best Buy? Of course not. But there's a reason that we consider banning garage sales to be a completely fucking crazy idea, and that reason is this: it's a completely fucking crazy idea.
I mean, I don't give a shit what publishers want. I'm sure EA would love to have congress pass a law that says every citizen must buy every new Madden game that comes out, but why the hell should I endorse that?
If you are concerned about piracy, I can kinda-sorta see an argument for some sort of authentication service, even if I think it's a stupid argument wholly without merit. At least the argument exists in some sort of logical-space that doesn't collapse into a singularity of complete lolderp. But if you don't give a shit about piracy and you are not EA and you still support banning used game sales, man, I don't even know if we're part of the same reality. Like, the sky over here is blue and water is wet, and the sky there is monkeyflops and water is :rotate:
New game sales are one of the main determinants for whether a developer gets to make a sequel or otherwise work with the publisher again. I like games, so I want developers I like to sell a lot of copies of new games and get to make more games. As far as a developer is concerned, a used sale is no different than a pirate copy. Either way, someone is playing their game and they get no credit for it. Maybe DLC can help with this though. I think a good compromise is the $5 or $10 activation fee for used games Atomic Ross suggested.
Will the PS4 limit the functionality of pre-owned games?
It looked yesterday as if the answer was a resolute “no”. Then this morning that had softened into a “hmm, no, probably not”. Now that seems to have become a hugely indistinct “who knows?”.
GameSpot asked Sony Worldwide Studios boss Shuhei Yoshida in a quickfire Q&A not if PS4 would block used games but whether second hand games will require an activation code on the console.
His answer: “It's a publisher decision. We are not talking about it. Sorry.”
Now, this could mean two things. One, that publishers are obviously free to step up their existing online pass strategies to block more – or possibly all – game content from those who buy a pre-owned game without a code.
The second option is that Sony HAS incorporated tech into the PS4 that allows publishers to distinguish between new and pre-owned games. It’s then up to them if they choose to utilise it.
While seemingly denying the idea of a pre-owned block, Yoshida has certainly been seemingly elusive on the subject. In fact, the only direct evidence that such tech is definitely not included comes from an unsubstantiated comment from an anonymous Sony source on Eurogamer.
In the meantime, of course, rumours persist that Microsoft will adopt a pre-owned block strategy with its new machine.
This probably ends the conversation on whether or not used / borrowed games will ever possibly work as they used to, if it wasn't over already, meaning there will likely be some kind of technological intercessor that publishers can lean on. Obviously, PC gamers pretty much know the drill here.
As someone not yet sold on the Wii U, and generally unsold on the next tech from Sony and Microsoft, this doesn't phase me too much, but I would be curious to whom it would make a critical impact on your purchasing decisions if we had a landscape where there were strict limitations on what used or borrowed games you could play under what circumstances.
For instance, if we had a PS4, 720, Wii U cross platform game, and the Wii U version suffered visually in comparison to the big brothers, would the ability to easily pick up the game used later on, or, perhaps, to sell it later on impact your platform of choice?
I could not care even the slightest bit about this. I actually support efforts to end used game sales though. . .
Yes, but you're terrible.
Here, Sony, let me make this easy for you:
If I cannot play used games on your system, I will not buy your system.
Not only do I buy mostly used games, I also am fond of taking a game over to a friend's house to play. Pretending that this makes me some sort of thief does not exactly endear me to your brand.
So yeah, if MS and Sony decide to block used games, guess I'll be getting a WiiU as my primary gaming system.
I don't think it's even about piracy. I think its simply that the publishers don't want to lose sales to the used games market. The real question if whether the publishers get more from used game financed purchases than they lose from people buying used games instead of new games. Either way, PC gamers have been doing it this way for a very long time.
Nobody wants to lose sales to the used market, but that's irrelevant. You think Ford wants you to buy a used F-150 versus a new one? You think Panasonic wants you to buy your TV from a garage sale instead of from Best Buy? Of course not. But there's a reason that we consider banning garage sales to be a completely fucking crazy idea, and that reason is this: it's a completely fucking crazy idea.
I mean, I don't give a shit what publishers want. I'm sure EA would love to have congress pass a law that says every citizen must buy every new Madden game that comes out, but why the hell should I endorse that?
If you are concerned about piracy, I can kinda-sorta see an argument for some sort of authentication service, even if I think it's a stupid argument wholly without merit. At least the argument exists in some sort of logical-space that doesn't collapse into a singularity of complete lolderp. But if you don't give a shit about piracy and you are not EA and you still support banning used game sales, man, I don't even know if we're part of the same reality. Like, the sky over here is blue and water is wet, and the sky there is monkeyflops and water is :rotate:
New game sales are one of the main determinants for whether a developer gets to make a sequel or otherwise work with the publisher again. I like games, so I want developers I like to sell a lot of copies of new games and get to make more games. As far as a developer is concerned, a used sale is no different than a pirate copy. Either way, someone is playing their game and they get no credit for it. Maybe DLC can help with this though. I think a good compromise is the $5 or $10 activation fee for used games Atomic Ross suggested.
Except the rest of the world of "Things you can buy" is like this.
Why should Video Games be the special odd man out from the First Sale Doctrine?
Will the PS4 limit the functionality of pre-owned games?
It looked yesterday as if the answer was a resolute “no”. Then this morning that had softened into a “hmm, no, probably not”. Now that seems to have become a hugely indistinct “who knows?”.
GameSpot asked Sony Worldwide Studios boss Shuhei Yoshida in a quickfire Q&A not if PS4 would block used games but whether second hand games will require an activation code on the console.
His answer: “It's a publisher decision. We are not talking about it. Sorry.”
Now, this could mean two things. One, that publishers are obviously free to step up their existing online pass strategies to block more – or possibly all – game content from those who buy a pre-owned game without a code.
The second option is that Sony HAS incorporated tech into the PS4 that allows publishers to distinguish between new and pre-owned games. It’s then up to them if they choose to utilise it.
While seemingly denying the idea of a pre-owned block, Yoshida has certainly been seemingly elusive on the subject. In fact, the only direct evidence that such tech is definitely not included comes from an unsubstantiated comment from an anonymous Sony source on Eurogamer.
In the meantime, of course, rumours persist that Microsoft will adopt a pre-owned block strategy with its new machine.
This probably ends the conversation on whether or not used / borrowed games will ever possibly work as they used to, if it wasn't over already, meaning there will likely be some kind of technological intercessor that publishers can lean on. Obviously, PC gamers pretty much know the drill here.
As someone not yet sold on the Wii U, and generally unsold on the next tech from Sony and Microsoft, this doesn't phase me too much, but I would be curious to whom it would make a critical impact on your purchasing decisions if we had a landscape where there were strict limitations on what used or borrowed games you could play under what circumstances.
For instance, if we had a PS4, 720, Wii U cross platform game, and the Wii U version suffered visually in comparison to the big brothers, would the ability to easily pick up the game used later on, or, perhaps, to sell it later on impact your platform of choice?
I could not care even the slightest bit about this. I actually support efforts to end used game sales though. . .
Yes, but you're terrible.
Here, Sony, let me make this easy for you:
If I cannot play used games on your system, I will not buy your system.
Not only do I buy mostly used games, I also am fond of taking a game over to a friend's house to play. Pretending that this makes me some sort of thief does not exactly endear me to your brand.
So yeah, if MS and Sony decide to block used games, guess I'll be getting a WiiU as my primary gaming system.
I don't think it's even about piracy. I think its simply that the publishers don't want to lose sales to the used games market. The real question if whether the publishers get more from used game financed purchases than they lose from people buying used games instead of new games. Either way, PC gamers have been doing it this way for a very long time.
Nobody wants to lose sales to the used market, but that's irrelevant. You think Ford wants you to buy a used F-150 versus a new one? You think Panasonic wants you to buy your TV from a garage sale instead of from Best Buy? Of course not. But there's a reason that we consider banning garage sales to be a completely fucking crazy idea, and that reason is this: it's a completely fucking crazy idea.
I mean, I don't give a shit what publishers want. I'm sure EA would love to have congress pass a law that says every citizen must buy every new Madden game that comes out, but why the hell should I endorse that?
If you are concerned about piracy, I can kinda-sorta see an argument for some sort of authentication service, even if I think it's a stupid argument wholly without merit. At least the argument exists in some sort of logical-space that doesn't collapse into a singularity of complete lolderp. But if you don't give a shit about piracy and you are not EA and you still support banning used game sales, man, I don't even know if we're part of the same reality. Like, the sky over here is blue and water is wet, and the sky there is monkeyflops and water is :rotate:
New game sales are one of the main determinants for whether a developer gets to make a sequel or otherwise work with the publisher again. I like games, so I want developers I like to sell a lot of copies of new games and get to make more games. As far as a developer is concerned, a used sale is no different than a pirate copy. Either way, someone is playing their game and they get no credit for it. Maybe DLC can help with this though. I think a good compromise is the $5 or $10 activation fee for used games Atomic Ross suggested.
Except the rest of the world of "Things you can buy" is like this.
Why should Video Games be the special odd man out from the First Sale Doctrine?
try re-selling your ebooks. it's not impossible, just improbable. This debate, at this moment, is meaningful only because consoles are currently stuck with physical media, the next gen is going to move as far away from that as possible. Sony and MS are both already doing that with their current systems.
Will the PS4 limit the functionality of pre-owned games?
It looked yesterday as if the answer was a resolute “no”. Then this morning that had softened into a “hmm, no, probably not”. Now that seems to have become a hugely indistinct “who knows?”.
GameSpot asked Sony Worldwide Studios boss Shuhei Yoshida in a quickfire Q&A not if PS4 would block used games but whether second hand games will require an activation code on the console.
His answer: “It's a publisher decision. We are not talking about it. Sorry.”
Now, this could mean two things. One, that publishers are obviously free to step up their existing online pass strategies to block more – or possibly all – game content from those who buy a pre-owned game without a code.
The second option is that Sony HAS incorporated tech into the PS4 that allows publishers to distinguish between new and pre-owned games. It’s then up to them if they choose to utilise it.
While seemingly denying the idea of a pre-owned block, Yoshida has certainly been seemingly elusive on the subject. In fact, the only direct evidence that such tech is definitely not included comes from an unsubstantiated comment from an anonymous Sony source on Eurogamer.
In the meantime, of course, rumours persist that Microsoft will adopt a pre-owned block strategy with its new machine.
This probably ends the conversation on whether or not used / borrowed games will ever possibly work as they used to, if it wasn't over already, meaning there will likely be some kind of technological intercessor that publishers can lean on. Obviously, PC gamers pretty much know the drill here.
As someone not yet sold on the Wii U, and generally unsold on the next tech from Sony and Microsoft, this doesn't phase me too much, but I would be curious to whom it would make a critical impact on your purchasing decisions if we had a landscape where there were strict limitations on what used or borrowed games you could play under what circumstances.
For instance, if we had a PS4, 720, Wii U cross platform game, and the Wii U version suffered visually in comparison to the big brothers, would the ability to easily pick up the game used later on, or, perhaps, to sell it later on impact your platform of choice?
I could not care even the slightest bit about this. I actually support efforts to end used game sales though. . .
Yes, but you're terrible.
Here, Sony, let me make this easy for you:
If I cannot play used games on your system, I will not buy your system.
Not only do I buy mostly used games, I also am fond of taking a game over to a friend's house to play. Pretending that this makes me some sort of thief does not exactly endear me to your brand.
So yeah, if MS and Sony decide to block used games, guess I'll be getting a WiiU as my primary gaming system.
I don't think it's even about piracy. I think its simply that the publishers don't want to lose sales to the used games market. The real question if whether the publishers get more from used game financed purchases than they lose from people buying used games instead of new games. Either way, PC gamers have been doing it this way for a very long time.
Nobody wants to lose sales to the used market, but that's irrelevant. You think Ford wants you to buy a used F-150 versus a new one? You think Panasonic wants you to buy your TV from a garage sale instead of from Best Buy? Of course not. But there's a reason that we consider banning garage sales to be a completely fucking crazy idea, and that reason is this: it's a completely fucking crazy idea.
I mean, I don't give a shit what publishers want. I'm sure EA would love to have congress pass a law that says every citizen must buy every new Madden game that comes out, but why the hell should I endorse that?
If you are concerned about piracy, I can kinda-sorta see an argument for some sort of authentication service, even if I think it's a stupid argument wholly without merit. At least the argument exists in some sort of logical-space that doesn't collapse into a singularity of complete lolderp. But if you don't give a shit about piracy and you are not EA and you still support banning used game sales, man, I don't even know if we're part of the same reality. Like, the sky over here is blue and water is wet, and the sky there is monkeyflops and water is :rotate:
New game sales are one of the main determinants for whether a developer gets to make a sequel or otherwise work with the publisher again. I like games, so I want developers I like to sell a lot of copies of new games and get to make more games. As far as a developer is concerned, a used sale is no different than a pirate copy. Either way, someone is playing their game and they get no credit for it. Maybe DLC can help with this though. I think a good compromise is the $5 or $10 activation fee for used games Atomic Ross suggested.
Except the rest of the world of "Things you can buy" is like this.
Why should Video Games be the special odd man out from the First Sale Doctrine?
try re-selling your ebooks. it's not impossible, just improbable. This debate, at this moment, is meaningful only because consoles are currently stuck with physical media, the next gen is going to move as far away from that as possible. Sony and MS are both already doing that with their current systems.
We are happy to announce that soon (May 1st) all Steam users who bought at least one game using Steam will be able to give away or resell their own Steam games to their friends. All of the funds gathered from their sales will either directly show on their credit card balance or Steam Wallet, so right now you don’t have to worry about buying a shitty game as you can simply sell it to someone else.
I'm not entirely sure how well Amazon's model works in regards to the reality of selling Used Digital items, since by their nature it's not even the same file, just a new, local copy of the file. But this is a thing being explored in the digital space.
And while I understand that they're moving towards the Digital Retail space, the issue still is the fact that as far as we know, both systems still support physical, disc-based games. The Doctrine of First Sale would still clearly apply.
0
Options
spacekungfumanPoor and minority-filledRegistered User, __BANNED USERSregular
Will the PS4 limit the functionality of pre-owned games?
It looked yesterday as if the answer was a resolute “no”. Then this morning that had softened into a “hmm, no, probably not”. Now that seems to have become a hugely indistinct “who knows?”.
GameSpot asked Sony Worldwide Studios boss Shuhei Yoshida in a quickfire Q&A not if PS4 would block used games but whether second hand games will require an activation code on the console.
His answer: “It's a publisher decision. We are not talking about it. Sorry.”
Now, this could mean two things. One, that publishers are obviously free to step up their existing online pass strategies to block more – or possibly all – game content from those who buy a pre-owned game without a code.
The second option is that Sony HAS incorporated tech into the PS4 that allows publishers to distinguish between new and pre-owned games. It’s then up to them if they choose to utilise it.
While seemingly denying the idea of a pre-owned block, Yoshida has certainly been seemingly elusive on the subject. In fact, the only direct evidence that such tech is definitely not included comes from an unsubstantiated comment from an anonymous Sony source on Eurogamer.
In the meantime, of course, rumours persist that Microsoft will adopt a pre-owned block strategy with its new machine.
This probably ends the conversation on whether or not used / borrowed games will ever possibly work as they used to, if it wasn't over already, meaning there will likely be some kind of technological intercessor that publishers can lean on. Obviously, PC gamers pretty much know the drill here.
As someone not yet sold on the Wii U, and generally unsold on the next tech from Sony and Microsoft, this doesn't phase me too much, but I would be curious to whom it would make a critical impact on your purchasing decisions if we had a landscape where there were strict limitations on what used or borrowed games you could play under what circumstances.
For instance, if we had a PS4, 720, Wii U cross platform game, and the Wii U version suffered visually in comparison to the big brothers, would the ability to easily pick up the game used later on, or, perhaps, to sell it later on impact your platform of choice?
I could not care even the slightest bit about this. I actually support efforts to end used game sales though. . .
Yes, but you're terrible.
Here, Sony, let me make this easy for you:
If I cannot play used games on your system, I will not buy your system.
Not only do I buy mostly used games, I also am fond of taking a game over to a friend's house to play. Pretending that this makes me some sort of thief does not exactly endear me to your brand.
So yeah, if MS and Sony decide to block used games, guess I'll be getting a WiiU as my primary gaming system.
I don't think it's even about piracy. I think its simply that the publishers don't want to lose sales to the used games market. The real question if whether the publishers get more from used game financed purchases than they lose from people buying used games instead of new games. Either way, PC gamers have been doing it this way for a very long time.
Nobody wants to lose sales to the used market, but that's irrelevant. You think Ford wants you to buy a used F-150 versus a new one? You think Panasonic wants you to buy your TV from a garage sale instead of from Best Buy? Of course not. But there's a reason that we consider banning garage sales to be a completely fucking crazy idea, and that reason is this: it's a completely fucking crazy idea.
I mean, I don't give a shit what publishers want. I'm sure EA would love to have congress pass a law that says every citizen must buy every new Madden game that comes out, but why the hell should I endorse that?
If you are concerned about piracy, I can kinda-sorta see an argument for some sort of authentication service, even if I think it's a stupid argument wholly without merit. At least the argument exists in some sort of logical-space that doesn't collapse into a singularity of complete lolderp. But if you don't give a shit about piracy and you are not EA and you still support banning used game sales, man, I don't even know if we're part of the same reality. Like, the sky over here is blue and water is wet, and the sky there is monkeyflops and water is :rotate:
New game sales are one of the main determinants for whether a developer gets to make a sequel or otherwise work with the publisher again. I like games, so I want developers I like to sell a lot of copies of new games and get to make more games. As far as a developer is concerned, a used sale is no different than a pirate copy. Either way, someone is playing their game and they get no credit for it. Maybe DLC can help with this though. I think a good compromise is the $5 or $10 activation fee for used games Atomic Ross suggested.
Except the rest of the world of "Things you can buy" is like this.
Why should Video Games be the special odd man out from the First Sale Doctrine?
All digital media is strange when it comes to the secondary market, because there is no downside to buying a used product vs a new one. Couple that with the fact that, unlike most products, new sales in the first month or so are the main determinent of success AND there is a healthy resale market during that period, and I think that there are good reasons to treat games differently. Imagine the impact on movies if you could resell your used ticket openin weekend.
Will the PS4 limit the functionality of pre-owned games?
It looked yesterday as if the answer was a resolute “no”. Then this morning that had softened into a “hmm, no, probably not”. Now that seems to have become a hugely indistinct “who knows?”.
GameSpot asked Sony Worldwide Studios boss Shuhei Yoshida in a quickfire Q&A not if PS4 would block used games but whether second hand games will require an activation code on the console.
His answer: “It's a publisher decision. We are not talking about it. Sorry.”
Now, this could mean two things. One, that publishers are obviously free to step up their existing online pass strategies to block more – or possibly all – game content from those who buy a pre-owned game without a code.
The second option is that Sony HAS incorporated tech into the PS4 that allows publishers to distinguish between new and pre-owned games. It’s then up to them if they choose to utilise it.
While seemingly denying the idea of a pre-owned block, Yoshida has certainly been seemingly elusive on the subject. In fact, the only direct evidence that such tech is definitely not included comes from an unsubstantiated comment from an anonymous Sony source on Eurogamer.
In the meantime, of course, rumours persist that Microsoft will adopt a pre-owned block strategy with its new machine.
This probably ends the conversation on whether or not used / borrowed games will ever possibly work as they used to, if it wasn't over already, meaning there will likely be some kind of technological intercessor that publishers can lean on. Obviously, PC gamers pretty much know the drill here.
As someone not yet sold on the Wii U, and generally unsold on the next tech from Sony and Microsoft, this doesn't phase me too much, but I would be curious to whom it would make a critical impact on your purchasing decisions if we had a landscape where there were strict limitations on what used or borrowed games you could play under what circumstances.
For instance, if we had a PS4, 720, Wii U cross platform game, and the Wii U version suffered visually in comparison to the big brothers, would the ability to easily pick up the game used later on, or, perhaps, to sell it later on impact your platform of choice?
I could not care even the slightest bit about this. I actually support efforts to end used game sales though. . .
Yes, but you're terrible.
Here, Sony, let me make this easy for you:
If I cannot play used games on your system, I will not buy your system.
Not only do I buy mostly used games, I also am fond of taking a game over to a friend's house to play. Pretending that this makes me some sort of thief does not exactly endear me to your brand.
So yeah, if MS and Sony decide to block used games, guess I'll be getting a WiiU as my primary gaming system.
I don't think it's even about piracy. I think its simply that the publishers don't want to lose sales to the used games market. The real question if whether the publishers get more from used game financed purchases than they lose from people buying used games instead of new games. Either way, PC gamers have been doing it this way for a very long time.
Nobody wants to lose sales to the used market, but that's irrelevant. You think Ford wants you to buy a used F-150 versus a new one? You think Panasonic wants you to buy your TV from a garage sale instead of from Best Buy? Of course not. But there's a reason that we consider banning garage sales to be a completely fucking crazy idea, and that reason is this: it's a completely fucking crazy idea.
I mean, I don't give a shit what publishers want. I'm sure EA would love to have congress pass a law that says every citizen must buy every new Madden game that comes out, but why the hell should I endorse that?
If you are concerned about piracy, I can kinda-sorta see an argument for some sort of authentication service, even if I think it's a stupid argument wholly without merit. At least the argument exists in some sort of logical-space that doesn't collapse into a singularity of complete lolderp. But if you don't give a shit about piracy and you are not EA and you still support banning used game sales, man, I don't even know if we're part of the same reality. Like, the sky over here is blue and water is wet, and the sky there is monkeyflops and water is :rotate:
New game sales are one of the main determinants for whether a developer gets to make a sequel or otherwise work with the publisher again. I like games, so I want developers I like to sell a lot of copies of new games and get to make more games. As far as a developer is concerned, a used sale is no different than a pirate copy. Either way, someone is playing their game and they get no credit for it. Maybe DLC can help with this though. I think a good compromise is the $5 or $10 activation fee for used games Atomic Ross suggested.
Except the rest of the world of "Things you can buy" is like this.
Why should Video Games be the special odd man out from the First Sale Doctrine?
try re-selling your ebooks. it's not impossible, just improbable. This debate, at this moment, is meaningful only because consoles are currently stuck with physical media, the next gen is going to move as far away from that as possible. Sony and MS are both already doing that with their current systems.
We are happy to announce that soon (May 1st) all Steam users who bought at least one game using Steam will be able to give away or resell their own Steam games to their friends. All of the funds gathered from their sales will either directly show on their credit card balance or Steam Wallet, so right now you don’t have to worry about buying a shitty game as you can simply sell it to someone else.
I'm not entirely sure how well Amazon's model works in regards to the reality of selling Used Digital items, since by their nature it's not even the same file, just a new, local copy of the file. But this is a thing being explored in the digital space.
And while I understand that they're moving towards the Digital Retail space, the issue still is the fact that as far as we know, both systems still support physical, disc-based games. The Doctrine of First Sale would still clearly apply.
that second link is an april fools joke man Your first link is actually interesting and since it just came out i'll have to think about it. the bottom line relating to it is the last part of the article "but the report also said Amazon would likely only launch such a service if it can charge enough on transfers to make up for what it loses on new sales."
Although you can actually sell your Steam games and pay for a license transfer to the user that bought it.
what? you can trade "gift inventory" but i've never seen anything that shows this. If so, i'm very interested and my weak google-fu didn't turn anything up. Can you link?
Does Steam Trading mean I can sell my used games?
No, only games that have been bought as a gift, and thus have never been played, can be traded. Once the Steam Gift is opened and added to your game library, you won’t be able to trade it again.
Will the PS4 limit the functionality of pre-owned games?
It looked yesterday as if the answer was a resolute “no”. Then this morning that had softened into a “hmm, no, probably not”. Now that seems to have become a hugely indistinct “who knows?”.
GameSpot asked Sony Worldwide Studios boss Shuhei Yoshida in a quickfire Q&A not if PS4 would block used games but whether second hand games will require an activation code on the console.
His answer: “It's a publisher decision. We are not talking about it. Sorry.”
Now, this could mean two things. One, that publishers are obviously free to step up their existing online pass strategies to block more – or possibly all – game content from those who buy a pre-owned game without a code.
The second option is that Sony HAS incorporated tech into the PS4 that allows publishers to distinguish between new and pre-owned games. It’s then up to them if they choose to utilise it.
While seemingly denying the idea of a pre-owned block, Yoshida has certainly been seemingly elusive on the subject. In fact, the only direct evidence that such tech is definitely not included comes from an unsubstantiated comment from an anonymous Sony source on Eurogamer.
In the meantime, of course, rumours persist that Microsoft will adopt a pre-owned block strategy with its new machine.
This probably ends the conversation on whether or not used / borrowed games will ever possibly work as they used to, if it wasn't over already, meaning there will likely be some kind of technological intercessor that publishers can lean on. Obviously, PC gamers pretty much know the drill here.
As someone not yet sold on the Wii U, and generally unsold on the next tech from Sony and Microsoft, this doesn't phase me too much, but I would be curious to whom it would make a critical impact on your purchasing decisions if we had a landscape where there were strict limitations on what used or borrowed games you could play under what circumstances.
For instance, if we had a PS4, 720, Wii U cross platform game, and the Wii U version suffered visually in comparison to the big brothers, would the ability to easily pick up the game used later on, or, perhaps, to sell it later on impact your platform of choice?
I could not care even the slightest bit about this. I actually support efforts to end used game sales though. . .
Yes, but you're terrible.
Here, Sony, let me make this easy for you:
If I cannot play used games on your system, I will not buy your system.
Not only do I buy mostly used games, I also am fond of taking a game over to a friend's house to play. Pretending that this makes me some sort of thief does not exactly endear me to your brand.
So yeah, if MS and Sony decide to block used games, guess I'll be getting a WiiU as my primary gaming system.
I don't think it's even about piracy. I think its simply that the publishers don't want to lose sales to the used games market. The real question if whether the publishers get more from used game financed purchases than they lose from people buying used games instead of new games. Either way, PC gamers have been doing it this way for a very long time.
Nobody wants to lose sales to the used market, but that's irrelevant. You think Ford wants you to buy a used F-150 versus a new one? You think Panasonic wants you to buy your TV from a garage sale instead of from Best Buy? Of course not. But there's a reason that we consider banning garage sales to be a completely fucking crazy idea, and that reason is this: it's a completely fucking crazy idea.
I mean, I don't give a shit what publishers want. I'm sure EA would love to have congress pass a law that says every citizen must buy every new Madden game that comes out, but why the hell should I endorse that?
If you are concerned about piracy, I can kinda-sorta see an argument for some sort of authentication service, even if I think it's a stupid argument wholly without merit. At least the argument exists in some sort of logical-space that doesn't collapse into a singularity of complete lolderp. But if you don't give a shit about piracy and you are not EA and you still support banning used game sales, man, I don't even know if we're part of the same reality. Like, the sky over here is blue and water is wet, and the sky there is monkeyflops and water is :rotate:
New game sales are one of the main determinants for whether a developer gets to make a sequel or otherwise work with the publisher again. I like games, so I want developers I like to sell a lot of copies of new games and get to make more games. As far as a developer is concerned, a used sale is no different than a pirate copy. Either way, someone is playing their game and they get no credit for it. Maybe DLC can help with this though. I think a good compromise is the $5 or $10 activation fee for used games Atomic Ross suggested.
Except the rest of the world of "Things you can buy" is like this.
Why should Video Games be the special odd man out from the First Sale Doctrine?
try re-selling your ebooks. it's not impossible, just improbable. This debate, at this moment, is meaningful only because consoles are currently stuck with physical media, the next gen is going to move as far away from that as possible. Sony and MS are both already doing that with their current systems.
We are happy to announce that soon (May 1st) all Steam users who bought at least one game using Steam will be able to give away or resell their own Steam games to their friends. All of the funds gathered from their sales will either directly show on their credit card balance or Steam Wallet, so right now you don’t have to worry about buying a shitty game as you can simply sell it to someone else.
I'm not entirely sure how well Amazon's model works in regards to the reality of selling Used Digital items, since by their nature it's not even the same file, just a new, local copy of the file. But this is a thing being explored in the digital space.
And while I understand that they're moving towards the Digital Retail space, the issue still is the fact that as far as we know, both systems still support physical, disc-based games. The Doctrine of First Sale would still clearly apply.
that second link is an april fools joke man Your first link is actually interesting and since it just came out i'll have to think about it. the bottom line relating to it is the last part of the article "but the report also said Amazon would likely only launch such a service if it can charge enough on transfers to make up for what it loses on new sales."
Hmm, my mistake; I was familiar with STEAM looking into a program to trade your games back into them.
its all good i was just like...damn i could have a giant steam wallet right now with games i've beaten and will never go back to on my PC!
back semi-on topic, i think the question of used games is interesting. i think the comparison to books or music CDs or anything else is good, but to draw the conclusions that make sense we really have to compare apples to apples.
right now, games are part of electronic devices and the analogies need to stay in that realm, is my proposal. So i'd rule books out as fitting into the model, but CDs might be a better case. It's a dying industry but if it wasn't i'm sure the music companies would be generating CD players that dialed home and required you to activate your album (which incidentally is really what itunes and amazon are all about).
I'm not saying i like it or that it is "right"; i'm trying to say that video games, which are software, are not (or more succinctly) will not be physical goods, which is really what the 'first sale doctrine' is all about. It's a brave scary new world
its all good i was just like...damn i could have a giant steam wallet right now with games i've beaten and will never go back to on my PC!
back semi-on topic, i think the question of used games is interesting. i think the comparison to books or music CDs or anything else is good, but to draw the conclusions that make sense we really have to compare apples to apples.
right now, games are part of electronic devices and the analogies need to stay in that realm, is my proposal. So i'd rule books out as fitting into the model, but CDs might be a better case. It's a dying industry but if it wasn't i'm sure the music companies would be generating CD players that dialed home and required you to activate your album (which incidentally is really what itunes and amazon are all about).
I'm not saying i like it or that it is "right"; i'm trying to say that video games, which are software, are not (or more succinctly) will not be physical goods, which is really what the 'first sale doctrine' is all about. It's a brave scary new world
CDs were replaced with non-resellable mp3 files. I think the analogy is apt.
One thing I've always wondered is why used games are such a big market anyway. I can't think of any product other than cars or homes that has such a vibrant resale market. Certainly DVDs and books (the closest analogs to games in my mind) don't have secondary markets that are nearly as robust.
Um... sure they do. But they also have cheaper entry prices.
I don't think there are nearly as many second hand book or cd stores as there are game stops, let alone other stores that sell used games. But maybe I'm not that aware, because I have no interest in buying user things?
Video games have to be compared to other non-degrading media. Basically, CDs or movies or something.
The main difference with games is that the main game retailer (like 2/3rds of the market or something ridiculous) acts as a pawn shop that actively encourages people to cut the game's industry out of the equation.
I'd suggest price and games not being considered a "collectible item" by most people contributes as well.
At the end of the day, the used game market almost certainly takes more from the industry then it contributes. And because of the sheer size of it, this becomes a thing the industry fucking hates.
If they wanna get rid of it, they'll need to be more aggressive with their pricing to compensate though. The current "online pass" thingy probably works pretty well too and is alot less onerous. Although god knows what the conversion rate on that is.
I'm happy to have a system limiting used sales when they have a price drop to reflect the lost value. Until then it's only sensible as a consumer to grumble about something that on an individual level is all loss, no gain from the current status quo.
And anyone clinging to the original comment about used games being fine has to remember this came from the exact same 'suit being off the cuff interviewed' situation that produced the statement that the Wii would be region free.
Jam Warrior on
0
Options
spacekungfumanPoor and minority-filledRegistered User, __BANNED USERSregular
I'm happy to have a system limiting used sales when they have a price drop to reflect the lost value. Until then it's only sensible as a consumer to grumble about something that on an individual level is all loss, no gain from the current status quo.
And anyone clinging to the original comment about used games being fine has to remember this came from the exact same 'suit being off the cuff interviewed' situation that produced the statement that the Wii would be region free.
Digital only copie cost the same thing as physical copies and can't be resold, so none of the value of the game is its ability to be resold, actually.
The used game market is essentially Gamestop. There are the random used-game stores around but in general it's really just Gamestop, with Amazon and eBay (and Goozex) taking up on the online space. If something happened where you couldn't resell new games, we'd lose Gamestop and the mom & pop shops would just sell other, older games (like many of them do now).
Note also that even though we can't resell MP3s, all MP3s are now DRM-free. If I want to give them to a friend, that's my choice. Incidentally, most people don't do that -- they paid money for their MP3s and they're more likely to just point a friend to the Amazon/iTunes listing where their friend can buy them. In some cases, people swap -- just like the "old days." There was never really much market for used music, in my opinion, because the entry price was low and the price paid by stores was abysmal! Again, I think any used market is facing more threat from eBay/Amazon cutting out in-person stores than any collusion by manufacturers (which, again, are moving away from DRM).
All 3 systems have massive DRM with their games, with Nintendo being the most restrictive. But yeah, as mentioned, the reason there's a market for used games is due to their high initial price. Many people do not replay games, and they can recoup some portion of their initial $50 or $60. The used games are generally exactly the same as new, thanks to their digital nature. So, it makes sense that it's an easy used market.
The used game market is essentially Gamestop. There are the random used-game stores around but in general it's really just Gamestop, with Amazon and eBay (and Goozex) taking up on the online space. If something happened where you couldn't resell new games, we'd lose Gamestop and the mom & pop shops would just sell other, older games (like many of them do now).
Note also that even though we can't resell MP3s, all MP3s are now DRM-free. If I want to give them to a friend, that's my choice. Incidentally, most people don't do that -- they paid money for their MP3s and they're more likely to just point a friend to the Amazon/iTunes listing where their friend can buy them. In some cases, people swap -- just like the "old days." There was never really much market for used music, in my opinion, because the entry price was low and the price paid by stores was abysmal! Again, I think any used market is facing more threat from eBay/Amazon cutting out in-person stores than any collusion by manufacturers (which, again, are moving away from DRM).
All 3 systems have massive DRM with their games, with Nintendo being the most restrictive. But yeah, as mentioned, the reason there's a market for used games is due to their high initial price. Many people do not replay games, and they can recoup some portion of their initial $50 or $60. The used games are generally exactly the same as new, thanks to their digital nature. So, it makes sense that it's an easy used market.
I for one would not regard the loss of GameStop as a bad thing at all. Their practice of selling opened games as new is despicable. I have not shopped at a GameStop in years, and never intend on doing so again.
I'm happy to have a system limiting used sales when they have a price drop to reflect the lost value. Until then it's only sensible as a consumer to grumble about something that on an individual level is all loss, no gain from the current status quo.
And anyone clinging to the original comment about used games being fine has to remember this came from the exact same 'suit being off the cuff interviewed' situation that produced the statement that the Wii would be region free.
Digital only copie cost the same thing as physical copies and can't be resold, so none of the value of the game is its ability to be resold, actually.
The fact that an alternate product you can't resell exists does not change that someone on a limited income is likely to budget reselling into their physical game buying budget. And probably avoid digital altogether where there is a choice for that reason.
'Actually.'
0
Options
AtomikaLive fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered Userregular
Eh, GameStop serves a need. Their buy-back scheme and sales tactics are borderline criminal, but they sell more than just used games. It's one of the few places you can get a used console or handheld with a money-back guaranty, and it's also one of the few places you can get used periphery (cords, cables, covers, controllers, etc) with that same guaranty at reductions far cheaper than what you you'd pay through official channels.
There are some things (many things, even) in the console/handheld video game that don't physically depreciate the same way other things might because it's an industry largely based in durable goods that also had a demand with a built-in shelf life. The used DualShock for half the price of the new one is going to perform just as well; the $9 used WiiMote works just as well as the $39 new one.
I shop at GameStop all the time (aside: I only live about 10 miles from their corporate HQ), but I couldn't tell you the last time I bought or sold a game there, if ever.
0
Options
spacekungfumanPoor and minority-filledRegistered User, __BANNED USERSregular
I'm happy to have a system limiting used sales when they have a price drop to reflect the lost value. Until then it's only sensible as a consumer to grumble about something that on an individual level is all loss, no gain from the current status quo.
And anyone clinging to the original comment about used games being fine has to remember this came from the exact same 'suit being off the cuff interviewed' situation that produced the statement that the Wii would be region free.
Digital only copie cost the same thing as physical copies and can't be resold, so none of the value of the game is its ability to be resold, actually.
The fact that an alternate product you can't resell exists does not change that someone on a limited income is likely to budget reselling into their physical game buying budget. And probably avoid digital altogether where there is a choice for that reason.
'Actually.'
What it shows is that the industry regards the price as just being for the right to play the game, so there will not be price reductions if resale ends, since they will just be on par with existing digital only games.
Stop the used game market when you can still buy a new copy of Space Station Silicon Valley.
This is a good point. I think that a moratorium on used sales for maybe 6 months after release would protect the developers sufficiently, so maybe that's the way to go.
0
Options
AtomikaLive fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered Userregular
Stop the used game market when you can still buy a new copy of Space Station Silicon Valley.
This is a good point. I think that a moratorium on used sales for maybe 6 months after release would protect the developers sufficiently, so maybe that's the way to go.
Or, adding to this (since I don't think you could actually enforce this), require activation codes within the first six months of those games' releases.
Posts
That would require that Nintendo actually have a huge install base of Wii U owners, though. I imagine that, for the majority of consumers, the first time they would realize that the PS4 and/or new xbox won't let them play a used game is somewhere around January 2014 when they go try to buy one (one used game, that is; I don't think 'won't play used games' is going to be a bullet point in the Sony/MS marketing strategy and most people don't pay attention to this sort of thing).
If you're going by gamestop pricing 5 more dollars would make it cost more than a new copy :P
At my local Gamestop:
Final Fantasy XIII New: 19.99 Used: 17.99
Resident Evil 6 New: 29.99 Used: 27.99
I support the used game market and don't have the hate-on that some people have for Gamestop, but anybody who buys used at those prices needs to get slapped.
People do it not because it's a deal, usually, but because of the used-game ecosystem that is Gamestop.
Sure you only save $2 on RE6, but you also get points on your Gamestop Membership card toward a coupon or whatever and if you pick up both FF13 and RE6 at the same time, used, then you can get a 3rd used game for free.
So AssBro is 29.99, used 27.99, Member Used 22.99
It's still a terrible deal, but if you buy tons of used games a year from them it works in your favor.
Let's play Mario Kart or something...
As for the used game thing, if Sony said "we allow used games" then to me that's clear enough that there's nothing Sony is doing systematically. It raises a lot of questions for their other technologies, though, like downloading the game to your hard drive or whatever it is they have in store. It may be that, as others have said, you get some type of code for some shit and you need to activate the copy, which the publisher could implement if they decided to be dickwads.
I don't really see how that's Sony's fault, though. If Sony lets a publisher create a F2P game that actually costs $50 because you have to pay to even boot the sucker, that's not Sony's fault. If a publisher requires you to enter in a code to prove you bought the game from them directly -- again, not Sony's fault. I'm not trying to excuse Sony, but we've had that kind of Damocles's sword for quite a while. We even had it back in the PC days with goofy "Look on page 10 of your manual to solve this puzzle" DRM tricks.
Maybe it's splitting hairs. I'm not defending Sony in general, but just because some conspiracy theorists have made a big deal about how the PS4 could lock out used games doesn't mean Sony's going to do anything about it. It's just fearmongering.
the people buying your game used for $10 are not the people buying a new release for 60, which is where the game companies make all their money.
This exact conversation happened word for word in 2006. everyone basically said it would be a bad thing.
Meanwhile, everyone loves Steam.
O_o
Steam has proven that publishers are willing to sell their games for massive discounts if they are getting that money and not a 3rd party. This will hold true for consoles as well.
I cannot even imagine how many games I would own and how broke I would be if there were "Steam Sales" on my xbox.
Let's play Mario Kart or something...
Sony actually does that in a few ways. PS+ members get discounts, and there are regular sales. There's a whole section of the PS Store devoted to the current sales.
Yeah, I wish I could loan steam games to a friend and it would be pretty cool if I could 'trade in' old games from steam... but they make every other part of the experience somewhere between 'as pain-free as it is possible to be' and 'awesome'. Shit, I can take a game I bought at Best Buy or Gamestop or wherever, plug the key into Steam when I get home, download the game from their servers, and then play it with their social interaction layer...despite the fact that they got exactly zero of my dollars out of that transaction.
I don't think anybody expects that kind of dedication to consumer happiness out of Sony or Microsoft. We only have to look as far as EA to see what another company will do in the same space that Steam occupies: Origin is fucking terrible. If I thought a no-used-games PS4 would make every aspect of the game-buying-and-playing experience as pain-free and generally pleasant as Steam does, I would have a really hard time getting up the gumption to be unhappy about it. As it is, I have all of the tedious update progress bar watching and hacking-related PSN bullshit informing my opinion of what a centralized server backed game authentication system from Sony would look like.
I think you're being a little excessively generous towards Sony. Saying, "Oh hey, we totally allow used games! I mean, we developed a system to facilitate publishers disallowing anyone to play used games, sure, but they don't have to take advantage of this." Sony builds the hardware, and they have a lot of influence over how games get made and sold. If they wanted to ensure that used games were playable, they could. If publishers make you unable to play used games, it is because Sony let them.
And the PC analogy doesn't work, because it's easy to sell your manual with your used game, or in some other way transfer that code.
It would be Sony's fault that they included the infrastructure to lock out used games at all.
And again, the "we allow used games" was almost immediately contradicted by "uh, we'll have more information about used games at E3." It's not a conspiracy theory, it's a general feeling that the Sony people don't know exactly what to say on the matter, because it's something they're at least investigating. If they weren't investigating it, they would say "yes" with no hesitation or contradiction.
As far as Steam doing the same things, that's balanced out by Steam being ludicrously good at allowing price drops and massive sales, often shortly after the game's released. That's not something any of the console publishers have done in any large amount despite the massive amount of additional sales it generates for Steam.
I would also love if the major game manufacturers allowed for a more Steam-like experience. Honestly, I feel like that's where MS and Sony are moving, thanks to Steam's success. The PSN is much more Steam-like now than it was at the start.
Amazon and Apple allow publishers to release books with DRM. Steam is tied to Steam -- it's locked to Valve's system, which thankfully they've worked to make as seamless as possible. Blu-ray allows for region-locking, which was prevalent during the DVD era but is largely ignored now by movie studios. As I said, the current systems allow for publishers to do some really bone-headed things with their games if they decided, but none have, either because the major 3 console manufacturers disallow it or because they realize it's just dumb.
I'm saying that Sony MAY allow publishers to lock their content down and leave the decision up to them. I'm entirely making that up as a hypothetical. It may be that Sony will allow users to sell their own digital games after playing them, creating a digital marketplace for game licenses. We have no information at this point.
But consumers hate that. You're effectively punishing consumers for buying used when no other industry does that.
You don't have to pay an extra few bucks to read a book you bought from your local second hand shop. You don't have to buy an activation code for the copy of RoboCop you got from the used section at FYE.
Is this not fucking over the Doctrine of First Sale in a subtle fashion?
New game sales are one of the main determinants for whether a developer gets to make a sequel or otherwise work with the publisher again. I like games, so I want developers I like to sell a lot of copies of new games and get to make more games. As far as a developer is concerned, a used sale is no different than a pirate copy. Either way, someone is playing their game and they get no credit for it. Maybe DLC can help with this though. I think a good compromise is the $5 or $10 activation fee for used games Atomic Ross suggested.
Except the rest of the world of "Things you can buy" is like this.
Why should Video Games be the special odd man out from the First Sale Doctrine?
try re-selling your ebooks. it's not impossible, just improbable. This debate, at this moment, is meaningful only because consoles are currently stuck with physical media, the next gen is going to move as far away from that as possible. Sony and MS are both already doing that with their current systems.
Blizzard: Pailryder#1101
GoG: https://www.gog.com/u/pailryder
Amazon:
http://www.gmanetwork.com/news/story/295632/scitech/technology/amazon-looks-to-sell-used-ebooks-digital-music
STEAM: http://steamunpowered.eu/steam-soon-to-introduce-used-game-selling-and-new-refund-policy/
I'm not entirely sure how well Amazon's model works in regards to the reality of selling Used Digital items, since by their nature it's not even the same file, just a new, local copy of the file. But this is a thing being explored in the digital space.
And while I understand that they're moving towards the Digital Retail space, the issue still is the fact that as far as we know, both systems still support physical, disc-based games. The Doctrine of First Sale would still clearly apply.
All digital media is strange when it comes to the secondary market, because there is no downside to buying a used product vs a new one. Couple that with the fact that, unlike most products, new sales in the first month or so are the main determinent of success AND there is a healthy resale market during that period, and I think that there are good reasons to treat games differently. Imagine the impact on movies if you could resell your used ticket openin weekend.
that second link is an april fools joke man
Blizzard: Pailryder#1101
GoG: https://www.gog.com/u/pailryder
Blizzard: Pailryder#1101
GoG: https://www.gog.com/u/pailryder
Sorry if this is not the case. But it should be... hm. Oh well. I guess we can't have everything.
Hmm, my mistake; I was familiar with STEAM looking into a program to trade your games back into them.
back semi-on topic, i think the question of used games is interesting. i think the comparison to books or music CDs or anything else is good, but to draw the conclusions that make sense we really have to compare apples to apples.
right now, games are part of electronic devices and the analogies need to stay in that realm, is my proposal. So i'd rule books out as fitting into the model, but CDs might be a better case. It's a dying industry but if it wasn't i'm sure the music companies would be generating CD players that dialed home and required you to activate your album (which incidentally is really what itunes and amazon are all about).
I'm not saying i like it or that it is "right"; i'm trying to say that video games, which are software, are not (or more succinctly) will not be physical goods, which is really what the 'first sale doctrine' is all about. It's a brave scary new world
Blizzard: Pailryder#1101
GoG: https://www.gog.com/u/pailryder
CDs were replaced with non-resellable mp3 files. I think the analogy is apt.
One thing I've always wondered is why used games are such a big market anyway. I can't think of any product other than cars or homes that has such a vibrant resale market. Certainly DVDs and books (the closest analogs to games in my mind) don't have secondary markets that are nearly as robust.
I don't think there are nearly as many second hand book or cd stores as there are game stops, let alone other stores that sell used games. But maybe I'm not that aware, because I have no interest in buying user things?
The main difference with games is that the main game retailer (like 2/3rds of the market or something ridiculous) acts as a pawn shop that actively encourages people to cut the game's industry out of the equation.
I'd suggest price and games not being considered a "collectible item" by most people contributes as well.
At the end of the day, the used game market almost certainly takes more from the industry then it contributes. And because of the sheer size of it, this becomes a thing the industry fucking hates.
If they wanna get rid of it, they'll need to be more aggressive with their pricing to compensate though. The current "online pass" thingy probably works pretty well too and is alot less onerous. Although god knows what the conversion rate on that is.
And anyone clinging to the original comment about used games being fine has to remember this came from the exact same 'suit being off the cuff interviewed' situation that produced the statement that the Wii would be region free.
Digital only copie cost the same thing as physical copies and can't be resold, so none of the value of the game is its ability to be resold, actually.
Note also that even though we can't resell MP3s, all MP3s are now DRM-free. If I want to give them to a friend, that's my choice. Incidentally, most people don't do that -- they paid money for their MP3s and they're more likely to just point a friend to the Amazon/iTunes listing where their friend can buy them. In some cases, people swap -- just like the "old days." There was never really much market for used music, in my opinion, because the entry price was low and the price paid by stores was abysmal! Again, I think any used market is facing more threat from eBay/Amazon cutting out in-person stores than any collusion by manufacturers (which, again, are moving away from DRM).
All 3 systems have massive DRM with their games, with Nintendo being the most restrictive. But yeah, as mentioned, the reason there's a market for used games is due to their high initial price. Many people do not replay games, and they can recoup some portion of their initial $50 or $60. The used games are generally exactly the same as new, thanks to their digital nature. So, it makes sense that it's an easy used market.
I for one would not regard the loss of GameStop as a bad thing at all. Their practice of selling opened games as new is despicable. I have not shopped at a GameStop in years, and never intend on doing so again.
The fact that an alternate product you can't resell exists does not change that someone on a limited income is likely to budget reselling into their physical game buying budget. And probably avoid digital altogether where there is a choice for that reason.
'Actually.'
There are some things (many things, even) in the console/handheld video game that don't physically depreciate the same way other things might because it's an industry largely based in durable goods that also had a demand with a built-in shelf life. The used DualShock for half the price of the new one is going to perform just as well; the $9 used WiiMote works just as well as the $39 new one.
I shop at GameStop all the time (aside: I only live about 10 miles from their corporate HQ), but I couldn't tell you the last time I bought or sold a game there, if ever.
What it shows is that the industry regards the price as just being for the right to play the game, so there will not be price reductions if resale ends, since they will just be on par with existing digital only games.
This is a good point. I think that a moratorium on used sales for maybe 6 months after release would protect the developers sufficiently, so maybe that's the way to go.
Or, adding to this (since I don't think you could actually enforce this), require activation codes within the first six months of those games' releases.