Clamping down on Used Games & (PA) Kevin Returns FoShizzle!

[figmentPez]

1) TYCHO DID NOT SAY BUYING A USED GAME IS THE SAME AS PIRACY. He said it has the same effect, ie, no support financially of the game developers.

There may not be any direct financial payment to game developers, but that's a far cry from having the same effect as piracy. The market for used games promotes and supports the market for new games. Gamestop wouldn't be as big a business as it is now if it didn't buy and sell used games. If Gamestop weren't as big as it is now, they wouldn't be able to hold their big game launch midnight-release events, and the publishers would get less support for advertising their new games.[/QUOTE]

So does buying a used game from gamestop mean the game developer receives money directly from that transaction?[/QUOTE]

No, but they get money from the NEW games that Gamestop sells, and that other outlets sell because of the advertising they get through Gamestop, and because of the word of mouth that Gamestop provides, and they can gauge the buzz about upcoming titles via the pre-orders that Gamestop takes, etc.

Publishers benefit from the used game market, even if they're not paid directly for resold games.

 

[Allen who is Quiet]

1) TYCHO DID NOT SAY BUYING A USED GAME IS THE SAME AS PIRACY. He said it has the same effect, ie, no support financially of the game developers.

There may not be any direct financial payment to game developers, but that's a far cry from having the same effect as piracy. The market for used games promotes and supports the market for new games. Gamestop wouldn't be as big a business as it is now if it didn't buy and sell used games. If Gamestop weren't as big as it is now, they wouldn't be able to hold their big game launch midnight-release events, and the publishers would get less support for advertising their new games.[/QUOTE]

So does buying a used game from gamestop mean the game developer receives money directly from that transaction?[/QUOTE]

No, but they get money from the NEW games that Gamestop sells, and that other outlets sell because of the advertising they get through Gamestop, and because of the word of mouth that Gamestop provides, and they can gauge the buzz about upcoming titles via the pre-orders that Gamestop takes, etc.

Publishers benefit from the used game market, even if they're not paid directly for resold games.[/QUOTE]

So, if I'm understanding correctly, you're trying to change Espy's mind about direct financial benefits of the used game market by arguing about indirect financial benefits of the used game market?

 

[Hailey Knight]

I got it used for $20 from Gamestop in June.

And it's being sold for $20 from Amazon retailers.

 

[Dubyamn]

So, if I'm understanding correctly, you're trying to change Espy's mind about direct financial benefits of the used game market by arguing about indirect financial benefits of the used game market?

Actually he's argueing that game developers receive benefits from the used game market that they don't get from the rampant piracy.

He freely admits that they don't get any money from the sale of a used game but the used game market but the effect isn't the same as piracy.

 

[Sparhawk]

Taking the "gotta support the developers" idea further... Libraries are cheating authors and publishers each time a book is lent out. Video rental stuff (Redbox, Netflix, Blockbuster) is cheating the companies out of money with each rental. Yes, both systems pay a higher initial cost for the product (book, dvd) but don't pay anything back to the originators after that initial sale.

 

[Reboneer]

I got it used for $20 from Gamestop in June.

And it's being sold for $20 from Amazon retailers.

I'm in Australia, so I need a PAL version. Sometimes there are reasonably cheap copies on Amazon.co.uk, but in those cases, they never ship to Australia.

Feel free to prove me wrong though, because I really want to play it.

 

[figmentPez]

So, if I'm understanding correctly, you're trying to change Espy's mind about direct financial benefits of the used game market by arguing about indirect financial benefits of the used game market?

You don't understand at all. Tycho said that used games sales have the same effect on publishers as piracy. I disagree with that because the used game market provides many benefits to publishers that piracy does not.

EDIT: and I see that Dubyamn has already made that point for me. Thanks!

 

[Espy]

So, if I'm understanding correctly, you're trying to change Espy's mind about direct financial benefits of the used game market by arguing about indirect financial benefits of the used game market?

You don't understand at all. Tycho said that used games sales have the same effect on publishers as piracy. I disagree with that because the used game market provides many benefits to publishers that piracy does not.[/QUOTE]

I actually think it would be very interesting to find out what the real benefits of the used game market are. I doubt anyone actually has any numbers either way.I don't know if I buy that it's really all that beneficial. Maybe it is, I can see it, but I doubt its as substantial as people think.

All in all though, I don't think the used market is going away, and I'm not 100% sure it should... it should end up forcing game developers to start figuring out ways to incentivize buying a new game, rather than trying to find ways to punish you for daring to save money.

 

[figmentPez]

Taking the "gotta support the developers" idea further... Libraries are cheating authors and publishers each time a book is lent out. Video rental stuff (Redbox, Netflix, Blockbuster) is cheating the companies out of money with each rental. Yes, both systems pay a higher initial cost for the product (book, dvd) but don't pay anything back to the originators after that initial sale.

The "pay to play online" plan is aimed at game rentals as well as used games. Movie studios tried to get movie rentals made illegal (and couldn't) but game makers may figure out how to make game rentals impractical for many titles.

The game industry is going to shoot itself in the foot if they kill off both the used game and rental industry.

 

[Chazwozel]

Why should they "get over it"? They want to be compensated for the product they create, why are people acting like thats a bad thing?

They WERE compensated. When it was sold new.

As for the car warranty, a lot of them are actually transferrable.

Edit: Tinwhistler ninjas me for the win.[/QUOTE]


I agree with you Gas (for once). Why on Earth should a company be compensated over and over again for the sale of a used product? It just doesn't make sense! The straight forward business model is a company makes a product and sells that product. Once it is sold that's where the buck ends for the company. It is now the property of whoever bought it new. It's absurd to assume that the company has rights to claim after their product has sold.

Here's another media example. A book sold brand new has certain compensation awarded to the publisher and author; if that book is sold at a used book store, the publisher and author don't make an extra red cent. The were already compensated for their work. THQ is just a bunch of greedy motherfuckers trying to scheme a way to fuck over their customer base.

---------- Post added at 11:41 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:36 PM ----------

So, if I'm understanding correctly, you're trying to change Espy's mind about direct financial benefits of the used game market by arguing about indirect financial benefits of the used game market?

You don't understand at all. Tycho said that used games sales have the same effect on publishers as piracy. I disagree with that because the used game market provides many benefits to publishers that piracy does not.[/QUOTE]

I actually think it would be very interesting to find out what the real benefits of the used game market are. I doubt anyone actually has any numbers either way.I don't know if I buy that it's really all that beneficial. Maybe it is, I can see it, but I doubt its as substantial as people think.

All in all though, I don't think the used market is going away, and I'm not 100% sure it should... it should end up forcing game developers to start figuring out ways to incentivize buying a new game, rather than trying to find ways to punish you for daring to save money.[/QUOTE]

If they get rid of Gamestop and all the other trade-in stores, all you'll see is a boom in person to person transactions via ebay, craigslist, and garage sales. What is THQ going to do? Raid your garage sale and demand profit sharing because you want to sell your old video games?

 

[strawman]

I agree with you Gas (for once). Why on Earth should a company be compensated over and over again for the sale of a used product?

Ah, but they aren't selling a product, they're selling an experience!

The current distribution system, unfortunately for media creators, supports the consumer's right of first sale, but you can see they are moving (slowly) away from that model.

Apple is making money hand over fist because you can't sell off your used songs you don't want. There is no secondary market for used itune purchases such as music, movies and apps.

It's one of the reasons Apple was able to get music and movie studios on board, and now book publishers. You can buy something for yourself, or you can buy something as a gift for someone else, but you can't read yours and then give it away as a gift to someone else, nevermind sell it once you've consumed it.

Slowly, but surely, the industry will move in this direction. Steam is one good example in the game market, but all the major consoles have online marketplaces. Until the internet pipes get big enough to download 50GB of content in a reasonable amount of time (30-60 minutes, max) though, only small games and short pieces of content will get wide distribution this way. If they are smart they'll develop games so that they can be downloaded in smaller portions, where gameplay can start once the user has 200MB of the game, as they will progress more slowly than the download will go, so they shouldn't run out of game before its downloaded.

I don't like that, personally, but it's their right to distribute their copyrighted material how they like, and if they stop using physical media I doubt that the courts are going to stand up for the consumer and give them the right to sell old digital bits.

 

[figmentPez]

The current distribution system, unfortunately for media creators, supports the consumer's right of first sale, but you can see they are moving (slowly) away from that model.

Which is why there are talks of laws about digital property. Right now the consumer has almost no rights when it comes to digital distribution. While "right of first sale" is something being talked about, it's hardly the only issue when it comes to digital distrubution. For instance if Valve decides I'm a bad customer, I get locked out of all of my Steam purchases with virtually no recourse. That would be one area that a digital property act would address. Also would be discontinuation of services (if a company shuts down it's authentication services), legal recourse for failure to deliver goods (Steam doesn't ever unlock the game you paid for? You can't just chargeback your credit card, Steam will cancel your account entirely if you do that.) and probably a lot of other issues as well.

I don't like that, personally, but it's their right to distribute their copyrighted material how they like, and if they stop using physical media I doubt that the courts are going to stand up for the consumer and give them the right to sell old digital bits.

They may be able to distribute their material however they want, but just as copyright law made it expressly legal to resell a book, it's quite possible that resale of e-books will be legalized as well.

 

[@Li3n]

Actually i heard that first sale still applies to digital stuff, but they make sure to have the EULA state that they're not selling you the product, they're licensing it to you or something like that, so unless you sell the game before installing it you don't qualify for it.

But you have to love it that now they're going after what used to be people that where legally acquiring games... didn't this happen at the start of the 20th century with other stuff? I seem to remember something about companies suing because the other guy sold stuff cheaper or some other crap like that...

 

[Dubyamn]

Actually i heard that first sale still applies to digital stuff, but they make sure to have the EULA state that they're not selling you the product, they're licensing it to you or something like that, so unless you sell the game before installing it you don't qualify for it.

Well there has been quite a bit of talk in the law about how enforcable those EULAs are. And I think a couple times they have come up in courts the judges have ruled that certain parts were just too much.

It's impossible to really say how the courts will rule on stuff like the liscensing vrs. ownership debate but the law in this area has yet to have a test case.

 

[Tinwhistler]

Actually i heard that first sale still applies to digital stuff, but they make sure to have the EULA state that they're not selling you the product, they're licensing it to you or something like that, so unless you sell the game before installing it you don't qualify for it.

Well there has been quite a bit of talk in the law about how enforcable those EULAs are. And I think a couple times they have come up in courts the judges have ruled that certain parts were just too much.

It's impossible to really say how the courts will rule on stuff like the liscensing vrs. ownership debate but the law in this area has yet to have a test case.[/QUOTE]


Court Once Again Confirms Right Of First Sale For Software: You Own It, Not License It | Techdirt

Excellent news. In the ongoing case involving Autodesk and a guy, Timothy Vernor, who was trying to sell legally acquired used versions of AutoCAD on eBay, the district court judge has ruled that Autodesk has no right to restrict the sales of its used software. This wasn't a huge surprise, as the court indicated as much last year, when it refused to grant Autodesk's motion to dismiss the case. But this is an important ruling for a variety of reasons. Beyond just reiterating the well-established right of first sale on software, it also helps clarify that when you by a piece of software, you own it, rather than just license it.

 

[Chibibar]

The indirect value of a used game (via Gamestop) sale is the customer is IN the store. There is a chance that a customer might buy a NEW game in that store. Piracy? not so much, there is a good chance to pirate ANOTHER game since pirate site rarely sell new games (this is an assumption since I don't pirate games hehe)

I know some friends who are marketers, and they always tell me that the main trick is to get people IN the store, once in the store, there is a better chance a customer will buy a product. This is where sales come into play.

 

[Allen who is Quiet]

So, if I'm understanding correctly, you're trying to change Espy's mind about direct financial benefits of the used game market by arguing about indirect financial benefits of the used game market?

Actually he's argueing that game developers receive benefits from the used game market that they don't get from the rampant piracy.

He freely admits that they don't get any money from the sale of a used game but the used game market but the effect isn't the same as piracy.[/QUOTE]

Man, at least somebody can put it concisely.

So, long story short, THQ is experimenting with a model that could encourage more upfront sales and discourage used game sales, and this could be bad because it might not help gamestop expand their used game sales which might lead to them being unable to hype games that have not been released. Am I getting that right?

 

[SpecialKO]

Not quite.

It's more that THQ is trying to encourage upfront sales by discouraging used sales because they think that the secondary used market has no value to them. This could be bad because they're assuming that the vast majority of used buyers would prefer to buy the full-price new retail box instead of preferring to just not buy the game, and it rejects the idea that the secondary used market has any value whatsoever.

 

[sixpackshaker]

THQ could solve the problem by making a game that gamers do not tire of too fast. If you are an initial release buyer. You play your $60 game for 3 weeks and get tired of it, the only way to make up for that lost money is to sell it to the next schlub down the line.

 

[Chibibar]

Not quite.

It's more that THQ is trying to encourage upfront sales by discouraging used sales because they think that the secondary used market has no value to them. This could be bad because they're assuming that the vast majority of used buyers would prefer to buy the full-price new retail box instead of preferring to just not buy the game, and it rejects the idea that the secondary used market has any value whatsoever.

^-- This is what I think THQ is thinking, which can be a bad bad decision in my opinion.

 

[figmentPez]

So, long story short, THQ is experimenting with a model that could encourage more upfront sales and discourage used game sales, and this could be bad because it might not help gamestop expand their used game sales which might lead to them being unable to hype games that have not been released. Am I getting that right?

More than that, THQ risks pissing off consumers (even those who buy new or don't play online) and causing them to think about game prices more than they already do. Businesses want their customers happy to fork over money and satisfied with the product, not resentful and jadedly checking to see if they're getting value for their dollar.

 

[Allen who is Quiet]

Not quite.

It's more that THQ is trying to encourage upfront sales by discouraging used sales because they think that the secondary used market has no value to them. This could be bad because they're assuming that the vast majority of used buyers would prefer to buy the full-price new retail box instead of preferring to just not buy the game, and it rejects the idea that the secondary used market has any value whatsoever.

Ok, got it. Thanks.

 

[Chibibar]

So, long story short, THQ is experimenting with a model that could encourage more upfront sales and discourage used game sales, and this could be bad because it might not help gamestop expand their used game sales which might lead to them being unable to hype games that have not been released. Am I getting that right?

More than that, THQ risks pissing off consumers (even those who buy new or don't play online) and causing them to think about game prices more than they already do. Businesses want their customers happy to fork over money and satisfied with the product, not resentful and jadedly checking to see if they're getting value for their dollar.[/QUOTE]
That is true.

The price of games have gone up. I do think twice, thrice and even four times before buying a game. Do I REALLY need to play it and spend 60$ now! or wait for a sale and get it later

Console games are the worst. They are pretty darn expensive, and I only have so much money to spend per month.

I average about 50-100$ a month on games. I usually buy a bunch on Steam (bang for my buck) and maybe buy console game once every 3-5 months if I'm lucky.

I can't wait for Xmas and Black Friday sales on Steam

 

[Jay]

It's a model that won't work as well as they think it would. If they implemented this in all games, stores like ebgames will stop buying back old games with this new tech. Thus consumers will buy these games for full value and not get much in return depending on what they purchase. This means, all new purchases are full value. A good majority of the gaming market are those with limited income and to be told they need to pay full value which can be up to 60-80$ for a new game "aka Smackdown 11" makes them far less likely to make such a purchase and stick to older games.

 

[tegid]

I have this friend who buys 10 to 15 games per year, and resells 80% of them. I assure you, if he could not resell them he would only buy 3-4 games a year, tops. It's not only about the money, it's the assurance that if he doesn't like the game enough to keep it for years he'll get part of his money back. Without that, he'd only buy the various Halo related products for the Xbox. This same guy would probably buy second hand games, or buy them first hand for PC, but since second hand market doesn't exist for PC, he sticks to consoles and, well, pirates on the PC. (Except for older, cheaper, games on Steam, sometimes).

So, yeah, from my experience, not such a good idea to screw used games buyers.

Also, I find ludicrous that 'If I am purchasing games in order to reward their creators, and to ensure that more of these ingenious contraptions are produced, I honestly can't figure out how buying a used game was any better than piracy.'. Because even if the money for a used game doesn't go directly to the creator, it goes to someone who might buy other games. And it contributes to keeping the value of the product, as opposed to piracy. Buying used, for one upfront sale 2, 3, 4 people max will play that game. With piracy it may be more like 100, devaluating the product.


I know I'm late to the party, but I wanted to say this. I also think that some of what I said is slightly different than previous arguments I've read.

 

[ThatNickGuy]

I can't wait for Xmas and Black Friday sales on Steam

*looks at the long list of games he bought from the holiday sale last year*

*SOB!* No. No, no, no, no. I bought like a dozen games last year for $20. There were too many tempting deals, damnit!

 

[Chibibar]

I can't wait for Xmas and Black Friday sales on Steam

*looks at the long list of games he bought from the holiday sale last year*

*SOB!* No. No, no, no, no. I bought like a dozen games last year for $20. There were too many tempting deals, damnit![/QUOTE]

but but... I support the developers AND get my games at a good price. *one of us! one of us!*

 

[Chazwozel]

I still don't understand how buying a physical product (like a console game cd) and then reselling it, equates to piracy.

 

[ThatNickGuy]

I think it's more in the sense of buying a used game, wherein the money wouldn't go to the company if you bought a new copy.

 

[Chibibar]

I still don't understand how buying a physical product (like a console game cd) and then reselling it, equates to piracy.

Me neither. Unless it is about getting money from selling games.

buying used game = not getting any money
pirating = not getting any money

That is the ONLY thing I can think of.

 

[Espy]

Tycho wrote up some more stuff this morning, that helps clarify what he was thinking:

It turns out that used games are a tremendously controversial issue. Part of the reason response to the comic and post has been so massive is that (aside from our inflammatory presentation) this conversation has been a long time coming. The thing for the commentariat to do about this issue typically is to carve out as populist a stance as possible, to cluck and tut tut about it so as to ingratiate themselves to you as much as possible, and then follow up by posting a picture of a belt buckle. That strikes me as a bit precious.

Because this is the Internet, every argument was spun in a centrifuge instantly and reduced down into two wholly enraged, radically incompatible contingents, as opposed to the natural gradient which human beings actually occupy.
People who buy used games are not pirates, by definition. Used games (used everything, really) are and will continue to be a legal and protected form of commerce. Other industries have done what they can to co-opt, destroy, or harvest those markets, but their existence is settled law. What I have said is that the end result of that purchase from a developer perspective must be indistinguishable. Isn't it? That is the question I couldn't answer. I still can't answer it. And because I couldn't, I had to change the way I invested my leisure dollar.

People want to talk about used cars, or libraries, or any other thing really, but I'm not talking about the universe in general - I'm talking about the tiny part of it I have any control over. That bit up there is the part I can't resolve: the moral dimension contained within the purchase. Yes, I'm giving somebody money when I buy used. Is that sufficient? What is the end result, and what systems am I sustaining by doing so?
I'd rather not think about things like this, believe me. I'd rather be Mr. Perpetual Good Times, but I'm not built that way. On the whole, I'd say thinking has been a tremendous inconvenience.

If you still don't get what he's talking about regarding used games and piracy etc, or still think he's saying they are the "same thing" then I don't really know what else to say. He can't be much clearer about his point.

 

[tegid]

What I have said is that the end result of that purchase from a developer perspective must be indistinguishable. Isn't it? That is the question I couldn't answer. I still can't answer it. And because I couldn't, I had to change the way I invested my leisure dollar.

I DID understand that he wasn't equating used games to piracy. What I didn't get was this: that he wasn't sure if both things were or not distinguishable from the developer's perspective. I read his previous post as saying they were indistinguishable. My bad. (You got to admit the strip+post together did seem to point that way, though)

Luckily, I believe I do know. And, well, what we were arguing here is what he says he doesn't know, he thinks about, etc. so yay for us I guess.

 

[Espy]

I think his point is to try and get people to think about what their money is supporting. If you want to support Gamestop, buy their used games, if you want to support BioWare, buy a new game. Most people probably NEVER think about where those dollars are going. If the discussion has done one good thing it's getting folks to merely consider that their money supports one system or the other. Thats usually good.

 

[SpecialKO]

Most people probably NEVER think about where those dollars are going.

Even new, usually not the developer. That's what's a bit irritating about Tycho's pseudo-moral stance. His whole stance was based on being "one of the creative people", but the "creative people" for big games most of the time don't see the slightest difference in personal income whether a game does well or not, because most big games are sold by publishers, not developers, and they make most of their money from selling to distribution chains, not customers (MMO subscription models are big precisely because they allow publishers to cut out the middleman).

For big games, developers are usually paid for their contributions before the game has even hit the retail chains, and the vast majority of developers don't make any kind of commission bonus based on overall sales. They may get a promise from the publisher to get a bigger budget next time, but it's not quite the same thing, especially if "next time" isn't on paper as an obligation. The folks who work at publishers, for that matter, are similarly paid before the retail chains fork over a dollar. Some of them will profit considerably from a big winner in retail sales, but those people tend to be shareholders, C-levels, and the sales/marketing team. It doesn't really trickle down much farther.

The only time when buying new is guaranteed to help the development company is when you buy directly from them, with no publishers, distributors, or distributions platforms in the way.

 

[Espy]

No, his stance was based on, as he said, meeting the creative folks behind games, not that he is one of them (although he kind of is I guess, with OTRSPOD and all), and I don't think I read anything from him about your dollars literally paying for anyones paycheck. He uses the term "support" quite a bit. "Support" is very different from the way you are describing it.
When you buy a new game, despite your last line there, you are supporting the companies who made the game, no matter if you buy it directly from them or Best Buy. They get part of the sales. Boom. Now, does the individual developer? Of course not, no one but you brought that up. But it does support the company, it does show support for the game and it does give incentive for them to make more games, as suddenly their games make profit.

You go buy that game used from Gamestop, which is fine and legal, and it does none of that. It doesn't make it "Bad" or "evil" but it doesn't support the company. At least thats how I'm understanding his point.