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

[figmentPez]

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.

Buying a used game may not benefit the company that made the game, at least not directly, but it does benefit the game industry, as a whole, in ways that piracy does not. Therefore the result of buying a used game is not the same as pirating it.

 

[SpecialKO]

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.

It certainly does. I'm not trying to equate the level of support between buying new from anywhere versus buying used (my apologies if I gave that impression). But Tycho's confusion is based around the idea that there is no functional difference in levels of support between the used market and piracy, and at absolute bare minimum, the used market has demonstrated a propensity to actually pay for games from that company. Unlike a pirate, you can make a reasonable assumption at a chance to convert a used buyer to a "new" buyer when the sequel rolls around.

 

[Espy]

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.

Buying a used game may not benefit the company that made the game, at least not directly, but it does benefit the game industry, as a whole, in ways that piracy does not. Therefore the result of buying a used game is not the same as pirating it.[/QUOTE]

And thats great, but it's not what the discussion is about. You want to bring up this vague, insupportable idea that buying used games benefits "the industry". Great. I'm sure there are fantastic numbers to back that up. But it's still not what the discussion is about. It's just a way to argue that buying used games isn't all bad, which is true. However, in regards to directly supporting the game publisher/developer, the only way to do that is to buy their game new. So for the developer, if you pirate their game or buy a used copy it all equals out to the same (in general, not counting any vague "it supports the industry" stuff that is probably true but not really quantifiable) in their pockets and numbers. Does that make sense? I'm not trying to say you are a "pirate" if you buy a used game, in fact, as has been pointed out about a billion times, NO ONE IS, but it has a similar effect is Tychos argument. And he's right. It doesn't make it bad or evil or wrong, in fact I would argue that game developers would push for 2 things to fight this: 1) Lower game costs to begin with and 2) ANYTHING other than piracy, because with piracy NO ONE benefits at all.

 

[figmentPez]

And thats great, but it's not what the discussion is about. You want to bring up this vague, insupportable idea that buying used games benefits "the industry". Great. I'm sure there are fantastic numbers to back that up. But it's still not what the discussion is about. It's just a way to argue that buying used games isn't all bad, which is true. However, in regards to directly supporting the game publisher/developer, the only way to do that is to buy their game new. So for the developer, if you pirate their game or buy a used copy it all equals out to the same (in general, not counting any vague "it supports the industry" stuff that is probably true but not really quantifiable) in their pockets and numbers. Does that make sense? I'm not trying to say you are a "pirate" if you buy a used game, in fact, as has been pointed out about a billion times, NO ONE IS, but it has a similar effect is Tychos argument. And he's right. It doesn't make it bad or evil or wrong, in fact I would argue that game developers would push for 2 things to fight this: 1) Lower game costs to begin with and 2) ANYTHING other than piracy, because with piracy NO ONE benefits at all.

How is that not what this discussion is about? Tycho said that "the end result of that [used] purchase from a developer perspective must be indistinguishable [from piracy]". I'm saying that devlopers need to take a broader view of the used market, just as book publishers, music companies and the car industry have to (heck, car makers even use resale value to sell new cars). The game industry is not alone in this. Take this New York Times article for example: Reading Between the Lines of Used Book Sales. To quote "there are two distinct types of buyers: some purchase only new books, while others are quite happy to buy used books. As a result, the used market does not have a big impact in terms of lost sales in the new market. Moreover, the presence of lower-priced books on the Amazon Web site, Mr. Bezos has noted, may lead customers to "visit our site more frequently, which in turn leads to higher sales of new books.'" The study found that "only about 16 percent of the used book sales directly cannibalized new book sales" and that's despite a much steeper price difference between new and used books. Used books typically sell for 75% of the new price (and used textbooks go for even less), whereas popular games often sell for 90% of the original price. Even Madden 2011 (which has a $10 fee for used to play online) is selling for 80% of it's new price. All this despite book publishers claiming that used sales on Amazon will "will cut significantly into sales of new titles, directly harming authors and publishers."

Why assume that the video game industry is any different? Video game publishers are claiming the exact same thing as book publishers, yet I see no reason to think their fears are any more founded.

 

[SpecialKO]

So for the developer, if you pirate their game or buy a used copy it all equals out to the same (in general, not counting any vague "it supports the industry" stuff that is probably true but not really quantifiable) in their pockets and numbers.

Actually, thanks to the tubes, and depending on the game, it can be very quantifiable, at least as a ratio of boxes sold vs # of registered players, boxes sold vs active players, etc.

Example in spoiler tags for length:

Spoiler

Say, to make things simple, a publisher knows that they've sold 15,000 copies of a game at $50, for a $30 profit. They have 20,000 players who've registered to use their matchmaking system. Thanks to an online "check in" system they've implemented, they know that everyone in their player pop had a legally acquired copy at the time they registered (no pirates), so they know that 25% of their legal playerbase bought used/rented/acquired a legal copy in some way that didn't give them money directly.

So we have 5,000 players who haven't bought anything directly yet, but are still invested in the game. In fact, these 5,000 players bought their games via Gamestop from the 5,000 "new" players who bought the game for $20 and then got tired of having it. So instead of the active player base going down to 10,000 from 15,000, the addition of the secondary market maintains the pop at 15,000.

Now the pub has released their first DLC for $10. 75% of their remaining original base chooses to buy it (7,500). Let's say that the second-hand users are, for the most part, thrifty folks with not a lot of immediately available budget, and only 50% of them buy the DLC (2,500).

So:

1) 7,500 "new" players who are worth $40 each ($30 new + $10 DLC)
2) 7,500 "new" players who are worth $30 each (new only), 5,000 who left
3) 2,500 "used" players who are worth $10 each (used only)
4) 2,500 "used" players who are worth nothing except their company in helping maintain the community

$550,000 in revenue

vs

Only the first 2, which comes to $525,000. And a smaller playerbase for the future.

Now, there are definitely assumptions, to be sure. Conversion rates, sales rates, abandon rates, are all assumed. We're assuming no "new" batch of customers, that some undefinable proportion of the "used" group wouldn't bite the bullet and buy "new", and that the pub doesn't sell advertising at a very profitable margin within the game. And there's no use-cost per registered user.

But the point is, it can be very, very quantifiable, and can be directly tied to direct revenue to the publisher. It really just depends on what the pub is willing to track, and how they're willing to exploit behavior to monetize it.

 

[Dubyamn]

And thats great, but it's not what the discussion is about. You want to bring up this vague, insupportable idea that buying used games benefits "the industry". Great. I'm sure there are fantastic numbers to back that up. But it's still not what the discussion is about.

No that is exactly what the argument is about. It's about the used game market vrs. the new game market. It isn't about the out of context and worthless comparison of new game purchase vrs. used game purchase.

It's just a way to argue that buying used games isn't all bad, which is true. However, in regards to directly supporting the game publisher/developer, the only way to do that is to buy their game new. So for the developer, if you pirate their game or buy a used copy it all equals out to the same (in general, not counting any vague "it supports the industry" stuff that is probably true but not really quantifiable) in their pockets and numbers.

No it doesn't and that is where they are wrong. According to Gamestop about 1/3rd of the money spent on new games in their stores comes from the trade in of old games. Now how much of their sales come from Gamestop and how much comes from the big retailers I don't know. But if the players trading in their own games have a 33% increase in their buying power it is exactly quantifiable and it does have a sizable increase in their profits.

Does that make sense? I'm not trying to say you are a "pirate" if you buy a used game, in fact, as has been pointed out about a billion times, NO ONE IS, but it has a similar effect is Tychos argument. And he's right.

Bullshit Tycho compared the used game market to piracy for one reason only. He wanted to link the two in the reader's mind and by saying that there is no difference in the effect a clear lie he is condeeming them both equally.

It doesn't make it bad or evil or wrong, in fact I would argue that game developers would push for 2 things to fight this: 1) Lower game costs to begin with and 2) ANYTHING other than piracy, because with piracy NO ONE benefits at all.

Would be great if they were proposing anything like this. They aren't of course. If it wasn't for the fact that they were starting to get behind Steam I would be comparing them to the CD industry in their stupidity.

 

[SpecialKO]

Is there a link to the decision somewhere? I don't trust AP stories (the story the author links to) on items like this because AP writers often go a bit far on implications and big picture in their attempt to make it "legible" for general audiences.

 

[sixpackshaker]

Civilization is now over...

and money won. Just not the buyer's money.

How much damage will this do to the gaming industry? I don't know if I would buy a normal console style game on first release, if I don't have the ability to resell the game if it does not meet my expectations.

 

[Espy]

I gotta be honest here, despite agreeing with Tycho, this doesn't sound like a good thing at all.

 

[SpecialKO]

Thanks, Tin. That really doesn't sound good.

That said, until console publishers are willing to include licensing agreements in all their games including a pre-paid return for a full refund option (like all commercial software publishers do), there's no immediate concern.

Also, folks should note that the circuit court specifically states that the defense charge that the copyright holder misused their copyright, which was ignored by the district court as not being necessary to the proceedings, is a valid charge by the defense and should be addressed by the district court. So this could still go in multiple directions.

 

[Frank]

Shitty news.

 

[Jay]

Their industry is gonna expect a lot of losses with this new concept. Let me be honest, just made me 100% inclined to torrent your shit unless I REALLY love it and has good MP.

I'm not paying 30-80$ for a game I CANNOT RESALE.

 

[Cheesy1]

At the very least, they're gonna have to put out better products to make people want to spend that much money on something they'll HAVE to keep. Buying something that ends up being shit doesn't hurt AS bad if you know you can get some of your money back by reselling it.

 

[AshburnerX]

Don't licenses require contracts? And can anyone think of any other license outside of the entertainment industry that has to be consented to AFTER paying for it? Hell, your not even able to SEE the contract until after you've payed for it. For that matter, if resale is illegal, then isn't the initial sale at the store illegal because it's simply a resale of a license of a product that the store bought from the company first?

I think that unless the ENTIRE ENTERTAINMENT INDUSTRY is willing to completely control the supply chain and sell their products directly to the population, cutting the 3rd Party "storefront" (in whatever form it takes) out of the equation entirely, there is no way this decision can stand. It has the potential to utterly devastate the shopping industry to it's very core, depending on how you interpret it.

 

[@Li3n]

The way i understand it the decision was based on the fact that the EULA stated the software license couldn't be transferred, so it's not about being a law against reselling games, but about contractual obligations and shit. Still, that's exactly what cause the 1st sale doctrine to exist in the first place, BS notices on books... licensing game for a flat fee is just a way to bypass it, and really shouldn't count... one should be able to transfer a license after buying it too.

Of course it's BS if the guy just got the software from a sale and didn't click Ok on any EULA...