I'm not familiar with US law, being from the UK .. but that's an interesting read, regardless. I also noticed the following: ".. the court found the plaintiff's EULA, which prohibited resale, was binding on the defendants because "The defendants .. expressly consented to the terms of the EULA and Terms of Use by clicking 'I Agree' and 'Agree.'" Seems like a bit of a grey area; your courts have ruled that EULAs aren't binding in some cases but are binding in others, and there isn't any mention of game software.
What a lot of people don't understand is that in the U.S. your rights are your rights whether you want them or not. You CAN NOT sign away/wave etc. your legal rights.
For example... I go to a rock climbing gym downtown, when I joined I signed a waiver stating that "rock climbing is dangerous, blah blah blah, management not liable for you busting your ass, blah blah." We've all signed waivers like that, and they all read like the point is that we hurt ourselves we can't sue. This is absolutely wrong. If this was the case, why is the owner (a friend of mine) paying out the ass for insurance? What's he insuring against? See, the point of the waiver is NOT so Dan can't be sued if someone hurts himself, people couldn't legally sign away they're rights if they wanted to, the point of the waiver is that if someone hurts themselves and sues, they can't used the arguement in court that they wheren't warned that climbing was dangerous, proving that the plaintiff understood the risk and was willing to accept the risk and liablity for said risk before engaing in the activity helps the defendant.
Likewise, 90% of everything in a EULA would not hold up in court. Ever. But here's what it REALLY means: it's means that the software makers contract with you says they don't have to support if you don't play by there rules (and ussually says they don't have to support you even if you do). A lot of software today (particularly anything with an online component) relies on the software providing a continuing service... which they wouldn't be legally obligated to do even if there was no EULA because any business has a legal right to refuse service to anyone at any time for any (or no) reason.
Once again the EULA doesn't (and legally can't) grant or revoke any parties legal rights, in fact in the case of a EULA it can't even be used in court as "you can't say you wheren't made aware" document because in the case of most software, you had to buy the software BEFORE you where presented the EULA, so it can't legally be considered a sales contract.
A EULA does ONE thing and ONE thing alone: It establishes that the software manufacturer is not liable for in any for any service related to the software. That's it. That's all it even can do. And that would still be true without the EULA.
That doesn't explain the pink highlight, though.
Why did the courts find in favour of the plaintiff? .. purely because there was express consent? .. if that's the case, couldn't game companies simply change to digital distribution with an EULA prior to purchase/download which would surely be legally binding under the same ruling?
Playing: EVE, Final Fantasy 13, Uncharted 2, Need for Speed: Shift
I didnt state my case enough earlier very well at all and the used car anogly is a horrible one. Recently I traded my paid off Nissan Titan Back to get an Nissan Altima Coupe at a Nissan dealership. Nissan can resell my Titan to someone else. So thier anology doesnt nessarily apply. Computer games dont wear out and can re written to play on new system like the site Good old games. Cars, Comps, phones, tv's mechanics wear out over time. Games nesssarily dont. the word greed is thrown around like candy. Last time I checked people are allowed to make money (imo).
The car analogy is indeed flawed, but your reasoning doesn't do much to illustrate that. By this, I mean, I am not compelled to sell my car back to the dealership. I can sell myself, to an independant used car lot (Car Stop?), or the dealership. Perhaps a solution would be for the game publishers to offer their own resale outlets. That'd be an interesting approach.
That said, a more direct comparison would be to the resale of movies and music which is also allowed. The movie and music industry are certainly allowed to make money off their product when they sell it. After that, the DVD/CD is mine to sell or keep. Now, if I got into copying, then sure, the industry has every right to go after that if it is not permitted. The same rules apply to the game industry.
Outstanding ty!
All my opinions are just that..opinions. If you like my opinions..coolness.If you dont like my opinion....I really dont care. Playing: ESO, WOT, Smite, and Marvel Heroes
All this would be mute if the re-sellers like gamestop would throw a bone in sharing the resell profits a bit. They eventually will regret this and could start to be a company like blockbuster. Technology is growing everyday and the need for stores are dwindling and they will only have themselves to blame when the game companies wont need them any more.
Ive never bought the used car analogy because alot of the times its the same car company thats reselling the car, and they do wear out, where a game if taken care of can last a long time. But Im not arguing that people dont have a right a sell their games, but just dont whine when the game companies bypass stores and dvds so they can make a better profit off their work and not amazon or best buy re-sellers.
I didnt state my case enough earlier very well at all and the used car anogly is a horrible one. Recently I traded my paid off Nissan Titan Back to get an Nissan Altima Coupe at a Nissan dealership. Nissan can resell my Titan to someone else. So thier anology doesnt nessarily apply. Computer games dont wear out and can re written to play on new system like the site Good old games. Cars, Comps, phones, tv's mechanics wear out over time. Games nesssarily dont. the word greed is thrown around like candy. Last time I checked people are allowed to make money (imo).
And last time i checked the company that created the games are allowed to pursue any avenue to try to make money of their hard work. and even read the thread? I wasnt arguing that people cant sell games, just that eventually because of the current system set up, it is encouraging the technology to be created in order for games to be sold so that they can make better profit, they are not obliged to make it easy for people to resell the product where they see no profit.
I didnt state my case enough earlier very well at all and the used car anogly is a horrible one. Recently I traded my paid off Nissan Titan Back to get an Nissan Altima Coupe at a Nissan dealership. Nissan can resell my Titan to someone else. So thier anology doesnt nessarily apply. Computer games dont wear out and can re written to play on new system like the site Good old games. Cars, Comps, phones, tv's mechanics wear out over time. Games nesssarily dont. the word greed is thrown around like candy. Last time I checked people are allowed to make money (imo).
The car analogy is indeed flawed, but your reasoning doesn't do much to illustrate that. By this, I mean, I am not compelled to sell my car back to the dealership. I can sell myself, to an independant used car lot (Car Stop?), or the dealership. Perhaps a solution would be for the game publishers to offer their own resale outlets. That'd be an interesting approach.
That said, a more direct comparison would be to the resale of movies and music which is also allowed. The movie and music industry are certainly allowed to make money off their product when they sell it. After that, the DVD/CD is mine to sell or keep. Now, if I got into copying, then sure, the industry has every right to go after that if it is not permitted. The same rules apply to the game industry.
This is one of the best points I've read on the subject and I think it's what we all need to keep site of, if I am buying games and pirating them (finding a way to sell multiple copies of the game) then it is an issue if I sell the three hundred video games I bought and paid for then I don't see an issue here wether the companies feel they have a right to come after me for doing so or not.
but yeah, to call this game Fantastic is like calling Twilight the Godfather of vampire movies....
That said, a more direct comparison would be to the resale of movies and music which is also allowed. The movie and music industry are certainly allowed to make money off their product when they sell it. After that, the DVD/CD is mine to sell or keep. Now, if I got into copying, then sure, the industry has every right to go after that if it is not permitted. The same rules apply to the game industry.
Is the movie/music industry comparable though?
Game companies don't just ship a game and move on to the next in the same way that a movie/music producer does. Games need patches, compatibility and technical support. If I buy a game, I'm entitled to that support. If I sell the game on to someone who hasn't paid a penny to the game company, should they still be entitled to the same support?
Playing: EVE, Final Fantasy 13, Uncharted 2, Need for Speed: Shift
Is the movie/music industry comparable though? Game companies don't just ship a game and move on to the next in the same way that a movie/music producer does. Games need patches, compatibility and technical support. If I buy a game, I'm entitled to that support. If I sell the game on to someone who hasn't paid a penny to the game company, should they still be entitled to the same support?
To the extent that they are all entertainment industry items and distributed digitally or physically, yes they are comparable. Cost wise, movies may cost more to produce then games, albums less or comparable depending on the artist or game.
Sales wise, a game's price should cover production and ongoing support. Since these are not new factors in the life cycle of a game, I do not see technical support/patching as an ongoing factor that should rule out the possiblity of resale.
-mklinic
"Do something right, no one remembers. Do something wrong, no one forgets" -from No One Remembers by In Strict Confidence
It doesn't really effect me at all since I only buy PC games and you really can't trade PC games in anymore. But I have a feeling that if companies start doing this it will lead people to start pirating stuff. I bought the damn thing so I should be able to watch it or play it as many times as I please. To be honest if I bought a movie and after the 5th time I watched it I couldn't anymore, I would just pirate the damn thing burn it to dvd and watch it 100 more times.
The irony is that these methods are in response to piracy and used game sales yet by their very design they are pushing more towards piracy and buying games used to forego the overall cost.
God forbid these companies work together and come up with something where everyone wins. Like a mimimal percentage of every sale going back to the company that initially released the game.
No...better to simply hurt their overall sales on both sides of the fence by going with this whole nonsense.
1. For god's sake mmo gamers, enough with the analogies. They're unnecessary and your comparisons are terrible, dissimilar, and illogical.
2. To posters feeling the need to state how f2p really isn't f2p: Players understand the concept. You aren't privy to some secret the rest are missing. You're embarrassing yourself.
3. Yes, Cpt. Obvious, we're not industry experts. Now run along and let the big people use the forums for their purpose.
Sales wise, a game's price should cover production and ongoing support. Since these are not new factors in the life cycle of a game, I do not see technical support/patching as an ongoing factor that should rule out the possiblity of resale.
Doesn't the life cycle of a game end when the purchaser passes it on?
That seems to be the stance of the game company, and it seems logical that the 2nd owner has no sales contract with the game company in that they've purchased the game second-hand.
I don't know if this is another disparity between UK and US law, but over here if I buy something and then pass it on, the 2nd party can't return to the shop that I bought it from if the product develops a fault. By purchasing at a reduced price in a private sale, they lose that recourse.
I can see both perspectives on this, but I'm still more sympathetic to the game company.
Playing: EVE, Final Fantasy 13, Uncharted 2, Need for Speed: Shift
Its funny because developers save a buttload once you remove boxes, instruction manuals and distribution costs. But guess what...game prices won't be reduced=) Thats nearly 10% of the cost of a game going right into their pockets and out of ours. Add in content thats finished at release but is purposely saved for DLC, so developers can add more gravy. You pay $10 that goes completely into their pockets but doesn't equal 20% of the full game, considering a game costs 50$ for example.
I rarely buy any games new, unless they're amazing. $60 is a ripoff for a game you beat in less than 10 hrs, then you get charged another $10 for another hour or 2. Thats got to piss you off a little when you start breaking it down.
Its funny because developers save a buttload once you remove boxes, instruction manuals and distribution costs. But guess what...game prices won't be reduced=) Thats nearly 10% of the cost of a game going right into their pockets and out of ours. Add in content thats finished at release but is purposely saved for DLC, so developers can add more gravy. You pay $10 that goes completely into their pockets but doesn't equal 20% of the full game, considering a game costs 50$ for example. I rarely buy any games new, unless they're amazing. $60 is a ripoff for a game you beat in less than 10 hrs, then you get charged another $10 for another hour or 2. Thats got to piss you off a little when you start breaking it down.
I have never understood how a company keeps a straight face or tries to justify it when they charge the same price for someone that downloads a game from their own site that they do someone that goes to a store and picks up a physical copy of the game.
It makes absolutely no sense but they do it because customers still buy it. So what's to stop them?
1. For god's sake mmo gamers, enough with the analogies. They're unnecessary and your comparisons are terrible, dissimilar, and illogical.
2. To posters feeling the need to state how f2p really isn't f2p: Players understand the concept. You aren't privy to some secret the rest are missing. You're embarrassing yourself.
3. Yes, Cpt. Obvious, we're not industry experts. Now run along and let the big people use the forums for their purpose.
Sales wise, a game's price should cover production and ongoing support. Since these are not new factors in the life cycle of a game, I do not see technical support/patching as an ongoing factor that should rule out the possiblity of resale.
Doesn't the life cycle of a game end when the purchaser passes it on?
That seems to be the stance of the game company, and it seems logical that the 2nd owner has no sales contract with the game company in that they've purchased the game second-hand.
I don't know if this is another disparity between UK and US law, but over here if I buy something and then pass it on, the 2nd party can't return to the shop that I bought it from if the product develops a fault. By purchasing at a reduced price in a private sale, they lose that recourse.
I can see both perspectives on this, but I'm still more sympathetic to the game company.
I'm not sure I understand. By this I mean, I don't know if I am entitled to tech support if I am the second owner of a game for example, but downloading a patch is still something I would expect to be able to do. I can't say if this is a legal difference between US/UK, but can only speak to my personal expectations.
Again though, we are not talking about newly developed and unaccounted for costs. If I keep the game, then the company has a support burden right? If I sell the game, then they actually get out of support and thus reduce their overhead. They should be encouraging me to resell their product
-mklinic
"Do something right, no one remembers. Do something wrong, no one forgets" -from No One Remembers by In Strict Confidence
Its funny because developers save a buttload once you remove boxes, instruction manuals and distribution costs. But guess what...game prices won't be reduced=) Thats nearly 10% of the cost of a game going right into their pockets and out of ours. Add in content thats finished at release but is purposely saved for DLC, so developers can add more gravy. You pay $10 that goes completely into their pockets but doesn't equal 20% of the full game, considering a game costs 50$ for example. I rarely buy any games new, unless they're amazing. $60 is a ripoff for a game you beat in less than 10 hrs, then you get charged another $10 for another hour or 2. Thats got to piss you off a little when you start breaking it down.
I have never understood how a company keeps a straight face or tries to justify it when they charge the same price for someone that donloads a game from their own site that they do someone that goes to a store and picks up a physical copy of the game.
It makes absolutely no sense but they do it because customers still buy it. So what's to stop them?
I've been playing games on delay the past year or two=) I wanted to buy Batman last year but held off, and just now its only $22 on Steam bundled with Just Cause, which isn't half bad. Its almost embarrasing how a digital copy of a game costs the same as the box+disk at release. I really don't know how they justify it besides people just buying them anyway. But oh well=)
The cost to create and print a manual, illustrate a box, press a disk and ship everything is a good portion of the total cost.
I'm not sure I understand. By this I mean, I don't know if I am entitled to tech support if I am the second owner of a game for example, but downloading a patch is still something I would expect to be able to do. I can't say if this is a legal difference between US/UK, but can only speak to my personal expectations. Again though, we are not talking about newly developed and unaccounted for costs. If I keep the game, then the company has a support burden right? If I sell the game, then they actually get out of support and thus reduce their overhead. They should be encouraging me to resell their product
Hmm, under UK law, the game company could theoretically deny you the patch and the technical support, as well as access to any multiplayer servers that they run.
Heh, I'm sure the game companies would prefer the increased revenue from the game sale.
Playing: EVE, Final Fantasy 13, Uncharted 2, Need for Speed: Shift
Its funny because developers save a buttload once you remove boxes, instruction manuals and distribution costs. But guess what...game prices won't be reduced=) Thats nearly 10% of the cost of a game going right into their pockets and out of ours. Add in content thats finished at release but is purposely saved for DLC, so developers can add more gravy. You pay $10 that goes completely into their pockets but doesn't equal 20% of the full game, considering a game costs 50$ for example. I rarely buy any games new, unless they're amazing. $60 is a ripoff for a game you beat in less than 10 hrs, then you get charged another $10 for another hour or 2. Thats got to piss you off a little when you start breaking it down.
I have never understood how a company keeps a straight face or tries to justify it when they charge the same price for someone that donloads a game from their own site that they do someone that goes to a store and picks up a physical copy of the game.
It makes absolutely no sense but they do it because customers still buy it. So what's to stop them?
I've been playing games on delay the past year or two=) I wanted to buy Batman last year but held off, and just now its only $22 on Steam bundled with Just Cause, which isn't half bad. Its almost embarrasing how a digital copy of a game costs the same as the box+disk at release. I really don't know how they justify it besides people just buying them anyway. But oh well=)
The cost to create and print a manual, illustrate a box, press a disk and ship everything is a good portion of the total cost.
Most of that cost is because of agreements they have with site like gamestop, best buy, and amazon that sell the games retail (New) for them. I agree that if looked at logically that a game with out a box should be cheaper, but i guess till they will not need game retailers at brick and mortar buildings, the price system thats in place will be the norm. I dont know the whole logistics of it but do know its tied into this relationship between these types of stores.
Personally, I think some form of kick-backs to the companies who make the games is in order. Buying used games really hurts game companies in the long run. With piracy a big problem, the last thing they need is used games.
That being said, this also would hurt mom-and-pop stores who make a profit buying/selling used games. I know a lot of comic stores that buy/sell used games and make money that way.
Some type of compromise could work here, but I don't know what.
~Miles "Tails" Prower out! Catch me if you can!
Come Join us at www.globalequestria.com - Meet other fans of My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic!
Hmm, under UK law, the game company could theoretically deny you the patch and the technical support, as well as access to any multiplayer servers that they run. Heh, I'm sure the game companies would prefer the increased revenue from the game sale.
Yeah, don't get me wrong, the last comment was just meant to be an absurd joke. As far as denying a patch, we are talking about mostly console games that are affected here (As far as my experience goes). Only one used game, that I own, has ever initiated a patch download so I'm not sure that, even if the game companies excercised the "right to deny" (for lack of a better term) that it would have much impact. On the other hand, I would think that, due to the increased amount of DLC content, a game producer would have incentive to make a patch available on the chance such a patch would be required to run future DLC content.
Anyhow, I'll just sum up my thoughts and bow out of the thread at this point:
(In my opinion) The current attention given the second hand market is not addressing a new problem in the industry and does not appear to be benefiting consumers. As a result, this appears to be an attempt by studios, to make a grab for money that they currently do not have access to. Instead of this, I believe selling a complete game and providing greater long term value through DLC content, relpayability, and community features is a much smarter, and consumer friendly, way to make money.
An example of a reasonable solution to this would be Dragon Age: Origins wherein the full story line was playable without DLC. First time purchasers (up to a certain date) were given a code for two pieces of DLC content (one was themed armor and the other was storyline content). These DLCs were also available to the second-hand purchaser for a reasonable fee. Some exclusive DLC items were available to preorders. Now, aside from this, there have been a couple other DLC packs released and an expansion due out in the next month or so. So, here is a shop that encourages you to buy new, does not punish you for buying used (As you still can get all the same as the new purchaser), and provides a reason for someone to keep the game (ongoing development). The cool part is, even if you don't have the DLCs, you can still play the whole story line fine and there are a number of possible ending (4-ish if i recall). So they also have a reasonable amount of replay value. This would be in contrast to a shop that makes features unavailable to the second hand purchase. The thinking should really be, how can we encourage someone to spend money and not how can we punish them until they spend money.
Hopefully I didn't come across has a total DA:O fanboi in that and it served as a reasonable illustration :P
-mklinic
"Do something right, no one remembers. Do something wrong, no one forgets" -from No One Remembers by In Strict Confidence
Did you bother to actually read and comprehend my post? Its not about legality, its about the effect it has on the publisher. Cmon now, you are smarter than that i would hope.
Alright, for the sake of semantic excercises....Now, the whole post I replied to:
"I have been saying this all along, but buying used console games is no different thanpirating a game. The Publisher/Developer will not benefit from it what so ever and it means one less new game sale. It would be the same as if you bought a game, beat it, gave it to a friend, they beat it, they gave it to someone else...ect If one person buys a game 10 people want to play, thats 9 sales lost.Same concept applies to piracy, doesnt matter if you lose money in the process, if the money doesnt go to the people who made the game its pointless."
Minus your leading and trailing sentences, you spent the whole post painting resale as equivalent to piracy in order to drive your point. So, your opinions on comprehension aside, establishing that there is in fact a legal difference between piracy and resale provides a counterweight of accuracy to the misinformation you are putting out there.
Now, another flaw with the quoted, that also exists with piracy, is the fact that one resale equals one lost first-hand sale. As purely anecdotal evidence, I have at least a handful of games I would not have ever purchased had they not been in the used game bin for cheap prices. Now, having owned these games, I know of at least one that I have purchased downloadable content for. So, in my scenario, I've actually paid the developer/publisher for something they would otherwise have not gotten my money for even though they did not get the first sale on the game. Seems to me they actually made out better thanks to resale. To that end, I am perfectly willing to concede that my situation might not be typical of the majority, or maybe, as we are moving to more DLC content, and continued revenue from existing titles, I am representative of a larger number of gamers...who knows.
The industry has had decades to account for the fact resales are legal. It's hard to paint them as a victim when they've had ample time to adjust. It's like the bad guy in Who Framed Roger Rabbit yelling at the steam roller as it is slowly moving toward him. Companies like Gamestop didn't just pop up this year and start taking a chunk out of studio profits. The solution to the perceived loss of revenue though, is not to punish the consumer for partaking in a legal activity, but instead to provide ongoing value for the product they purchased.
So what part of "used game sales have the same effect on the developer and publisher as piracy" dont you understand? Why do you think DLC was created in the first place, it is to offset the losses garnered from used game sales. Do you really think its a good idea for a publisher to have the developer withold game content just so they can re-sell it later? Its pretty obvious you dont work in the game industry, however I am neck deep in it and your perception and attitude is pretty far off. Why bother playing games if you hate the people who make them?
Do you think its right that out of all the people who played Gears of War, only half actually paid the publisher/developer for it? How much do you think it costs to make a game? How much do you think developers actually make? and how many hours a day do you think the work? I bet you cannot answer these factually, because if you could you would be singing a completely different tune... that is, IF you actually liked games.
Lets say you got to China and see some shady guy selling the latest 360 games on the street corner for $10, what are the chances of it being a pirated and copied game? If you were to buy that game off him, and the publisher was never paid... is that still piracy? Of course it is. So here is the result, if you purchase or steal a game, and the publisher is not paid for their product, IT IS THE SAME THING in that it has the SAME RESULTS. What part of this is so hard to understand?
It is not uncommon for publishers to get paid for only half of the games people actually play. No matter how you try to justify this, it is wrong. Unlike films, video games dont release in a theater first. The film industries secondary market is the Game industries primary market. Does this not make sense to you?
You also seem to forget that this directly effects the type of games publishers are willing to invest in. DRM was created to prevent piracy, and this effected the consumer. What makes you think their approach to combating used games will be any different in its effect? In the end everyone loses, including the consumer. Back when I used to play games on floppy disks, there was a problem of friends sharing their game with one another after installing. Do you remember what happened after that? games started shipping with large books that had codes in them, and whenever you wanted to play the game, you had to find a specific code it asked for. All this because people are hypocrites, they love the video games but are consciously and ignorantly going out of their way to hurt the industry. Its stupid.
But hey, dont take my word for it. What do other developers have to say on the subject? I suggest you read these before replying.
A google search will reveal tons of similar pages, many comparing the similar effects of used game sales and piracy. Legality has nothing to do with it. It is currently legal through loopholes for the US government to take your house or your land and pay you for under what its worth... just because its legal doesnt mean its morally right and or should be done. The fact is to look at who hurts and who benefits. If the result is the same, why argue over the method.
And I suggest you keep up with current news of the last twenty or so years. Microsoft already lost the "you only get to use the software not own it" years ago in court. Software code may belong to the developer, but the game I buy made with that code is mine. The same way that the engine design made in Taiwan belongs to the mechanical engineering team, but the engine made from that design is mine when I buy it. So I'm sorry if you feel bad about it, but that's the way it is. You have no argument. Period.
Hahaha... oh really?
When was the last time you actually read a EULA? Every game has one. It stands for End User Licensing Agreement. That should be a dead give a way.
Most games have something very similar to this in every single one of their EULA's
"LICENSE. Subject to this Agreement and its terms and conditions, LICENSOR hereby grants you the non-exclusive, non-transferable, limited right and license to use one copy of the Software for your personal, non-commercial use on a single home or portable computer. The Software is being licensed to you and you hereby acknowledge that no title or ownership in the Software is being transferred or assigned and this Agreement should not be construed as a sale or transfer of any rights in the Software. All rights not specifically granted under this Agreement are reserved by LICENSOR and, as applicable, its licensors."
the gamer side of me would like to see the Devs get as much money from the sale of the game as possible.
The business side of me acknowledges that the publishers are out to make money and they really should cut out the middle man (the gameshop) and rake in some more cash.
As an Australian i am opposed to that idea because of how crap our internet is.
Considering all that i say leave it how it is, nothing needs to change...yet
MMO wish list:
-Changeable worlds -Solid non level based game -Sharks with lasers attached to their heads
And I suggest you keep up with current news of the last twenty or so years. Microsoft already lost the "you only get to use the software not own it" years ago in court. Software code may belong to the developer, but the game I buy made with that code is mine. The same way that the engine design made in Taiwan belongs to the mechanical engineering team, but the engine made from that design is mine when I buy it. So I'm sorry if you feel bad about it, but that's the way it is. You have no argument. Period.
Hahaha... oh really?
When was the last time you actually read a EULA? Every game has one. It stands for End User Licensing Agreement. That should be a dead give a way.
Most games have something very similar to this in every single one of their EULA's
"LICENSE. Subject to this Agreement and its terms and conditions, LICENSOR hereby grants you the non-exclusive, non-transferable, limited right and license to use one copy of the Software for your personal, non-commercial use on a single home or portable computer. The Software is being licensed to you and you hereby acknowledge that no title or ownership in the Software is being transferred or assigned and this Agreement should not be construed as a sale or transfer of any rights in the Software. All rights not specifically granted under this Agreement are reserved by LICENSOR and, as applicable, its licensors."
Btw, this one is from FALLOUT 3.
So please, tell me again where I am wrong?
By that logic.... shouldnt we all be required to sign an EULA at the store before even paying for the game since youre not able to even agree to the EULA until AFTER you already bought and received ownership of the game? But we're not... because we are buying the game, and therefore receiving ownership of the game before any licensing is even involved. What that EULA is referring to is the actual software (as in the code) contained on the disc, as in.... you cant copy and sell/distribute the software contained on the disc itself because you are not the owner of the software. However i do own that copy of the game, and can do with THAT copy as i please, wether thats selling it, giving it to a friend, or wiping my ass with it and burning it in a fire.
Any ridiculous steps taken to prevent the sale of used games should be immediately shot down. Dont agree? Lets take your car as an example. Would it be ok for a car manufacturer to tell you that youre not allowed to sell your car because they dont get any profit from that sale? What about taking it in and trading it in at a dealer and buying a different brand of car? Should they have the right to tell you you cant take the car that you own and use its value towards the purchase of a different, newer car made by another company? (just like trading in a used game for credit towards a new one).
Or how about other products like something as simple as clothes. Im sure most of us are familiar with the clothing drop off centers, goodwill, etc. What if clothing companies started saying youre not allowed to donate your old unwanted clothes, because theyre not making a profit from it? You think that would be allowed? If you think thats wrong, how is it any different for a game?
Ever heard of recycling (as in recycling cans/bottles for a few cents each)? Should recycling be stopped since after all youre taking one product and giving it to someone else in exchange for money, since its of no use to you anymore, but it is of use to them? Should coca cola start trying to get laws passed to prevent the recycling of your cans, and say that if people/companies need the aluminum for their products, they should only go buy it brand new at full price rather than getting it through the process of recycling?
But thats not the way the world works is it? These systems for buying/trading/selling used/old items have been in place for a long long time for nearly every type of product. The game companies need to get their heads out of their asses and realize this. Now if they want to go ahead and work out a system of some profit through the retailers for the sale/trade of used games, then fine, nothing wrong with that as there are similar systems of benefit for certain other products too. But insisting ont rying to stop the trading of used games will only further alienate players after all of the crap that theyve already been doing. Much like Ubisoft and their DRM nonsense which does nothing but hurt consumers and basically gives them some ridiculous idea that theyre allowed to tell me when i can and cant play the game that i purchased. The ceasing of game trading will do the same thing. I personally dont plan on buying another game from Ubisoft until they stop the DRM garbage, for much the same reason as i wont buy a game from a company insisting i cant trade in a game i purchased. I bought the product, and i will do with said product as i please, so long as it is not illegal. You have no right to dictate what i do with something that i paid for, unless youre going to give me my money back, and then you can have the game back. Instead of crying that your enot getting money from a craptastic game you made that lasts a total of like 6 hours playtime, try making a better game that people will actually want to keep, and EARN your profit instead of trying to screw your customers out of more.
I already said I was done with the thread, but sure, I'll humor you with another response before calling it a day. I'll try to keep it brief-ish and in order
Piracy involves making and distributing copies of copyrighted work whereas resale only allows for transfer from one party to one other party. Of course, with both, there is still the flawed assumption that the person who acquired the game would have been a first-hand purchaser in the first place.
Now, do I think it's right that only half of the people who played Gears of War didn't buy it new? That would imply, based on the one-to-one transfer required for resales, that the game had 100% resale rate. Pretty amazing the game was apparently not very compelling and that none of the original owners saw fit to keep it. Of course, there is the fact that, apparently, the parties involved made enough money to justify making a sequel. Regardless of what industry you are in, you'd be hard pressed to find a company that is just going to throw money at a loss.
Movies, as previously mentioned, are just another entertainment medium that can be distributed much like a video game. It is also an industry that has to deal with piracy so there are some clear parallels to the video game industry in that respect.. However, we can pick apart any analogy the other comes up with be it cars, movies, music. Of those listed and discussed in this thread, I personally think music is the closest, but again, we could probably go on for pages about how that analogy doesn't work.
As far as your comments about DRM, we both agree it hurts the consumer...great. I believe it is extremely ineffective, but thats a whole different topic to discuss i suppose.
Thanks for all the links showing that people who feel they are losing money to second hand sales dislike second hand sales though. I did a google search for "completely obvious", hit the "I'm feeling lucky button" and got similar results.
Now all that said, sorry we don't agree with this, but you haven't really said anything compelling to change my views and you seem thoroughly entrenched in yours. We are at a point where no further progress can be made and further discussion isn't really going to produce much value. But, you know, I'm cool with that. I enjoy the conversation and, if we reach mutual understanding, that's just a bonus. I'm sure we'll end up talking about a variation of this theme in other threads so, for now, the floor is yours. Preach on..: )
-mklinic
"Do something right, no one remembers. Do something wrong, no one forgets" -from No One Remembers by In Strict Confidence
I was just reading through this and it finally hit me. These publishers are just greedy and here is why...... The used games are sold by "gamers" who then generally use the money to buy a new game. Probably at least 50% of the time. They're driving sales of new games. So piss off publishers. We own u. WE will boycott u. maybe not.... BUT WE SHOULD IF U DO THIS . the end.
fact of the matter is were all poor from corporate greed and this can't happen. You know why we don't purchase artists creations as much anymore? Because were getting ripped in every corner of every market as consumers. so im hoping this doesn't happen. prices are already going down on digital media . I don't need some doublespeak, b.s. to drive those prices that already falling down more.
Here in Ireland it's illegal to sell PC games second hand. Console games, however, are fine. Gamestop here will take any and all console games, but no PC games - which is fine, in theory, until you look at something that is available cross-platform.
Dragon Age has already been given as an example above - if I have the XBox version, I can trade it in, but I can't do that (even if I wanted to, which I don't!) with my pc version. I see nothing wrong with companies using DLC as a way to monetize second-hand games. Where's the catch? If the original owner had to pay for the content (assuming they wanted it) then why shouldn't any subsequent owner have to do the same?
I possibly have a different view on this because I worked in bookselling (til our company went bust 2 weeks ago and all 225 of us got laid off...) and am very familiar with the strife over used books sales, ebooks and the very lovely enhanced ebooks that are being produced by some clever publishers. It's generally accepted in the world of books that the most expensive thing is not the physical production of a book (the printing, the shipping, etc.) nor is it the commission booksellers skin off the top of the price, or the manpower taken to oversee the returns process - the single most expensive part is the author (who needs an advance) and all the support people who shepherd the project (be it a physical book, or the digital equivalent) from the author's desk into the final form.
You have editors, all the staff of the publishing house, designers (font, covers. etc - still needed for ebooks, regardless of what you might think), marketing. All those people need paying, and their pay comes from the price of the book - the price of the book at FIRST sale. Nobody sees any money from subsequent ones (except the owner of the second-hand book store). The bigger the print run for a book, the cheaper it is (per copy) to produce and distribute (economies of scale etc.). The most expensive physical books produced are ARCs which are done in a limited run, and may be done away with altogether by digital initiatives like Net Galley.
The same logic applies to games. The initial box price will be high to cover all costs, from the dev team to the receptionist at the offices, to the water for the water-cooler. Second-hand sales don't help with any of that. And, as with books, the selling of used games is factored in at the setting of the initial box price, which will be on the high side, to help recoup costs. Unlike the book market (which is only starting to have to deal with piracy of electronic texts), the games market has discovered a way to make money from both pirated and used copies of games by selling DLC, a much more honest way of doing things than DRM or max # of installations (which all only serve to annoy gamers). Since DLC is optional, you don't have to pay a dime, unless you want the extra content.
more convenient for who? the retailer to jack up your price and you as the consumer not able to at least wash out a portion of that jacked up price when your done with said game? you think this movement is going to lower the prices you pay for games I think you need to re evaluate whose side your on I am sure you wouldnt be spouting this nonsense if the car company of the vehicle you owned all of a sudden wrote you a bill when you tried to resell said vehicle wake up
The whole idea of download is to remove the retailer from the equation.
Games aren't cars, that's a ridiculous comparison.
When you buy a game box, how much of that price goes towards packaging, distribution and the profit margin of the store you bought it from? .. it's a significant amount. Remove all that from the equation and game makers can vastly increase their profits and still reduce the price to the consumer. Will they? .. that's tough to say .. depends on how greedy they are.
Sue me, I'm an optimist.
No, I am sorry, that is not a ridiculous comparison. A game is a product; a car is a product; a television is a product; a computer is a product; a movie is a product. I only see you as someone who is viral marketing. Go read the response to the actual add that the OP copied it from. You're not an optimist; you're only empowering bad business. Next, you're going to be condemning blockbuster and why shouldn't Hollywood or Sony get a piece of the used market pie? Why shouldn't they get some profit when a TV they sold is resold?
I fixed your grammar, alucard3000.
1. How is Ilvaldyr enabling bad business? You argued that an original product's creator should profit off of used sales. Well in my opinion, as soon as a person buys a product, it belongs to them. Why should the copyright owner profit off of the sale of my own property?
2. A business will always look for ways to lower their operating costs. Whether or not that will ultimately translate into a lower costs to a consumer is decided on a business by business basis. If a company believes that lowering their product's/service's costs will result in a greater market share in the long run(even if it results in slightly lower profits in the short run), they will do it.
While I won't argue that selling used games is not a loss for software developers, I will point out that part of being a good business is being able to adapt to current trends in the market. These organizations are trying to compensate for lost profit while simultaneously reducing the potential amount of profit loss. These new practices certainly seem unfair on the consumer's end; if said consumers don't like something, then they'll take their money somewhere else.
Comments
What a lot of people don't understand is that in the U.S. your rights are your rights whether you want them or not. You CAN NOT sign away/wave etc. your legal rights.
For example... I go to a rock climbing gym downtown, when I joined I signed a waiver stating that "rock climbing is dangerous, blah blah blah, management not liable for you busting your ass, blah blah." We've all signed waivers like that, and they all read like the point is that we hurt ourselves we can't sue. This is absolutely wrong. If this was the case, why is the owner (a friend of mine) paying out the ass for insurance? What's he insuring against? See, the point of the waiver is NOT so Dan can't be sued if someone hurts himself, people couldn't legally sign away they're rights if they wanted to, the point of the waiver is that if someone hurts themselves and sues, they can't used the arguement in court that they wheren't warned that climbing was dangerous, proving that the plaintiff understood the risk and was willing to accept the risk and liablity for said risk before engaing in the activity helps the defendant.
Likewise, 90% of everything in a EULA would not hold up in court. Ever. But here's what it REALLY means: it's means that the software makers contract with you says they don't have to support if you don't play by there rules (and ussually says they don't have to support you even if you do). A lot of software today (particularly anything with an online component) relies on the software providing a continuing service... which they wouldn't be legally obligated to do even if there was no EULA because any business has a legal right to refuse service to anyone at any time for any (or no) reason.
Once again the EULA doesn't (and legally can't) grant or revoke any parties legal rights, in fact in the case of a EULA it can't even be used in court as "you can't say you wheren't made aware" document because in the case of most software, you had to buy the software BEFORE you where presented the EULA, so it can't legally be considered a sales contract.
A EULA does ONE thing and ONE thing alone: It establishes that the software manufacturer is not liable for in any for any service related to the software. That's it. That's all it even can do. And that would still be true without the EULA.
That doesn't explain the pink highlight, though.
Why did the courts find in favour of the plaintiff? .. purely because there was express consent? .. if that's the case, couldn't game companies simply change to digital distribution with an EULA prior to purchase/download which would surely be legally binding under the same ruling?
Playing: EVE, Final Fantasy 13, Uncharted 2, Need for Speed: Shift
The car analogy is indeed flawed, but your reasoning doesn't do much to illustrate that. By this, I mean, I am not compelled to sell my car back to the dealership. I can sell myself, to an independant used car lot (Car Stop?), or the dealership. Perhaps a solution would be for the game publishers to offer their own resale outlets. That'd be an interesting approach.
That said, a more direct comparison would be to the resale of movies and music which is also allowed. The movie and music industry are certainly allowed to make money off their product when they sell it. After that, the DVD/CD is mine to sell or keep. Now, if I got into copying, then sure, the industry has every right to go after that if it is not permitted. The same rules apply to the game industry.
Outstanding ty!
All my opinions are just that..opinions. If you like my opinions..coolness.If you dont like my opinion....I really dont care.
Playing: ESO, WOT, Smite, and Marvel Heroes
And last time i checked the company that created the games are allowed to pursue any avenue to try to make money of their hard work. and even read the thread? I wasnt arguing that people cant sell games, just that eventually because of the current system set up, it is encouraging the technology to be created in order for games to be sold so that they can make better profit, they are not obliged to make it easy for people to resell the product where they see no profit.
The car analogy is indeed flawed, but your reasoning doesn't do much to illustrate that. By this, I mean, I am not compelled to sell my car back to the dealership. I can sell myself, to an independant used car lot (Car Stop?), or the dealership. Perhaps a solution would be for the game publishers to offer their own resale outlets. That'd be an interesting approach.
That said, a more direct comparison would be to the resale of movies and music which is also allowed. The movie and music industry are certainly allowed to make money off their product when they sell it. After that, the DVD/CD is mine to sell or keep. Now, if I got into copying, then sure, the industry has every right to go after that if it is not permitted. The same rules apply to the game industry.
This is one of the best points I've read on the subject and I think it's what we all need to keep site of, if I am buying games and pirating them (finding a way to sell multiple copies of the game) then it is an issue if I sell the three hundred video games I bought and paid for then I don't see an issue here wether the companies feel they have a right to come after me for doing so or not.
but yeah, to call this game Fantastic is like calling Twilight the Godfather of vampire movies....
Is the movie/music industry comparable though?
Game companies don't just ship a game and move on to the next in the same way that a movie/music producer does. Games need patches, compatibility and technical support. If I buy a game, I'm entitled to that support. If I sell the game on to someone who hasn't paid a penny to the game company, should they still be entitled to the same support?
Playing: EVE, Final Fantasy 13, Uncharted 2, Need for Speed: Shift
To the extent that they are all entertainment industry items and distributed digitally or physically, yes they are comparable. Cost wise, movies may cost more to produce then games, albums less or comparable depending on the artist or game.
Sales wise, a game's price should cover production and ongoing support. Since these are not new factors in the life cycle of a game, I do not see technical support/patching as an ongoing factor that should rule out the possiblity of resale.
-mklinic
"Do something right, no one remembers.
Do something wrong, no one forgets"
-from No One Remembers by In Strict Confidence
It doesn't really effect me at all since I only buy PC games and you really can't trade PC games in anymore. But I have a feeling that if companies start doing this it will lead people to start pirating stuff. I bought the damn thing so I should be able to watch it or play it as many times as I please. To be honest if I bought a movie and after the 5th time I watched it I couldn't anymore, I would just pirate the damn thing burn it to dvd and watch it 100 more times.
The irony is that these methods are in response to piracy and used game sales yet by their very design they are pushing more towards piracy and buying games used to forego the overall cost.
God forbid these companies work together and come up with something where everyone wins. Like a mimimal percentage of every sale going back to the company that initially released the game.
No...better to simply hurt their overall sales on both sides of the fence by going with this whole nonsense.
1. For god's sake mmo gamers, enough with the analogies. They're unnecessary and your comparisons are terrible, dissimilar, and illogical.
2. To posters feeling the need to state how f2p really isn't f2p: Players understand the concept. You aren't privy to some secret the rest are missing. You're embarrassing yourself.
3. Yes, Cpt. Obvious, we're not industry experts. Now run along and let the big people use the forums for their purpose.
Doesn't the life cycle of a game end when the purchaser passes it on?
That seems to be the stance of the game company, and it seems logical that the 2nd owner has no sales contract with the game company in that they've purchased the game second-hand.
I don't know if this is another disparity between UK and US law, but over here if I buy something and then pass it on, the 2nd party can't return to the shop that I bought it from if the product develops a fault. By purchasing at a reduced price in a private sale, they lose that recourse.
I can see both perspectives on this, but I'm still more sympathetic to the game company.
Playing: EVE, Final Fantasy 13, Uncharted 2, Need for Speed: Shift
Its funny because developers save a buttload once you remove boxes, instruction manuals and distribution costs. But guess what...game prices won't be reduced=) Thats nearly 10% of the cost of a game going right into their pockets and out of ours. Add in content thats finished at release but is purposely saved for DLC, so developers can add more gravy. You pay $10 that goes completely into their pockets but doesn't equal 20% of the full game, considering a game costs 50$ for example.
I rarely buy any games new, unless they're amazing. $60 is a ripoff for a game you beat in less than 10 hrs, then you get charged another $10 for another hour or 2. Thats got to piss you off a little when you start breaking it down.
I have never understood how a company keeps a straight face or tries to justify it when they charge the same price for someone that downloads a game from their own site that they do someone that goes to a store and picks up a physical copy of the game.
It makes absolutely no sense but they do it because customers still buy it. So what's to stop them?
1. For god's sake mmo gamers, enough with the analogies. They're unnecessary and your comparisons are terrible, dissimilar, and illogical.
2. To posters feeling the need to state how f2p really isn't f2p: Players understand the concept. You aren't privy to some secret the rest are missing. You're embarrassing yourself.
3. Yes, Cpt. Obvious, we're not industry experts. Now run along and let the big people use the forums for their purpose.
Doesn't the life cycle of a game end when the purchaser passes it on?
That seems to be the stance of the game company, and it seems logical that the 2nd owner has no sales contract with the game company in that they've purchased the game second-hand.
I don't know if this is another disparity between UK and US law, but over here if I buy something and then pass it on, the 2nd party can't return to the shop that I bought it from if the product develops a fault. By purchasing at a reduced price in a private sale, they lose that recourse.
I can see both perspectives on this, but I'm still more sympathetic to the game company.
I'm not sure I understand. By this I mean, I don't know if I am entitled to tech support if I am the second owner of a game for example, but downloading a patch is still something I would expect to be able to do. I can't say if this is a legal difference between US/UK, but can only speak to my personal expectations.
Again though, we are not talking about newly developed and unaccounted for costs. If I keep the game, then the company has a support burden right? If I sell the game, then they actually get out of support and thus reduce their overhead. They should be encouraging me to resell their product
-mklinic
"Do something right, no one remembers.
Do something wrong, no one forgets"
-from No One Remembers by In Strict Confidence
I have never understood how a company keeps a straight face or tries to justify it when they charge the same price for someone that donloads a game from their own site that they do someone that goes to a store and picks up a physical copy of the game.
It makes absolutely no sense but they do it because customers still buy it. So what's to stop them?
I've been playing games on delay the past year or two=) I wanted to buy Batman last year but held off, and just now its only $22 on Steam bundled with Just Cause, which isn't half bad. Its almost embarrasing how a digital copy of a game costs the same as the box+disk at release. I really don't know how they justify it besides people just buying them anyway. But oh well=)
The cost to create and print a manual, illustrate a box, press a disk and ship everything is a good portion of the total cost.
Hmm, under UK law, the game company could theoretically deny you the patch and the technical support, as well as access to any multiplayer servers that they run.
Heh, I'm sure the game companies would prefer the increased revenue from the game sale.
Playing: EVE, Final Fantasy 13, Uncharted 2, Need for Speed: Shift
I have never understood how a company keeps a straight face or tries to justify it when they charge the same price for someone that donloads a game from their own site that they do someone that goes to a store and picks up a physical copy of the game.
It makes absolutely no sense but they do it because customers still buy it. So what's to stop them?
I've been playing games on delay the past year or two=) I wanted to buy Batman last year but held off, and just now its only $22 on Steam bundled with Just Cause, which isn't half bad. Its almost embarrasing how a digital copy of a game costs the same as the box+disk at release. I really don't know how they justify it besides people just buying them anyway. But oh well=)
The cost to create and print a manual, illustrate a box, press a disk and ship everything is a good portion of the total cost.
Most of that cost is because of agreements they have with site like gamestop, best buy, and amazon that sell the games retail (New) for them. I agree that if looked at logically that a game with out a box should be cheaper, but i guess till they will not need game retailers at brick and mortar buildings, the price system thats in place will be the norm. I dont know the whole logistics of it but do know its tied into this relationship between these types of stores.
Personally, I think some form of kick-backs to the companies who make the games is in order. Buying used games really hurts game companies in the long run. With piracy a big problem, the last thing they need is used games.
That being said, this also would hurt mom-and-pop stores who make a profit buying/selling used games. I know a lot of comic stores that buy/sell used games and make money that way.
Some type of compromise could work here, but I don't know what.
~Miles "Tails" Prower out! Catch me if you can!
Come Join us at www.globalequestria.com - Meet other fans of My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic!
Yeah, don't get me wrong, the last comment was just meant to be an absurd joke. As far as denying a patch, we are talking about mostly console games that are affected here (As far as my experience goes). Only one used game, that I own, has ever initiated a patch download so I'm not sure that, even if the game companies excercised the "right to deny" (for lack of a better term) that it would have much impact. On the other hand, I would think that, due to the increased amount of DLC content, a game producer would have incentive to make a patch available on the chance such a patch would be required to run future DLC content.
Anyhow, I'll just sum up my thoughts and bow out of the thread at this point:
(In my opinion) The current attention given the second hand market is not addressing a new problem in the industry and does not appear to be benefiting consumers. As a result, this appears to be an attempt by studios, to make a grab for money that they currently do not have access to. Instead of this, I believe selling a complete game and providing greater long term value through DLC content, relpayability, and community features is a much smarter, and consumer friendly, way to make money.
An example of a reasonable solution to this would be Dragon Age: Origins wherein the full story line was playable without DLC. First time purchasers (up to a certain date) were given a code for two pieces of DLC content (one was themed armor and the other was storyline content). These DLCs were also available to the second-hand purchaser for a reasonable fee. Some exclusive DLC items were available to preorders. Now, aside from this, there have been a couple other DLC packs released and an expansion due out in the next month or so. So, here is a shop that encourages you to buy new, does not punish you for buying used (As you still can get all the same as the new purchaser), and provides a reason for someone to keep the game (ongoing development). The cool part is, even if you don't have the DLCs, you can still play the whole story line fine and there are a number of possible ending (4-ish if i recall). So they also have a reasonable amount of replay value. This would be in contrast to a shop that makes features unavailable to the second hand purchase. The thinking should really be, how can we encourage someone to spend money and not how can we punish them until they spend money.
Hopefully I didn't come across has a total DA:O fanboi in that and it served as a reasonable illustration :P
-mklinic
"Do something right, no one remembers.
Do something wrong, no one forgets"
-from No One Remembers by In Strict Confidence
Alright, for the sake of semantic excercises....Now, the whole post I replied to:
"I have been saying this all along, but buying used console games is no different than pirating a game. The Publisher/Developer will not benefit from it what so ever and it means one less new game sale. It would be the same as if you bought a game, beat it, gave it to a friend, they beat it, they gave it to someone else...ect If one person buys a game 10 people want to play, thats 9 sales lost. Same concept applies to piracy, doesnt matter if you lose money in the process, if the money doesnt go to the people who made the game its pointless."
Minus your leading and trailing sentences, you spent the whole post painting resale as equivalent to piracy in order to drive your point. So, your opinions on comprehension aside, establishing that there is in fact a legal difference between piracy and resale provides a counterweight of accuracy to the misinformation you are putting out there.
Now, another flaw with the quoted, that also exists with piracy, is the fact that one resale equals one lost first-hand sale. As purely anecdotal evidence, I have at least a handful of games I would not have ever purchased had they not been in the used game bin for cheap prices. Now, having owned these games, I know of at least one that I have purchased downloadable content for. So, in my scenario, I've actually paid the developer/publisher for something they would otherwise have not gotten my money for even though they did not get the first sale on the game. Seems to me they actually made out better thanks to resale. To that end, I am perfectly willing to concede that my situation might not be typical of the majority, or maybe, as we are moving to more DLC content, and continued revenue from existing titles, I am representative of a larger number of gamers...who knows.
The industry has had decades to account for the fact resales are legal. It's hard to paint them as a victim when they've had ample time to adjust. It's like the bad guy in Who Framed Roger Rabbit yelling at the steam roller as it is slowly moving toward him. Companies like Gamestop didn't just pop up this year and start taking a chunk out of studio profits. The solution to the perceived loss of revenue though, is not to punish the consumer for partaking in a legal activity, but instead to provide ongoing value for the product they purchased.
So what part of "used game sales have the same effect on the developer and publisher as piracy" dont you understand? Why do you think DLC was created in the first place, it is to offset the losses garnered from used game sales. Do you really think its a good idea for a publisher to have the developer withold game content just so they can re-sell it later? Its pretty obvious you dont work in the game industry, however I am neck deep in it and your perception and attitude is pretty far off. Why bother playing games if you hate the people who make them?
Do you think its right that out of all the people who played Gears of War, only half actually paid the publisher/developer for it? How much do you think it costs to make a game? How much do you think developers actually make? and how many hours a day do you think the work? I bet you cannot answer these factually, because if you could you would be singing a completely different tune... that is, IF you actually liked games.
Lets say you got to China and see some shady guy selling the latest 360 games on the street corner for $10, what are the chances of it being a pirated and copied game? If you were to buy that game off him, and the publisher was never paid... is that still piracy? Of course it is. So here is the result, if you purchase or steal a game, and the publisher is not paid for their product, IT IS THE SAME THING in that it has the SAME RESULTS. What part of this is so hard to understand?
It is not uncommon for publishers to get paid for only half of the games people actually play. No matter how you try to justify this, it is wrong. Unlike films, video games dont release in a theater first. The film industries secondary market is the Game industries primary market. Does this not make sense to you?
You also seem to forget that this directly effects the type of games publishers are willing to invest in. DRM was created to prevent piracy, and this effected the consumer. What makes you think their approach to combating used games will be any different in its effect? In the end everyone loses, including the consumer. Back when I used to play games on floppy disks, there was a problem of friends sharing their game with one another after installing. Do you remember what happened after that? games started shipping with large books that had codes in them, and whenever you wanted to play the game, you had to find a specific code it asked for. All this because people are hypocrites, they love the video games but are consciously and ignorantly going out of their way to hurt the industry. Its stupid.
But hey, dont take my word for it. What do other developers have to say on the subject? I suggest you read these before replying.
www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/87370-Epic-President-Dumps-On-Used-Games-Piracy
www.gamingunion.net/news/denis-dyack-used-game-sales-and-piracy-very-similar--689.html
kotaku.com/5474128/sony-gets-serious-on-piracy-used-game-sales-with-new-psp-socom
www.gamasutra.com/view/news/26919/Mass_Effect_2_Combats_Used_Sales_Piracy_With_Cerberus_DLC_Network.php
A google search will reveal tons of similar pages, many comparing the similar effects of used game sales and piracy. Legality has nothing to do with it. It is currently legal through loopholes for the US government to take your house or your land and pay you for under what its worth... just because its legal doesnt mean its morally right and or should be done. The fact is to look at who hurts and who benefits. If the result is the same, why argue over the method.
Hahaha... oh really?
When was the last time you actually read a EULA? Every game has one. It stands for End User Licensing Agreement. That should be a dead give a way.
Most games have something very similar to this in every single one of their EULA's
"LICENSE. Subject to this Agreement and its terms and conditions, LICENSOR hereby grants you the non-exclusive, non-transferable, limited right and license to use one copy of the Software for your personal, non-commercial use on a single home or portable computer. The Software is being licensed to you and you hereby acknowledge that no title or ownership in the Software is being transferred or assigned and this Agreement should not be construed as a sale or transfer of any rights in the Software. All rights not specifically granted under this Agreement are reserved by LICENSOR and, as applicable, its licensors."
Btw, this one is from FALLOUT 3.
So please, tell me again where I am wrong?
the gamer side of me would like to see the Devs get as much money from the sale of the game as possible.
The business side of me acknowledges that the publishers are out to make money and they really should cut out the middle man (the gameshop) and rake in some more cash.
As an Australian i am opposed to that idea because of how crap our internet is.
Considering all that i say leave it how it is, nothing needs to change...yet
MMO wish list:
-Changeable worlds
-Solid non level based game
-Sharks with lasers attached to their heads
Hahaha... oh really?
When was the last time you actually read a EULA? Every game has one. It stands for End User Licensing Agreement. That should be a dead give a way.
Most games have something very similar to this in every single one of their EULA's
"LICENSE. Subject to this Agreement and its terms and conditions, LICENSOR hereby grants you the non-exclusive, non-transferable, limited right and license to use one copy of the Software for your personal, non-commercial use on a single home or portable computer. The Software is being licensed to you and you hereby acknowledge that no title or ownership in the Software is being transferred or assigned and this Agreement should not be construed as a sale or transfer of any rights in the Software. All rights not specifically granted under this Agreement are reserved by LICENSOR and, as applicable, its licensors."
Btw, this one is from FALLOUT 3.
So please, tell me again where I am wrong?
By that logic.... shouldnt we all be required to sign an EULA at the store before even paying for the game since youre not able to even agree to the EULA until AFTER you already bought and received ownership of the game? But we're not... because we are buying the game, and therefore receiving ownership of the game before any licensing is even involved. What that EULA is referring to is the actual software (as in the code) contained on the disc, as in.... you cant copy and sell/distribute the software contained on the disc itself because you are not the owner of the software. However i do own that copy of the game, and can do with THAT copy as i please, wether thats selling it, giving it to a friend, or wiping my ass with it and burning it in a fire.
Any ridiculous steps taken to prevent the sale of used games should be immediately shot down. Dont agree? Lets take your car as an example. Would it be ok for a car manufacturer to tell you that youre not allowed to sell your car because they dont get any profit from that sale? What about taking it in and trading it in at a dealer and buying a different brand of car? Should they have the right to tell you you cant take the car that you own and use its value towards the purchase of a different, newer car made by another company? (just like trading in a used game for credit towards a new one).
Or how about other products like something as simple as clothes. Im sure most of us are familiar with the clothing drop off centers, goodwill, etc. What if clothing companies started saying youre not allowed to donate your old unwanted clothes, because theyre not making a profit from it? You think that would be allowed? If you think thats wrong, how is it any different for a game?
Ever heard of recycling (as in recycling cans/bottles for a few cents each)? Should recycling be stopped since after all youre taking one product and giving it to someone else in exchange for money, since its of no use to you anymore, but it is of use to them? Should coca cola start trying to get laws passed to prevent the recycling of your cans, and say that if people/companies need the aluminum for their products, they should only go buy it brand new at full price rather than getting it through the process of recycling?
But thats not the way the world works is it? These systems for buying/trading/selling used/old items have been in place for a long long time for nearly every type of product. The game companies need to get their heads out of their asses and realize this. Now if they want to go ahead and work out a system of some profit through the retailers for the sale/trade of used games, then fine, nothing wrong with that as there are similar systems of benefit for certain other products too. But insisting ont rying to stop the trading of used games will only further alienate players after all of the crap that theyve already been doing. Much like Ubisoft and their DRM nonsense which does nothing but hurt consumers and basically gives them some ridiculous idea that theyre allowed to tell me when i can and cant play the game that i purchased. The ceasing of game trading will do the same thing. I personally dont plan on buying another game from Ubisoft until they stop the DRM garbage, for much the same reason as i wont buy a game from a company insisting i cant trade in a game i purchased. I bought the product, and i will do with said product as i please, so long as it is not illegal. You have no right to dictate what i do with something that i paid for, unless youre going to give me my money back, and then you can have the game back. Instead of crying that your enot getting money from a craptastic game you made that lasts a total of like 6 hours playtime, try making a better game that people will actually want to keep, and EARN your profit instead of trying to screw your customers out of more.
[mod edit]
I already said I was done with the thread, but sure, I'll humor you with another response before calling it a day. I'll try to keep it brief-ish and in order
Piracy involves making and distributing copies of copyrighted work whereas resale only allows for transfer from one party to one other party. Of course, with both, there is still the flawed assumption that the person who acquired the game would have been a first-hand purchaser in the first place.
Now, do I think it's right that only half of the people who played Gears of War didn't buy it new? That would imply, based on the one-to-one transfer required for resales, that the game had 100% resale rate. Pretty amazing the game was apparently not very compelling and that none of the original owners saw fit to keep it. Of course, there is the fact that, apparently, the parties involved made enough money to justify making a sequel. Regardless of what industry you are in, you'd be hard pressed to find a company that is just going to throw money at a loss.
Movies, as previously mentioned, are just another entertainment medium that can be distributed much like a video game. It is also an industry that has to deal with piracy so there are some clear parallels to the video game industry in that respect.. However, we can pick apart any analogy the other comes up with be it cars, movies, music. Of those listed and discussed in this thread, I personally think music is the closest, but again, we could probably go on for pages about how that analogy doesn't work.
As far as your comments about DRM, we both agree it hurts the consumer...great. I believe it is extremely ineffective, but thats a whole different topic to discuss i suppose.
Thanks for all the links showing that people who feel they are losing money to second hand sales dislike second hand sales though. I did a google search for "completely obvious", hit the "I'm feeling lucky button" and got similar results.
Now all that said, sorry we don't agree with this, but you haven't really said anything compelling to change my views and you seem thoroughly entrenched in yours. We are at a point where no further progress can be made and further discussion isn't really going to produce much value. But, you know, I'm cool with that. I enjoy the conversation and, if we reach mutual understanding, that's just a bonus. I'm sure we'll end up talking about a variation of this theme in other threads so, for now, the floor is yours. Preach on..: )
-mklinic
"Do something right, no one remembers.
Do something wrong, no one forgets"
-from No One Remembers by In Strict Confidence
I was just reading through this and it finally hit me. These publishers are just greedy and here is why...... The used games are sold by "gamers" who then generally use the money to buy a new game. Probably at least 50% of the time. They're driving sales of new games. So piss off publishers. We own u. WE will boycott u. maybe not.... BUT WE SHOULD IF U DO THIS
. the end.
fact of the matter is were all poor from corporate greed and this can't happen. You know why we don't purchase artists creations as much anymore? Because were getting ripped in every corner of every market as consumers. so im hoping this doesn't happen. prices are already going down on digital media
. I don't need some doublespeak, b.s. to drive those prices that already falling down more.
Here in Ireland it's illegal to sell PC games second hand. Console games, however, are fine. Gamestop here will take any and all console games, but no PC games - which is fine, in theory, until you look at something that is available cross-platform.
Dragon Age has already been given as an example above - if I have the XBox version, I can trade it in, but I can't do that (even if I wanted to, which I don't!) with my pc version. I see nothing wrong with companies using DLC as a way to monetize second-hand games. Where's the catch? If the original owner had to pay for the content (assuming they wanted it) then why shouldn't any subsequent owner have to do the same?
I possibly have a different view on this because I worked in bookselling (til our company went bust 2 weeks ago and all 225 of us got laid off...) and am very familiar with the strife over used books sales, ebooks and the very lovely enhanced ebooks that are being produced by some clever publishers. It's generally accepted in the world of books that the most expensive thing is not the physical production of a book (the printing, the shipping, etc.) nor is it the commission booksellers skin off the top of the price, or the manpower taken to oversee the returns process - the single most expensive part is the author (who needs an advance) and all the support people who shepherd the project (be it a physical book, or the digital equivalent) from the author's desk into the final form.
You have editors, all the staff of the publishing house, designers (font, covers. etc - still needed for ebooks, regardless of what you might think), marketing. All those people need paying, and their pay comes from the price of the book - the price of the book at FIRST sale. Nobody sees any money from subsequent ones (except the owner of the second-hand book store). The bigger the print run for a book, the cheaper it is (per copy) to produce and distribute (economies of scale etc.). The most expensive physical books produced are ARCs which are done in a limited run, and may be done away with altogether by digital initiatives like Net Galley.
The same logic applies to games. The initial box price will be high to cover all costs, from the dev team to the receptionist at the offices, to the water for the water-cooler. Second-hand sales don't help with any of that. And, as with books, the selling of used games is factored in at the setting of the initial box price, which will be on the high side, to help recoup costs. Unlike the book market (which is only starting to have to deal with piracy of electronic texts), the games market has discovered a way to make money from both pirated and used copies of games by selling DLC, a much more honest way of doing things than DRM or max # of installations (which all only serve to annoy gamers). Since DLC is optional, you don't have to pay a dime, unless you want the extra content.
I think it's a pretty good solution....
(apologies for the length of this....)
The whole idea of download is to remove the retailer from the equation.
Games aren't cars, that's a ridiculous comparison.
When you buy a game box, how much of that price goes towards packaging, distribution and the profit margin of the store you bought it from? .. it's a significant amount. Remove all that from the equation and game makers can vastly increase their profits and still reduce the price to the consumer. Will they? .. that's tough to say .. depends on how greedy they are.
Sue me, I'm an optimist.
No, I am sorry, that is not a ridiculous comparison. A game is a product; a car is a product; a television is a product; a computer is a product; a movie is a product. I only see you as someone who is viral marketing. Go read the response to the actual add that the OP copied it from. You're not an optimist; you're only empowering bad business. Next, you're going to be condemning blockbuster and why shouldn't Hollywood or Sony get a piece of the used market pie? Why shouldn't they get some profit when a TV they sold is resold?
I fixed your grammar, alucard3000.
1. How is Ilvaldyr enabling bad business? You argued that an original product's creator should profit off of used sales. Well in my opinion, as soon as a person buys a product, it belongs to them. Why should the copyright owner profit off of the sale of my own property?
2. A business will always look for ways to lower their operating costs. Whether or not that will ultimately translate into a lower costs to a consumer is decided on a business by business basis. If a company believes that lowering their product's/service's costs will result in a greater market share in the long run(even if it results in slightly lower profits in the short run), they will do it.
While I won't argue that selling used games is not a loss for software developers, I will point out that part of being a good business is being able to adapt to current trends in the market. These organizations are trying to compensate for lost profit while simultaneously reducing the potential amount of profit loss. These new practices certainly seem unfair on the consumer's end; if said consumers don't like something, then they'll take their money somewhere else.