PDA

View Full Version : Next-Gen Gamers: Illegal to resell your games?


srobert
May 24, 2006, 01:56 PM
What!?

Ok. Tell me I'm reading this wrong or that this guy's source is just making this up. I probably read that wrong…

Wednesday 24 May 2006
High street games shops have been told by Sony that there will be no PS3 pre-owned sections in their stores as it will be illegal for customers to sell any next-gen PlayStation games that they've bought, retail sources have revealed to GamesRadar.

It seems that Sony is planning to adopt a licensing system that will mean gamers won't own the PS3 titles that they've paid money for. Instead, they will only be purchasing the licence to play the game and that the software itself will still be Sony property - meaning that the disc won't be the customer's to sell.

We assume that the thinking behind this move will ultimately be to stop PS3 games being resold several times - which currently snatches potential sales away from Sony - and to counter the impression in consumers' minds that games are only really worth their pre-owned price and are not worth buying new.

When we contacted Sony, it issued us with the following statement: "We have made all of the official announcements at E3 and cannot make any further comments at this time. We will be announcing more news running up to PlayStation 3's launch."

I didn't specify PS3 in the thread title because their is nothinh preventing othert companies to use this licensing system… except maybe common sense and decency.

There is a huge second-hand games markets because games got more expensive. Next-gen games are likely to be even more expensive so I'd expect the demand for second-hand games to rise even more. Will game consoles manufacturers have the guts to lock us out of this and bleed us for all the money they can?

Link (Games Radar) (http://www.gamesradar.com/gb/ps3/game/news/article.jsp?articleId=20060524153157765035&sectionId=1006)

clayj
May 24, 2006, 02:00 PM
If this is true, it is SERIOUSLY going to piss off game retailers like EBGames, Gamestop (OK, technically these two are the same company now), etc. A lot of retailers have pushed heavily into the trade-ins market, since they actually make more money (profit margin) selling a used game than they do selling a new game... and getting people to trade in their old games encourages them to buy new games when they're tired of their old ones.

Also, how's this going to affect game rental services like GameFly, Blockbuster, etc.? And how does Sony plan to enforce this? Are discs going to work only on the FIRST PS3 console they're played on?

I guess Sony decided it wasn't enough to shoot themselves in the right foot... now they wanna shoot themselves in the left foot, too. Any desire I may have had to buy a PS3 shrinks daily...

srobert
May 24, 2006, 02:06 PM
If this is true, it is SERIOUSLY going to piss off game retailers like EBGames, Gamestop (OK, technically these two are the same company now), etc. …

Indeed. A clerck at EBGames once told me that thier store would have been out of business if it wasn't for used games.

Personally, I buy so many games because I can can reinvest some of that money in other new games by reselling my old unwanted games. I purchase games I might otherwise not have because I know I can ressl 'em if I don't like 'em.

The more I think of it, the more I think it's very unlikely. They know people won't stand for it so they won't even bother trying. But then again, they might be able to pull this off in Japan. Maybe a Japanese board member can tell us if that proposed law preventing the resale of used electronics passed?

Edit: I dug up another article.


Trade newspaper MCV has a report on the growing games company fear of "pre-owned" games. According to the report, publishers are now considering legal action to try and stop the market in shops selling second-hand games. With the market as a whole believed to be worth £100 million in the UK, publishers want a cut, or to stop you from buying games second-hand.

MacRumorUser
May 24, 2006, 02:24 PM
Well you cant trade in PC games here in Ireland at the same stores you can trade in console games, so it's very feasable sony will incorportate a license. Simply you press triangle or X at start , you've accepted licence and hey presto your fecked..

Sony will certianly kicking theselves in the NUTs though. Are they so worry free over piracy on the PS3 that they can continue to screw the consumer and bite the hand that feeds them?

Sony deserve to fail if they continue in the veign that they are currently...

XNine
May 24, 2006, 02:43 PM
This would be the only thing stopping me from purchasing a PS3, and I bet game retailers could say "HEY, **** you! I won't sell your NEW games or your consoles anymore!" And then Sony would be screwed.

I wonder what their real sources are...

Spanky Deluxe
May 24, 2006, 02:49 PM
Well you cant trade in PC games here in Ireland at the same stores you can trade in console games, so it's very feasable sony will incorportate a license.

The trading in of PC games has nothing to do with licenses. Its due to the fact that PC games are so easily copied and passed on. If people could return PC games they would simply install the game, copy the disks and return or trade the game in store. Its not as easy to copy games for consoles. Yes it can be done but you need to know what you're doing and you need to have your console chipped etc.

Dagless
May 24, 2006, 03:11 PM
I will not buy any system that uses this. Wii included. This is a massive system killer. I buy a few 2nd hand games from time to time, great impulse buys at about 1/4 the original price (sometimes!).

Didn't Sony mention this a long time ago too? The fact they're talking about it again worries me so. Something about BluRay games only working on 1 PS3 system. making 2nd hand and swopping games a thing of the past for the machine.

I'm worried. But I'd laugh if Sony did go through with it. As if they haven't had enough negative press recently.

srobert
May 24, 2006, 03:17 PM
Didn't Sony mention this a long time ago too? The fact they're talking about it again worries me so. Something about BluRay games only working on 1 PS3 system. making 2nd hand and swopping games a thing of the past for the machine.

It was once mentioned that Sony would implement DRM locking 1 game to 1 Playstation 3 console but Sony has seen told that that rumor was wrong.

This time, the rumor is about Sony (and possibly other game publishers) making it illegal for you to resell your game. My guess is that they're going to write something in the EULA. Then, they'll probably go after the stores that have second hand games on their shelves and sue like there is no tomorrow. Sony is a large part of the RIAA after all.

I'm still waiting (expecting) to hear Sony officially debunk this Rumor. (knock on wood)

Haoshiro
May 24, 2006, 03:31 PM
I have heard about this quite awhile ago... sometime last year. Publishers in general (not just Sony) are getting irked that so much "potential profit" is getting sucked away by the pre-owned games market.

The rumblings I heard were of just such a thing but no word was given on who or when this master plan would get off the ground. Sounds as if Sony might be the first, as I haven't heard anything from Microsoft regarding 360 since it's launch and I doubt Nintendo cares about this anyway.

This would only stop retail outlets though, like EB Games, GameStop, GoGamer.com, eBay (yes, likely), etc. Private trades/sales couldn't be avoided.

But yeah, it would suck quite badly and is definitely a looming potential... especially for PS3 from the sounds of it.

CorvusCamenarum
May 24, 2006, 03:32 PM
The trading in of PC games has nothing to do with licenses. Its due to the fact that PC games are so easily copied and passed on. If people could return PC games they would simply install the game, copy the disks and return or trade the game in store. Its not as easy to copy games for consoles. Yes it can be done but you need to know what you're doing and you need to have your console chipped etc.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but:

1) Isn't the PS3 going to use Blu-Ray?
2) Won't these players (and by extension the recorders) be horrendously expensive for quite some time (read: years)?
3) For the forseeable future, wouldn't it be cheaper to just buy the game rather than make a copy of someone else's disc?

I feel like I'm missing something here, but I can't see what it is.

I love my local secondhand game/DVD/CD shop. When it comes to those formats, they get more of my business than ITMS and Amazon and all those other stores combined.

srobert
May 24, 2006, 03:37 PM
Correct me if I'm wrong, but:

1) Isn't the PS3 going to use Blu-Ray?
2) Won't these players (and by extension the recorders) be horrendously expensive for quite some time (read: years)?
3) For the forseeable future, wouldn't it be cheaper to just buy the game rather than make a copy of someone else's disc?

I feel like I'm missing something here, but I can't see what it is.

I love my local secondhand game/DVD/CD shop. When it comes to those formats, they get more of my business than ITMS and Amazon and all those other stores combined.

Seems to me that you guys you guys are in agreement. Or maybe it is I who is missing something.

P.S.: At first I misread your name as: corpus cavernosum. :p

matticus008
May 24, 2006, 03:50 PM
This will be ugly for Sony unless they change the language used in their description of games. You can resell the games you bought legally and Sony can't take that right away. The only way they could get away with this is by selling the games as rentals/leases...which in turn would only be successful if prices were lower.

That said, that article is unsubstantiated and lacking in sources, so it might just be a smear campaign, not that the PS3 needs any help getting people to dislike it.

jdechko
May 24, 2006, 04:15 PM
I think this is a terrible idea. Personally, I don't see how this could benefit anyone, including the producers. There are so many crappy games out which warrants buying used and/or selling back. All of my recent purchases for the gamecube have been trading games in for new ones. It also keeps the hobby cheap(er) as I can play a game, beat it and sell it back and buy a used (read discounted) game to play. I'm more likely to buy into a new franchise if I can buy in used. That way, I'll buy the new games when the come out.

Anyway, I've also read that first party Wii games will still be $50. Here's hoping that all of the Wii games will be $50 max.

MacRumorUser
May 24, 2006, 04:25 PM
I think this is a terrible idea. Personally, I don't see how this could benefit anyone, including the producers.

On the contary..

The producers/publishers would love this idea, remember when a game passes hands once, twice, three times etc... the original producers are only getting paid once. They get nothing for a game being sold on and on and on...

They would rather see a shop sell two games, than 1 game twice.

clayj
May 24, 2006, 04:26 PM
On the contary..

The producers/publishers would love this idea, remember when a game passes hands once, twice, three times etc... the original producers are only getting paid once. They get nothing for a game being sold on and on and on...Aaaaaand... how many times are they going to be paid when gamers stop buying their games because of onerous restrictions regarding resale?

If some game publisher tried to tell me that I could never trade in a game of theirs that I bought, my response would be short and sweet: Take your games and cram them.

plinkoman
May 24, 2006, 04:33 PM
this is a load of crap.

i sure as hell hope nintendo doesn't adopt this.

what are people who want an older game supposed to do when it goes out of production? are they going to keep producing every game forever? or are they going to tell you "too bad, shouldn't have waited"? I still, to this day continue to buy n64(my fav console) games, but obviously their all second hand; what am I supposed to do in the future, buy every single game I might like just in case? and then I can't even re sell it if it sucks?

I am so sick of drm... :rolleyes:

CorvusCamenarum
May 24, 2006, 04:35 PM
Aaaaaand... how many times are they going to be paid when gamers stop buying their games because of onerous restrictions regarding resale?

If some game publisher tried to tell me that I could never trade in a game of theirs that I bought, my response would be short and sweet: Take your games and cram them.


That's true for discerning folks like ourselves, but for the vast majority of the bread-and-circus crowd, they'll buy them anyway, because they have to have it.

You'd think Sony would have learned their lesson after the rootkit fiasco, but I'm wondering how much that actually impacted their bottom line, both in terms of the settlement and in terms of raw sales figures.

XNine
May 24, 2006, 04:52 PM
That's true for discerning folks like ourselves, but for the vast majority of the bread-and-circus crowd, they'll buy them anyway, because they have to have it. That's where you're wrong. I was 100% sure I was going ot get a PS3 no matter what. If this is enforced, say good bye. Metal Gear Solid 4 or no, I don't care. IF I can't pick up games later on that I missed (such as Castlevania: SotN) because of this, it is of no use to me.

You'd think Sony would have learned their lesson after the rootkit fiasco, but I'm wondering how much that actually impacted their bottom line, both in terms of the settlement and in terms of raw sales figures.

Sony BMG produced the rootkits, not Sony CE. And this wouldn't be a rootkit isntalaltion, it would be a LAW.

Dagless
May 24, 2006, 05:05 PM
Why stop at games though? I'm sure the film division of Sony would love a similar idea adopted to BluRay films.

The only way I can see this being a good idea is if game prices are massively reduced. £60 for a Bluray game? £20.

zelmo
May 24, 2006, 05:05 PM
So I guess that means no renting games from GameFly or Blockbuster then, right?
That will all but guarantee that only sure-fire big sellers will even get developed. Who is going to take a chance releasing something different like Shadow of Colossus when no one can rent before they buy? Most people will just buy Madden 2025 or Tomb Raider 12 instead.:rolleyes:

Stupid move if it happens, Sony.
When will they all learn? Hardware companies need to treat each console launch like it is their very first foray into games, because it kinda is. Each new wave of systems is an opportunity for someone else to claim the throne...for five years. Getting smug bites you. Just ask Sega, Nintendo, and soon, ask Sony.

Counterfit
May 24, 2006, 05:05 PM
If I recall, there was a case some years ago were it was decided that record companies do NOT have the right to royalties from the sale of used discs. I think this falls under the same reasoning. The owner of the physical media (note that they don't own the game) has every right to sell that copy of the media to another party, without owing royalties for the content to the content owner.

Haoshiro
May 24, 2006, 05:12 PM
Realistically this is actually happening on PCs already.

Windows XP is the poster child of this, think about it.

Then you have games like WoW, Tribes 2, etc that use the CD Key to create an account in the game. Selling the game is pointless for these unless the seller gives you the account as well. This isn't exactly the same, but things are getting close.

matticus008
May 24, 2006, 05:17 PM
If I recall, there was a case some years ago were it was decided that record companies do NOT have the right to royalties from the sale of used discs. I think this falls under the same reasoning. The owner of the physical media (note that they don't own the game) has every right to sell that copy of the media to another party, without owing royalties for the content to the content owner.
That's correct. CDs and DVDs can be resold under transferal law, as they are owned by the purchaser, so long as no copies have been made (or they have been destroyed) and no use rights of the original purchaser are retained. More recently, SoftMan Products v. Adobe Systems upheld resale rights of software (which is somewhat different from music/video), establishing that particular right in software as well as recordings. Still, no copies or installations may be retained and no license or privileges and rights are retained by the original purchaser after resale.

So if you sell your copy of game x, and you have an expansion game x.y that requires game x, you can no longer use the expansion game x.y after selling game x. Fortunately, this setup is pretty rare in console games.

Realistically this is actually happening on PCs already.

Windows XP is the poster child of this, think about it.
No it's not. You can resell your Windows XP disc and license legally as long as you transfer the CoA and the disc, destroy all copies, and remove all installations. Sony's policy here would be like claiming that you can't resell your retail-purchased XP license and media.

XNine
May 24, 2006, 05:17 PM
For everyone:

Game and movie RENTAL SHOPS always pay a substantially larger amount of money for a title than a consumer. Old videos at blockbuster could cost up to 200 dollars or more PER COPY, because those shops have to pay licensing fees to the studios in order to rent them. Same with games. So the industry LOVES these companies, and won't destroy what revenue they generate. However, 2nd hand sales is what they may try to eliminate.

Dagless
May 24, 2006, 05:22 PM
So I guess that means no renting games from GameFly or Blockbuster then, right?
That will all but guarantee that only sure-fire big sellers will even get developed. Who is going to take a chance releasing something different like Shadow of Colossus when no one can rent before they buy? Most people will just buy Madden 2025 or Tomb Raider 12 instead.:rolleyes:

Stupid move if it happens, Sony.
When will they all learn? Hardware companies need to treat each console launch like it is their very first foray into games, because it kinda is. Each new wave of systems is an opportunity for someone else to claim the throne...for five years. Getting smug bites you. Just ask Sega, Nintendo, and soon, ask Sony.

No, there would probably be rental versions. but home films I can imagine being tied to 1 player (or account).

But from what I'm seeing now Sony are going to way of Nintendo a la N64. Like what Zelmo said; smugness kills. But if the DS popularity and Wii publicity is any indication of Nintendo's upcoming console success then Sony will fight back and overtake once more. Leap frog. happens in PC/Mac stuff, pop (first with it's hip-hop influence, now its rock...) etc.

Pancake
May 24, 2006, 05:27 PM
I just can't see this happening. Sony would being trying to change how gamers and game stores have always been operating. They may want to more than anything, but I don't think anyone would put up with it if they tried.

MacRumorUser
May 24, 2006, 06:45 PM
Aaaaaand... how many times are they going to be paid when gamers stop buying their games because of onerous restrictions regarding resale?

If some game publisher tried to tell me that I could never trade in a game of theirs that I bought, my response would be short and sweet: Take your games and cram them.

I agree with you, just stating their case :)

GFLPraxis
May 24, 2006, 07:08 PM
Gah, AGAIN?

http://ps3land.com/article-392.php

We would like to clear up a misconception that has been spreading the web today.

It is being reported by various news sites that Sony has told retailers it will be illegal to sell second hand games, because consumers only buy a license to play the game, not to own it.

We would like to confirm that this is untrue. Yes, Sony does have a patent to do this (sort of, see below), but they have already come out and confirmed that PS3 games will be playable on any PS3 console.

In fact, these rumours were actually spread back in November last year. The issue was that Sony would create a dynamic DRM system so that each PS3 game would only play on one physical console (the first one you put it in). This would obviously mean rentals and reselling would no longer me possible.

It was then that Sony made a statement:

"This is false speculation and that PlayStation 3 software will not be copy protected to a single machine but will be playable on any PlayStation 3 console."


It's not true. This rumor has spread before. I remember it from last year.

Dagless
May 24, 2006, 07:10 PM
^ phew.

At least 1 good thing might come from all this; Sony might be extremely clear about their features in the future. So many wild speculations running riot and that.

matticus008
May 24, 2006, 07:12 PM
It's not true. This rumor has spread before. I remember it from last year.
While I'm not disagreeing with you, this is a slightly different rumor. The last one dealt with DRM lockdown to a single machine--this one was a broader attack on resale rights. It's still a wild claim, but you've got to give them credit for reshaping the tool to do the poking, I guess :rolleyes:

Haoshiro
May 24, 2006, 07:14 PM
Gah, AGAIN?

http://ps3land.com/article-392.php

It's not true. This rumor has spread before. I remember it from last year.

That article really doesn't address the topic of this thread entirely.

Just because they will not lock a game to a single system does not mean that they won't or couldn't make Reselling Pre-Owned games illegal through licensing. Sure you or I could still sell trade on our own with little risk of getting into legal trouble, but gamestores and sites like eBay would pretty much have to stop.

GFLPraxis
May 24, 2006, 07:19 PM
While I'm not disagreeing with you, this is a slightly different rumor. The last one dealt with DRM lockdown to a single machine--this one was a broader attack on resale rights. It's still a wild claim, but you've got to give them credit for reshaping the tool to do the poking, I guess :rolleyes:


Well, there's always this...
http://next-gen.biz/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=3086&Itemid=2
If true, such a move would be a massive boost for publishers and developers which do not profit from the lucrative and damaging retail trade in used games. In fact, many publishers are furious that they have to spend support money on consumers who have not actually contributed a dime to the company's coffers.

In turn, it would be a catastrophe for retailers, which make a significant proportion of margin from used games. Consumers would likely be less than overjoyed.

Sony, which is refusing to comment on the story, does have a patent on technology which would tie a piece of software to an individual piece of hardware. But technology and desire are not the only parts of the puzzle. Whether the company would be prepared to take on retail, consumer goodwill and, most likely, the U.S courts, is another matter.

One expert in retail law told Next-Gen.Biz, "Sony can theoretically sell a license to play the game, but the user would have to acknowledge acceptance of the license. You've seen this when you install software on a PC. I'm not sure that the license agreement is enforceable if the licensee doesn't agree to it.

"Also, even if the agreement is enforceable, it's hard to preclude subsequent sale of the disc. The consumer could theoretically agree that he doesn't own the right to transfer his license, but why couldn't he sell the medium that held the license (the disc)? Sony can't enforce the agreement against a third party, as it lacks privity with the third party.

"Stated differently, I don't believe Sony can keep someone from selling a disc, even if they create a license agreement. The only way that this can truly be effected is to require registration of the disc with a specific PS3 console. Sony has a patent on such a technology, and could render a disc unplayable once registered. That would accomplish their goal (if they really have such a goal). In summary, I don't believe this is real."

A senior games publishing source told us, "Sony and the rest of us would love to put an end to this damaging trade, but actually making it happen looks like a fight that's beyond even Sony. I can't see it happening, but i hope I'm wrong."

Another senior manager at a third party publisher said, "I know that Sony is very upset about the used games market. But this story seems a bit far-fetched."

AP_piano295
May 24, 2006, 07:42 PM
What would deter me most from buying the system if they did this is not my loss of ability to trade in games or buy new ones because I never really do, but just the fact they are doing it. I would boycott a company just for saying that I dont own the game and I cant sell it. Might sound like a silly reason but I sort of care about retaining rights even if I dont use those rights, and I'm tired of big buisnesses always trying to squeeze more money out of consumers.

ziutek
May 24, 2006, 08:04 PM
Here's some good news...

"While US Sony reps think the best way to deal with gossip is silence, Sony Europe spokespersons have apparently decided to put this particular rumor to rest. According to the London Guardian's
tech blog, SCEE PR manger Jennie Kong blasted the rumor as " false speculation." "PlayStation 3 software will not be copy protected to a single machine but will be playable on any PlayStation 3 console," she told the Guardian. [Thanks Lefein and stoner02]"

-Gamespot: http://www.gamespot.com/pages/news/show_blog_entry.php?topic_id=23921409

sk1985
May 24, 2006, 08:52 PM
F sony. I personally won't be buy anything from them if this true. I can't stand companies telling people what they can and can't do with the product they buy. Lame I say. Stuff like this will make their system a flop.

Eric5h5
May 24, 2006, 10:14 PM
Ok. Tell me I'm reading this wrong or that this guy's source is just making this up. I probably read that wrong…

High street games shops have been told by Sony that there will be no PS3 pre-owned sections in their stores as it will be illegal for customers to sell any next-gen PlayStation games that they've bought, retail sources have revealed to GamesRadar.

I didn't specify PS3 in the thread title because their is nothinh preventing othert companies to use this licensing system… except maybe common sense and decency.

Way way too late for that. What's wrong here is that you obviously haven't read the legalese for any of the software/games you've bought. ;) That's ALREADY the case and has been for many years. Companies almost always claim exactly this--let's see...pull a game at random, here's Star Wars Battlefront:

"You agree not to: [...] Sell, rent, lease, license, distribute or otherwise transfer this Program, or any copies of this Program, without the express prior written consent of Aspyr."

They always say this. Yet, you can find copies for sale on eBay or wherever easily enough (and I don't think anyone ever got the "express prior written consent of Aspyr"). There's a big difference between a license (especially one you didn't sign) and the law. Companies can't just write their own laws whenever they feel like it. They can't just take away people's rights, click-through licenses or no.

So, if any games shops don't carry used PS3 games, it's because they will have caved in to intimidation from Sony, not because it's "illegal." Unless somehow Sony manages to get the law actually changed, but I don't see that happening, even in our current legal climate. They can write all the licenses they want, but that doesn't change the law. (For example, companies also almost always say that you can't reverse-engineer their software, but you certainly can, and that's been tested in court.)

--Eric

matticus008
May 24, 2006, 10:22 PM
"You agree not to: [...] Sell, rent, lease, license, distribute or otherwise transfer this Program, or any copies of this Program, without the express prior written consent of Aspyr."
That's actually based on the notion of redistribution and the customer's lack of full IP ownership rights, but poorly worded (likely intentionally). You can't sell or transfer the program while retaining it--in other words, you can't act as a retailer. First sale and transferal law remains in effect such that you can legally sell your copy of the program so long as you sever your use and possession of it.


(For example, companies also almost always say that you can't reverse-engineer their software, but you certainly can, and that's been tested in court.)
That's not strictly speaking true. Reverse engineering is not a blanket usage right. Reverse engineering or modification for the purposes of breaking security systems is not legal or permissable under any current law. For example, cracking Windows activation is not legal, but replacing UI elements is. You can use your copy of a software item freely within the parameters of the law, but it's not a blank check.

Foxglove9
May 24, 2006, 10:22 PM
If Sony did exactly that, which they won't, it will increase piracy by a tremendous amount. Basically anyone who only bought used will buy pirated software instead.

GFLPraxis
May 24, 2006, 10:34 PM
Way way too late for that. What's wrong here is that you obviously haven't read the legalese for any of the software/games you've bought. ;) That's ALREADY the case and has been for many years. Companies almost always claim exactly this--let's see...pull a game at random, here's Star Wars Battlefront:

"You agree not to: [...] Sell, rent, lease, license, distribute or otherwise transfer this Program, or any copies of this Program, without the express prior written consent of Aspyr."

They always say this. Yet, you can find copies for sale on eBay or wherever easily enough (and I don't think anyone ever got the "express prior written consent of Aspyr"). There's a big difference between a license (especially one you didn't sign) and the law. Companies can't just write their own laws whenever they feel like it. They can't just take away people's rights, click-through licenses or no.

So, if any games shops don't carry used PS3 games, it's because they will have caved in to intimidation from Sony, not because it's "illegal." Unless somehow Sony manages to get the law actually changed, but I don't see that happening, even in our current legal climate. They can write all the licenses they want, but that doesn't change the law. (For example, companies also almost always say that you can't reverse-engineer their software, but you certainly can, and that's been tested in court.)

--Eric


That's only for PC games though. You'll note that no game shop carries used PC games.

No console games have license agreements.

Viewtiful Rich
May 24, 2006, 11:14 PM
I like the idea personally... I never buy used games because I'd rather see the money go to the developers than EB/Gamestop. And by the sound of things developers are going to need every penny they can get this time around. Flame away.

clayj
May 24, 2006, 11:29 PM
I like the idea personally... I never buy used games because I'd rather see the money go to the developers than EB/Gamestop. And by the sound of things developers are going to need every penny they can get this time around. Flame away.Er... the money DID go to the developers... when the game was sold the first time. When someone trades in their game, they no longer have it, so the net number of copies of that game out in the world remains constant. If you don't want Gamestop or EBGames to make additional profit through sales of traded-in games, the solution to that is simple: Don't trade in your games.

This logic is like saying DaimlerChrysler should get paid when I trade my Mercedes SUV in at Carmax and someone else buys it from them. That's not how it works.

The day a specific game company starts putting stupid restrictions on your ability to trade in a game should be the last day you give them any money.

sam10685
May 25, 2006, 12:19 AM
if i were EBgames, Gamecrazy, Gamestop or any other company that works like it, and Sony tried to pull that crap on the world, i would probably boycott all Sony products from my stores.

sam10685
May 25, 2006, 12:25 AM
F sony. I personally won't be buy anything from them if this true. I can't stand companies telling people what they can and can't do with the product they buy. Lame I say. Stuff like this will make their system a flop.

EXACTLY. a move like this would make their $600 price tag look like a stroke of genius.

matticus008
May 25, 2006, 12:38 AM
I can't stand companies telling people what they can and can't do with the product they buy. Lame I say.
The problem isn't limitation, it's unreasonable limitation. There are all kinds of limits on what you can and can't do with personal property. Something like what the original article is claiming falls into that "unreasonable" (and extralegal) category. Other limits are fair and acceptable and serve legitimate and legal purposes.

Viewtiful Rich
May 25, 2006, 02:28 AM
Er... the money DID go to the developers... when the game was sold the first time. When someone trades in their game, they no longer have it, so the net number of copies of that game out in the world remains constant.

Yeah the first time.... I've seen many gamestore people talk customers into buying a used copy to save five bucks. Now money that would've went to the developers goes to EB.

EB and their pushy used copy sales-people have been screwing developers since forever, and now everyone gets pissed at the possibility of the tables being turned.... but whatever as long as you get yours I guess.

CorvusCamenarum
May 25, 2006, 04:55 AM
Yeah the first time.... I've seen many gamestore people talk customers into buying a used copy to save five bucks. Now money that would've went to the developers goes to EB.

EB and their pushy used copy sales-people have been screwing developers since forever, and now everyone gets pissed at the possibility of the tables being turned.... but whatever as long as you get yours I guess.

Perhaps someone who works in retail can explain it properly to me, but doesn't Sony get paid at the point of Gamestop's order? And what happens when Gamestop orders so many copies of game X, but can't sell them all? Since I was able to pick up StarCraft last week for $20 new in the box (shows you how up to date I am gamewise), I'm assuming that Gamestop has to hang on to the extras and eventually sell them at a reduced profit or a loss to dump the inventory. If that's the case, then what does Sony care if I bought their game new or used, since they got paid back at the start?

Interestingly enough, this seems to be about the only industry where this would be an issue. The guy who built the house I'm going to buy isn't up in arms that I'm buying a "pre-owned" home. Whichever company's stock I buy isn't crying foul that I go through a broker and not them directly. A toy company (expensive toys, mind, but still toys) would rather I go to their doorstep only.

You'd think if Sony was so worried about profit, they'd only sell directly to end customers. They could lower their prices a little (good for us) and still make more out the door than going through middlemen (good for them).

bokdol
May 25, 2006, 07:31 AM
Well you cant trade in PC games here in Ireland at the same stores you can trade in console games, so it's very feasable sony will incorportate a license. Simply you press triangle or X at start , you've accepted licence and hey presto your fecked...

i dont know about ireland but here most store dont take trade in of games is the code to install are sometimes registredt to certain users so it cant be used again.. like alot of blizzard games.(well at least wont be able to play multiplayer)

mikeyPotg
May 25, 2006, 07:54 AM
Inconceivable!

Haoshiro
May 25, 2006, 08:39 AM
No it's not. You can resell your Windows XP disc and license legally as long as you transfer the CoA and the disc, destroy all copies, and remove all installations. Sony's policy here would be like claiming that you can't resell your retail-purchased XP license and media.

You can not sell your used XP, what made you think that? The disc and key are tied to that PC according to the EULA and can NOT be transferred. Even if you built a new PC, completely removed XP from the original, then installed your copy of XP to the new PC - you would be breaking the license agreement, it is technically illegal.

People do it, yes, but it is most certaintly NOT in accordance with Microsoft's EULA.

Haoshiro
May 25, 2006, 08:43 AM
Er... the money DID go to the developers... when the game was sold the first time. When someone trades in their game, they no longer have it, so the net number of copies of that game out in the world remains constant. If you don't want Gamestop or EBGames to make additional profit through sales of traded-in games, the solution to that is simple: Don't trade in your games.

This logic is like saying DaimlerChrysler should get paid when I trade my Mercedes SUV in at Carmax and someone else buys it from them. That's not how it works.

The day a specific game company starts putting stupid restrictions on your ability to trade in a game should be the last day you give them any money.

Well really it's very likely the developers got paid after the project was done, and the publishers (evil!) get nearly all money after....

jdechko
May 25, 2006, 10:46 AM
Interestingly enough, this seems to be about the only industry where this would be an issue. The guy who built the house I'm going to buy isn't up in arms that I'm buying a "pre-owned" home. Whichever company's stock I buy isn't crying foul that I go through a broker and not them directly. A toy company (expensive toys, mind, but still toys) would rather I go to their doorstep only.

All these are true, but how about one of the biggest used-product segments: textbooks. It happens there all the time and the way the publishers get around this is by releasing new textbooks every freaking year. (Yeah, I'm pissed that my $150 accounting book is worth nothing because McGraw Hill decided to release a new version with the same info in different chapters).

I only buy used copies of games that I'm unsure of. Case-in-point: Final Fantasy Crystal Chronicles. I bought it used for $20 when it was still full price. Thank God I didn't pay full price because I played it for about 2 weeks and got bored with all the repetition. I also bought Golden Eye: Rogue Agent used. It wasn't worth my paying full price for it.

Anyway, hopefully this is just a silly rumor and not a sign of things to come... that will be a dark day.

ewinemiller
May 25, 2006, 11:55 AM
You can not sell your used XP, what made you think that? The disc and key are tied to that PC according to the EULA and can NOT be transferred. Even if you built a new PC, completely removed XP from the original, then installed your copy of XP to the new PC - you would be breaking the license agreement, it is technically illegal.

People do it, yes, but it is most certaintly NOT in accordance with Microsoft's EULA.

You can if you bought a retail copy of Windows, the license for it is not tied to a specific machine.

The OEM versions of XP that come with your Dell though are tied to the Dell and must stay with that machine. It is against the license to sell it without the hardware too. Some XP install/restore CDs will even check the bios to make sure it's the machine (or at least the right brand) that it's tied to before continuing. However having said that, Microsoft is very liberal with this. My father has called MS's help line more than once on an OEM Windows from one machine and they told him how to get it to do a full install on a different machine. This was back in the win2k days, they may have changed since then.

Eric5h5
May 25, 2006, 11:59 AM
I only buy used copies of games that I'm unsure of.

I only buy used copies of games that aren't available new anywhere. Which is another stupid thing about the idea of Sony attempting to prevent "pre-owned" sales...what happens when a game is out of production?

And yes, I have seen used PC games in stores. Plus there are zillions of them on eBay and other sites, as I mentioned. (Game Trading Zone is 100% about selling and trading used copies of games, has been around for years with no hint of legal action that I've ever heard of.) Also as I mentioned, license agreement != the law. (Usually, depending on where you live.)

That's not strictly speaking true. Reverse engineering is not a blanket usage right. Reverse engineering or modification for the purposes of breaking security systems is not legal or permissable under any current law.

Yeah, I know about that, but I didn't want to get into that sort of detail with something that was just a side point. Mainly, just because companies want to dictate terms to users, doesn't mean they can necessarily do that legally.

--Eric

Haoshiro
May 25, 2006, 12:14 PM
You can if you bought a retail copy of Windows, the license for it is not tied to a specific machine.

The OEM versions of XP that come with your Dell though are tied to the Dell and must stay with that machine. It is against the license to sell it without the hardware too. Some XP install/restore CDs will even check the bios to make sure it's the machine (or at least the right brand) that it's tied to before continuing. However having said that, Microsoft is very liberal with this. My father has called MS's help line more than once on an OEM Windows from one machine and they told him how to get it to do a full install on a different machine. This was back in the win2k days, they may have changed since then.

You might check that EULA again, once you've installed that retail copy then it is tied to that hardware. MS, in my experience, definitely has not been extremely forceful with it (I've called in myself to get it reactivated for an upgraded machine), but the EULA terms are very strict. MS has also been cracking down very tightly lately, I've had a friend or two that have already been messed over by it. MS' response: Buy a new copy, end of story.

DougTheImpaler
May 25, 2006, 12:19 PM
I'm a huge fan of after-market used games. Games are expensive, and this helps get that down some, and having the discount card at Gamestop gets it down even farther...I paid $40.49 for PGR3 instead of $49.99. Excellent.

ewinemiller
May 25, 2006, 01:46 PM
You might check that EULA again, once you've installed that retail copy then it is tied to that hardware. MS, in my experience, definitely has not been extremely forceful with it (I've called in myself to get it reactivated for an upgraded machine), but the EULA terms are very strict. MS has also been cracking down very tightly lately, I've had a friend or two that have already been messed over by it. MS' response: Buy a new copy, end of story.

Retail copies can be moved from machine to machine. Perhaps your friends weren't using a retail copy or were trying to install it on more than one machine at a time. Here is the XP Home EULA, please look at section 13.

http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/home/eula.mspx

I've moved the same retail version of XP Pro through 3 completely different machines. Last time I installed it, I had to do the call in, explained I just built a new machine, they only asked "and it's not installed on the old machine anymore?" I said correct, and they activated it.

DougTheImpaler
May 25, 2006, 02:10 PM
ewinemiller, I tried arguing the same side as you in antoher thread and I just got beaten to death enough with how "wrong" I was that I just let it go. ;)

Boggle
May 25, 2006, 03:05 PM
Perhaps someone who works in retail can explain it properly to me, but doesn't Sony get paid at the point of Gamestop's order? And what happens when Gamestop orders so many copies of game X, but can't sell them all? Since I was able to pick up StarCraft last week for $20 new in the box (shows you how up to date I am gamewise), I'm assuming that Gamestop has to hang on to the extras and eventually sell them at a reduced profit or a loss to dump the inventory. If that's the case, then what does Sony care if I bought their game new or used, since they got paid back at the start?

1. Yes, it does.
2. You are correct.
3. It is the case, and they care b/c console games are not all made by the platform owner. So, given that Sony needs a profitable number of platform units to be sold, and using the standard demand curve, what we are really talking about here is the impact of secondary sales on the demand factor. That's where it gets a bit murky. Games are largely developed by independant companies and sold in bulk to the retailers. The retailers eat into developer profits (from the developer's perspective) w/ low price secondary sales, (This is totally legal just not good for developers bottom lines). So the developer decides based on this "lost" revenue that it simply isn't profitable enough to design games for Sony etc. Fewer games means fewer console sales, means enormous revenue lost to Sony, etc. So Sony has a vested interest in APPEARING on the side of developers b/c it needs games built, but it also needs these games to be priced competitively so $/game doesn't discourage console purchases. Therefore, it must also be on the side of the consumer whose interests are best served by the retailer who is undercutting the developer, whom Sony needs to continue building games in order to make the console a viable product in the first place. Wow, that was a lot.

Interestingly enough, this seems to be about the only industry where this would be an issue. The guy who built the house I'm going to buy isn't up in arms that I'm buying a "pre-owned" home. Whichever company's stock I buy isn't crying foul that I go through a broker and not them directly. A toy company (expensive toys, mind, but still toys) would rather I go to their doorstep only.

That's true, but those industries you've mentioned manufacture products that are designed to be resold beyond the first user. have intended resale inherant in their development. I think what's so volitile about this situation is that until the past 10 years there were not enough games and gamers participating in this business for the industry as a whole to feel the pinch. Now that secondary sales of games is such a profitable business due to the explosion of the demand, it's like every developer is at this enormous party w/ the developers have just noticed this huge dessert trolley, and they all rush over fork in hand, only to find that gamers and retailers have eaten the entire trolley, wheels and all.

You'd think if Sony was so worried about profit, they'd only sell directly to end customers. They could lower their prices a little (good for us) and still make more out the door than going through middlemen (good for them).

They simply can't afford to. It would mean buying a hundred retail locations, plus warehouses, websites, databases, etc; then staffing all of that, then responding to new market pressures (and who the heck knows what those'll cost 5 years from now). Not to mention now having to pay the game developers out of pocket (an arrangement that now costs Sony exactly nothing, unless it's a console exclusive title) And all the while there's the media discussing Sony's coorporate greed. I don't think it's a feasable concept in this business model, but my stocks aren't doing to hot, so I might not be the best yard stick.

Damn, I gave myself a headache, and I have NO desire to buy another damn gaming console. I've touched my xbox, like 3 times since October.

Sdashiki
May 25, 2006, 03:09 PM
I fail to understand this logic, which is "angering" producers of video games:

I pay for a video game, brand new, $50.

producer of game gets my $50

I beat game and decide to sell it to a friend for $30.

producer gets $0.


But when I sold my game, I wasnt taking money from the producers, I was recouping my own money that I paid to the producers.

My friend has given no money to them, but in the wide scope he has given them $30 and I $20.

So to complain they arent getting a dime when it changes hands makes no sense, you cant charge TAX on the same item twice. So why should someone get royalties twice?

matticus008
May 25, 2006, 03:29 PM
You might check that EULA again, once you've installed that retail copy then it is tied to that hardware. MS, in my experience, definitely has not been extremely forceful with it (I've called in myself to get it reactivated for an upgraded machine), but the EULA terms are very strict.
Yeah, the EULA terms are quite strict, but they do allow you to sell your copy of XP. Check the link provided by another poster. Even if that section of the EULA weren't there, you'd still have the legal right to sell your retail copy of Windows.

OEM copies can't be resold, but that's different from a retail purchased copy.

Haoshiro
May 25, 2006, 04:25 PM
Retail copies can be moved from machine to machine. Perhaps your friends weren't using a retail copy or were trying to install it on more than one machine at a time. Here is the XP Home EULA, please look at section 13.

http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/home/eula.mspx

I've moved the same retail version of XP Pro through 3 completely different machines. Last time I installed it, I had to do the call in, explained I just built a new machine, they only asked "and it's not installed on the old machine anymore?" I said correct, and they activated it.

Yeah, looks like the Retail is a bit more lenient but I did notice the "one-time transfer" but which means it could only change hands once (still rather strict).

Plus as MS has really tightened the XP Activiation you could still have real problems making a successful transfer.

My original point was simply that their is software out their on the PC that is already getting very close to what is described by the OP.

matticus008
May 25, 2006, 04:32 PM
Yeah, looks like the Retail is a bit more lenient but I did notice the "one-time transfer" but which means it could only change hands once (still rather strict).
It's not strict at all. You can only transfer it once because you only own it once. That person can then transfer it once, etc.

Plus as MS has really tightened the XP Activiation you could still have real problems making a successful transfer.
Call Microsoft and tell them that you've uninstalled Windows and would like your copy deactivated. It's just like owning a car; if you sell it, you have to inform the DMV about the transfer.

Haoshiro
May 25, 2006, 04:40 PM
It's not strict at all. You can only transfer it once because you only own it once. That person can then transfer it once, etc.


Call Microsoft and tell them that you've uninstalled Windows and would like your copy deactivated. It's just like owning a car; if you sell it, you have to inform the DMV about the transfer.


Makes sense, I've just seen and heard of a lot of people having problems and issues over it - even after calling Microsoft - and usually not having any option of talking to a real person.

I never had the issue myself, but I also usually sold the PC *with* the OS intact, not just the OS and keeping the PC. Last time I needed to call them was many years ago when they had better policies and I easily spoke to a rep.

But for the sake of my point, and to get off these rails of correction I've so kindly brought into this thread, we'll just say OEM XP is the example. :P

matticus008
May 25, 2006, 05:02 PM
But for the sake of my point, and to get off these rails of correction I've so kindly brought into this thread, we'll just say OEM XP is the example. :P
But OEM games (those bundled with systems or given away and labeled "NOT FOR RESALE") also can't be sold, just like OEM software versions, so there's no real difference. I have a few from the Sega Saturn days (a three-pack), and while I could sell them to a person who was also willing to ignore the fact that they were not for resale (and the fact that I got all three for $5 from a coupon), it'd still be technically impermissable.

Sony wouldn't ever be able to change the terms of retail PS3 games to make resale illegal (without changing the Terms of Sale into a Rental/Lease Agreement), and individual resale of "OEM" or bundled games already is.

Haoshiro
May 25, 2006, 05:11 PM
But OEM games (those bundled with systems or given away and labeled "NOT FOR RESALE") also can't be sold, just like OEM software versions, so there's no real difference. I have a few from the Sega Saturn days (a three-pack), and while I could sell them to a person who was also willing to ignore the fact that they were not for resale (and the fact that I got all three for $5 from a coupon), it'd still be technically impermissable.

Sony wouldn't ever be able to change the terms of retail PS3 games to make resale illegal (without changing the Terms of Sale into a Rental/Lease Agreement), and individual resale of "OEM" or bundled games already is.

Precisely. That is in effect my point. OEM versions of software already carry this restriction. Changing the ToS for a software wouldn't be something that has never been done, just something not yet applied to retail.

We've seen these restrictions in other areas concerning software, the idea of applying this to Retail, while terrible, isn't all that surprising an idea.

matticus008
May 25, 2006, 05:20 PM
Precisely. That is in effect my point. OEM versions of software already carry this restriction. Changing the ToS for a software wouldn't be something that has never been done, just something not yet applied to retail.
No no, you misunderstood what I wrote. OEM software carries the no resale restriction because it's dirt cheap and sold as a bundle, whether it's for a PC or a game console. Retail software is sold at full price and does not carry that restriction. You can't make retail software have OEM terms unless you make it OEM software.

It's not that it hasn't been done to retail console games. It has. OEM console games are the result. If you're suggesting that Sony would sell only OEM games, they wouldn't. The PS3 would be crushed at $50+ for an OEM game in a paper sleeve.

Haoshiro
May 25, 2006, 05:35 PM
No no, you misunderstood what I wrote. OEM software carries the no resale restriction because it's dirt cheap and sold as a bundle, whether it's for a PC or a game console. Retail software is sold at full price and does not carry that restriction. You can't make retail software have OEM terms unless you make it OEM software.

It's not that it hasn't been done to retail console games. It has. OEM console games are the result. If you're suggesting that Sony would sell only OEM games, they wouldn't. The PS3 would be crushed at $50+ for an OEM game in a paper sleeve.

Nope, I'm saying the "OEM" moniker isn't needed for such a restriction to be placed on retail software. A company or publisher can do as they like with their product. The would not have to make it a paper sleeve game and slap the acronym "OEM" on it to impose the same restrictions that we have seen on OEM software, on Retail software.

Yes it would be very uncool and many MANY people would probably cry foul and not buy any of the software. My point simply is that we've seen similar restrictions on other things, extending that to the Retail space isn't an "OMG" to me. It makes financial sense for a publisher when they aren't factoring the negative impact.

I would think game sales could actually go down as a result and not just because it's a terrible restriction. I myself have bought Sequels of a game at full price after playing a previous version that I bought used. If I could not have paid a cheap used price I would have never been exposed to the franchise.

matticus008
May 25, 2006, 05:48 PM
Nope, I'm saying the "OEM" moniker isn't needed for such a restriction to be placed on retail software. A company or publisher can do as they like with their product.
Yes it is and no they can't, respectively. If you buy a retail copy of a recording or software, you have first-sale rights. Sony can't take that away, period. If you buy an OEM copy of a recording or software, you don't have first-sale rights, so Sony doesn't need to take it away from the customer, because the customer never had it in the first place. So if Sony wants to take away first-sale rights, they have to make all sales OEM sales.

The would not have to make it a paper sleeve game and slap the acronym "OEM" on it to impose the same restrictions that we have seen on OEM software, on Retail software.
Yes, they would, if they wanted to avoid breaking the law.

My point simply is that we've seen similar restrictions on other things, extending that to the Retail space isn't an "OMG" to me.
And my point is that that's not true. There has never been any such restriction on a retail purchase, and entering that domain is a major OMG moment.

Haoshiro
May 25, 2006, 05:56 PM
Yes it is and no they can't, respectively. If you buy a retail copy of a recording or software, you have first-sale rights. Sony can't take that away, period. If you buy an OEM copy of a recording or software, you don't have first-sale rights, so Sony doesn't need to take it away from the customer, because the customer never had it in the first place. So if Sony wants to take away first-sale rights, they have to make all sales OEM sales.

Yes, they would, if they wanted to avoid breaking the law.

And my point is that that's not true. There has never been any such restriction on a retail purchase, and entering that domain is a major OMG moment.

Well you at least sound like you know of some laws I don't, fair enough.

I did think that the topic suggested them changing the terms of the software, where you were simply purchasing a license to use the software. Could they not impose such a license? Is that what you are saying?

It still seems possible to me.. fine, they sell it as OEM, but they still include the nice box and the manual, etc. Is there really something preventing them from doing that?

matticus008
May 25, 2006, 06:16 PM
I did think that the topic suggested them changing the terms of the software, where you were simply purchasing a license to use the software. Could they not impose such a license? Is that what you are saying?
That's already the case. Buying a game is buying a license to use the game, just like buying a PC game or an OS is a license to use that software. But you have rights even with a license.

It still seems possible to me.. fine, they sell it as OEM, but they still include the nice box and the manual, etc. Is there really something preventing them from doing that?
No, there's nothing preventing that, except business sensibility and the fact that Sony doesn't make the games and that few people would pay full price for a game they can't sell later on.

SuperSnake2012
May 25, 2006, 07:04 PM
Trade newspaper MCV has a report on the growing games company fear of "pre-owned" games. According to the report, publishers are now considering legal action to try and stop the market in shops selling second-hand games. With the market as a whole believed to be worth £100 million in the UK, publishers want a cut, or to stop you from buying games second-hand.
They already received their cut the first time it was purchased :rolleyes:

clayj
May 25, 2006, 07:08 PM
Not sure if this was mentioned, but it just occurred to me: If game developers are concerned about "losing" money because people are trading in their games and other people are buying used games, then they should concentrate on making sure their games have plenty of replay value, i.e., you can play them over and over and over again and not get bored.

For example, I finished Tomb Raider: Legend for the 360 within a few weeks of buying it. I've done all the levels, gotten all of the achievements, and seen Lara Croft in a bikini. (NICE pixels!) But now there's no real reason for me to keep the game, aside from showing the graphics to other people... so it's a candidate for being traded in.

GFLPraxis
May 25, 2006, 07:24 PM
Not sure if this was mentioned, but it just occurred to me: If game developers are concerned about "losing" money because people are trading in their games and other people are buying used games, then they should concentrate on making sure their games have plenty of replay value, i.e., you can play them over and over and over again and not get bored.

For example, I finished Tomb Raider: Legend for the 360 within a few weeks of buying it. I've done all the levels, gotten all of the achievements, and seen Lara Croft in a bikini. (NICE pixels!) But now there's no real reason for me to keep the game, aside from showing the graphics to other people... so it's a candidate for being traded in.

Ebay. You'll probably make more money than you would have if you traded it in, anyway.

clayj
May 25, 2006, 07:29 PM
Ebay. You'll probably make more money than you would have if you traded it in, anyway.Right, but you see my point... if games had more replay value, there'd be less reason to want to trade them in. A game that you can "finish" fairly quickly is a game you're likely to trade in.

KREX725
May 25, 2006, 07:40 PM
Right, but you see my point... if games had more replay value, there'd be less reason to want to trade them in. A game that you can "finish" fairly quickly is a game you're likely to trade in.

Yeah, give me more games with good MP sides to it, etc. and I won't be trying to dump it a couple weeks later. Back on the N64 I kept Goldeneye 64 from day one of N64 ownership to the day I sold it. I replayed levels over and over and over (I'm not really sure why I liked it that much, thinking back). Now, with games like COD, I'm still playing it years later because the MP side is so great (and occasionally I replay the SP levels too).

2nyRiggz
May 25, 2006, 07:40 PM
Indeed i see where you are coming from Clayj....if they put the effort into making those games replay worthy i garantee people will not want to sell those games.

I like to return sucky games to EBgames.....even though i lose out because they take it for less but i just feel robbed when the game sucks major arse.


Bless

Matt Phoenix
May 25, 2006, 07:53 PM
Hmmm...yes, if Sony were to do this, I definetely wouldn't pick up a PS3 (although I'm not going to buy one at launch either way).

But has anyone thought of this: you buy a console and a ton of games. After the warranty wears off, your system breaks down and you have to buy a new one. At that point, your game collection is useless as you can't play them on the new system. Hell, even if you had a warranty and (insert random store) replaces it, you're still SooL as the games won't play.

CorvusCamenarum
May 25, 2006, 08:48 PM
1. Yes, it does.
2. You are correct.
3. It is the case, and they care b/c console games are not all made by the platform owner. So, given that Sony needs a profitable number of platform units to be sold, and using the standard demand curve, what we are really talking about here is the impact of secondary sales on the demand factor. That's where it gets a bit murky. Games are largely developed by independant companies and sold in bulk to the retailers. The retailers eat into developer profits (from the developer's perspective) w/ low price secondary sales, (This is totally legal just not good for developers bottom lines). So the developer decides based on this "lost" revenue that it simply isn't profitable enough to design games for Sony etc. Fewer games means fewer console sales, means enormous revenue lost to Sony, etc. So Sony has a vested interest in APPEARING on the side of developers b/c it needs games built, but it also needs these games to be priced competitively so $/game doesn't discourage console purchases. Therefore, it must also be on the side of the consumer whose interests are best served by the retailer who is undercutting the developer, whom Sony needs to continue building games in order to make the console a viable product in the first place. Wow, that was a lot.

Yeah, just a bit ;) but I appreciate the lesson. I can't provide figures or anything, but I still can't reasonably see any of this truly impacting the bottom line all that much, given the intersection of the gamer demographic with the "must have on release day" demographic.


That's true, but those industries you've mentioned manufacture products that are designed to be resold beyond the first user. have intended resale inherant in their development. I think what's so volitile about this situation is that until the past 10 years there were not enough games and gamers participating in this business for the industry as a whole to feel the pinch. Now that secondary sales of games is such a profitable business due to the explosion of the demand, it's like every developer is at this enormous party w/ the developers have just noticed this huge dessert trolley, and they all rush over fork in hand, only to find that gamers and retailers have eaten the entire trolley, wheels and all.
I would argue in this case that as these are durable goods by definition (lasting more than 3?+ years), they are inherently designed to be used by more than one user.


They simply can't afford to. It would mean buying a hundred retail locations, plus warehouses, websites, databases, etc; then staffing all of that, then responding to new market pressures (and who the heck knows what those'll cost 5 years from now). Not to mention now having to pay the game developers out of pocket (an arrangement that now costs Sony exactly nothing, unless it's a console exclusive title) And all the while there's the media discussing Sony's coorporate greed. I don't think it's a feasable concept in this business model, but my stocks aren't doing to hot, so I might not be the best yard stick.

Even if it's just an internet store front à la ITMS, Amazon, etc., the smart thing for Sony to do would be to open up their own (send us 5 of your old games and get New Super Fantastic Game 3!)