Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
[Column] General: Used Games and You
SBFord
Former Associate EditorMember LegendaryPosts: 33,129
The used game market is one of the most controversial topics in gaming today. Do players "own" or "license" their games? In today's column, Genese Davis takes a look at the topic and offers some history and opinion about used games. Check it out and leave your opinions in the comments.
I had a lot of questions when this topic arose, so I headed over to the Pixel Legends studio and had a chat with the crew about pre-owned games. In the first five minutes they gave me a lot to think about by revealing new perspectives and proposing questions that I had overlooked. They suggested that if I look more closely at Microsoft’s attempts to implement new game-trading policies, I’d see benefits within the changes not only for gamers and publishers, but for the artists and developers that create our beloved games, too.
Read more (and watch!) Genese Davis: Used Games and You.
)
Comments
I like your conclusion...give a little get a little.
The biggest problem I find with the argument that "However, when you purchase or rent a used game, only the seller sees that money." is that ultimately when you purchase a game you purchased an item that is now your property meaning the developers no longer have any right to that so should not receive any income from reselling. This is similar to building a house. When you first build you pay for the construction; however everytime that house is resold the construction team does not get a portion of the payment...nor should they because you paid them for their services and now you are selling your property. Construction teams don't complain that reselling your house keeps them from building "new" houses.
The difference between Steam and Microsoft's attempt and DRM for physical games is that Steam didn't try to change the rules for an existing system. Valve created a new set of rules for a system that didn't really have a set of rules. If Microsoft had tried to make new rules for a new system, or tried to use the rules that Steam setup for a fully digital system, they would have had no issues.
The other part of the Steam/Microsoft comparison that gets left out in articles like this is that Steam discounts games on a regular basis for their customers. Buying a used game isn't an issue because new games are often sold at used prices. It did not occur to anyone, including Microsoft, that at some point consumers would get less expensive games because they wouldn't. Most gamers probably don't care nearly as much about not being able to shared or trade games as they do the doubling of cost to themselves that not being able to trade or sell games would cause.
And so Microsoft's attempt failed, and like children kicking sand in a sandbox because they didn't get their way, they attempted to punish consumers by removing the "extra features" that most people didn't care about anyway.
Let's not forget that Microsoft's goal in the whole thing was to make more money off of their only division that is actually making money. If they were interested in helping developers they wouldn't have such exorbitant fees for updating even small, indie games. If they were truly interested in helping developers, they could just work out a deal with after market companies like GameStop to pay a "tax" to developers whenever they sold a used game.
Now, to be clear, I'm fine with some system that allows developers to make money off of sales of after market games. But if publishers and developers really want to compete with the after market, then discounting their games on a time scale similar to the used games market is the way to go, because it's the cost that's driving it.
**
I like the house building analogy above.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
I have not owned a console since the Dreamcast. However, back then I relied on the sale of my old games to fund the purchase of new ones. Had I not been able to do so, I simply would have bought fewer games. I would have lost out on playing some great titles, and the developers of those titles would have made one less sale.
Back then, new console games were simply too expensive to take gambles on. The ability to buy and sell games made me much more willing to take a chance on less-widely acclaimed or hyped games. Without that ability, I would have been as conservative and risk averse with my money as an investor asked to support an innovative MMO.
On the subject of Steam, I am not a fan. However, unlike Microsoft, Valve has credit in the bank when it comes to respect and trust from gamers. That is the prime reason why Steam is installed on my pc and why Origin is not. As the Windows 8 debacle shows, Microsoft does not go out of its way to win the respect of its customers, and that disrespect is repaid in kind.
You can't resell used food either, or condoms...
Also, it is arguable that a game is a physical purchase since they can be digitally downloaded and likely would be in an online system. Most online games can't be sold either since they key is locked to the original purchaser's account.
You can't compare one use items with reusable ones that's just silly.
I don't buy my games second hand all,I buy them when they are discounted in digital sales these days so the used game market doesn't affect me.But I don't see why Video Games are a special unique snowflake,why they should get special treatment that other media have not?
Artists don't get a cut of reselling of their paintings,albums or dvds so why should the video game industry?
Instead they should find ways to make purchasing a direct copy from them more attractive.Offer incentives and services or prices to make buying second hand copies not seem worth it.
i buy used games when the digital version of the same game has a ridiculous price. I buy new games whenever the used alternative is almost the same and still needs online code to be purchased (which makes it more expensive). I also buy new games (physical and digital) when i really love the franchise, to show my support to the developer, as long as its priced well.
Also, IMO digital sales should be cheaper than physical for obvious reasons.
Why are games different from books and movies? First sale doctrine is fairly clear on the right to resell hard copies of books, music and movies. Steven King's ability to write his next novel is not affected by selling my copy of The Stand at a used book store. The legal precedent on digital media is murky, and the gaming industry is trying to exploit that in disregarding first sale doctrine. Of course every company wants to earn more money, I get that. But trying to brow beat your consumers into giving up rights they are entitled to is wrong. The rise in MMOs is in part due to companies switching from selling you a digital widget to providing you a service. And many companies are trying to shoehorn the service part into the digital widget. Sometimes it is value added, other times it is pure exploitation. Short filing a class action lawsuit, for which the economics are not strong enough to justify, the only action consumers can take is to vote with their wallets, which they seemed to be prepared to do with the next gen Xbox's DRM.
I find the legal rights of software to be total crap! Why can I buy a $500 TV, use it for a year and then sell or trade it but if I buy a game for $50 i am only buying the right to play it myself. This whole software licensing thing is getting more and more out of control each year. The entire reason we are in this mess is due to Microsoft paying off (lobbying) the US government to impose these totally unrealistic ownership rights on software back in the 80's.
Once I buy something, it should be mine. I'm tired of fat-cat developers and corporate CEO's whining about the need for DRM and how bad software piracy hurts them while they live in fricken mansions and take private jets to work. I'm sure software piracy hurt Lord British so bad he could not afford a second trip into space or the other castle he wanted on the french riviera.
Everyone wants a discount Genese. The consequences be damned. Look at the prevalence of the F2P market, though it has dumbed down our games, people play because they feel they are getting something for FREE. Even though Free is a fiction.
I do disagree with you about Steam. I submit that it is not loved, but unfortunately has become a necessary evil. I enjoyed the video. Keep up the good work.
+1 to everything here.
I'd also like to add a quite important point of difference between MS Xbox ecosystem and Steam.
Steam offers sales like you said, but it's also competitive within a larger market. There are other digital services and you can still purchase physical media from big box stores, amazon, ebay, list goes on.
The xbox system is close. And that's why it's a scary proposition to allow them to control DRM on the hardware side. The consumer would have had no alternative outside of simply not purchasing an xbox. Players choose steam and that's a distinction that MS failed to understand.
There is no incentive to offer 75% off on xbox games if you control the entire market of xbox games. Steam offers lots of sales to remain the lead service in digital PC game distribution. Console games only get cheap years after they've been out (or when they're used). I got Skyrim for $40 two weeks after the game launched from one of the other digital services (may have been gamefly digital, can't remember now). It was a two day sale and I was more than happy to grab it at that price, not that it wasn't worth the full $60, but I was in the middle of some other games and held off while I finished them.
I'm all for digital distribution, but the market has to be open and competitive, otherwise we'll just get bent over.
This pretty much just effects the console market. Not much of a market for used PC games. Go into any Gamestop, you can count the PC games on one hand. Most MMO's games register the client and ti is not transferable.
Until MMO's become more common on consoles, I do not see this as a issue.
Fact: If we don't support developers.....
1.The Video game industry is a Multi billion dollar industry, and thats with pre-owned.
2. Preowned games are purchased by people that might not have otherwise bought the game.
3. Some games are not worth 60 dollars. And used games make games be worth what the market says they are.
4. My best anecdote: Right before Gears of war 3 came out I re-bought Gears 1 so a friend and I could run through all 3 games in a row. I picked it up used for 5 bucks. Gears of war is still 20 dollars on xbox.com digital marketplace. Gears 1 is not worth $20 dollars anymore.
Ea is like a poo fingered midas ~ShakyMo
If developers are ever successful in curtailing used game sales, that game would be worth $20, because it wouldn't be available anywhere else. It would probably be "worth" more than $20.
That is a practical application of Rusque's post talking about Microsoft's closed market ideas. This idea would apply if Microsoft controls the used game market through "licensing" rather than an agreement to pay a "tax" to developers and publishers. Used games would sell for what Microsoft wants them sold for, not what the market wants to buy them for. Substitute "Sony" for "Microsoft" if it makes you feel any better. Nearly any attempt to control value in a market rather than let competition decide value is bad for consumers.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
Finally, I would just like to say that I find the idea of trying to curtail or control sales of used games an attempt to make more money through the "Way of the Weasel", rather than make more money through making better games. People who make better games make more money. If the system that's worked since video games started doesn't work for a developer or publisher, then maybe the games they are making just aren't that good or are the wrong games for the market.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
We are moving into an age where we do not truly own anything but rather rent it from business institutions be it our books, our games, our cars, our homes, our furniture, our silverware, our very cash control through crediting, even our educational certifications, and such a consumer model by its very nature devalues personal freedom and worth while putting Big Banker Bob in the drivers seat, giving them the control I supposedly earned. They have no real checks on them aside from divining what the average consumer will tolerate.
Frankly, if MS and EA had their way I would not be able to buy a game disc for myself and then give it to family members once finished because in their corporate mind it cost them a sale. Its not about providing a cheaper alternative to ownership for the average spender but rather maximizing profit from every product produced and retaining control of it once you are through. The day I purchased their product at the store or online for download is the day they received fair market value for it and I attained ownership of property with all rights entailed.
I WILL NOT accept restriction on the purchase of used games anymore than I would for used cars at the local dealership to prevent being beholden to a closed market they control. I WILL NOT compromise. To do so is not reasonable it is foolish.
Why are games trying to become special snowflake?
I buy a car, i use a car i sell a car.
I buy a game, i use a game i sell a game.
Its all the same. Anyway in EU theres no problem as its regulated by law, if i want to sell my game i can sell my game be it physical or digital.
And for whiney developers/publishers: start producing good games people want to hold on to, not crap that you want to sell after whole 10 hours it took to play through it.
"when you purchase or rent a used game, only the seller sees that money"
The seller often uses the money to buy more games, so the money does go back to the game industry.
Personally, I would have liked to see how Microsoft's system would have played out. It was supposed to be optional, and it wasn't supposed to prevent selling used games, just taxing the sale. We never got far enough to understand how it would apply to people selling games on eBay.
I don't believe that taxing or preventing used game sales will really make publishers more money, but I think this needs to be played out, in the same way Ubisoft went for draconic online DRM then dialed it down because it apparently hurt more than it helped. Publishers need to see for themselves that this doesn't work, and an optional system is the best way to do it. It could also potentially work, making console game prices cheaper in the long run. In either case, I'd rather have this played out than have people make unsubstantiated claims one way or another.