GameStop Wants to Sell Used Digital Games

[Keltrick]

Seriously, this just sounds like GameStop is trying to earn money from piracy.

This sounds dodgy as fuck, it's like one step above piracy. Actually, I'd go as far as to say it's worse than piracy; at least the people who share files illegally usually don't make money from it.

While I don't run to Gamestop with open arms, and this is a bit morally grey, its a far cry from piracy.

Piracy implies that a product is being created/duplicated/acquired without the producer being compensated, but that isn't what Gamestop would be doing here.

Lets say I have a copy of Hello Kitty Island adventure, that I love, but have grown tired of... I mean, that I want the world to be able to experience. I go to Gamestop, and sell them my copy. Once I've done this, and have the money, I can no longer play with Hello Kitty and her friends.

They then take my game and sell it to some gentlemen. He gets the key and now has access to my game (HIS game). I do not. Only one copy of the game is being experienced, and the producers of HKIA (HelloKittyNewWorldOrder Inc) have been paid for one copy.

Its exactly how it works now with all games on disc. They, in the beginning, were bought from the producer, and thus no more can be played without paying them. This just removes the disc as the means of moving the files.

Off Topic: Having the captcha be adverts is just ... really sad

 

[Adam Jensen_v1legacy]

The weird thing about 2nd-hand digital copies is that, well... what sets them apart from 1st-hand digital copies? When buying a physical game used the buyer understands that it has been used before and may come with issues due to that fact (scratched disk, missing instruction booklet, standard wear and tear, etc.). How does this translate into the digital market?

Exactly. This is just Game Stop being a bunch of greedy cunts. People can already sell their digital games by selling their accounts to other people. Why would anyone use Game Spot for that? They want money for being the middle man in an area of business that doesn't require the existence of a middle man. They want money for doing nothing.

Before this article: "Wouldn't be great if Steam had used games?"

After this article: "This is a stupid idea. Way to ruin games, Gamestop."

This community is so bias and fickle.

No! Nobody is asking for used games on Steam. People just want the ability to trade some of the games they have for some of the games they don't have. Just like trading retail games with your friends. Nothing wrong with that. What Game Stop wants is more money for themselves and less for everybody else, without doing anything to actually deserve it.

 

[Yopaz]

Seriously, this just sounds like GameStop is trying to earn money from piracy.

This sounds dodgy as fuck, it's like one step above piracy. Actually, I'd go as far as to say it's worse than piracy; at least the people who share files illegally usually don't make money from it.

While I don't run to Gamestop with open arms, and this is a bit morally grey, its a far cry from piracy.

Piracy implies that a product is being created/duplicated/acquired without the producer being compensated, but that isn't what Gamestop would be doing here.

Lets say I have a copy of Hello Kitty Island adventure, that I love, but have grown tired of... I mean, that I want the world to be able to experience. I go to Gamestop, and sell them my copy. Once I've done this, and have the money, I can no longer play with Hello Kitty and her friends.

They then take my game and sell it to some gentlemen. He gets the key and now has access to my game (HIS game). I do not. Only one copy of the game is being experienced, and the producers of HKIA (HelloKittyNewWorldOrder Inc) have been paid for one copy.

Its exactly how it works now with all games on disc. They, in the beginning, were bought from the producer, and thus no more can be played without paying them. This just removes the disc as the means of moving the files.

Off Topic: Having the captcha be adverts is just ... really sad

I don't have anything against selling used games. I don't believe that is called piracy. However when you distribute a digital file which has been paid for by someone else, such as me sending you my digital copy of Appeal To Reason after I have already made use of it is something else entirely. In that case you are in fact allowing the existence of duplicates. If I charge money from transferring this content to you then I am making money on duplicated copies.

This is how digital distribution works. There's no control on anything about it. Unless they make their own digital distribution service like Steam which can actually control that they can no longer access the game this is not far from piracy.

You also indicate that the producer is being compensated. I have to require a source citing this or I'll assume you're simply saying this to make a point.

 

[Lex Darko]

You know, there's this website called Green Man Gaming. It's becoming quite a popular digital retailer.

it does digital trade ins, quite successfully. The idea itself is quite plausible...

If you go to Green Man Gaming BF3 sale page [http://www.greenmangaming.com/s/us/en/pc/games/shooter/battlefield-3-na/] you will notice that it says next to the price "this game can not be traded in."

Like I said this idea is already dead in the water. The only thing publishers would have to do is link activation codes to a customer-relations account and poof goes this idea.

For GS to get this to work with new/future games, they would need publishers to allow them to do this.

Something tells me that isn't going to happen.

What should really surprise people is the fact that publishers have not worked with MS and Sony to add activation codes to console games that link to the player psn/xbl/console the account is on.

This is probably how MS and Sony are going to "kill" used games in the next generation; it won't be hardware solution but the same software solution used in pc games right now.

 

[Al-Bundy-da-G]

Someone... please explain this to me.

I'm thinking that they buy your licence to the game not the actual game data itself. They then disable your use of the content and resale the licence again. They'll most definitely need their own digital distribution system like Steam or Origin too pull it off though.

To be honest I really wouldn't mind this. There are some digital games that I've bought that I've regretted purchasing, but since there's no real way to get your money bac, I've pretty much had to get over it.

 

[Don Reba]

This sounds dodgy as fuck, it's like one step above piracy. Actually, I'd go as far as to say it's worse than piracy; at least the people who share files illegally usually don't make money from it.

What if there's Steam-like convenience to it? Then they would be selling you a service.

 

[TheKaduflyerSystem]

To figure out a system that would worldwide, legal, impossible to dupe and profitable will be nearly impossible. But I urge gamestop to try, that way they'll bankrupt sooner.

 

[Falterfire]

The issue is still not with allowing users to sell back their product. The problem is with Game Stop turning around and reselling without giving a single cent to the publisher. With a used game, they don't have to. It's perfectly legal with any 'used' product not to give money to the original producer. When you sell a game back to Game Stop, none of that money goes to the publisher, so why would you think the publisher gets money when Game Stop sells it again?

As for those claiming that it won't cause any problems, imagine the following scenario:

An indie game (Let's use Bastion) gets released. A fair number of people buy it within the first couple weeks. Since Bastion can be beaten within a few hours, most of the players will finish it fairly quickly. Then, 50% of them sell the game to Gamestop. So the publisher has sold X copies at this point, and Gamestop has X/2. Now the next X/2 customers that buy the game will all buy it used, because there is no reason for them to buy it new. So at this point, Gamestop has sold X+X/2 copies, and paid the publisher for X of them. Moreover, it is likely that this 50% sell-back number will remain constant or go up. So we now have X+X/2+X/4+X/8+X/16 etc copies that can be sold by Gamestop while only paying publishers for X copies.

I don't know about you, but I'm pretty sure a game developer deserves to receive a cut of all sales made by a major retail chain, not just 2/3rds of them. This is especially true because it's not protected your consumer rights unless the options go beyond "sell to Game Stop" and "Keep forever". If you can't sell it to your friends, you're not really gaining any rights beyond the right to help Game Stop rip off developers.

If this used thing becomes prevalent, major publishers will take action to avoid it. I wasn't trying to justify what they've done so far, but if you think they won't do far worse things when used digital becomes a thing, you obviously aren't very good at pattern recognition.

Also: A quick flip through of Green Man Gaming reveals that there is a very very large number of games which cannot be traded in.

 

[CrystalShadow]

The weird thing about 2nd-hand digital copies is that, well... what sets them apart from 1st-hand digital copies? When buying a physical game used the buyer understands that it has been used before and may come with issues due to that fact (scratched disk, missing instruction booklet, standard wear and tear, etc.). How does this translate into the digital market?

You get the license another person owned before. It's simple.

How is it worth less than a new license though? When and why would it lose value?

Time. It was not available at release, nor for a given period after.
As the saying goes: "Time is money, friend!"

But wouldn't that imply new licenses of the game would also lose the same amount of value? Why does it matter if the license was pre-owned if you are getting it in the same time frame?

Strictly speaking, selling a copy would cause the value of all existing licences to go down if true free market principles were at work. But copyright allows the legal enforcement of artificial price controls.

That's part of the innate problem with the system; ANY value is artificial, because supply is essentially infinite, the value of any one copy inherently tends towards $0 unless you apply some kind of artificial controls to it.

The difference in value between new and second hand digital copies is out of necessity going to have to be completely artificial. (Because the value of ANY digital copy is completely artificial anyway.

A physical object has an innate value because of the difficulty of creating it.
If that difficulty goes away, then the remaining value of the object must reside in some artificial means of control. (In this case, copyright laws and their enforcement.)

 

[Falterfire]

That's actually the main argument behind calling it a service instead of a product. A product implies a limited amount. There is a finite number of copies of Battletoads in the world, and if I buy one, that's one less that's in stock.

There are an infinite number of copies of any game on Steam. Valve could give out a copy of Portal to literally every single person on the planet and everybody who is ever born and not run out of copies. Because they have an infinite amount of copies, they can sell games for less money. That's why you don't buy the game, you buy a license to play the game.

 

[natster43]

Eh. If they can find a way to do it, I say go for it. I would still only buy digital games from steam as they have crazy awesome sales where I spend more money than I should. Also I am still a fan or physical stuff.

 

[SecondPrize]

The big question here is how do we get cameras into the boardrooms at EA and Activision to get shots of the look on their faces if gamestop can actually start doing this. Silly people thought you were going to cut out the middleman there didn't you?
I'm not a giant gamestop fan but if they can create a market for used digital games then some more consumer friendly options might appear.

 

[Epona]

The weird thing about 2nd-hand digital copies is that, well... what sets them apart from 1st-hand digital copies? When buying a physical game used the buyer understands that it has been used before and may come with issues due to that fact (scratched disk, missing instruction booklet, standard wear and tear, etc.). How does this translate into the digital market?

You get the product another person owned before. It's that simple.

If it is as simple as you claim. Explain it to me. What is the difference between a used digital game and a new digital game? Digital data can't be "used" in the same way physical objects can. There's no loss of data, there's no damages.

Seriously, this just sounds like GameStop is trying to earn money from piracy.

So you are saying that what makes a product used is that it is damaged? Well, let's forget the case and manual since digital copies don't have those for new buyers either. All that matters now is the game itself, for physical copies, that would be the disc.

So you are saying the disc is damaged and that's what makes used games...used. Well, that's a non issue since Gamestop guarantees that the disc will be 100% playable. There really is no difference here.

 

[RJ Dalton]

I thought you could already transfer ownership of games you've bought on Steam. Was I wrong?

 

[Epona]

That's actually the main argument behind calling it a service instead of a product. A product implies a limited amount. There is a finite number of copies of Battletoads in the world, and if I buy one, that's one less that's in stock.

There are an infinite number of copies of any game on Steam. Valve could give out a copy of Portal to literally every single person on the planet and everybody who is ever born and not run out of copies. Because they have an infinite amount of copies, they can sell games for less money. That's why you don't buy the game, you buy a license to play the game.

That's some strange logic. How about this, since there are infinite copies, games really have no value.

 

[Falterfire]

That's some strange logic. How about this, since there are infinite copies, games really have no value.

Well, that's the point I'm trying to make: A copy of a game is valueless, so claiming you can resell it is peculiar. You are paying for a service, specifically you are paying for the service of playing the game. If games were sold based on the cost to distribute it, they'd all cost the same amount, which is $1 or $2 or even less.

A team of people dedicated months of their lives to build that game. Even a smaller game requires hundreds of hours of work. If you say games are valueless, you are saying that the time given by game designers and the other people involved (Artists, quality control, writers, etc.) also deserve no money.

So you can go by the logic "Games should all be free always because I can make seventy three copies on my own hard drive in an hour" but that ignores the effort that went into making the game itself.

If you believe game developers should not receive any payment for any of the work they do, you can believe that, but I'll be forced to consider you an imbecile for such a belief. Games cost money to buy because they cost money to make. The fact that this cost is all at the front end is why you CAN have sales like the Steam sales and still help devs, but you can't just give out all games for free.

Before you point out the growing free to play trend: Those games usually come with absurd price-gouging schemes that kick in at some point or intrusive advertising.

I thought you could already transfer ownership of games you've bought on Steam. Was I wrong?

Yep. You can send around unopened games, but if you've added a game to your account, it can't be un-added and then sent to somebody else.

So you are saying that what makes a product used is that it is damaged? Well, let's forget the case and manual since digital copies don't have those for new buyers either. All that matters now is the game itself, for physical copies, that would be the disc.

So you are saying the disc is damaged and that's what makes used games...used. Well, that's a non issue since Gamestop guarantees that the disc will be 100% playable. There really is no difference here.

You're ignoring the case and manual, but the lack of that is one reason to buy new instead of used for physical. That isn't in place with digital games, which is part of the point. With used digital games, can you give a single reason why a consumer would want to buy a new game if the digital equivalent is available? You more or less proved the same thing he was proving: Once you go digital, there's no difference. With physical, there are differences. Even if Game Stop says the disks are going to work, it's still something the buyer considers. With a digital game there isn't even the possibility of a scratched disk.

 

[Epona]

That's some strange logic. How about this, since there are infinite copies, games really have no value.

Well, that's the point I'm trying to make: A copy of a game is valueless, so claiming you can resell it is peculiar. You are paying for a service, specifically you are paying for the service of playing the game.

A team of people dedicated months of their lives to build that game. Even a smaller game requires hundreds of hours of work. If you say games are valueless, you are saying that the time given by game designers and the other people involved (Artists, quality control, writers, etc.) also deserve no money.

So you can go by the logic "Games should all be free always because I can make seventy three copies on my own hard drive in an hour" but that ignores the effort that went into making the game itself.

If you believe game developers should not receive any payment for any of the work they do, you can believe that, but I'll be forced to consider you an imbecile for such a belief. Games cost money to buy because they cost money to make. The fact that this cost is all at the front end is why you CAN have sales like the Steam sales and still help devs, but you can't just give out all games for free.

Before you point out the growing free to play trend: Those games usually come with absurd price-gouging schemes that kick in at some point or intrusive advertising.

If there are infinite number of copies for a game, then that game has no value. You say you can't resell it because it has no value, well doesn't that mean you can't sell it in the first place because it has no value?

You seem to be arguing with yourself, at one point you admit that a game with infinite copies has no value but later you say that is has value because people worked on it. Value is not determined by cost, it is determined by how much people are willing to pay and with infinite copies available....

I do think that people should pay for games but I also think that once paid for, that copy is OWNED by the person who bought it and they should be able to resell it. Just because there are infinite copies does not mean you have to license a product.

If publishers can sell something for $60 that is infinite, then those who buy it should also be able to resell their copy.

It's funny how when Publishers make moves to destroy the used market (a perfectly legitimate market in any economy) via digital distribution, that's ok but when Gamestop (and consumers in general) want to preserve the First Sale Doctrine, that's not ok. In Europe they have apparently already dealt with this and made it legal for people to resell digital copies and that's the way it should and will be everywhere...in time.

You're ignoring the case and manual, but the lack of that is one reason to buy new instead of used for physical. That isn't in place with digital games, which is part of the point. With used digital games, can you give a single reason why a consumer would want to buy a new game if the digital equivalent is available? You more or less proved the same thing he was proving: Once you go digital, there's no difference. With physical, there are differences. Even if Game Stop says the disks are going to work, it's still something the buyer considers. With a digital game there isn't even the possibility of a scratched disk.

...and what about when you can still get the case and manual with a used physical game? Does that make it just like the new copy?

Further, physical copies now come with no manual and a cheap case.


You know, Gamestop sees no value in the case and manual. From their point of view, the only thing that matters is the game itself. It's not odd for them to treat digital games the same way (only the game itself matters).

 

[Falterfire]

If there are infinite number of copies for a game, then that game has no value. You say you can't resell it because it has no value, well doesn't that mean you can't sell it in the first place because it has no value?

You seem to be arguing with yourself, at one point you admit that a game with infinite copies has no value but later you say that is has value because people worked on it. Value is not determined by cost, it is determined by how much people are willing to pay and with infinite copies available....

I do think that people should pay for games but I also think that once paid for, that copies is OWNED by the person who bought and should be able to resell it. Just because there are infinite copies does not mean you have to license a product.

If publishers can sell something for $60 that is infinite, then those who buy it should also be able to resell their copy.

It's funny how when Publishers make moves to destroy the used market (a perfectly legitimate market in any economy) via digital distribution, that's ok but when Gamestop (and consumers in general) want to preserve the First Sale Doctrine, that's not ok. In Europe they have apparently already dealt with this and made it legal for people to resell digital copies and that's the way it should and will be everywhere...in time.

There are two different things here: The game itself, and the ability to play the game. The game data itself, the thing you download, has minimal value. A copy of the game is valueless. There is an infinite supply and anybody with a computer and one copy can make a functionally infinite amount. Therefore, claiming that you have received something you can resell is baffling.

What you have purchased is the ability to play the game. You can revoke that ability if you'd like, and attempt to negotiate a partial refund in return for no longer playing the game. That makes sense. What doesn't make sense is Game Stop saying that since they now have your ability to play the game from you, they can sell it to somebody else. That's absurd.

The infinite copies point is important here, because it means that the entity that deserves the money from any given sale is the developer. Sure, Steam/Game Stop should get a cut because they are essentially providing marketing and a distribution platform, but the core item you are paying for is work from the developer.

When you buy a 'used' digital game, you are receiving exactly the same service, in no way modified from a 'new' digital game, only Game Stop takes all of the money instead of just some of it. Why do you believe that Game Stop deserves to be able to make 100% of the profit without giving the developers a cut?

...and what about when you can still get the case and manual with a used physical game? Does that make it just like the new copy?

Further, physical copies now come with no manual and a cheap case.


You know, Gamestop sees no value in the case and manual. From their point of view, the only thing that matters is the game itself. It's not odd for them to treat digital games the same way (only the game itself matters).

Regardless of the state of what you purchase, it's still noticeable used. There is a perception that a 'used' physical copy is of lesser value, even if it's functionally identical. A new car loses a decent percentage of its value the instant you drive it off the lot, even though it's still the same car. There is a perceived value, whether legitimate or not, in a 'new' item.

But when the item is digital, there isn't even the perception of a degradation in value because what you are receiving isn't really used at all. A CD-Key is a string of characters. The data you're downloading didn't come from somebody else's machine. What you receive is exactly the same as a new product, except the developer doesn't get any money and Game Stop gets all the money.

You seem to believe that Game Stop will somehow provide magical bargains on used digital games. But what bargains could they possibly provide that Steam doesn't already beat? If your issue is price, you are likely in error. The only other reason is the belief that Game Stop should be able to mark certain products as 'used' that they can sell at 100% profit because the developers only deserve money occasionally.

 

[Epona]

If there are infinite number of copies for a game, then that game has no value. You say you can't resell it because it has no value, well doesn't that mean you can't sell it in the first place because it has no value?

You seem to be arguing with yourself, at one point you admit that a game with infinite copies has no value but later you say that is has value because people worked on it. Value is not determined by cost, it is determined by how much people are willing to pay and with infinite copies available....

I do think that people should pay for games but I also think that once paid for, that copies is OWNED by the person who bought and should be able to resell it. Just because there are infinite copies does not mean you have to license a product.

If publishers can sell something for $60 that is infinite, then those who buy it should also be able to resell their copy.

It's funny how when Publishers make moves to destroy the used market (a perfectly legitimate market in any economy) via digital distribution, that's ok but when Gamestop (and consumers in general) want to preserve the First Sale Doctrine, that's not ok. In Europe they have apparently already dealt with this and made it legal for people to resell digital copies and that's the way it should and will be everywhere...in time.

There are two different things here: The game itself, and the ability to play the game. The game data itself, the thing you download, has minimal value. A copy of the game is valueless. There is an infinite supply and anybody with a computer and one copy can make a functionally infinite amount. Therefore, claiming that you have received something you can resell is baffling.

What you have purchased is the ability to play the game. You can revoke that ability if you'd like, and attempt to negotiate a partial refund in return for no longer playing the game. That makes sense. What doesn't make sense is Game Stop saying that since they now have your ability to play the game from you, they can sell it to somebody else. That's absurd.

The infinite copies point is important here, because it means that the entity that deserves the money from any given sale is the developer. Sure, Steam/Game Stop should get a cut because they are essentially providing marketing and a distribution platform, but the core item you are paying for is work from the developer.

When you buy a 'used' digital game, you are receiving exactly the same service, in no way modified from a 'new' digital game, only Game Stop takes all of the money instead of just some of it. Why do you believe that Game Stop deserves to be able to make 100% of the profit without giving the developers a cut?

You just don't understand. You sell something, it then belongs to the new owner so let me break it down for you.

- Publisher sells game to Gamestop, Publisher gets paid
- Current Owner: Gamestop
- Gamestop sells game to you, Gamestop gets paid
- Current Owner: You
- You sell it back to Gamestop, You get paid
- Current Owner: Gamestop
- Gamestop sells it to someone else, Gamestop gets paid
- Current Owner: Someone else

...and so on.

That's the First Sale Doctrine. The publisher gets paid only for the First Sale. I gotta go, last day of the State Fair and the Zipper awaits me.