GameStop Wants to Sell Used Digital Games

[Sushewakka]

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.

No, it isn't simple at all. the previous person never owned a physical copy of the game, never had a physical manual etc. the previous owner never actually had that copy, they had files which ran the game. it isn't technically a used game then, and there would be no reason to ever purchase new if you can get a copy exactly the same second hand digitally.

the fact that digital prices are adjusted more frequently to reflect how old the game is as well confuses me.

OT: the ONLY way i see this working is if when buying a second hand copy digitally, you re not buying the online pass to go with it. other than that, i just don't get it.

But we're talking the same time frame. Once they ARE both available, it doesn't matter to me anymore. There is no difference.

Provided I can still buy a new digital copy at any point I like (and why shouldn't I, its not like they have to produce them) then what is different? I am getting the exact same product whether I go to Gamestop for a used copy, or the producer. Availability is only an issue for Gamestop in that they have to acquire the game keys and are therefore artificially limited on how many they can sell.

If I decide I want Skyrim and I can get the files from Gamestop (provided they have one to sell) OR I can get the exact same files from Bethesda ... what incentive other than price do I have for either? Just because its 'used' doesn't change the product I'm receiving at all and therefore shouldn't lower the cost. Yeah he first week Gamestop may not have many keys to sell, sure, so the producer may have a temporary monopoly and be able to charge what the like, and I'll have to buy from them, but once the codes are out in the market and gamestop has many to buy/trade/sell then the difference is gone.

Then it isn't new or used, its just two people competing to sell the same product.

The former person owned a copy of the game. After selling its copy to another person, he no longer holds the license, and the other person does. The drop in price comes from the fact that neither distributor nor publisher have a say in the price, it's just between buyer and seller. This does not affect regular "first sale" prices because the amount of used copies are limited in number, therefore their impact on new sales' market price is limited.

Adjusting the price of the game as time passes makes sense: it's a availability scale thing. The people who consider the game worth the full price would've probably bought at launch. Therefore, to increase revenue and build customer base for future launch, the price drops, causing people that didn't consider the original price tag acceptable to reconsider the purchase at the new price.

People underestimate the value of time. Having something NOW is more valuable than having to wait months to buy it. People who wait for price drops and sales are trading time they could be playing now for money. It's a fair trade.

At best, digital used property causes the prices in digital retailers to drop slightly earlier than in the usual timetable. At worst, there isn't enough used property available to affect the regular prices. People is making way more of a deal of this than it really is. It's just property changing hands.

 

[Epona]

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 understand the First Sale doctrine just fine, and it makes perfect sense for physical goods where degradation is present. A physical copy of a game experiences wear over time. You will eventually reach a point where it's unusable. There is value in buying a new copy over a used one because wear has occurred, no matter how minor.

With a digital copy of a game, no wear ever occurs. Game Stop isn't even really selling the same data. I can guarantee they won't keep harddrives full of used data in the back to transfer later. A CDKey != A game. Buying a digital game is NOT buying the game. It's buying the ability to play the game.

If you insist on treating a digital copy like a physical copy, be prepared to pay the price. You really think prices won't skyrocket the instant you start treating a copy like it has value? If a single copy can be sold twenty times with the developer only being paid once, they must raise prices to make up for the massive loss of income, or go out of business.

No, you can't sell back a digital copy right now, but you're getting it for much cheaper in exchange for losing that ability. (Assuming you're buying a game release by a publisher that isn't !@#$ing retarded) Indie game devs can (and do) release games very cheaply and put them on sale 75% off because every sale is a new sale. They don't have to worry about accidentally selling too many copies on sale and then not selling any more copies for the next forever.

So, because I have other things to do today (Which are almost as useful as arguing on the internet), I suppose I'll put it this way: What you are suggesting is not impossible. It is a point of view which can be legitimately taken. But by taking that point of view, you will require game developers to raise prices and be more cautious with sales in order to avoid losing their entire income for the next year just because they agreed to go 75% off on the Steam Summer Sale.

It's not about wear and tear, it's about ownership rights. You can buy a sealed copy of SNES games if you have the money. Wear and tear only play a factor in price, not whether or not something is eligible for resale.

Digital copies aren't cheaper right now, they are the same price as physical copies unless they are on sale.

Prices won't raise much higher than they are now, people won't much more than $60 for a new game and it's also important to remember that used sales help drive new sales. The industry would selfishly take away our right to resale when they go 100% digital, if we let them. THAT is what I feel would be more likely to raise prices more than anything.

 

[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.

No, I am saying that a used product will actually be used. If it is so simple, can you please explain how bits and bytes store on one hard drive can be a used product? All of that data will be brand new.

It's neither new nor used, the data is just data, The product key though, can be new or used.

 

[Falterfire]

It's not about wear and tear, it's about ownership rights. You can buy a sealed copy of SNES games if you have the money. Wear and tear only play a factor in price, not whether or not something is eligible for resale.

Digital copies aren't cheaper right now, they are the same price as physical copies unless they are on sale.

Prices won't raise much higher than they are now, people won't much more than $60 for a new game and it's also important to remember that used sales help drive new sales. The industry would selfishly take away our right to resale when they go 100% digital, if we let them. THAT is what I feel would be more likely to raise prices more than anything.

If you believe that the ability to sell 'used' copies won't cause digital games to stop having sales at this rate, you may choose to do so, but I wish to disagree.

Imagine the following remarkably common scenario: You are an indie game dev with a game that's relatively unknown. Steam asks if it can feature it 75% off on a daily sale, and you say yes. They put it on the daily sale, you get huge exposure, and if you've made a good game this could be a tipping point between make and break.

As it is now, you will continue to see after effects: Post-sale, word of mouth will receive a huge bump on account of the people who liked it telling their friends about it. It's back to full price now, but most people are willing to pay full price for a game that's been heavily recommended by a friend. So you have essentially a second wave of sales that occurs from the word of mouth after the sale.

But if the players can sell back used games, then after the sale day you'll see that unless your game features truly infinite replayability (Rare for an indie game) a large portion of those players will dump their copies back to Game Stop/Steam. Now that second wave of sales doesn't ever reach your pockets. Game Stop and Steam are then making a killing off of the word of mouth sales, and you are watching as new sales hit zero in the wake of the used game spike post-sale.

I'm willing to bet it takes that happening exactly once before game developers decide that offering their games on sale is not a good idea. Because there is no logical reason to believe used sales won't cut into new sales, and with digital goods the effect is amplified. If out of three copies, the game dev only sees money on two of them, they have to raise the price to compensate.

Once again: We see the reverse of this happening with the lack of resale options for customers. I remember seeing the default price of a non-AAA game at Target/Wal-Mart/Game Stop at $20, but on Steam $10 or $15 seems to be the standard for Indie games.

So if this goes through, expect fewer sales and higher prices, because that's the only way the game devs can continue making the same amount of money. And claiming that all devs are rolling money and can afford to lose 33% or more of their revenue is so laughably incorrect that if that's all you're going to say, don't even bother.

TL;DR: Right now you are buying digital games as though they are a service. By expecting resale rights, you are instead treating them like goods. Expect to see a price markup if you're going to change how you treat them.

 

[Epona]

It's not about wear and tear, it's about ownership rights. You can buy a sealed copy of SNES games if you have the money. Wear and tear only play a factor in price, not whether or not something is eligible for resale.

Digital copies aren't cheaper right now, they are the same price as physical copies unless they are on sale.

Prices won't raise much higher than they are now, people won't much more than $60 for a new game and it's also important to remember that used sales help drive new sales. The industry would selfishly take away our right to resale when they go 100% digital, if we let them. THAT is what I feel would be more likely to raise prices more than anything.

If you believe that the ability to sell 'used' copies won't cause digital games to stop having sales at this rate, you may choose to do so, but I wish to disagree.

Imagine the following remarkably common scenario: You are an indie game dev with a game that's relatively unknown. Steam asks if it can feature it 75% off on a daily sale, and you say yes. They put it on the daily sale, you get huge exposure, and if you've made a good game this could be a tipping point between make and break.

As it is now, you will continue to see after effects: Post-sale, word of mouth will receive a huge bump on account of the people who liked it telling their friends about it. It's back to full price now, but most people are willing to pay full price for a game that's been heavily recommended by a friend. So you have essentially a second wave of sales that occurs from the word of mouth after the sale.

But if the players can sell back used games, then after the sale day you'll see that unless your game features truly infinite replayability (Rare for an indie game) a large portion of those players will dump their copies back to Game Stop/Steam. Now that second wave of sales doesn't ever reach your pockets. Game Stop and Steam are then making a killing off of the word of mouth sales, and you are watching as new sales hit zero in the wake of the used game spike post-sale.

I'm willing to bet it takes that happening exactly once before game developers decide that offering their games on sale is not a good idea. Because there is no logical reason to believe used sales won't cut into new sales, and with digital goods the effect is amplified. If out of three copies, the game dev only sees money on two of them, they have to raise the price to compensate.

Once again: We see the reverse of this happening with the lack of resale options for customers. I remember seeing the default price of a non-AAA game at Target/Wal-Mart/Game Stop at $20, but on Steam $10 or $15 seems to be the standard for Indie games.

So if this goes through, expect fewer sales and higher prices, because that's the only way the game devs can continue making the same amount of money. And claiming that all devs are rolling money and can afford to lose 33% or more of their revenue is so laughably incorrect that if that's all you're going to say, don't even bother.

TL;DR: Right now you are buying digital games as though they are a service. By expecting resale rights, you are instead treating them like goods. Expect to see a price markup if you're going to change how you treat them.

So, in a long winded way, you are saying that used sales are bad and that every game sold, should be sold new.

Sorry, I don't agree.

BTW, I treat my Steam games like goods, not services. I bought them from Steam and I don't use any of the associated Steam services. Since there is no expiration date on the games, then I consider myself to have bought a good. If Steam went under and I lost all my games, I would be upset but I really don't see that happening anytime soon. In short, the games I bought from Steam will be available to me for the foreseeable future, that is a good, not a service.

 

[Falterfire]

No, I'm not saying used game sales are bad, I'm saying that the current model assumes they don't exist. (Because they don't. Green Man Gaming is an isolated case and as I previously mentioned, my casual glance through their site revealed that even on that site a large number of games can't be resold) If you change the digital model such that used sales do exist, you will see an increase in the price of games as well as a reduction in the number of sales. If you believe that an increase in price constitutes a negative change, then yes, used sales are bad. I personally am willing to give up the ability to resell games if it means we get massive Steam sales constantly, but I completely understand if you fell the price hike is a worth gaining the ability to sell back games.

And that's really what the question here is: Is the ability to trade games in worth more to you than the money you're saving by not having the price increase? Obviously our answers to this question are different, but I'm a broke college student, so that may have something to do with my answer.

 

[Epona]

No, I'm not saying used game sales are bad, I'm saying that the current model assumes they don't exist. (Because they don't. Green Man Gaming is an isolated case and as I previously mentioned, my casual glance through their site revealed that even on that site a large number of games can't be resold) If you change the digital model such that used sales do exist, you will see an increase in the price of games as well as a reduction in the number of sales. If you believe that an increase in price constitutes a negative change, then yes, used sales are bad. I personally am willing to give up the ability to resell games if it means we get massive Steam sales constantly, but I completely understand if you fell the price hike is a worth gaining the ability to sell back games.

And that's really what the question here is: Is the ability to trade games in worth more to you than the money you're saving by not having the price increase? Obviously our answers to this question are different, but I'm a broke college student, so that may have something to do with my answer.

I believe that if the lack of used sales created sales then Origin and Games on Demand would have alot more sales. I don't believe used sales have anything to do with games going on sale.

I also know that I have cut the price of new games in half by reselling them. You know you can buy a game new for $60 and sometimes Gamestop will offer you $30 for it in return for the first month?

So, you could play it, beat it and return it for half your money back which you would most likely put towards a new game.

I will tell you this, giving the publishers complete price control by not allowing used sales (100% digital) is a bad idea. These are the same publishers that want to charge you for ingame bullets.

 

[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

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.

Well, yes a client would have to be involved. There isn't any other way to make it a legitimate business. If Gamestop WAS duplicating files then that by anyone's definition is piracy, without any argument for it. It would have to work in a way almost exactly like steam, but with much more open connection between these platforms, to regulate there only being one copy playable per sold copy but allowing me to buy on steam, sell to gamestops platform, etc. I don't think anyone assumes Gamestop is just going to copy the files and send them to whoever wants to pay them. That isn't a used game sale. That is piracy. Easy to define and something they wouldn't bother even halfway entertaining.

When I said the producer is being compensated, I meant that the copy originally had to have been bought from them. That no one could play their games without that access being paid for by someone at some point.

So, I agree with your points, but I think a used game market does imply the number has to be limited. They have to buy one copy and then sell one copy. Its not a used game market if you 'buy' my copy and let me keep it, and then sell it to someone else. That's just paying me to let you duplicate my files, and if that was their business model (and by some strange miracle it got out the gate) they would only need to 'buy' one copy of each game used, and sell it over and over to everyone, duplicating the files.

Steam style verification is the only way to go with this.

 

[Keltrick]

The former person owned a copy of the game. After selling its copy to another person, he no longer holds the license, and the other person does. The drop in price comes from the fact that neither distributor nor publisher have a say in the price, it's just between buyer and seller. This does not affect regular "first sale" prices because the amount of used copies are limited in number, therefore their impact on new sales' market price is limited.

Adjusting the price of the game as time passes makes sense: it's a availability scale thing. The people who consider the game worth the full price would've probably bought at launch. Therefore, to increase revenue and build customer base for future launch, the price drops, causing people that didn't consider the original price tag acceptable to reconsider the purchase at the new price.

People underestimate the value of time. Having something NOW is more valuable than having to wait months to buy it. People who wait for price drops and sales are trading time they could be playing now for money. It's a fair trade.

At best, digital used property causes the prices in digital retailers to drop slightly earlier than in the usual timetable. At worst, there isn't enough used property available to affect the regular prices. People is making way more of a deal of this than it really is. It's just property changing hands.

I actually agree with all of that. The price drops come from business decisions aimed toward selling more copies, and time factors in a lot. Over time demand and price both drop for most games. I actually have no thoughts against anything you've said.

My main point was that after the first rush, price is the only thing dictating where I buy from. Yes gamestop has a finite number of keys, but chances are this won't affect me. They'll probably have the game I want.

At this point its who can make me want to buy from them. Gamestop offers it cheaper by a dollar, in order to give me incentive from their side ... but then wait a moment. I have absolutely no reason (aside from loyalty) to buy from the producer. In today's market I get the guarantee of a new perfect copy as opposed to wear and defects possible in used games. Its worth is diminished. With digital goods, as you've said, many factors change the way its marketed to me, but the "used" factor doesn't really apply anymore. Used wont intrinsically mean worth less anymore, only less if Gamestop wants more business and charges less.

 

[Keltrick]

BTW, I treat my Steam games like goods, not services. I bought them from Steam and I don't use any of the associated Steam services. Since there is no expiration date on the games, then I consider myself to have bought a good. If Steam went under and I lost all my games, I would be upset but I really don't see that happening anytime soon. In short, the games I bought from Steam will be available to me for the foreseeable future, that is a good, not a service.

Agreed. If I had bought it on a disc, a separate container for the same files, it would be a good. The game is still a good. A product I paid money for, then downloaded to my own computer. It doesn't go away and it is implied I have access to it for eternity, just like very other piece of purchased software.

 

[Jabberwock xeno]

Clearly the fact that digital releases have to be region bound, have to be the same price as physical, have a release date (different in different places) wasn't bad enough.

I'm this close to just giving up on the whole issue and ignore any news having to do with digital media legality stuff.

 

[Falterfire]

I believe that if the lack of used sales created sales then Origin and Games on Demand would have alot more sales. I don't believe used sales have anything to do with games going on sale.

I also know that I have cut the price of new games in half by reselling them. You know you can buy a game new for $60 and sometimes Gamestop will offer you $30 for it in return for the first month?

So, you could play it, beat it and return it for half your money back which you would most likely put towards a new game.

I will tell you this, giving the publishers complete price control by not allowing used sales (100% digital) is a bad idea. These are the same publishers that want to charge you for ingame bullets.

No, the reason that Origin and Games on Demand don't have as many sales is because they're run by people who don't understand why it is that Steam is making insane amounts of money. They could offer sales just as easily as Steam does, but they're not, and they're not selling as much because of it.

For digital, the price competition comes from having different digital distribution platforms. Currently, the biggest threat to gamers regarding price abuse is a potential monopoly on digital distribution. As much as I love Steam, I really do wish they had at least one serious competitor. GOG is getting there, but Origin isn't, mainly because EA doesn't seem to understand any of why Steam is doing well.

As for the selling games back: As I said, obviously you believe the ability to sell used games back is worth it. I, as a broke college student, don't usually buy $60 games within a month of release anyways.

Honestly, the best option here is simple, and helps fight both problems simultaneously: If Game Stop does this, they need to do so on Impulse, their own platform. As the argument here has demonstrated, a lot of people feel strongly about the ability to sell digital games. If Impulse offered such an option, it would be able to seriously compete against Steam. So you'd get the ability to sell used games, I'd keep my sales, and Steam would gain a competitor to help prevent price gouging once Origin inevitably collapses.

 

[Strazdas]

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?

But thats the whole point. With digital re-selling they wont be able to get away with a 8 hour storyline you never want to repeat and call it "a game wirth 60 dollars". They will have to make games good enough so people want to keep it and play again later. Imagine, them actually trying to make good games.


I want to trade my digital copies of games. But i dont want retailer like gamespot to do it. The whole point of digital trade is to kill those retailers.

 

[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?

But thats the whole point. With digital re-selling they wont be able to get away with a 8 hour storyline you never want to repeat and call it "a game wirth 60 dollars". They will have to make games good enough so people want to keep it and play again later. Imagine, them actually trying to make good games.


I want to trade my digital copies of games. But i dont want retailer like gamespot to do it. The whole point of digital trade is to kill those retailers.

No, the whole point to reselling your digital games is to exercise your ownership rights. Use those rights or let the publishers take them away from you.

 

[Owyn_Merrilin]

Well greenmangaming.com is still around and they allow you to sell back your digital purchases, so... I guess it could work.

Ok, everyone arguing like a bunch of completely uninformed goofs in this thread: this guy is the only one who even knows what's going on. I came to point out that it's nearly certain that Green Man Gaming is what they're referring to by "technologies out there in Europe", and I was hoping that as usual half a dozen people had already beat me to it. Nope. One guy.

GMG is a site/online store based in the UK (but which sells to other regions too, including the US) which has been doing exactly this already for a couple years now, and from what I remember hearing recently I think they're the fastest growing European online game store. Some things they sell activate on Steam, which obviously can't be traded in, but with anything that runs entirely through their own service/client you can "sell" it back to them for credit toward buying other games, and it just revokes the license for it from your account. If their client they forced you to use (Capsule) weren't such a nightmare (or at least it was last time I looked into it at some point last year), it'd kind of be an interesting idea, but as it is I don't know anyone who uses GMG as anything other than a way to get stuff that can be activated on Steam when it's cheaper than it is on Steam. They have pretty good pre-order discounts and coupon codes and stuff sometimes.

They even give games away for free occasionally, and the crazy part is you can get trade in value on the free ones (although not during the period where they're still free XD). The client's not terrible, either, although it's mildly annoying that pretty much everything that's not directly related to managing your library is actually a link to a website. It's got Steam style links to the store and the community features, but they aren't actually built in on the client -- they're just links to the website.

So yeah, to all you nay-sayers: this is basically a way to get a partial refund on games you no longer want for whatever reason. Think of it as store credit that you can use to buy more games. If gamestop also finds a way to allow users to buy used CD keys for a discount[footnote]which, by the way, is possible with most non-Steam or Origin based DRM systems -- how do you think used PC games on amazon and ebay work? Most of them have CD keys, you know.[/footnote], more power to them, but it's most likely going to work the way Green Man Gaming is already doing it.

Edit: By the way, Impulse already rules. It's already my favorite DD platform. If Gamestop pulls this off and the used games are reasonably priced, it may replace Steam as my primary DD store -- primary only because of how ridiculously good the sales are.

 

[Yopaz]

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.

No, I am saying that a used product will actually be used. If it is so simple, can you please explain how bits and bytes store on one hard drive can be a used product? All of that data will be brand new.

It's neither new nor used, the data is just data, The product key though, can be new or used.

Considering the current policy on using keys on several computers this doesn't even sound possible. I'd like to see GameStop selling Anno 2070 "used".

 

[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.

No, I am saying that a used product will actually be used. If it is so simple, can you please explain how bits and bytes store on one hard drive can be a used product? All of that data will be brand new.

It's neither new nor used, the data is just data, The product key though, can be new or used.

Considering the current policy on using keys on several computers this doesn't even sound possible. I'd like to see GameStop selling Anno 2070 "used".

Think of it this way, with a Steam like system I could easily sell my game back and I would be unable to play it after that since the system would uninstall the game and I would need to be logged into the system to re-download it (which would obviously not be authorized).

It's really not difficult.

 

[Yopaz]

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.

No, I am saying that a used product will actually be used. If it is so simple, can you please explain how bits and bytes store on one hard drive can be a used product? All of that data will be brand new.

It's neither new nor used, the data is just data, The product key though, can be new or used.

Considering the current policy on using keys on several computers this doesn't even sound possible. I'd like to see GameStop selling Anno 2070 "used".

Think of it this way, with a Steam like system I could easily sell my game back and I would be unable to play it after that since the system would uninstall the game and I would need to be logged into the system to re-download it (which would obviously not be authorized).

It's really not difficult.

Considering there's a company out there that wont let you reinstall a game that you bought if you happen to have made some upgrades on the same computer that you originally installed it on then, yeah, it really is that difficult. If the product key that GameStop sells you can't be used then that's it. Companies do this kind of thing. Ignoring the things a company is willing to do doesn't make you right. It makes you wrong and ignorant.

 

[TheHmm]

I like how ive never ever purchased a game from gamestop...

It must be stupid people who keep them afloat...

 

[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.

No, I am saying that a used product will actually be used. If it is so simple, can you please explain how bits and bytes store on one hard drive can be a used product? All of that data will be brand new.

It's neither new nor used, the data is just data, The product key though, can be new or used.

Considering the current policy on using keys on several computers this doesn't even sound possible. I'd like to see GameStop selling Anno 2070 "used".

Think of it this way, with a Steam like system I could easily sell my game back and I would be unable to play it after that since the system would uninstall the game and I would need to be logged into the system to re-download it (which would obviously not be authorized).

It's really not difficult.

Considering there's a company out there that wont let you reinstall a game that you bought if you happen to have made some upgrades on the same computer that you originally installed it on then, yeah, it really is that difficult. If the product key that GameStop sells you can't be used then that's it. Companies do this kind of thing. Ignoring the things a company is willing to do doesn't make you right. It makes you wrong and ignorant.

Reported!

There really wasn't any need to call me ignorant. There are always exceptions, I was speaking of the bigger picture, not just that one game.