GameStop Wants to Sell Used Digital Games

[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.

 

[Falterfire]

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.

 

[Erttheking]

I'm starting to get the feeling that the Escapist completely despises everything that isn't Valve/Steam. Frankly I like Gamestop, I've gotten some good deals from them. Crackdown and Bioshock for $15 total.

Also used game sales = immoral?...ok, I guess EA has every right to use online passes then.

 

[ThePenguinKnight]

If they succeed, which they won't, they will find that they'd only be making piracy even easier.

 

[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.

 

[OldNewNewOld]

People keep asking for the difference between used and new digital games.

It's simple. There is a finite amount of used digital games, but there is a infinite amount of new games. GameStop can sell only as many used games as they have bought back, while they can sell unlimited new games.

There won't be always a used game of the game you want, but there will always be a new one.

And I love how publisher (or the whole capitalistic industry) has brainwashed the average Joe to think that using his rights is a bad thing.
Sorry, but I will never be on the same side as the publisher. The whole purpose of the publisher is to make money. As much money as they can. While I want to give as little money for as much as possible stuff.

Our goals are opposite. Publisher are already taking away our rights one very side, cutting corners in games and selling them as overpriced DLC's. People are okay with that.

But then a company enables us to use our EXISTING rights and they are labeled as the devil him self? Da fuq is wrong with your guys? How the hell can you even think about supporting the same people who want to deceive you in every possible situation?

Seriously take some time off from the PC and think about it. The publisher will NEVER be on your side, no matter how "good" they are. Even Steam isn't on your side.
Steam used simple psychology to make you buy as many games as possible. Even games you will never play. They literally train you like Cesar Millan trains those dogs. It's called impulse buying. You see the price was cut by 75% and you want to buy it even if you don't need it.
You now think "well, you can always no buy them." and you're right. But that doesn't make the problem go away. It doesn't make Steam the good guy. They use a dirty and cheap trick in order to take away your money. They try to manipulate you. They are only a bit better than a conman.

Again.
You want to get as much from the industry as possible for as little money as possible.
The industry wants as much money from you for as little as possible.

Those are opposite goals. The healthiest relationship would be in the middle, where prices are set by the amount of available goods and demands. But since publisher are trying to shift the balance on their side, you have to try to shift it to your side. The publisher are NOT your friends.

 

[suitepee7]

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.

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.

 

[Falterfire]

The argument that we should be trying to take rights from the publisher sounds absolutely insane in the context of this argument. Game Stop is not giving you the ability to give your game to somebody else. They're giving you the ability to help them take money from the developers. If you believe Gamestop is more entitled to money from game sales than the developer, your argument makes perfect sense, but otherwise it just doesn't.

There is no way to put a limited cap on digital copies. Any system revolving around a limited number of digital copies is inherently nuts.

And yes, we have given away our right to resell games by purchasing digitally. In exchange, Steam offers huge discounts. They're basically saying "If you are willing to lose the ability to resell this game, we're willing to sell it to you for much less money." That's a trade that I personally am willing to make, especially since the amount of money I'd get for reselling it is less than the amount of money I save anyways.

If you can resell digital games, it will no longer be profitable to companies to offer huge discounts on digital games. Right now if they sell the game 75% off and I tell all my friends about it, when my friends go and buy it they are giving the publisher more money. If digital games can be sold used, then the copies my friends go to buy are ones sold back by people who bought the game on sale, beat it, and resold it, making the developer less money.

Every used game sold is money the developer does not receive and therefore money that they either have to make up by raising prices or money that they completely lose out on.

 

[Beautiful End]

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.

If I had a cookie, I'd give it to you.

I salute you, sir/ma'am.