Original Comment by: Mark
In Slashdot terms, Craig, that's the old "You're not buying a [game|song|movie], you're buying a license" argument.
So, in other words, if a person buys a video game, they are in fact paying for a license to execute and copy that software as many times as they like with certain restrictions, and an original packaged copy of the software is given as a part of the purchase of the license. Reselling the physical game is legal; however, anybody who buys it may (depending on the license) be legally required to purchase their own copy of the software's license. Is that correct?
That seems like kind of a hassle for everybody involved to me, and also it's a groundless argument since that's not the way games are sold at present time. A publisher who begins selling licenses rather than games would not have to worry about resales, but it also creates an economic nightmare. Let me see if I can think of the ramifications of that.
Wow. Okay. So. At present, the publisher gets about thirty-six bucks for selling a copy of the game('s license). The consumer pays fifty bucks, meaning that they're ending up paying thirty-six bucks for the license and fourteen bucks for the physical copy. Publishers can't stop the circulation of physical copies, but they can force virtually every consumer to pay the licensing fee of thirty-six bucks in order to activate their software. I'll assume that the logistics of that will take care of itself.
A consumer who tries to repurchase a game will recognize that the activation fee is $36, and wonder why they're paying $50 at the store. Some of them might realize that they're paying $14 for a box full of air. (It doesn't cost publishers very much to print an individual copy of a game, and it'll cost them even less to allow it to be distributed online). This might lead the consumer to realize that s/he's being ripped off - by the retailer. Online sales will increase, and gaming retail stores will find themselves in an even worse position than they're in now.
The solution? Suppose the publisher sells physical copies of the game to retailers for a trivial sum apiece, since all it really amounts to is a brochure for the license. The retailers sell it alone, without a license, for fifteen or twenty bucks, and conveniently sells licenses, optionally, in convenient bundles priced at $50 or $60. The publisher offers an incentive to buy the physical version, however - an inexpensive one, but an incentive nevertheless. Say, for example, the online version only includes the low-resolution textures in order to save bandwidth, while buying the CD or DVD version gives you the high-resolution textures. Perhaps the physical one contains a copy of the soundtrack. It will certainly include the manual. In addition, perhaps give the retailer free license to reprint the discs in the box, which they can sell as virtually pure profit at a reduced cost.
The consumer is able to choose precisely what they want - a new box with a license for $50, a new box without a license for $15, a used box without a license for various amounts depending on its quality, the CD alone without a license for $10 or less, or the low-resolution version only without a license for the cost of downloading it. They can resell their boxed copies at a bit under wholesale cost, because the retailers might have use for those extra components.
In this model, the publisher money for each sale, the retailer still turns a profit, and the consumer doesn't see quite as bad a markup on used product, even though the consumer is technically the one who has lost in this shift in structure.
The consumer has definitely lost if any highly invasive sort of DRM is used to enforce the licenses, of course. Consoles will either be out of luck or in an ideal position to test this model, depending on how it's implemented.
