Retailers Warn "Project Ten Dollar" Will Hurt Consumers

[rees263]

- snip -

That's utter bollocks - to say that the developer has any right to something I have bought makes a mockery of property ownership. Provided I don't infringe any copyright laws (you know, the laws that are already in place to protect intellectual property), then a game/movie/book etc that I buy is mine to do whatever I want with it, including sell it.

If not then I would be renting it, not buying which is a completely different system.

 

[Macgyvercas]

The reason I buy used games in the first place is because the prices of new games are freaking outragious!

EA should consider that one!

 

[Abedeus]

- snip -

That's utter bollocks - to say that the developer has any right to something I have bought makes a mockery of property ownership. Provided I don't infringe any copyright laws (you know, the laws that are already in place to protect intellectual property), then a game/movie/book etc that I buy is mine to do whatever I want with it, including sell it.

If not then I would be renting it, not buying which is a completely different system.

You don't understand, do you?

10 people play their game, all of them finish. They should get $500 in total. But they get only $50 from the first guy.

You seriously don't see the problem? How about you work for 30 days, and get paid for 3 days?

 

[pneuma08]

You go to a book shop. You see a book, let's say - new Pratchett book just came out. You want to buy it, but it's expensive - new release. So you take it, go into a corner, read it in 5-6 hours fast, and you put it back on the shelf. Oh, wait, why would you want to buy it now? You already read it. If you want to read it again, you can just come back.

But, there are book stores that allow that and no one complains about it. Not to mention the institute of the library.

In any event, a copy of the data, either in book or cd form, is a physical thing. It can be lost, it can be destroyed, and you can buy it at a pawn shop or a secondhand store. It doesn't require support or a service. By contrast, a ticket, while also physical, represents a purchase of an admission, something not physical. It is a service you are going to. Furthermore, a ticket is for a specific showing, and once that showing is over, it's consumed, like a sandwich. Like you said, you can't eat a sandwich and sell it too. Conversely, objects like a guitar, jewelry, books, cds, cars, and the like are both physical products (not services) and are not literally consumed (like food or matches), and as such are subject to ownership and property. In particular, the used car market functions very similarly to the used game market, from what I understand.

I suppose my point is, your argument is fallacious. You can't say things cannot be compared by comparing them to something else entirely. Basically you're saying, "apples and oranges shouldn't be subject to the same fruit laws because apples and blankets aren't used the same way".

Addendum:

- snip -

That's utter bollocks - to say that the developer has any right to something I have bought makes a mockery of property ownership. Provided I don't infringe any copyright laws (you know, the laws that are already in place to protect intellectual property), then a game/movie/book etc that I buy is mine to do whatever I want with it, including sell it.

If not then I would be renting it, not buying which is a completely different system.

You don't understand, do you?

10 people play their game, all of them finish. They should get $500 in total. But they get only $50 from the first guy.

You seriously don't see the problem? How about you work for 30 days, and get paid for 3 days?

That's the problem. "They should get..." Why should they get money for each person playing the game? If 10 people chip in and buy (one copy of) the game and all of them finish, I don't see how the publisher should get more than $50.

 

[PoToGo]

- snip -

That's utter bollocks - to say that the developer has any right to something I have bought makes a mockery of property ownership. Provided I don't infringe any copyright laws (you know, the laws that are already in place to protect intellectual property), then a game/movie/book etc that I buy is mine to do whatever I want with it, including sell it.

If not then I would be renting it, not buying which is a completely different system.

That seems to be under the assumption that you would be paid for the extra DLC. I promise that if you walk into a Gamestop and said "The extra content has never been used" and miraculously they believed you, they would still give you the same amount you would get without the DLC.

 

[DocBot]

You pay $50 for the first time. Developer gets $50. One person gets the game.
You sell the game for $25, someone else pays you $25. Two people get to play the game (one after another, unless you made an .iso image for yourself beforehand), developer still has only $50 instead of $75.
That person sells for $25 again, three people have played it, developer has only $50 instead of $100. And it goes on and on.

I'm not sure where you to $75 from. That seems to suggest that the publishers should make the money from you selling your game...which is curious, because it's yours, and also because the publishers were never offering the game for $25...so this is hypothetical to the point of being meaningless.

Okay then, let's assume each player must pay $50 to play the game.

First one buys, pays $50 to the developers, one player pays.

The other sells the game for whatever amount, the developers should get another $50, because two people play the game. So they should have $100.

It's actually even worse, if you put it that way.

Anyway, do you not feel that you should be free to do as you please with something you've bought? I have a guitar that is 20 years old, and likely had at least a few owners before me, does this mean that I owe Gibson money? No, they have no claim to a piece of wood with strings on, that they sold on for profit 20 years ago.

Digital and physical items can't be judged by the same laws.

You play through the game, meaning you finished it - it's like eating a sandwich. It was good, and you paid for it full price.

Now, someone else pays you to get that sandwich and eat it too. Impossible? Sure it is. Same as comparing a guitar to a video game, or a movie. By the same logic, you should be able to re-sell your movie ticket after you watched it at the cinema. Oh, wait, you can't? Well aren't those dirty cinema owners clever, making everyone pay for viewing the movie...

I see where you're going with this. And, in a perfect world yes the developer would get a full 100% kickback for their content. But, some things that are a little wrong. In the world of commerce an item can have labels. The sandwich you're talking about is labeled as a consumable. We have a lot of these. From food to you printer's ink to your laptop battery to the gas in your car. Just because the car had gas in the tank when you bought it doesn't mean you're entitled to always have your gas payed for. So, if someone wants to buy a sandwich you ate, it's a consumable or a perishable. It's sold to be used beyond a state of resale or return. And, the movie ticket? If you look up the definition of money or currency you will see that money can be exchanged for goods and SERVICES. A movie ticket is your right to a service. Like a ticket to an amusement park is your right to a service of enjoyment. More practically movies fall under the same idea as getting your car fixed. The true value is what you get out of it preset to time A and time B by the owner of the facility to the one performing the service. After that, it loses all value by the owner. Now video games fall under a non-perishable item. Other things:
Books
CDs
Cars
Car Parts
Computers
Backpacks
you get the idea, things that don't immedietly expire after use. And, if you notice, all these items have a used market. the benefit of used markets is you can get these items for a cheaper price at worn condition. The value of these items is set by the proprietor with assumed research into the market it's going in. And, whether or not you want to purchase it is set on it's price and what it's worth to you. Now, the thing about it is, that unlike the music industry or the Publishing industry the games industry has a pretty sweet deal. The margin on buying a game new to the developer is a pretty sweet deal. The way development is set up the artist and developer gets a rather large cut even after packaging and production of the physical product. But within these companies you still have the split up costs and they still do need to make money. And, the used market are a group whose model doesn't include development of IP or any artistic writes or production of a product. It includes customer service, facilities, and a high emphasis on margins and advertising. While all of this is perfectly legal it's also going to create conflict. especially since Game Stop's focus is obviously on the used market. Fourty is more than twenty and either way they're buying the game from someone. And, if you buy for forty and sell for sixty or buy for twenty and sell for fifty, which one is going to make you more money? And, GameStop has been sure to tell developers where they can stick any sort of cut for their used sales since Babbages and Funcoland. So, EA thought of a creative solution with a profitable model for them and the used video game people aren't happy.

 

[CD-R]

Like I've said before. All this means is that game retailers are going to have to start charging a resonable price for a used game. In other words more than 5 dollars less. It's supply and demand. As the demand for the used games goes down as a result of this then the pice will go down. Buying and selling used games from Gamestop is a ripoff. You're much better off selling them on Craigslist or buying used games on Amazon.com.

And in case anyone's thinking about felling sorry for GameStop, just watch this video.

http://www.break.com/usercontent/2008/9/Zero-Originality-Episode-1-570285.html

It was done in the same style as a Zero Punctuation review by a guy called Zero Originality. Theres 2 more episodes but they've been DCMA'd pretty bad so they're tough to find. And before you ask

NO IT WASN'T THE ESCAPIST OR YAHTZEE WHO TOOK THEM DOWN.

Anyway the DLC is optional. If you don't want it you don't have to download it. As long as they continue to leave DRM out as well I have no problem with it.

 

[Abedeus]

You go to a book shop. You see a book, let's say - new Pratchett book just came out. You want to buy it, but it's expensive - new release. So you take it, go into a corner, read it in 5-6 hours fast, and you put it back on the shelf. Oh, wait, why would you want to buy it now? You already read it. If you want to read it again, you can just come back.

But, there are book stores that allow that and no one complains about it. Not to mention the institute of the library.

You seriously know stores that allow you to read an entire book or a series without asking you to buy the God damn book or gtfo? Let me know when they go out of business.

Library - always new books, always there for you? Usually someone has the book you want to borrow, and anyway the city pays for those books. They were bought especially for people to borrow them, and library can ask you for $ if you don't return it in time.

In any event, a copy of the data, either in book or cd form, is a physical thing. It can be lost, it can be destroyed, and you can buy it at a pawn shop or a secondhand store. It doesn't require support or a service. By contrast, a ticket, while also physical, represents a purchase of an admission, something not physical. It is a service you are going to. Furthermore, a ticket is for a specific showing, and once that showing is over, it's consumed, like a sandwich. Like you said, you can't eat a sandwich and sell it too. Conversely, objects like a guitar, jewelry, books, cds, cars, and the like are both physical products (not services) and are not literally consumed (like food or matches), and as such are subject to ownership and property. In particular, the used car market functions very similarly to the used game market, from what I understand.

See this is why games and "products" can't be compared. When you finish playing a game, you have technically consumed it. The knowledge about the story, every boss fight, every cutscene, everything.

Gah. Also, virtual data =/= physical data. If you destroy a DVD of a game, you have all the rights in the world to torrent it, you already paid for it to the developer once.

Addendum:

- snip -

That's utter bollocks - to say that the developer has any right to something I have bought makes a mockery of property ownership. Provided I don't infringe any copyright laws (you know, the laws that are already in place to protect intellectual property), then a game/movie/book etc that I buy is mine to do whatever I want with it, including sell it.

If not then I would be renting it, not buying which is a completely different system.

You don't understand, do you?

10 people play their game, all of them finish. They should get $500 in total. But they get only $50 from the first guy.

You seriously don't see the problem? How about you work for 30 days, and get paid for 3 days?

That's the problem. "They should get..." Why should they get money for each person playing the game? If 10 people chip in and buy (one copy of) the game and all of them finish, I don't see how the publisher should get more than $50.

Because of a thing called EULA. You may not sell, rent or borrow the copy. You may not use it to make money without permit.

You buy a game, you play it, you enjoy it. Then you sell it without a permit. You had no right to do it. You signed the EULA, willingly or not, and when you sell a game, you "sell" your contract. That's not really possible or legal. Also, there was a question some time ago, in a Polish PC magazine, where a guy asked that - "what if me and my friend bought your magazine, shared the price and wanted to both read it?". The answer is - in close quarters, you can. Same as making digital copies of games is legal for private use (you, family and that's all), but torrenting them over the net to strangers isn't. Same here - if you borrow a game to your friend, it's not illegal. But when you make a profit (profit means you gained fun and experience from the game, and you regained almost all money) without permission, that's considered a crime.

 

[Snotnarok]

Angry? I love this free DLC.

Me too, it's not like it's NEEDED to play the game or whatever. It's just an intensive.

 

[sexual bus]

Sucks for everyone who buys games. Better to just download them.

 

[Abedeus]

Sucks for everyone who buys games. Better to just download them.

Why the hell is that? You buy a game, you get a free DLC. You buy it from second hand, instead of paying the developer what he deserves, you must pay $10 for the DLC.

This is a REALLY hyper-lame excuse for piracy. Worse than the "I can't afford it" policy.

 

[Makon]

Actually, this will make my want to buy the game new even more. I DISPISE used games, and the upscale pawnbrokers that sell them. Oh sure, if I want a classic cartridge or something it will more than likely be used, and I have no problem with that; it's just places like Gamestop(and since they've about run everyone out of business, they are the ones I will be picking on) that annoy the fuck out of me by charging what, $4-5 under the new price? Ooooh, such savings! And NONE of that money goes to the publisher and developers. Not to mention the quality. Many used games come without the original cover and/or manual, and of course will be scratched to high hell, because Gamestop doesn't check nor do they have a disc cleaner on the premises and they rely upon the customer to check their games for them.

I dislike EA, mainly because they forced the delay of ToR, but I side with them on the early DLC plan.

Ditto man. I used to work for that cess-pool of a store. A used game is usually $2-5 off the price of a new copy of the game, and ALL of it goes to the retailer, not a single cent goes to the actual developers or publishers. You could make the argument that with their Edge Card, you get an extra 10% off the used price, but that means you have to shell out $150 in used game purchases to even break even with what you save vs you spent for the discount. Places like GameStop can go burn into a hole in the ground, I purchase all my games new, un-opened, and in EA's case, with free day 1 DLC.

 

[sexual bus]

Sucks for everyone who buys games. Better to just download them.

Why the hell is that? You buy a game, you get a free DLC. You buy it from second hand, instead of paying the developer what he deserves, you must pay $10 for the DLC.

This is a REALLY hyper-lame excuse for piracy. Worse than the "I can't afford it" policy.

Where in my post is there an excuse? It was quite shameless, really. Enjoy hyperventilating over this though. Free entertainment for me and you get to feel self-righteous. Win-win.

 

[Sexual Harassment Panda]

You pay $50 for the first time. Developer gets $50. One person gets the game.
You sell the game for $25, someone else pays you $25. Two people get to play the game (one after another, unless you made an .iso image for yourself beforehand), developer still has only $50 instead of $75.
That person sells for $25 again, three people have played it, developer has only $50 instead of $100. And it goes on and on.

I'm not sure where you to $75 from. That seems to suggest that the publishers should make the money from you selling your game...which is curious, because it's yours, and also because the publishers were never offering the game for $25...so this is hypothetical to the point of being meaningless.

1. Okay then, let's assume each player must pay $50 to play the game.

First one buys, pays $50 to the developers, one player pays.

The other sells the game for whatever amount, the developers should get another $50, because two people play the game. So they should have $100.

2. It's actually even worse, if you put it that way.

Anyway, do you not feel that you should be free to do as you please with something you've bought? I have a guitar that is 20 years old, and likely had at least a few owners before me, does this mean that I owe Gibson money? No, they have no claim to a piece of wood with strings on, that they sold on for profit 20 years ago.

3. Digital and physical items can't be judged by the same laws.

You play through the game, meaning you finished it - it's like eating a sandwich. It was good, and you paid for it full price.

Now, someone else pays you to get that sandwich and eat it too. Impossible? Sure it is. Same as comparing a guitar to a video game, or a movie. By the same logic, you should be able to re-sell your movie ticket after you watched it at the cinema. Oh, wait, you can't? Well aren't those dirty cinema owners clever, making everyone pay for viewing the movie...

I won't argue for a moment that the used market isn't damaging the industry, but that's just too bad, if it means that developers go out of business...then it's sad. But, the second hand market is something that EVERY industry has to deal with. Ownership should mean ownership, it shouldn't mean that you pay full price for a lease with strings attatched.

4. Except that only markets that actually suffer are ones that are about:
- Music
- Movies
- Books
- Games.

Why? You sell someone your music CD - the songs are the same as you had, same package even if it isn't important. You sell someone your movie DVD - same movie. Book? Same content. Games? Same content.

But, if you sell someone a 20-30 year old guitar, he must first repair it a little. Change strings, pain it, tune it. Same with buying a car - making a new car license (for the car itself), engine checks, the works. Also it won't be the same car it was 20 years ago - it will be slower, not only by today's standards, but it will be just OLD. Guitar also won't be as fresh and pleasant as a new one.

I retract my apology.

1. That's a shakey assumption to start with. Why exactly should(should they really?)they get another $50 on a resale? You're making alot of assumptions to come to the conclusion that everyone who plays a game is a definite sale(that's not piracy talk, just business sense...that's why products eventually come down in price, because not everyone is willing to buy at the original price point), you can't make projections like that...it's just not in line with reality.

2....it's only worse when put that way because these numbers are even more fabricated and baseless than the last set.

3. Sure it's like eating a sandwich, like eating a sandwich that somehow(as if by magic!)is still in your house, taking up space long after you've eaten it. Hmm actually, if it doesn't perish the first time you make use of it...maybe it's not like a sandwich. Owning a dvd of a film isn't like going to the cinema either, it's just not. One is a physical product in a plastic box, and the other is a night out. This is similiar to your previous notion that a game is like 2 slices of bread with a filling(I like BLT, yum!)...in that it is completely wrong. Can you really win arguments by comparing 2 things that are clearly different and insisting they're the same? Nope...but nice try. Oh, and those "dirty cinema owners" don't "make" anyone pay to see the films, they advertise the experience(so you know what you're getting...and who doesn't know what you get when you go to the cinema?)and the rest is up to you. Like how dvd adverts say things like "yours to take home" or "yours to own on dvd now!"...2 different things.

4. The assumption that the guitar industry doesn't suffer the same way is wrong. Many guitar companies have gone out of business, of course they have...and they could just as easily complain that "2nd hand sales are hurting us, people shouldn't be allowed to sell their guitars, they should all have to buy new ones and keep them forever...why did we have to make products that last?" But you don't hear that, maybe because guitars are a more niche product...who knows.

The next point is wrong too. Guitars(even old guitars)don't require much maintenance, they are bits of wood, the design and production is an artform in itself...but there isn't really a whole lot to go wrong with them.

Cars? Why are cars relevent? It's well known that buying a car is a shitty investment, that's why I don't have one.

Another distinction worth making is that a quality 20-30 year old guitar has likely increased in value, whereas you can buy pong or pacman in a junk shop for 50p these days...

I like games, I like games developers that make good games, I'd like for them to do well...but not at the expense of any consumer rights that I might have.

 

[Furrama]

Crap will only go on as long as we're willing to put up with it.

As long as you're willing to jump through hoops companies will feel entitled and only put more hoops up for you to jump through. Stop buying stuff from EA- if enough people do they'll start singing a different tune.

 

[chronobreak]

"I would buy Diablo 3, but it costs $60, I would buy it if it was $50..."
"Oh man, Dragon Age is awesome, but $50 is too much.. I would buy it for $40 for sure."
"Ah geez, Mass Effect is great, but come on, $35 for a game? Make it $20 and we've got a deal."
"Torchlight? Yeah, it's okay, but not worth $20. How about $10?"
"World of Goo? Pay whatever I want? How about $0.01, that's my final offer."

I don't see what is so unreasonable about any of those statements, save maybe for the people that paid that price for World of Goo. I would buy ME2 if it wasn't $50, I would certainly pay $40 for it. I have a budget that I have to stick within when thinking about buying games, and can rarely (if ever) afford new games, so I wait until they are a suitable price and snatch them up.

 

[Lord_Ascendant]

Well, to be brief in this comment: Electronic Arts has always been, and will always be, the boogie man in the closet of the games industry.

 

[DocBot]

This model wouldn't hurt the consumer if the option wasn't a $60 New game with the DLC or a $65 Used game with the DLC content.

EDIT: We are supposedly being favored with a cheaper game used but the percentages don't add up to the consumer winning.

 

[PoToGo]

I don't see why Gamestop should be making more money on a game than the creative minds behind it. Most games are lucky to break even. I think it's ridiculous that it took someone this long to come up with a reason for people to stop throwing their money away. If you're just gonna resell it, instead of selling a $60 game to Gamestop for $15, rent it. You just saved a lot of money. You're welcome.

 

[PoToGo]

This model wouldn't hurt the consumer if the option wasn't a $60 New game with the DLC or a $65 Used game with the DLC content.

It seems like consumers hurt themselves. If your city has a Gamestop, odds are it has a competitor. Wal-Mart, Best Buy, Target, Toys R Us. All of these places generally run sales on a new release games within a month, dropping the price on a $60 game anywhere from $50 all the way down to $35. Saving $5 on a used game is ludicrous when you can wait a few weeks and get it new for less.