Sony, Pre-owned games and DRM

[SF_Bahamut]

Actually, your purchase IS nothing more than one for a license, physical or digital. If a comparison helps... when you buy a hammer, you own the hammer. When you buy a game, you don't own the code.

 

[CM156_v1legacy]

I see your point. But I don't think we can carve out an exception to the rules. If we, for example say "Gamestop, you have to give the publishers/developers money back on each used sale" (Because that's really what it would take to kill them), a ton of industries will be lining up to demand the same.
Cars take a ton of money to make and design. And yet I have yet to see people demand that used car people are killing the industry.

I get it. You think Gamestop is a parasite. You know what devs and publishers COULD do to fight used sales: sell the games used themselves. Imagine if I could trade in my copy of, say, Alpha Protocol to Obsidian and get $5 towards New Vegas. They then could offer that game for sale on their store. My example isn't perfect, but devs and publishers do have this option. People will still buy new because some people prefer the feel of a new game. I myself am one.

I tried to cover that in that linked post too, but anyway:

The industries you are referring to are different in many ways, lets take the ones that are offering physical goods first because they're easier, you buy physical objects that you are usually either going to use for a long while (you don't buy a TV or a car for a week or less and then sell it on because you are "done" with it) or consume (in which case you can't sell it on), they are also subject to wear and tear as physical objects, are worth less after certain time periods, perform worse and are a lot more prone to break + they are not under warranty any longer. And there's also the hygiene part to consider when buying things like appliances or clothes used, a lot of people just won't. Not to forget that they get a lot of money by selling original parts or doing repairs as they happen (this one especially in the instance of cars).

Last I checked, my disk was a PHYSICAL object.

Regarding your second point, they unfortunately don't really have that option... They don't have the employees or outlets to cope with the logistics of such an operation and it would also cost a lot to manage shipping and warehouse costs/not be really profitable unless they actually started a retail chain of their own trying to compete. GameStop does and the publishers also know that... it's not only a "take" but they also attract new customers for them with over 7000 retail chains around the world (that's why they always get those Pre-Order bonuses etc. anyway), most of them in the US.
Not to say that if they did such a thing, they probably would just be undercut by retailers and would end up with the same problem all over again.

Profit is not a right. It must be earned. If their business model is so flawed that it leaves this option for Gamestop wide open, then they need to work on fixing it. Not blame the person who is playing by the rules

That said, there's cases of this popping up on digital distribution... for instance just a few years ago I got a STALKER game on Steam for half price because I had its Prequel. I'm sure we will see this kind of marketing over these distribution channels more often (also sales, because they can actually manage only "day-long" sales and the likes).

It'll all eventually end up on the consoles, probably when the new generation rolls in it will both feature a more fully developed digital distribution side of things aswell as unique keys or unique products per account (along with sales and discounts) and the acceptance of such amongst the gaming folk will increase.
If I remember correctly Nintendo already said they will "Open their doors" for services such as Steam: http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/111482-Nintendo-Opens-Doors-For-Steam-and-Other-Networks-on-Wii-U . The Playstation already did and I don't see Microsoft doing the same with their policies as they are, but they'll probably try to do their own "Online-Shop" thing and push that more (also getting a cut off of every sale like Steam would be a rosy perspective for them).

If we go digital, I expect the price of games to drop, and DLC be discounted. But I know that that is never going to happen. I ask you this: If used sales are such a problem, why don't they charge less for PC versions of games?
I doubt it will go all digital. Some people, myself inculded, much prefer a physical object. And others, such as my friend, do not have internet connection.

 

[SF_Bahamut]

A game isn't a physical object. What it's stored on is.

 

[CM156_v1legacy]

A game isn't a physical object. What it's stored on is.

And I, under the first sale doctrine, can GIVE AWAY A PHYSICAL OBJECT!!! Or sell it! Or use it to reflect lasers. You're missing the forest for the trees

 

[Epona]

Actually, your purchase IS nothing more than one for a license, physical or digital. If a comparison helps... when you buy a hammer, you own the hammer. When you buy a game, you don't own the code.

When you buy a game on disc, you own the disc and can resell that disc. That there is code on that disc is not important. Just like with a CD or DVD, you can resell a DVD and no one says "you can't resell because the movie belongs to Paramount Pictures".

You do not rent or license a game, you take it to the checkout, the scan it..you pay an they give you a SALES receipt. You will find no return date because you OWN it. I suppose you would believe it if Pepsi told you that the Mountain Dew you just bought is only licensed to you since you use the exact same method to purchase it.

 

[SF_Bahamut]

What am I missing? I linked you to an article talking about how the authority on this says, no, this isn't true. Who are you to tell them otherwise? Someone who doesn't WANT it to be true? You *wanting* things to be a certain way doesn't make them so.

 

[SF_Bahamut]

You obviously didn't check out my link. Go ahead, read up on it. I'll wait.

 

[CM156_v1legacy]

What am I missing? I linked you to an article talking about how the authority on this says, no, this isn't true. Who are you to tell them otherwise? Someone who doesn't WANT it to be true? You *wanting* things to be a certain way doesn't make them so.

You obviously didn't check out my link. Go ahead, read up on it. I'll wait.

I did. And let me quote

"Autodesk objected to the sales because their license agreement did not permit the transfer of ownership"

Let me just go read my License agreement for my copy of Fallout 3.

....

Oh wait, there ISN'T one. I bought a tangable copy of the game. This guy downloaded software and tried to sell it. That's far, FAR differnet then buying a game and selling it. No downloading OR license agreement was made.

 

[Epona]

You obviously didn't check out my link. Go ahead, read up on it. I'll wait.

Your link refers to a different type of case, not all software would fall under this precedent. Let me ask you this, if the game industry could use this case to kill the used market, why are they not taking legal steps to do it?

 

[SF_Bahamut]

The topic is about Sony. Look at the three components of what makes software a license as determined by the Supreme Court. Sony's plans fit all three.

 

[Epona]

The topic is about Sony. Look at the three components of what makes software a license as determined by the Supreme Court. Sony's plans fit all three.

Oh so now it's about Sony and not about Vernor vs Autodesk. How convenient.

No one said that what Sony is trying to do is illegal, we just oppose it.

 

[CM156_v1legacy]

The topic is about Sony. Look at the three components of what makes software a license as determined by the Supreme Court. Sony's plans fit all three.

I'm not saying their plan is illegal, dear reader. I am saying that it is rather stupid. My point is that games, as they stand now, are delivered in a physical medium. You cannot stop the resale/gifting of physical media. Imagine if you had to log into an account online to read a book. Or to watch a movie. They can liscense software if they want, yes. But that's really something they shouldn't get involved with. Better to sell games, and just take used sales. The reason my friend got into Mass Effect as a series was because I lent him the game. He got ME2 new AND all the DLC. Imagine if my copy was liscensed. He wouln't have had that chance, and EA would have been out a sale.

But I am tired now, so I will allow you to have the last word. Also: Friendly tip, try clicking the "Quote" button when responding to a person.

 

[little.09]

Sorry if this is a little off topic, though I think it's still related.

I'd be interested in seeing what would happen to the game industry if copyright were just simply eliminated. The movie industry as well, to a lesser extent.

It's already pretty likely that writers and musicians will be fine; they're getting screwed by the publishing companies as it is, and writing and music were around long before copyright. They have their ways of making a living.

Video games and movies are expensive to produce though; the triple A ones, anyway. There are already a lot of good movies online, so I have hope that they will find a way.

While there are games online, it seems like a trickier situation. Software in general will be okay; software is created because there is a need for it. The programming I'm doing isn't going to be sold to customers; it's being written because the company needs these programs. The free software movement is also doing a good job, and they've found ways of making a living.

I suspect the video game industry would find a way if suddenly people could share games without necessarily having to pay, though it would probably also be chaos for a while. On the other hand, maybe it would be terrible terrible disaster.

Regarding pre-owned games though, I don't think it should be stopped. But if people want to support the developer, they should be aware that buying a game pre-owned won't help; buy it new. It's more legal than piracy, but it's not particularly better. I would hope that the people who pirate and buy pre-owned are doing it because they can't afford new games, or because they have an ethical issue against DRM. If they can afford it, they should support the developers.

it would destroy the mediums especially music because most people would have to find other jobs to support their families. Copy write is the only thing that allows content creators to make their content because without copy write where would the incentive be to pay for a song or a story. the only reason writers and musicians made money before copy write is because it wasn't able to be reproduced as easily as it is today.


so copy write = good

 

[SF_Bahamut]

Convenient? What are you talking about? The case set a precedent that is directly relevant to the topic. That was the point of posting it. The case itself has nothing to do with Sony, pre-owned games, or DRM, but the principle applies here. "Licensed, not owned" was the point.

The Court's decision applies directly to Sony's policy.

 

[SF_Bahamut]

I don't post here very often. I joined the site in September of 2010 and only made one post prior to the ones I've made here. I didn't plan on sticking around, I had just seen what you said about the first sale doctrine and knew about the case that contradicted it (which some might not have known about), so I posted it.

 

[Epona]

Sorry if this is a little off topic, though I think it's still related.

I'd be interested in seeing what would happen to the game industry if copyright were just simply eliminated. The movie industry as well, to a lesser extent.

It's already pretty likely that writers and musicians will be fine; they're getting screwed by the publishing companies as it is, and writing and music were around long before copyright. They have their ways of making a living.

Video games and movies are expensive to produce though; the triple A ones, anyway. There are already a lot of good movies online, so I have hope that they will find a way.

While there are games online, it seems like a trickier situation. Software in general will be okay; software is created because there is a need for it. The programming I'm doing isn't going to be sold to customers; it's being written because the company needs these programs. The free software movement is also doing a good job, and they've found ways of making a living.

I suspect the video game industry would find a way if suddenly people could share games without necessarily having to pay, though it would probably also be chaos for a while. On the other hand, maybe it would be terrible terrible disaster.

Regarding pre-owned games though, I don't think it should be stopped. But if people want to support the developer, they should be aware that buying a game pre-owned won't help; buy it new. It's more legal than piracy, but it's not particularly better. I would hope that the people who pirate and buy pre-owned are doing it because they can't afford new games, or because they have an ethical issue against DRM. If they can afford it, they should support the developers.

it would destroy the mediums especially music because most people would have to find other jobs to support their families. Copy write is the only thing that allows content creators to make their content because without copy write where would the incentive be to pay for a song or a story. the only reason writers and musicians made money before copy write is because it wasn't able to be reproduced as easily as it is today.


so copy write = good

Copyright law was designed to prevent people from making and selling illegal COPIES. What is passing for copyright law now is controlling how you use the product and if you are allowed to resell it or even give it away. These things have nothing to do with copying.

 

[Chibz]

What really scares me is that gamers are so concerned with how much money publishers make.

To be honest, there are SOME developers/publishers you really should support by buying a game new. I probably could wait a couple of months to buy Earth Defense Force: Insect Armageddon used (if I could find it used. Heh...) developed by Vicious Cycle Software, and published by D3 Publisher. But, I'll be frank I support them for producing a great experience.

You obviously didn't check out my link. Go ahead, read up on it. I'll wait.

Here's a question for you. Answer it if you can. I bought a copy of a game I love for the 360. However, I bought it second-hand from someone who owns a used game shop. BUT, this copy was completely new. Unopened, in shrink wrap. Even came with a rather nice custom faceplate.

Spoiler: FACEPLATE!

So. According to your theory of how copyright should work is what we did allowed?

 

[SF_Bahamut]

It's not my theory. It's not my opinion. I'm applying what the authority on this matter has dictated. That's where we differ. You WANT one outcome to be true and are trying to find the evidence to say that it is. I'm looking at the law from an unbiased viewpoint and am finding meaning from what it says. I'm not taking a side before trying to find supporting evidence for that side. That's not how the law works.

As for your example... the shrinkwrap was not opened, so no agreements were made. In a case where the terms of the agreement were made clear on the box before opening it, the Court has ruled that opening the shrinkwrap implies consent to these terms. It doesn't seem like this was done in your example, however, so it sounds perfectly legal.

 

[Epona]

What really scares me is that gamers are so concerned with how much money publishers make.

To be honest, there are SOME developers/publishers you really should support by buying a game new. I probably could wait a couple of months to buy Earth Defense Force: Insect Armageddon used (if I could find it used. Heh...) developed by Vicious Cycle Software, and published by D3 Publisher. But, I'll be frank I support them for producing a great experience.

You obviously didn't check out my link. Go ahead, read up on it. I'll wait.

Here's a question for you. Answer it if you can. I bought a copy of a game I love, Deathsmiles for the 360. However, I bought it second-hand from someone who owns a used game shop. BUT, this copy was completely new. Unopened, in shrink wrap. Even came with a rather nice custom faceplate.

Spoiler: FACEPLATE!

So. According to your theory of how copyright should work is what we did allowed?

I buy new games most of the time but I don't do it because I care about developers, I do it because I prefer a product I open myself. That's not the point though. Buying used helps out other gamers because if no one bought used, they couldn't resell their game.

You help someone no matter which route you go so the guilt trips gamers throw on each other are really stupid. Help the devs, great, help your fellow gamers, great, help Gamestop, great. In the end you should help yourself first though, buy what you want, not what you feel guilted into buying to support a developer.

 

[Epona]

Profit is not a right. It must be earned. If their business model is so flawed that it leaves this option for Gamestop wide open, then they need to work on fixing it. Not blame the person who is playing by the rules

Sure, that's what Retailers like GameStop are abusing though by taking the Profits off of the content creators in the first place... They could try to do something that I can't really come up with or I would be rich or they could just do the "easy fix" and introduce things like Keys and "Project 10$".

If we go digital, I expect the price of games to drop, and DLC be discounted. But I know that that is never going to happen. I ask you this: If used sales are such a problem, why don't they charge less for PC versions of games?
I doubt it will go all digital. Some people, myself inculded, much prefer a physical object. And others, such as my friend, do not have internet connection.

Depends on platform and publisher, new games will probably not cost any less but I cannot refrain from mentioning Steam again... aside of Activision (and they're starting to do it too) every other Publishers has such "deals" and sells their games for a few days to a lesser price... hell I think I've bought about 30+ games for under 100? this time myself.
The last day (tomorrow) will likely feature a "Best Of" of all sales: http://store.steampowered.com/?cc=us
You won't get games to those prices even at your GameStops or other Resellers because they're much too greedy for that Steam/Publishers can largely do those deals because they aren't permanent and they are a "one-time-sale" without the possibility of selling or passing it on to other accounts, also they apparently increase profits of up to 3000% in some cases and reach new customers: http://www.shacknews.com/article/57308/valve-left-4-dead-half
Also there's a huge push into "F2P" gaming going on on the PC at the moment, with a lot of quality games like League of Legends, Firefall, Tribes etc. being initially "free" that will have some effect (also on other platforms) in the future...

And I, under the first sale doctrine, can GIVE AWAY A PHYSICAL OBJECT!!! Or sell it! Or use it to reflect lasers. You're missing the forest for the trees

You can do the same with the disc after it's got a key for one-time use, I just doubt you'll get the same price as before xD

What really scares me is that gamers are so concerned with how much money publishers make. They are willing to throw away consumer rights and bash one another while the publishers laugh all the way to the bank.

Of course I care who I give my money to... I do with most products I buy I'm just less or more informed on some. The best way to get more of (or like) a certain game you like is to buy their product and give them the money. It also enables me to boycot certain brands because of their business practices in reverse (like Activision).

If you think publishers are entitled to money from used sales then you are not informed.