Sony, Pre-owned games and DRM

[Chibz]

not what you feel guilted into buying to support a developer.

Tell me if this makes sense, but it's a form of "enlightened self interest". I realize that the best way to keep games I like coming is to support the people who have the power to make sure they can come. I don't buy them because I feel that "I must". I buy them more because I feel that "I ought". There's a very fine difference there.

Also it helps that I'm immune to guilt.

 

[Epona]

not what you feel guilted into buying to support a developer.

Tell me if this makes sense, but it's a form of "enlightened self interest". I realize that the best way to keep games I like coming is to support the people who have the power to make sure they can come. I don't buy them because I feel that "I must". I buy them more because I feel that "I ought". There's a very fine difference there.

It's like an addiction when you put it that way. Not trying to be mean but "gotta keep the games coming" just sounds so helpless.

I buy something because I like it (like Pizza flavored Pringles). I never think "I hope they keep making these". I figure that if they keep making them, I'll keep buying em. If not, I will move onto something else. I have been playing games for 30 years but I just can't understand many of the motivations modern gamers have.

 

[Chibz]

It's like an addiction when you put it that way. Not trying to be mean but "gotta keep the games coming" just sounds so helpless.

I buy something because I like it (like Pizza flavored Pringles). I never think "I hope they keep making these". I figure that if they keep making them, I'll keep buying em. If not, I will move onto something else. I have been playing games for 30 years but I just can't understand many of the motivations modern gamers have.

Well, a lot of the games I support heavily are games where the developers/publishers are in a situation where each sale really does matter. Look at Deathsmiles for example. We never saw it here until recently. Or Monster Hunter. Most that series' games don't see the light of day in north america.

For the most part these companies offer a gaming experience that almost no other company is offering me, and they don't have the almost automatic first-adopters that games like MW3 will have.

So yeah. If I want to see Monster Hunter Portable 3rd running on my PSP, I acknowledge that I might have to get over myself a little and buy Monster Hunter 3. Because if they cannot expect to turn a profit (or even break even...) for the overall cost to translate/etc for north america they won't sell it here. Full break.

 

[Asuka Soryu]

I sometimes buy used, but I mostly buy cheap. xD 20$ still sealed games at Walmart, they're just old is all.


But I couldn't resist buying Dragon Ball Z Burst Limit for 3$ used.

I agree with people buying used. 60$ is alot of money to go into a game that could be really bad or way to short.

60$ for a 4 hour game!?

 

[Asuka Soryu]

I sometimes buy used, but I mostly buy cheap. xD 20$ still sealed games at Walmart, they're just old is all.


But I couldn't resist buying Dragon Ball Z Burst Limit for 3$ used.

I agree with people buying used. 60$ is alot of money to go into a game that could be really bad or way to short.

60$ for a 4 hour game!?

As opposed to $60 for a 10 minute game?

Nah, 3000$ for an 8 minute game.

 

[TxMxRonin]

There were rumors of Sony blocking used games from being played on the PS3 BEFORE the system launched. If they wanted to do it they would have already. And if this does to through then maybe it'll be incentive for publishers to keep games in print and bring down outrageous prices on some used games. And cause developers to make longer games. If I'm paying $60 for a game, that I could be spending on fuel, I want an experience that will make me keep that damn game.

 

[Defense]

http://yro.slashdot.org/story/10/09/10/210243/Court-Says-First-Sale-Doctrine-Doesnt-Apply-To-Licensed-Software

Fortunately, we're seeing restrictions on the first sale doctrine.

Very good. However, last I checked, I didn't get a "liscense" on the physical game I purchased. Digital games should not be protected under FSD. But this ain't digital. Wasn't the whole PS3 jailbreak debacle based around Sony, in esense, saying "Yeh, you don't really "own" your system as much as you get a liscense for it"?

Are you really willing to line up to defend a publisher who, to get more money, is willing to say "Yeh, I know you bought that physical copy of game, but we really are just giving you a liscense to use it"? I want games to make money, yes. But this is NOT the best way to go about it.

In reality, you only own the physical product. You don't own the data even if you paid for it, like it or not.

 

[Continuity]

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?

They do, maybe not on day one release but check out my steam account on my profile... every games there I bought for £20 or less, and most were bought for between £5 and £15.

 

[Plinglebob]

Allright. Humor me this. What would YOU do about it?

I don't buy the whole "Robbing the industry" statement. What about movie rentals? Did studios get money with each rental? What about libraries? Do book publsihers get money with each check-out? What about art galeries? Do artists get money with resale of their paintings?

The answer? No. They do not. Where were you when blockbuster video was still around? Were you protesting THEM? The industry isn't going anywhere. How long have we had the printing press? People have been giving books to friends or people have sold them second hand. And yet we still have books.

So, again, what would you do about used sales and Gamestop?

For movie rentals, the copy somewhere like Blockbuster buys costs around £50 so the industry gets compensated fopeople who rent it rather then buying a new copy. Also, it is a small gamble on behalf of the film industry as they know that when seone rents a film, there is a chance they will like it and buy it.

For Libraries (in the UK anyway) the author DOES get a small amount each time their book is borrowed though admittadly its a small amount.

For artworks, the original artist retains the copyright so while they may not see any of the money made by resales of the original, any tim there is a copy made, the artist gets royalties.

Back on topic, I fully support Sony in this as I think any oppotunity to get more money to the evs who created the game is a good thing. Also, maintaining an online game has a cost to it and I don't see why companies should let someone use it when that person as put no money towards the cost by buying new.

 

[Twilight_guy]

EA and Sony and putting in programs and many other other companies are discussing programs. Its clear that publishers are cracking down on used games sales. I don't have a problem with them but I understand why companies would want a cut of the sales from used games. Unfortunately that doesn't stop waves of unintelligible hate from flowing over it and in standard gamer format complaining while offering no way to combat it and no discussion of the issue. Gamers are like politicians, they like to tell you why they hate things but don't offer many plans to come up with alternatives.

 

[Timmibal]

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

I don't think anyone with half a brain expects that. The problem is, and the point that most of the anti-resale argument that most people seem to miss, is that there should not be a 'used games market' as it exists currently in the first place.

You sell your old games on e-bay or at a garage sale, publishers/developers have never been interested in that. Why? Because most of the time the games are exactly that. Old. You are not competing with their current releases, and I'm sure they're grateful that their older products are still getting some love.

That's not what retailers are doing though. Look at the promotions they have, look at their 'preferred trade' lists. All of those titles are either brand new AAA releases, or titles that are in high demand. The retailer is, in effect, competing with the publisher for the same sales and using the publisher's IP to do so! Not only that, but I recall figures stating that the average resold title is re-traded an average of 4.5 times. (sorry, no source, will try and find it later)

They can't fight resale directly, because whenever they do, the trumps of flatulence sound with resounding cries of 'Physical Medium!' and 'Consumer Rights!' and 'Sale not license!' which the retailers gleefuly use to keep earning their unearned profits.

So, devs/publishers are forced to resort to things like day 1 DLC and campaigns like project $10, as well as keeping prices high, in order to try and recoup the haemmoraging of their profits in the console market due to corporate resale.

Also, don't compare a unique medium like video games with other media like movies, books, and music. That dog just don't hunt.

 

[Chibz]

"all unauthorised access, use or transfer of this product or its underlying copyright and trademark works is prohibited".

"RESALE AND RENTAL ARE STRICTLY PROHIBITED UNLESS EXPRESSLY AUTHORISED BY (SCEE)"

You realize that neither of those statements in the manual would have any legal weight right? Mostly because...

1. The user (you) never explicitly agreed to it. At all.
2. It's tacked on (almost sneaked in) after the sale & agreement is finalized.
3. Legally binding agreements don't work this way at all.

It wouldn't fly in court, unless your local laws are even more ungodly than the US'

The retailer is, in effect, competing with the publisher for the same sales and using the publisher's IP to do so!

I don't care, said Pierre, I'm from FRANCE. As long as they try to deprive me of basic ownership rights, I don't care about their profits. Used game sales are old as dirt, and the industry should've had plenty of time to adapt to them.

Don't compare video games to books, film and music? Sorry, but from a sales & legal perspective video games are very comparable.

 

[Epona]

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.

Really? Cause mine most certainly did have a license agreement.

Ahem.

"all unauthorised access, use or transfer of this product or its underlying copyright and trademark works is prohibited".

Page two of the manual, under the age rating. These same words come with every single copy of the game, and every other game sold with a manual.

And of course,

"RESALE AND RENTAL ARE STRICTLY PROHIBITED UNLESS EXPRESSLY AUTHORISED BY (SCEE)"

All there, black and white, clear as crystal. Good day sir.

...and yet you can resell the game. Shows you how much power the EULA has.

 

[Epona]

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

I don't think anyone with half a brain expects that. The problem is, and the point that most of the anti-resale argument that most people seem to miss, is that there should not be a 'used games market' as it exists currently in the first place.

You sell your old games on e-bay or at a garage sale, publishers/developers have never been interested in that. Why? Because most of the time the games are exactly that. Old. You are not competing with their current releases, and I'm sure they're grateful that their older products are still getting some love.

That's not what retailers are doing though. Look at the promotions they have, look at their 'preferred trade' lists. All of those titles are either brand new AAA releases, or titles that are in high demand. The retailer is, in effect, competing with the publisher for the same sales and using the publisher's IP to do so! Not only that, but I recall figures stating that the average resold title is re-traded an average of 4.5 times. (sorry, no source, will try and find it later)

They can't fight resale directly, because whenever they do, the trumps of flatulence sound with resounding cries of 'Physical Medium!' and 'Consumer Rights!' and 'Sale not license!' which the retailers gleefuly use to keep earning their unearned profits.

So, devs/publishers are forced to resort to things like day 1 DLC and campaigns like project $10, as well as keeping prices high, in order to try and recoup the haemmoraging of their profits in the console market due to corporate resale.

Also, don't compare a unique medium like video games with other media like movies, books, and music. That dog just don't hunt.

That is the exact argument we hear time and time again "well the devs don't get money from used sales" so yeah, apparently this what alot of people expect.

What Gamestop has done is take a legal business model and build a very profitable business out of it. That's perfectly legal and it should be because in the end, that's what the game companies do.

 

[Arehexes]

We can buy used Movies, Music, Books, and Cars, and Anything in between (look at ebay for gods sakes). I say this a lot and it applies here also, we need to treat video games like any other media. I don't see book publishers get in a fit when you sell used books on online places or book stores, I don't see movie companies get pissed when blockbuster sells there movies. So Why is it video games should get away with it, and lets consider this If I buy a online game like Socom then that's one spot already bought, if I sell it to someone then I transferred that spot to him also. This online pass stuff is full of crap because now it's making a knife point like issue where you might be felt you are forced to buy it new and not used. This trick is just a way to get more money.

That is the exact argument we hear time and time again "well the devs don't get money from used sales" so yeah, apparently this what alot of people expect.

What Gamestop has done is take a legal business model and build a very profitable business out of it. That's perfectly legal and it should be because in the end, that's what the game companies do.

Yeah I mean look at Blockbuster and movie companies. Movie companies focus more on people pirating then buying their movies used. I have never heard of a book publisher freak the hell out over used book sales. And here is the big kicker, BUYING USED GAMES IS NOT SOME NEW THING. I remember owned a SNES and like 30% of my collection was used games from Blockbuster, from Donkey Kong Country 2 to Super Mario RPG. This is not a new feature it's just not that we have online checking companies can find a way to track their product we "own".

 

[viranimus]

Honestly... I would not mind them putting up a block for online content. If they would just do everyone the courtesy as to not automatically require system updates to play offline single player games.

Every game sold as a disc really needs to be accessible to play on any incarnation of the PS3 without internet connectivity regardless of forced firmware state. And Hardware devs like Sony by doing this are pissing all over ownership rights.

So, yeah, if they want to force people to buy codes to play online for used copies? Thats actually fairly justifiable considering the free internet gameplay, and server functions they provide. But considering they wont give up on forcing that network connectivity down the consumers throat, then No.. Do not approve and will not approve until the issue is fixed.

 

[Buzz Killington_v1legacy]

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

Not to mention Vernor v. Autodesk seems to directly contradict a couple of precedents, most notably Novell, Inc. v. CPU Distrib., Inc., where the court ruled that the first sale doctrine applied to a reseller of Novell's software, or SoftMan Products Co. v. Adobe Systems Inc., where the court went on at quite a bit of length:

Section 202 of the Copyright Act recognizes a distinction between tangible property rights in copies of the work and intangible property rights in the creation itself.11 In this case, no claim is made that transfer of the copy involves transfer of the ownership of the intellectual property within. (See SoftMan's Suppl. Brief at 9-10) ("Adobe has ownership rights in the copyright of [its] software.").) What is at stake here is the right of the purchaser to dispose of that purchaser's particular copy of the software.

The Court finds that the circumstances surrounding the transaction strongly suggests that the transaction is in fact a sale rather than a license. For example, the purchaser commonly obtains a single copy of the software, with documentation, for a single price, which the purchaser pays at the time of the transaction, and which constitutes the entire payment for the "license." The license runs for an indefinite term without provisions for renewal. In light of these indicia, many courts and commentators conclude that a "shrinkwrap license" transaction is a sale of goods rather than a license.


The reality of the business environment also suggests that Adobe sells its software to distributors. Adobe transfers large amounts of merchandise to distributors. The distributors pay full value for the merchandise and accept the risk that the software may be damaged or lost. The distributors also accept the risk that they will be unable to resell the product. The distributors then resell the product to other distributors in the secondary market. The secondary market and the ultimate consumer also pay full value for the product, and accept the risk that the product may be lost or damaged. This evidence suggests a transfer of title in the good. The transfer of a product for consideration with a transfer of title and risk of loss generally constitutes a sale. VWP of Am., Inc. v. United States, 175 F.3d 1327, 1338-39 (Fed. Cir. 1999).

 

[Zipa]

Jim Sterling (Jimquisition) covers the subject pretty well

http://www.destructoid.com/the-jimquisition-the-used-game-solution-182499.phtml

 

[Epona]

We can buy used Movies, Music, Books, and Cars, and Anything in between (look at ebay for gods sakes). I say this a lot and it applies here also, we need to treat video games like any other media. I don't see book publishers get in a fit when you sell used books on online places or book stores, I don't see movie companies get pissed when blockbuster sells there movies. So Why is it video games should get away with it, and lets consider this If I buy a online game like Socom then that's one spot already bought, if I sell it to someone then I transferred that spot to him also. This online pass stuff is full of crap because now it's making a knife point like issue where you might be felt you are forced to buy it new and not used. This trick is just a way to get more money.

That is the exact argument we hear time and time again "well the devs don't get money from used sales" so yeah, apparently this what alot of people expect.

What Gamestop has done is take a legal business model and build a very profitable business out of it. That's perfectly legal and it should be because in the end, that's what the game companies do.

Yeah I mean look at Blockbuster and movie companies. Movie companies focus more on people pirating then buying their movies used. I have never heard of a book publisher freak the hell out over used book sales. And here is the big kicker, BUYING USED GAMES IS NOT SOME NEW THING. I remember owned a SNES and like 30% of my collection was used games from Blockbuster, from Donkey Kong Country 2 to Super Mario RPG. This is not a new feature it's just not that we have online checking companies can find a way to track their product we "own".

Yes, as far as the First Sale Doctrine is concerned there is no difference between reselling cars, books, games, DVD's, microwaves, etc...

Those who say "you can't compare games to anything else". Yes you can. The game industry is not special.

 

[CM156_v1legacy]

http://yro.slashdot.org/story/10/09/10/210243/Court-Says-First-Sale-Doctrine-Doesnt-Apply-To-Licensed-Software

Fortunately, we're seeing restrictions on the first sale doctrine.

Very good. However, last I checked, I didn't get a "liscense" on the physical game I purchased. Digital games should not be protected under FSD. But this ain't digital. Wasn't the whole PS3 jailbreak debacle based around Sony, in esense, saying "Yeh, you don't really "own" your system as much as you get a liscense for it"?

Are you really willing to line up to defend a publisher who, to get more money, is willing to say "Yeh, I know you bought that physical copy of game, but we really are just giving you a liscense to use it"? I want games to make money, yes. But this is NOT the best way to go about it.

In reality, you only own the physical product. You don't own the data even if you paid for it, like it or not.

Let me put it this way. Do I own a book? Yes. Do I own the words? No. And yet, I can STILL resell books, can't I?

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.

Really? Cause mine most certainly did have a license agreement.

Ahem.

"all unauthorised access, use or transfer of this product or its underlying copyright and trademark works is prohibited".

Page two of the manual, under the age rating. These same words come with every single copy of the game, and every other game sold with a manual.

And of course,

"RESALE AND RENTAL ARE STRICTLY PROHIBITED UNLESS EXPRESSLY AUTHORISED BY (SCEE)"

All there, black and white, clear as crystal. Good day sir.

Really? Well I'll be. Lets loook where I signed that?

...

Oh wait. Yeah, if that's the case, the beter start suing people.

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

I don't think anyone with half a brain expects that. The problem is, and the point that most of the anti-resale argument that most people seem to miss, is that there should not be a 'used games market' as it exists currently in the first place.

You sell your old games on e-bay or at a garage sale, publishers/developers have never been interested in that. Why? Because most of the time the games are exactly that. Old. You are not competing with their current releases, and I'm sure they're grateful that their older products are still getting some love.

That's not what retailers are doing though. Look at the promotions they have, look at their 'preferred trade' lists. All of those titles are either brand new AAA releases, or titles that are in high demand. The retailer is, in effect, competing with the publisher for the same sales and using the publisher's IP to do so! Not only that, but I recall figures stating that the average resold title is re-traded an average of 4.5 times. (sorry, no source, will try and find it later)

They can't fight resale directly, because whenever they do, the trumps of flatulence sound with resounding cries of 'Physical Medium!' and 'Consumer Rights!' and 'Sale not license!' which the retailers gleefuly use to keep earning their unearned profits.

So, devs/publishers are forced to resort to things like day 1 DLC and campaigns like project $10, as well as keeping prices high, in order to try and recoup the haemmoraging of their profits in the console market due to corporate resale.

Also, don't compare a unique medium like video games with other media like movies, books, and music. That dog just don't hunt.

OK, why not? No, really. What good reasons do you have?