A solution to the problem of used game sales?...

[Raven's Nest]

I've had a thought. It's probably one that might have crossed some game publishers mind already and I'm wondering what you guys would make of it...

Basically what would happen if instead of distributing physical and digital units. Each plublisher only offered the use of their software on an online rental basis?

You would only have to pay them for the time you spent playing the game (though I'm not sure what an appropriate rate would be). It'd probably make sense for a rental to become cheaper the lobger you rent it however. You should also be elligible for a discount on subsequent rentals.

Then when you are finished using it, you can't simply sell it on as a used product making some middleman rich and depriving the writers and designers of their rightly deserved income. In theory, the games or software developers would miss any of their income and would be encouraged to lower the price of their products in the first place. You as a consumer would also be less likely to lose money paying for a game you don't like as you simply would stop playing and paying for it.

Games developers would have to spend more effort crafting appealing, innovative games that hold the players attention. Which is arguably better for the consumer.

Even smaller independent companies wouldn't lose out as their overheads are considerably lower and therefore have less to lose.

Creative Artists will always get paid for their endeavours,
Developers would have the full share of profits,
Consumers would get better games and potentially cheaper,

I'm excluding the piracy, because it's likely to always be a problem. Pirates gonna pirate.

In effect, the games, hell the whole entertainment industry would then operate like public transport... Which is meant to be better for everyone?

The only thing I can't make my mind up on is if this would actually continue to, if not worsen, the creative stifiling present in the entertainment industry today or not...

Thoughts and rebuttles welcome.

TLR... Tough Shit

 

[Jodah]

Or you know there is no used game problem and it is just publishers trying to get more money and take away control from the consumer. Nobody complains about used sales of; movies, books, music cds, cars, houses, computers, etc. Why is it suddenly a problem when it comes to video games but nothing else?

 

[Rawne1980]

That would be the day I stop paying for games.

I like to have a physical copy and I like to pay once, and once only, to play that game.

The difference of opinion I have with some people here and used games is the price. I have seen people say used games are only a bit cheaper but the ones I have cost me a fraction of the sparkly new price.

Skyrim in the shops around here was £40. Got it used last week for £10. That was a saving of £30 (I did buy it new for the PC though, the used copy was for my PS3 to play when i'm in my relaxing chair).

A solution to the used games debate would be for developers to stop making shit so folks wouldn't want to exchange them. Lower the price so more people will be willing to part with the money.

Me and my wife both have a decent income but i'm the only gamer in the house so don't really like throwing £40 around whenever a game I want comes out. Chances are i'll wait to get it a lot cheaper or wait until the GOTY or Ultimate Editions and get the DLC included (got Oblivion, FO3 and FO:NV, GOTY for the first 2 and Ultimate for NV, for £5 each on Amazon. Imagine how much that saved me by not buying it all separately on release and DLC after).

On top of that i'm a bit of a hoarder. I do like to own a physical copy so things like Steam and your mentioned rental hold no interest for me at all.

 

[Raven's Nest]

Or you know there is no used game problem and it is just publishers trying to get more money and take away control from the consumer. Nobody complains about used sales of; movies, books, music cds, cars, houses, computers, etc. Why is it suddenly a problem when it comes to video games but nothing else?

With the exception of cars and houses, those others aren't wildly lucrative to second hand retailers however...

 

[TorqueConverter]

The argument against used video games sales it that new games sales are where the publisher and devs make their money. With other forms of digital media there are multiple revenue streams coming in be it box office, DVD, radio, CD or television. With video games the is only new sales and used sales result in profit the publisher and devs never see. New digital media is essentially the same as used digital media. There is no wear and tear you see with physical items. .

The problem was/is when a physical store actively encourages used game sales over new. With a used game sale the profit goes to the store rather than to the publishers and developers. In a world where sales are primarily done in physical stores this can be a problem.

Solution? It's going to fix itself in my opinion. Digital stores are on the rise and quickly taking market share away from brick and mortars. These digital stores have infinite shelf space and shelf life but are unable to sell used games. I see the additional profit made from used games sales helping to offset the high operating costs, limited shelf space and decreasing market share of physical stores in the near future. Digital stores will not remain a PC thing for long. I fully expect to see the next gen consoles have their own digital stores.

 

[Jodah]

Or you know there is no used game problem and it is just publishers trying to get more money and take away control from the consumer. Nobody complains about used sales of; movies, books, music cds, cars, houses, computers, etc. Why is it suddenly a problem when it comes to video games but nothing else?

With the exception of cars and houses, those others aren't wildly lucrative to second hand retailers however...

No but rentals are and they do the same thing. Gamefly pays for a game once. Every time it is rented without the renter purchasing it is the same as a used game sale. Nobody seems to complain about those only the "evils of Gamestop!"

 

[Raven's Nest]

Or you know there is no used game problem and it is just publishers trying to get more money and take away control from the consumer. Nobody complains about used sales of; movies, books, music cds, cars, houses, computers, etc. Why is it suddenly a problem when it comes to video games but nothing else?

With the exception of cars and houses, those others aren't wildly lucrative to second hand retailers however...

No but rentals are and they do the same thing. Gamefly pays for a game once. Every time it is rented without the renter purchasing it is the same as a used game sale. Nobody seems to complain about those only the "evils of Gamestop!"

Under my idea, the publishers themselves would replace the rental companies. And film studios really aren't fond of netflix or lovefilm right now...

 

[RJ 17]

Yeah, the game companies are really fighting against a phantom menace on this one. Their profits do not decline due to used game sales. Just like how musicians make little money at all on CD sales, but rather get their big paychecks by doing concert tours, so too do game developers get their big paychecks from the launch of their new title. They don't make the majority of their money a few months after the game was released with the random person picking it up new. Suffice to say that if someone didn't want your product enough to buy it new, getting rid of used sales will likely make them go with the option of not buying it at all rather than buy it new at full price.

If your game doesn't make enough profit within the first few weeks of release when EVERYONE has to buy it new, then guess what: you made a failing product. If there's no demand for your product, you're not going to make money for it. Expecting to make money off of used games sales is like Wal-Mart expecting to make money every time someone has a garage sale. Basically this:

Nobody complains about used sales of; movies, books, music cds, cars, houses, computers, etc.

Then there's the fact that the system that you're talking about would quite literally destroy the Game Rental industry.

 

[teqrevisited]

I'd never rent a game. For me, at least, this proposed system would make me find something to do that lets me own the media that I pay for.

 

[TorqueConverter]

I've had a thought. It's probably one that might have crossed some game publishers mind already and I'm wondering what you guys would make of it...

Basically what would happen if instead of distributing physical and digital units. Each plublisher only offered the use of their software on an online rental basis?

You would only have to pay them for the time you spent playing the game (though I'm not sure what an appropriate rate would be). It'd probably make sense for a rental to become cheaper the lobger you rent it however. You should also be elligible for a discount on subsequent rentals.

Then when you are finished using it, you can't simply sell it on as a used product making some middleman rich and depriving the writers and designers of their rightly deserved income. In theory, the games or software developers would miss any of their income and would be encouraged to lower the price of their products in the first place. You as a consumer would also be less likely to lose money paying for a game you don't like as you simply would stop playing and paying for it.

Games developers would have to spend more effort crafting appealing, innovative games that hold the players attention. Which is arguably better for the consumer.

Even smaller independent companies wouldn't lose out as their overheads are considerably lower and therefore have less to lose.

Creative Artists will always get paid for their endeavours,
Developers would have the full share of profits,
Consumers would get better games and potentially cheaper,

I'm excluding the piracy, because it's likely to always be a problem. Pirates gonna pirate.

In effect, the games, hell the whole entertainment industry would then operate like public transport... Which is meant to be better for everyone?

The only thing I can't make my mind up on is if this would actually continue to, if not worsen, the creative stifiling present in the entertainment industry today or not...

Thoughts and rebuttles welcome.

TLR... Tough Shit

Pretty cool idea you have there. Nice topic BTW.

I see a problem with this timed "pass" to a video game. How would you suppose the distributor of the game can control the terms of this pass? If the game is running locally (on your gaming device) then that code is physically with the user. Sure, it would have to talk to some server in order to run but that data is still on the user's machine. The pass expires and that game is still on the machine 100% functional minus the pass. It would require the distributor to uninstall the program from your machine once the TOS are up. That doesn't sit right with me.

Onlive has a similar system with the difference being that the game is not running locally. It's not on your machine, it's on their machine. What Onlive is selling you is pass to play their games on their hardware remotely. Even with the latency issues, it's a really cool service.

 

[Raven's Nest]

Pretty cool idea you have there. Nice topic BTW.

I see a problem with this timed "pass" to a video game. How would you suppose the distributor of the game can control the terms of this pass? If the game is running locally (on your gaming device) then that code is physically with the user. Sure, it would have to talk to some server in order to run but that data is still on the user's machine. The pass expires and that game is still on the machine 100% functional minus the pass. It would require the distributor to uninstall the program from your machine once the TOS are up. That doesn't sit right with me.

Onlive has a similar system with the difference being that the game is not running locally. It's not on your machine, it's on their machine. What Onlive is selling you is pass to play their games on their hardware remotely. Even with the latency issues, it's a really cool service.

Thanks. It might not sit right with you that a distributer could uninstall software from your computer but seeing as you don't "own" it, it's not really within your rights to keep it is it?

All a distributer would need to do in order to protect from pirates is upgrade their coding so it cannot be cracked. Easier said than done i'm sure.

As we are moving towards an era where nearly everyone is hooked up to the internet certainly by 2020 I imagine. It seems wholly likely that this is how distribution of digital media will happen in the future. I bet no one could have imagined Steam or iTunes 20 years ago...

 

[Raven's Nest]

I'd never rent a game. For me, at least, this proposed system would make me find something to do that lets me own the media that I pay for.

For the record, why is it you feel like you own the media in the first place? You don't you own a license to use it. You don't even have the license to distribute, display or reproduce it either. The copyright holders own it.

 

[teqrevisited]

I'd never rent a game. For me, at least, this proposed system would make me find something to do that lets me own the media that I pay for.

For the record, why is it you feel like you own the media in the first place? You don't you own a license to use it. You don't even have the license to distribute, display or reproduce it either. The copyright holders own it.

If I have a disc (Which, in most cases, I do) there is nothing they can do to prevent me from accessing and using the software on it. I can do whatever I want with it within my own home.

 

[Owyn_Merrilin]

I'd never rent a game. For me, at least, this proposed system would make me find something to do that lets me own the media that I pay for.

For the record, why is it you feel like you own the media in the first place? You don't you own a license to use it. You don't even have the license to distribute, display or reproduce it either. The copyright holders own it.

That's what their lawyers want you to think. Property rights and copyright law say otherwise. Besides, you own the media. The only thing they claim is that you don't own its contents, which they claim is necessary, but it isn't, because basic copyright protection already covers that: it is entirely possible to own a copy, but not the right to make more (i.e., the copyright).

 

[TorqueConverter]

Pretty cool idea you have there. Nice topic BTW.

I see a problem with this timed "pass" to a video game. How would you suppose the distributor of the game can control the terms of this pass? If the game is running locally (on your gaming device) then that code is physically with the user. Sure, it would have to talk to some server in order to run but that data is still on the user's machine. The pass expires and that game is still on the machine 100% functional minus the pass. It would require the distributor to uninstall the program from your machine once the TOS are up. That doesn't sit right with me.

Onlive has a similar system with the difference being that the game is not running locally. It's not on your machine, it's on their machine. What Onlive is selling you is pass to play their games on their hardware remotely. Even with the latency issues, it's a really cool service.

Thanks. It might not sit right with you that a distributer could uninstall software from your computer but seeing as you don't "own" it, it's not really within your rights to keep it is it?

All a distributer would need to do in order to protect from pirates is upgrade their coding so it cannot be cracked. Easier said than done i'm sure.

As we are moving towards an era where nearly everyone is hooked up to the internet certainly by 2020 I imagine. It seems wholly likely that this is how distribution of digital media will happen in the future. I bet no one could have imagined Steam or iTunes 20 years ago...

It can see it working on the consoles. People have a tenancy to treat those things like gaming appliances. I'm sure the next gen xbox and play station will have their own digital game stores at some point in time. I can see a rental system where the game is downloaded and installed on the device, then removed once the TOS are up working. It'll happen in the background within a closed platform without the user being involved.

On a PC? It's an open platform Personal Computer. I was upset when I installed itunes and the damn thing copied all my MP3 into their damn format on it's own, doubling my music size with apple doppelgangers. I felt violated enough when that happened. I can't imagine allowing someone else to install and remove programs on my PC. Maybe it's just me, but I feel my PC is more than just an appliance.

 

[Raven's Nest]

Why do we need a solution to something that does not have a problem.

Because the solution could have the other benefits I mentioned...

Under my idea, the publishers themselves would replace the rental companies. And film studios really aren't fond of netflix or lovefilm right now...

Actually I doubt the film studios actually have any problems with places like netflix. You know since it is the film studios who license the films to netflix. If they really wanted those guys gone they would be.

Well no film studio is going to risk missing sales by not supporting a widely used service. Plus they do dirty tactics such as exclusives. You can't rent any of the latest Universal releases on lovefilm in the UK for example. My point of the thread being that the studios would be inclined to run the rental service themselves, eliminating the middle man.

If I have a disc (Which, in most cases, I do) there is nothing they can do to prevent me from accessing and using the software on it. I can do whatever I want with it within my own home.

But if the publishers stopped selling physical discs entirely would you not buy anything ever again? If it's in the publisher's interest to limit the damage you can do with a physical copy of the software, you can bet they'll do it. The only barrier at the moment is that not everyone is currently hooked up to the super-interwebs. Come the end of the decade I wouldn't be suprised if all media content was download only.

That's what their lawyers want you to think. Property rights and copyright law say otherwise. Besides, you own the media. The only thing they claim is that you don't own its contents, which they claim is necessary, but it isn't, because basic copyright protection already covers that: it is entirely possible to own a copy, but not the right to make more (i.e., the copyright).

See the above point. If the physical disc is taken out of your hand then copyright law becomes much easier to enforce provided there is sufficient DRM.

On a PC? It's an open platform Personal Computer. I was upset when I installed itunes and the damn thing copied all my MP3 into their damn format on it's own, doubling my music size with apple doppelgangers. I felt violated enough when that happened. I can't imagine allowing someone else to install and remove programs on my PC. Maybe it's just me, but I feel my PC is more than just an appliance.

As above, it may only be a matter of time where programs like iTunes become the norm and not an alternative. The issue I really meant to have come across in this thread was that of an artist's ownership of his work rather than helping distributers maximise profits. You may simply not have a choice one day...

 

[Owyn_Merrilin]

Why do we need a solution to something that does not have a problem.

Because the solution could have the other benefits I mentioned...

Under my idea, the publishers themselves would replace the rental companies. And film studios really aren't fond of netflix or lovefilm right now...

Actually I doubt the film studios actually have any problems with places like netflix. You know since it is the film studios who license the films to netflix. If they really wanted those guys gone they would be.

Well no film studio is going to risk missing sales by not supporting a widely used service. Plus they do dirty tactics such as exclusives. You can't rent any of the latest Universal releases on lovefilm in the UK for example. My point of the thread being that the studios would be inclined to run the rental service themselves, eliminating the middle man.

If I have a disc (Which, in most cases, I do) there is nothing they can do to prevent me from accessing and using the software on it. I can do whatever I want with it within my own home.

But if the publishers stopped selling physical discs entirely would you not buy anything ever again? If it's in the publisher's interest to limit the damage you can do with a physical copy of the software, you can bet they'll do it. The only barrier at the moment is that not everyone is currently hooked up to the super-interwebs. Come the end of the decade I wouldn't be suprised if all media content was download only.

That's what their lawyers want you to think. Property rights and copyright law say otherwise. Besides, you own the media. The only thing they claim is that you don't own its contents, which they claim is necessary, but it isn't, because basic copyright protection already covers that: it is entirely possible to own a copy, but not the right to make more (i.e., the copyright).

See the above point. If the physical disc is taken out of your hand then copyright law becomes much easier to enforce provided there is sufficient DRM.

On a PC? It's an open platform Personal Computer. I was upset when I installed itunes and the damn thing copied all my MP3 into their damn format on it's own, doubling my music size with apple doppelgangers. I felt violated enough when that happened. I can't imagine allowing someone else to install and remove programs on my PC. Maybe it's just me, but I feel my PC is more than just an appliance.

As above, it may only be a matter of time where programs like iTunes become the norm and not an alternative. The issue I really meant to have come across in this thread was that of an artist's ownership of his work rather than helping distributers maximise profits. You may simply not have a choice one day...

My response: the day they go DD only is the day I stop buying, unless everything settles on an average of, say, $5 on launch. If I'm going to rent something, I'm not going to pay purchase price.

Edit: also, there's no such thing as "sufficient DRM." You get rid of physical media, and piracy will get worse, not better.

 

[SugarSkulls]

Basically this is the debate. Do we the consumers get the power, or do the producers get the power?

Us owning a physical or relatively permanent copy of a game that can never be taken away by a publisher is good for us the consumers.

The publishers having complete control over whether we can play their game is good for them.

As I see it, us the consumers paying once for a game then having it to do with as we will is an uneasy, but acceptable, middle ground. The Publishers get money and have to continue making games if they want more money, and we the consumers can't have the game we paid legal tender for taken away.

Your idea seems more like how online games work, or any kind of game that requires continual upkeep by the publishers to keep running. I'm not saying your idea is inherently evil, but it would be too easy for the publishers to abuse.