Sony, Pre-owned games and DRM

[CM156_v1legacy]

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?

The problem isn't with individual people "robbing the industry", used games have been around for ages without anyone doing anything about it, the devs/publishers don't as much have anything against people selling on their copy or giving it to a friend or they would've done something about it much sooner. The problem is another industry sprouting within the industry and acting like a parasitic entity (sitting in your stomach waiting for you to eat something just so they can grow bigger and bigger) without much if any effort on their part, doing both marketing and customer persuasian towards the goal of giving them a bigger piece than the party doing all the work. By now it isn't only one "parasite", but a whole bunch of others have learned from its ways and decided to join in on the fun.

Regarding your other points, just read this, don't really want to type it all out again xD
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/9.284829-Lionhead-Piracy-these-days-on-PC-is-probably-less-problematic-than-second-hand-sales-on-the-Xbox?page=4#11224502

Suffice it to say in most cases the content producers and distributors both have an understanding with those institutions and rental chains (e.g. they get their movies/books directly from them and are allowed to rent it against a certain percentage), the industry works differently with a lot of distribution models and ways of making money developed over the last few hundred years (like Digital Distribution has started to for games just a few years ago), have different cost to produce to winnings ratios (e.g. writing a book isn't that expensive) or it just isn't that big of a problem because named parasite has "made" it one.

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.

 

[Dark Knifer]

Seriously. If you buy games that are kinda new, why not just spend 10% more and get the game new?

Because if your in places like Australia it's quite a bit more then that. New releases here are between $100 to $120 and in my experience a fairly new pre-owned game is between $60-$90, depending on the title which is quite a remarkable difference and that's only in stores, internet it's even better. If your being exploited that badly then pre owned games really help.

I think there are better ways around this then trying to get rid of the pre owned market. Why is it sucha big deal with games? Every other medium of entertainment isn't bothered about them. I think the game industry should focus more on actually making the games rather then making money.

 

[Epona]

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?

The problem isn't with individual people "robbing the industry", used games have been around for ages without anyone doing anything about it, the devs/publishers don't as much have anything against people selling on their copy or giving it to a friend or they would've done something about it much sooner. The problem is another industry sprouting within the industry and acting like a parasitic entity (sitting in your stomach waiting for you to eat something just so they can grow bigger and bigger) without much if any effort on their part, doing both marketing and customer persuasian towards the goal of giving them a bigger piece than the party doing all the work. By now it isn't only one "parasite", but a whole bunch of others have learned from its ways and decided to join in on the fun.

Regarding your other points, just read this, don't really want to type it all out again xD
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/9.284829-Lionhead-Piracy-these-days-on-PC-is-probably-less-problematic-than-second-hand-sales-on-the-Xbox?page=4#11224502

Suffice it to say in most cases the content producers and distributors both have an understanding with those institutions and rental chains (e.g. they get their movies/books directly from them and are allowed to rent it against a certain percentage), the industry works differently with a lot of distribution models and ways of making money developed over the last few hundred years (like Digital Distribution has started to for games just a few years ago), have different cost to produce to winnings ratios (e.g. writing a book isn't that expensive) or it just isn't that big of a problem because named parasite has "made" it one.

Used games have been around for ages because they are legal and the publishers couldn't do anything about them. Yes, it's sad that consumer rights get in the way of corporate profits but used games sales have been here while the industry grew to the monstrous size it is. Used games helped the market grow, not hindered it as you believe.

Another reason the publishers haven't done anything about the used console game market is because up till now, they didn't have the technology. They did it with PC games long ago and will do it with console games if people let them. They would have been glad to require activation during the PS2 era if the technology was there.

Did you notice how this whole "used games are worse than piracy" shit just sort of blew up over a short period of time? They were conditioning gamers to accept activation codes and here it is. What will gamers do? So far, most gamers are being far too understanding.

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.

 

[SF_Bahamut]

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.

 

[Chibz]

Yeah. I cannot possibly be more against this idea than I am. Even though I prefer to buy a game new, I won't buy EVERY game new because I'm not going to buy every game as soon as it comes out. Sometimes games are near impossible to buy new a few months later...

 

[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.

 

[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