the used games arguement is flawed

[Dr. HeatSync]

What I find amazing is that people still perceive developers and publishers as evil corporations whose purpose in their lives is to make as much money as possible. I think in order to understand why the games industry would attempt to combat used sales brings us to the start of developing a game.

Picture this scenario: starting off a new game idea as a developer, it'll probably take around 2-3 years to finish development. This is even better if you're completely new because then it means you have absolutely zero income. Those 2-3 years where you have to live off what a publisher has invested into you, and you need to make that much to break even (although that doesn't impress any publisher, you need much more than that).

That development time is where you realise that every physical copy is like your life blood; if you lost a sale, thats another blow towards your chance of breaking even or making a profit. It is also seen as a blow towards potential advancements (sequels, new IPs, licensing another engine and so on) A used sale is viewed like a lost sale because no money goes to either party who made the game and instead goes to the retailer. Think whatever you want about that, but both the developer and publisher would've definitely needed that money. Piracy is viewed the same way regardless of whether someone d/l'd Kane and Lynch 2 just to see how bad it was.

So EA comes up with a system, a survival tool known as Project Ten Dollar, which means that new customers are rewarded, or in most player's perspectives, used customers are punished, and considering that developing games is often a very long famine with little to no water for 2 years, can you not see why they are trying to fight that?

People seem to be bewildered at such a choice, when actually this is fucking common sense to come up with a system that helps them survive the long famine, to get something even out of consumers who buy used games. It's almost like everyone has gotten too used to the luxury of Valve's marketing strategy and forgotten that both the developers and publishers are a business first and fun makers second because they need to survive in order to make fun games.

And to those who argue that new games are too expensive and so you buy used, I can't help but imagine this feels more tailored to you because not only to you get the game cheaper, you get the choice of contributing to the companies; to pay for the DLC that is normally free for those who buy new. You pay less and can still contribute, so what exactly is the problem here? You gonna 'boycott and pirate it in the name of fairness'? Is it that the game industry was the first to come up with an alternative/back up method to making a profit?

 

[Jandau]

Response 1: Same goes for EVERY used item industry EVER. Why should games get special treatment?

Well, others have already covered issues like wear and tear (doesn't exist with games as the new product is the same as the used one) and continued maintenance related revenue (games don't need maintenance, many other used items do) so there's no need to mention that again. If you're talking about entertainment media specifically, well, it's still vastly different. Games only have one revenue stream, that being the new copy sale. Every other entertainment medium, however, has multiple revenue streams so the loss of new copy sales doesn't hurt them near as much. There's certainly some ground for debate on this topic as a whole, but comparing used games to used anything else doesn't hold any water.

Books.

Thank you, bye.

 

[halbarad]

Here's what I see.

Everyone says that the game industry can't be compared to any other industry because they know that when compared to any other industry, it really shows the greed of the game industry. So they give every excuse (prices, cost to make, etc...) for claiming that the gaming industry is different and therefore immune to the First Sale Doctrine.

Further, how many of you trust the industry? If the used game stores went away tomorrow, do you think game prices would rise or fall in the long run? Well, with no competition and their no return scam, I can't see why they would fall, indeed I think the prices will rise.

The industry blames everyone for their woes. The pirates and now the used game shops. Who's next?

Stop defending these guys while they raise prices and make life more complicated via DRM.

How do you even work this crap out?
The fact of the matter is the majority of the gaming industry is losing money, they're having to cut costs, drop titles, cut staff. Most are trying to regain their expenditure on the games and obviously make some operating income so they can make the new game.

Idiots like you are the ones who seem to expect to get things cheaper than what they cost to make, then expect a long line of things the exact same way. I hate to break this to you, games cost money to make and it's not cheap, especially looking at top titles like CoD, FIFA, Madden, Final Fantasy, Mass Effect, MoH, Dragon Age - I could list a LOT more. These have higher expenditure in making than most Hollywood films.
Let me explain it this way. If a game costs 32 million, then it sells enough to make back 28 million then a load of used copies that could generate 16 million are sold, the game has still lost 4 million instead of gaining 12 million towards the next game.

It isn't about trust. You're taking from the industry, you're taking their ideas and products, you should pay them. Not pay some thieving middle-man.

DRM is there to stop people who steal, get used copies, and the like.
Jesus christ, I get so irritated with people like you. How self-entitled and arrogant can you be? Not everything in life is free and people who work for a living and make something deserve paying for their hard work...

---

"They are trying to double dip. If the game is up for sale in Gamestop, eBay, etc... then that means that someone already bought it new. The pubs and devs have already been paid.

Are you against the First Sale Doctrine?"
You don't understand how sales work do you? You really are clueless to it all and most of us are just arguing with somebody with no concept of how the system works and is just trying to string together some self-entitled crap.

 

[JPH330]

Comparing used games to used cars is retarded.

That is all.

 

[ChristopherT]

I haven't heard of anyone bringing this up yet (and if it's said earlier in this topic, sorry, haven't read all the posts, gotta leave soon, stupid I know.) but why if it's such a big deal to them can't the companies offer to buy their games back used themselves, then they can end up making more money off a single disc by reselling it. It wouldn't be that difficult to do and the game makers would be making the extra bucks from used sales themselves. All they would have to do is setup a system for it through their websites, maybe hire a few extra employees, creates a few more jobs, the customer gets to sell their used games, gets to buy used direct from the company, and the company gets the money, win - win.

 

[bpm195]

It troubles me to see consumers arguing for a business' profit margins. The recurring them in the anti used game argument is that since developers mainly profit on the first sell, it's reasonable for them to attach fees to used sells. From a perspective of being sympathetic to businesses that makes sense, but from a consumers perspective I really have to wonder why any consumer would be sympathetic to businesses.

That said, if they want reward customers by creating extra content that's available for free to people that buy new, that's fine. It's a smart business move that inconveniences used buyers but doesn't trample on anybody's rights. However, when there's a feature on the disc and it's only accessible to the first buyer while all subsequent have to pay a fee, then that's a problem.

The way I see it, there is a clear line drawn when the disc is printed. Whether you buy new or used, when you buy the disc you buy the content of the disc and should be able to access it. It's the difference between what EA did with Rock Band 2 and Tiger Woods PGA Tour 11.

Rock Band 2 included a free license to a certain set of downloadable songs released at a later date; a well played feature that rewarded people who bought new because they were getting something in addition to the disc, that technically doesn't even require RB2 to access.

Tiger Woods PGA Tour 11 on the other hand on the other hand only allowed players to access the online portion of the game when it was purchased new, or if they paid a fee. Online play was included on the disc, so removing it crossed the line.

I wouldn't say my stance is perfect, but it creates a nice middle ground where it's easy to distinguish between the business incentivising new sales and taxing used sales.

 

[Dexiro]

I think the issue is the scale of the profits that are being lost to used sales.
Selling used games shouldn't be banned or anything, it's perfectly normal, but i can understand why developers would want to see a return from it if like more than half of game sales are for used games. That's a big chunk of money they're missing, and considering the rising price of game development they're gonna want some of that chunk back.

I think it'd be good enough if developers got something small like $1 per used game, either through the retailer or consumer. It's not a massive price to pay and it'd add up eventually. Then again DLC already does that job for them.

 

[Dr. HeatSync]

-snip

They are trying to double dip. If the game is up for sale in Gamestop, eBay, etc... then that means that someone already bought it new. The pubs and devs have already been paid.

Are you against the First Sale Doctrine?

After having a look at wiki, it looks like I'm partially correct where I stand, literally, in Europe there is no First Sale Doctrine, and France has the 'Droit de suite' (Right to Follow) where there is the right for the artist to net money from resales. So if Project Ten Dollar is illegal in the U.S. then they employ their survival tool in Europe and other parts of the world.

But then I'd imagine that the weight of the American law would be against EA and the like, as opposed to the audience, and since they've yet to actually feel that weight, that suggests that either no one has looked at it, or theres a loophole.

It might be that the DLC is not considered as part of the product but as a 'giveaway'. The right to use the DLC is given to the individual who purchased the game as an optional bonus, and that right is permanently fixed (and of course, non-transferable) to that user account when the DLC serial code is entered. Someone who buys used gets the base game, but doesn't have the right to use the 'expansion' DLC transferred, and must purchase the right and therefore buy new DLC.

In short, what you have the right to is the base game when buying new, and the free DLC is perhaps seen as a promotional offer as opposed to a purchase. When buying used, you don't buy the rights to the DLC.

This is purely theoretical, but if there was a loophole its probably this. I don't know that much about the American law, but this my suspicion. EA aren't thick, they wouldn't do something that would get them irreversible damage from the law... I think.

As for being against the First Sale Doctrine, honestly I don't know what to think of it. On one hand profit is always good, but on another I personally wouldn't want money if someone got a heavily scratched version of a media, and with used sales nothing is really guaranteed, and I'd feel as though I was ripping someone off, so no I would not be against the doctrine.

If my theory turns out wrong then I guess I have to agree with the Doctrine and what EA are doing is clearly wrong.