Why does the games industry think it is special regarding used games?

[woodaba]

Reselling used product has existed since the dawn of the free market. We can buy used cars, used DVDs, used CDs (they're being phased out because of digital downloads, of course, but the point stands) and pretty much every other non-edible product under the sun can be resold and bought by another individual.

And yet, only the gaming industry seems to think that used product is this massive evil that must be destroyed. Why? I don't see my TV demanding that I sign in once every 24 hours to make sure I'm being a good customer. I don't have to buy an online pass if I want to access the special features of my DVDs. My PC doesn't have a maximum of five users registered on it before it locks up completely and demands I buy a new one. Why is the games industry exclusive in it's hatred of the pre-owned market? Why, in short, do they think they're so damn special?

 

[Requia]

This is actually endemic throughout the software industry. DRM was adopted not because of its effect at combating piracy (ha!) but to cripple used sales.

Consoles, which aside from a couple handhelds have always had fairly effective anti-piracy measures thanks to being consoles, didn't benefit. Now they're trying to extend the anti right of first sale policy to consoles, but they're getting pushback because they can't mask it behind blaming pirates.

 

[Orange12345]

Not that I agree with used game DRM in any way but, industries like music and movies and other avenues of income like movie theaters, live shows, radio, tv deals, streaming, etc while games only really have one and that's sales. So the game industry is "special" in a way since used games do hurt it's bottom line

 

[Able Seacat]

Both TotalBiscuit and Jim Sterling bring up good points for both sides of the argument.

Spoiler: TotalBiscuit

Spoiler: Jimquisition

 

[Aeshi]

Because unlike all the examples you've mentioned (which are Physical), Games are Software, and therefor much less susceptible (if not unaffected by) to wear-and-tear. A copy of a game that's been used by somebody else for 8 years works just as well as one that's never had its case opened before.


To companies that make Physical products (like Cars), the Used market is a competitor that offers slightly worse/damaged versions of their products at lower prices[footnote]Plus, said used products usually need some form of maintenance, allowing them to still make money off of the used sales.[/footnote]

To companies that make Software products (like Games), the Used market is a competitor that can always offer the exact same product in the exact same condition at lower prices no matter what (and unlike Pirates, they can do so legitimately)

 

[Username Redacted]

And yet, only the gaming industry seems to think that used product is this massive evil that must be destroyed. Why?

Because the court system(s) let them. I have to imagine that if other industries could be as restrictive about the reselling of their products as the game industry in theory can they would. In short I wouldn't be surprised if 10 years from now you license furniture from Ikea rather than buying it.

 

[woodaba]

Because unlike all the examples you've mentioned (which are Physical), Games are Software, and therefor much less susceptible (if not unaffected by) to wear-and-tear. A copy of a game that's been used by somebody else for 8 years works just as well as one that's never had its case opened before.


To companies that make Physical products (like Cars), the Used market is a competitor that offers slightly worse/damaged versions of their products at lower prices[footnote]Plus, said used products usually need some form of maintenance, allowing them to still make money off of the used sales.[/footnote]

To companies that make Software products (like Games), the Used market is a competitor that can always offer the exact same product in the exact same condition at lower prices no matter what (and unlike Pirates, they can do so legitimately)

Discs can be scratched incredibly easily, rendering the game partially or completely unplayable. I bought 3 different used copies of Spec Ops: The Line at multiple used games retailers before I just bought it on steam. Used discs are an inherently riskier proposition than new discs. I would argue that your point is therefore moot.

 

[Requia]

Because unlike all the examples you've mentioned (which are Physical), Games are Software, and therefor much less susceptible (if not unaffected by) to wear-and-tear. A copy of a game that's been used by somebody else for 8 years works just as well as one that's never had its case opened before.


To companies that make Physical products (like Cars), the Used market is a competitor that offers slightly worse/damaged versions of their products at lower prices[footnote]Plus, said used products usually need some form of maintenance, allowing them to still make money off of the used sales.[/footnote]

To companies that make Software products (like Games), the Used market is a competitor that can always offer the exact same product in the exact same condition at lower prices no matter what (and unlike Pirates, they can do so legitimately)

Books, music, and movies are subject to used sales.

 

[Requia]

And yet, only the gaming industry seems to think that used product is this massive evil that must be destroyed. Why?

Because the court system(s) let them. I have to imagine that if other industries could be as restrictive about the reselling of their products as the game industry in theory can they would. In short I wouldn't be surprised if 10 years from now you license furniture from Ikea rather than buying it.

Cars won't. They pretty much rely on used sales, because new car buyers (at least, the kind that buy a *lot* of new cars, which are who the manufacturer cares about most), use the used car sale in order to afford not only more new cars, but more expensive new cars (essentially constant rolling car loans, when they pay the first new car off they trade it in for a better car with the same car payment). And since dealers make a lot of money off used cars, it lets the manufacturer keep more of the revenue of new car sales, without putting pressure on the dealers (without whom the manufacturers are fucked).

Source: I used to work for Chrysler (the actual company, not a dealer).

 

[aba1]

Not that I agree with used game DRM in any way but, industries like music and movies and other avenues of income like movie theaters, live shows, radio, tv deals, streaming, etc while games only really have one and that's sales. So the game industry is "special" in a way since used games do hurt it's bottom line

Sorta I have heard this argument before but if that was the case then all it would take is for a company to open a alternative. If there was no other way to get your games outside buying them then it would be easy to cash in on a alternative way to get games as it would fill a much needed niche but since nobody is doing it I suspect it is not a good road to go down. It would be so easy to have a netflix service for games or a temporary usage for titles creating a rental service.

 

[aba1]

Because unlike all the examples you've mentioned (which are Physical), Games are Software, and therefor much less susceptible (if not unaffected by) to wear-and-tear. A copy of a game that's been used by somebody else for 8 years works just as well as one that's never had its case opened before.


To companies that make Physical products (like Cars), the Used market is a competitor that offers slightly worse/damaged versions of their products at lower prices[footnote]Plus, said used products usually need some form of maintenance, allowing them to still make money off of the used sales.[/footnote]

To companies that make Software products (like Games), the Used market is a competitor that can always offer the exact same product in the exact same condition at lower prices no matter what (and unlike Pirates, they can do so legitimately)

Discs can be scratched incredibly easily, rendering the game partially or completely unplayable. I bought 3 different used copies of Spec Ops: The Line at multiple used games retailers before I just bought it on steam. Used discs are an inherently riskier proposition than new discs. I would argue that your point is therefore moot.

I was thinking the same thing if you were using a game every single day like a car it would get worn out very quickly. Kids do this to DVD's all the time because kids in particular love to watch the same thing over and over hundreds of times.

 

[Comocat]

Because unlike all the examples you've mentioned (which are Physical), Games are Software, and therefor much less susceptible (if not unaffected by) to wear-and-tear. A copy of a game that's been used by somebody else for 8 years works just as well as one that's never had its case opened before.


To companies that make Physical products (like Cars), the Used market is a competitor that offers slightly worse/damaged versions of their products at lower prices[footnote]Plus, said used products usually need some form of maintenance, allowing them to still make money off of the used sales.[/footnote]

To companies that make Software products (like Games), the Used market is a competitor that can always offer the exact same product in the exact same condition at lower prices no matter what (and unlike Pirates, they can do so legitimately)

I would counter that a video game is an experience and that experience is in one sense really only relevant for a limited time window, thus justifying a reduced price point. For example, Mass Effect 3 got the whole internet into a tizzy in April of 2012, but try to be that one guy posting a "Hey about that ME3? in June 2013. The value of a video game decreases because while it still is fun, its less relevant culturally. $60 dollars makes sense to play the latest installment of CoD, but it doesnt make sense to pay full price for a 2 year old iteration of the same title, few (if the servers are even up) are playing CoD 2011. I still have a copy of the original Final Fantasy for the NES, nobody really cares about that game outside of collectors because its 20 years old. Is Square losing money if I decide to sell it on Ebay rather than someone buying a copy through the nintendo e-store?

There should be an incentive to buy a video game new as a opposed to saving money on a used copy. Video games are unique in that there can be a easy 2 way interaction between developers and consumers enhancing the user experience and justifying the new price tag. For example GearBox has their developers hop in multiplayer matches of Borderlands around the time of release, making playing (and buying the game immediately) potentially rewarding.

 

[DoPo]

Discs can be scratched incredibly easily, rendering the game partially or completely unplayable.

Still not comparable to physical products. Cars get damaged...well, "worn out" more like it, simply by using them. Disks do not. Sure, by using a disk a lot, you get increased chance of you dropping it, scratching it, the dog chewing it, etc, but the same can be said about cars - by driving it a lot you risk getting in a car crash. The disk itself still doesn't wear out on it's own, it requires minimal maintenance to be in what can equate to mint condition. Disks to not have a limited life span - how many cars are around that are really old? How much money do you need to spend on maintaining old CDs?

And talking software, you are surely ignorant if that is your argument.

Why? I don't see my TV demanding that I sign in once every 24 hours to make sure I'm being a good customer.

If you're not being a "loyal customer" of TV what are you doing? Watching used TV shows or something?

I don't have to buy an online pass if I want to access the special features of my DVDs.

Yet you have to buy a new DVD if "director's cut" or the like come out. But I don't think you can make an argument equating the film industry and DLC as the two are just not the same. Moreover - region locked DVDs. Furthermore, selling DVDs is not the only source of revenue for movies. Far from it.

My PC doesn't have a maximum of five users registered on it before it locks up completely and demands I buy a new one.

Funny, you say that - tell me, have you tried to lend your Windows copy to others? Or have you tried sharing Photoshop with 5 people? I thought so. And you were saying? You're comparing different things.

Why is the games industry exclusive in it's hatred of the pre-owned market? Why, in short, do they think they're so damn special?

Why do you think they think they are special? Because I do see that elsewhere in the software industry.

 

[woodaba]

Fucked up post, please ignore.

 

[DoPo]

And talking software, you are surely ignorant if that is your argument.

Well, since software cannot be resold, and I never even brought up reselling digitally downloaded,[/quote]

Games are software. Now sit down and recover from the shock. Also, Windows and Photoshop come in disks...well, mostly, that is, things have started shifting around over the last few years but you can still buy them on disks. But most importantly - who cares if you didn't specifically say "software"? Arguing over what exact word you did or didn't use is meaningless - I can just as well point out you didn't specifically exclude it either. The meaning you conveyed was that the games industry was somehow special in that regard. It's in the title - that is what you said. And you are wrong in that regard. As part of the software industry it really isn't.

 

[CannibalCorpses]

Because unlike all the examples you've mentioned (which are Physical), Games are Software, and therefor much less susceptible (if not unaffected by) to wear-and-tear. A copy of a game that's been used by somebody else for 8 years works just as well as one that's never had its case opened before.


To companies that make Physical products (like Cars), the Used market is a competitor that offers slightly worse/damaged versions of their products at lower prices[footnote]Plus, said used products usually need some form of maintenance, allowing them to still make money off of the used sales.[/footnote]

To companies that make Software products (like Games), the Used market is a competitor that can always offer the exact same product in the exact same condition at lower prices no matter what (and unlike Pirates, they can do so legitimately)

I would agree with that if it wasn't for things like season passes. They created a way to make the second hand product lower quality and value, just like the car analogy you used, and still they want more. Used games also drop in price over time as the software on the disc becomes out of date and even though the game still works, it's a complete bag of crap compared to the modern versions of it.

 

[woodaba]

lots of stuff

Goddammit, I had lots of stuff written down in reply to this. And then my incompetence led to it's deletion. Wonderful. Let me summarize my points.

-Maintenance costs do not validate resale, and vice versa.
-Dismissing any comparisons to non-software products is dumb because it essentially means that software and games companies can get away with whatever the fuck they want because there is no point of comparison.
-Don't be a dick.
-You're proving my point with the TV thing. The idea of a company checking up on you to make sure you are being a good little customer would be hilarious if it weren't taken so seriously by major corporations.
-Straight to DVD movies do make the vast majority of their income from DVD sales, and I don't see Birdemic omitting characters unless I buy an online pass
-Director's Cuts are not equatable to online passes. They are more akin to expansion packs.
-Some software is not restricted, and does let you share with others.
-The level of DRM in the software industry is miniscule compared to the games industry. Windows 8 does not cease functioning unless you are connected to the internet.

 

[Rofl Harris]

snip

I don't think the games industry are "exclusive in their hatred of the pre-owned market", I suspect a lot of industries would be happy to be able to close off some or all of the secondary market of their products. The difference with games is that they actually have the technology to implement blocks on use if sold on.

If I buy a physical book, there's no real way (short of legislating to ban it) to stop me selling it on to someone else. When I buy digital books on my Kindle, I can't give them to my friend when I'm done with them without giving them my device. Music is largely the same too.

There's another factor too which is different; people turn-over used games more than films and music in my opinion. If you're just interested in watching a movie once, there's the option of the cinema whereas people are far more likely to buy a game, finish it then sell it because they're not likely to play it again. People hold on to music and movies longer term I think.