Sony moves to ban used games

[Weak Kitten]

Why does it make sense? I can lend a book I own, or a movie. I can resell or even give away used copies of any other type of media.

We're not talking about creating more copies here, we're talking about not really owning the copy of something you have bought with your own money.

I've lent games, books, movies, to friends in the past. Is this harming anyone? Most likely they would not have bought the game even if I hadn't lent it. Many times the game was out of print and they could not have bought it if they wanted to.

And what happens years from now when Sony and the others stop running the authentication servers? Will you never be able to buy one of those old games and play it?

I'm usually a pretty staunch supporter of copyright law but this really seems over the top to even me. Maybe I'd feel different if they were charging a lower "rental price" instead of the full game price, maybe I'd feel better if they offered an "unlocked version" for slightly more. Their current plan, however, just rubs me the wrong way.

[Corsair 115]

The reason the game studios don't like used games is because they don't get a piece of that action. But rather than piss off their customers by banning used games from consoles, the game studios should instead band together and create their own used game distributor. Then they get a piece of the used game action for themselves. If they do it right, they could even conceivably capture much of the used game market for themselves.

If the console makers decide to go this route, either of their own accord or at the behest of the game studios, all it means to me is that I'll end up owning fewer games. I own a number of used games because most games to me are not worth the ~$60 price when new. So I wait until they hit the bargain bin at a big discount or I pick up a used copy. Getting rid of used games isn't going to suddenly make me start shelling out $60 for new games. Which is why I suggest instead of trying to beat used games they should join them.

[Sceptic-PK]

Originally Posted by Weak Kitten

Sometimes yes, sometimes no. There are a few critics I trust but they don't review all the games. Most of the big name review sites and magazines are bought and paid for by the game marketing machine so they are little more than marketing hype (not saying I don't like the pretty pictures but it tells me nothing about the game). Plus because I often like challenging or unusual games I find that mass review scores (like metacritic) usually don't reflect whether I will like a game or not. Betas aren't even an issue, they don't do public betas of console games.

I suppose I could always just wait a few months to find out if people who's opinion I trust liked the game...but then I would have to buy it used anyway because even the big name titles stop putting out copies in a couple of months unless it has "Madden" in the title.

Sorry, but I stand by what I originally posted. There is a wealth of information these days for the discerning consumer. I haven’t bought a stinker in probably 20 years (Rage is an exception, horrible tech issues that took 3 months to fix). It’s not about finding a sole reviewer to trust, but reading a variety of reviews and see what they say (or don’t). I also disagree with the popular myth that reviews are paid for. Definitely there’s too much leverage between publisher and reviewer, but there’s more reviewing sites now than at any stage in the history of gaming. Not everyone gets bought off. Yeah I don’t pay attention to review scores on places like metacritic, but it is a useful collection of links for reviews of whatever you’re looking for.

[Damien Evans]

Originally Posted by NewtonTrino

It ends with software not being distributed on physical media and everything being tied to your account. Steam, iTunes, Windows8 store etc. Everyone is chasing the same model.

When was the last time someone bought an app on disk for their iphone?

Last I checked Iphone apps weren't 20 gigabytes+ each.

[ponderingturtle]

Originally Posted by Sceptic-PK

Read the licensing agreement that (on PC at least) you’re forced to accept before install. I think you’ll find you’re wrong. Same as some developers will prevent you from modifying the code you’ve supposedly purchased via their licensing agreement. I’m not saying it’s right, just that it’s not quite the same.

Funny that you have to pay first then read the agreement.

[ponderingturtle]

Originally Posted by Sceptic-PK

Additionally, game companies provide support to second-hand purchasers effectively for free.

So do car companies with their recalls.

[ponderingturtle]

Originally Posted by Sceptic-PK

In today’s day and age there is absolutely no reason to end up buying a game you don’t like. Sure, there can be technical issues (especially on PC) that you’re unaware of, but between magazine/online reviews, metacritic, youtube, forums, betas etc there’s more than enough information for you to be making an informed decision.

And none of those will tell me if I find some aspect of gameplay annoying.

[Darat]

Originally Posted by joolz

I see things can be different if there's no hard media, but if I sell my tab with the software I've bought and paid for, including games, then would the new owner be expected to pay for it all over again even though it's still the same tab with one user, just a new one?

...snip...

But there is another side to that. When I change my phone or tablet and get a new one all I have to do is log-in to my app store and I have all my apps ready to download again.

[Darat]

The used market has pretty much rendered the old "classic" or "silver" lines rather relevant. (That is when a publisher would re-publish an old game at a "budget" price.) And there used to be significant money to be made in that area.

As others have said I think this "issue" will be rendered meaningless as more and more content is distributed digitally and tied into your account.

[Darat]

Originally Posted by ponderingturtle

And none of those will tell me if I find some aspect of gameplay annoying.

Hence why most companies do produce a demo.

[Darat]

Originally Posted by corbin

Shouldn't this be the game publisher's prerogative, not the console's? After all, they are the ones who stand to gain or lose from the situation.

Console manufacturers charge game-publishers quite hefty licensing fees (which are based on number of units) so they are also hit by the used market.

[ponderingturtle]

Originally Posted by KoihimeNakamura

They aren't precisely legitimate, is the thing. Also, many retailers push used games over new ones because they get more money that way.

I think, though, that the anti-used-game thing makes some sense. It really depends on the fee.

Yep they are a form of theft like renting a DVD. The movie studios tried to make that illegal in the 80's. Of course as I said the legislation the computer software industry had passed at that time probably make all this illegal anyway. Just like the music industry got its protections passed at the same time.

Congress does not care about consumers.

[MRC_Hans]

Originally Posted by Sceptic-PK

In two minds about this issue. I can see the point of view of developers/publishers. Used games sales are the same as piracy, from their perspective.

I'm sorry, but no. Used games are no more piracy than used cars, provided the previous owner can no longer use it, and there are ways to ensure that.

Hans

[Darat]

Originally Posted by ponderingturtle

Yep they are a form of theft like renting a DVD. The movie studios tried to make that illegal in the 80's. Of course as I said the legislation the computer software industry had passed at that time probably make all this illegal anyway. Just like the music industry got its protections passed at the same time.

Congress does not care about consumers.

I thought they succeeded? That's why a typical DVD will have printed on it "Not for rental" and has that repeated when the DVD starts. It's also on the back of the box of the retail version for you to see prior to buying. It will be something like "Unauthorised copying, hiring, lending, public performance, broadcasting of this DVD is prohibited".

The DVD rental companies pay additional fees (and/or a higher unit cost) to the distributor to have the right to rent DVDs.

[Skepticemea]

Originally Posted by Darat

Console manufacturers charge game-publishers quite hefty licensing fees (which are based on number of units) so they are also hit by the used market.

A new dvd costs around £10, a new paperback around £8, a new game £40-50. Game studios/publishers etc are not "losing out" to the secondary market, they're introducing a new model to stop other people "profiting" on their product. How that can consider selling a product on at a markedly reduced rate to the one you purchases the product at "profiting" I've no idea.

It ain't their pie.

[Darat]

Originally Posted by Skepticemea

A new dvd costs around £10, a new paperback around £8, a new game £40-50. ...snip....

Not too sure what the prices are meant to add to your argument?

[Skepticemea]

Originally Posted by Darat

Not too sure what the prices are meant to add to your argument?

Forgive me, it was to highlight a point I neglected to make, which is that games are highly priced and reflect the cost of manufacturing and development. To say that they are losing money from a secondary market whilst this is accepted for movies and books is a tad disingenuous. Perhaps with the advent of e-readers and licensed movie streaming those two will head in the same direction.

[LandR]

Originally Posted by Sceptic-PK

Sorry, but I stand by what I originally posted. There is a wealth of information these days for the discerning consumer. I haven’t bought a stinker in probably 20 years (Rage is an exception, horrible tech issues that took 3 months to fix). It’s not about finding a sole reviewer to trust, but reading a variety of reviews and see what they say (or don’t). I also disagree with the popular myth that reviews are paid for. Definitely there’s too much leverage between publisher and reviewer, but there’s more reviewing sites now than at any stage in the history of gaming. Not everyone gets bought off. Yeah I don’t pay attention to review scores on places like metacritic, but it is a useful collection of links for reviews of whatever you’re looking for.

I dunno, Skyrim got universally great reviews and I thought it was terrible. Complete waste of money. It's clunky, feels old, rubbish combat and tacky dialogue, poor character models, the enemies move in a clunky way.

It seems to be one of the most overrated games of all time.

After being disappointed with most of the big AAA titles, I won't buy another new game at full price without playing a decent demo first.

Uncharted 3, all Call of Duty games, Skyrim, Battlefield 3, GT5 were all pretty poor even Arkham City got a bit boring.

[Darat]

Originally Posted by Skepticemea

Forgive me, it was to highlight a point I neglected to make, which is that games are highly priced and reflect the cost of manufacturing and development. To say that they are losing money from a secondary market whilst this is accepted for movies and books is a tad disingenuous. Perhaps with the advent of e-readers and licensed movie streaming those two will head in the same direction.

Why disingenuous? It's a fact that prior to the maturing of the second-hand market a publisher could look to make quite a bit of money from the re-publishing of games or the licensing of their back-catalogue to a budget-line publisher. (And we are talking potentially millions, so not small change.)

[Sceptic-PK]

Originally Posted by ponderingturtle

And none of those will tell me if I find some aspect of gameplay annoying.

Obviously you're not reading the right reviews then? Seriously, there is no excuse for buying a bad game in 2012. In the old days all we had were a blurb and a screenshot if we were lucky.

[Sceptic-PK]

Originally Posted by LandR

I dunno, Skyrim got universally great reviews and I thought it was terrible. Complete waste of money. It's clunky, feels old, rubbish combat and tacky dialogue, poor character models, the enemies move in a clunky way.

If you'd played say, Daggerfall=>Fallout then none of these issues should have been a surprise. The PC UI is indeed a bit clunky, but takes all of 5 seconds to get used to. First-person melee combat is rarely a joy to behold, so that was certainly not a surprise for me.

Originally Posted by LandR

After being disappointed with most of the big AAA titles, I won't buy another new game at full price without playing a decent demo first.

Sorry, but there was SO much media available before release for Skyrim that I don't see how anyone didn't know what they were paying for.

[Skepticemea]

Originally Posted by Darat

Why disingenuous? It's a fact that prior to the maturing of the second-hand market a publisher could look to make quite a bit of money from the re-publishing of games or the licensing of their back-catalogue to a budget-line publisher. (And we are talking potentially millions, so not small change.)

There is nothing to stop them doing so now, although, considering that a game such as Assassin's Creed: Revelations is available on Amazon for £17.99 when it was released at £40, why is there a need for a budget line? Just drop the price post-release. As I said, disingenuous. Sony are presenting a move to restrict a legitimate secondary market as akin to stopping piracy (ie, "lost profits"). It's about enhancing revenue for Sony as they don't receive a cut of secondary sale.

[Sceptic-PK]

Originally Posted by MRC_Hans

I'm sorry, but no. Used games are no more piracy than used cars, provided the previous owner can no longer use it, and there are ways to ensure that.

Hans

From their perspective were the operative words.

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/20...than-pc-piracy

http://www.gamepolitics.com/2011/05/...t-worse-piracy

[Sceptic-PK]

Originally Posted by ponderingturtle

Funny that you have to pay first then read the agreement.

What's funny about it? It's the nature of the medium. The agreements haven't exactly been a secret for decades or anything.

Originally Posted by ponderingturtle

So do car companies with their recalls.

A rare exception.

[Darat]

Originally Posted by Skepticemea

There is nothing to stop them doing so now, although, considering that a game such as Assassin's Creed: Revelations is available on Amazon for £17.99 when it was released at £40, why is there a need for a budget line? Just drop the price post-release. As I said, disingenuous. Sony are presenting a move to restrict a legitimate secondary market as akin to stopping piracy (ie, "lost profits"). It's about enhancing revenue for Sony as they don't receive a cut of secondary sale.

You are describing the market as it exists today, I was explaining why game developers and publishers did lose out commercially from the maturing of the second hand market.

Also the console manufacturers (not as much as they used to be able to do) dictate price points. At one time you simply couldn't publish a console game at a budget price. Sony was the first to blink (Platinum Range in the UK) but even then they would only initially accept some games for their budget range.

[3point14]

Originally Posted by Sceptic-PK

What's funny about it? It's the nature of the medium. The agreements haven't exactly been a secret for decades or anything.



A rare exception.

Any electronic item with a manufacturer warranty.

My fridge, my guitar, my TV, all my lights, my coffee maker, all of these I can sell on and, if the manufacturer warranty is still in force, the second owner can impliment it.

[Skepticemea]

Originally Posted by Darat

You are describing the market as it exists today, I was explaining why game developers and publishers did lose out commercially from the maturing of the second hand market.

Also the console manufacturers (not as much as they used to be able to do) dictate price points. At one time you simply couldn't publish a console game at a budget price. Sony was the first to blink (Platinum Range in the UK) but even then they would only initially accept some games for their budget range.

I think our difference of opinion on this is largely semantic. You say "losing out", I say "never theirs to lose".

Can you explain what "maturing of the second hand market" means? Although it's a while since I've bought from the highstreet, Ebay and Amazon have been around for donkeys and I'd say the second hand market is suffering a contraction in the UK, especially with the loss of Game from the high street.

[Sceptic-PK]

Originally Posted by 3point14

Any electronic item with a manufacturer warranty.

My fridge, my guitar, my TV, all my lights, my coffee maker, all of these I can sell on and, if the manufacturer warranty is still in force, the second owner can impliment it.

Sure, but you're talking about faulty goods unsuitable for use compared to (mostly) fully-functioning products with a theoretically infinite support window.

[Darat]

Originally Posted by 3point14

Any electronic item with a manufacturer warranty.

My fridge, my guitar, my TV, all my lights, my coffee maker, all of these I can sell on and, if the manufacturer warranty is still in force, the second owner can impliment it.

Not usually, the smallprint will often mention that the warranty is not transferable. (Of course that doesn't change your statutory rights, but those are also significantly diminished in regards to second-hand goods.)

[3point14]

Originally Posted by Darat

Not usually, the smallprint will often mention that the warranty is not transferable. (Of course that doesn't change your statutory rights, but those are also significantly diminished in regards to second-hand goods.)

The smallprint is not enforcable. Hence the disclaimer about statutory rights.

[3point14]

Originally Posted by Sceptic-PK

Sure, but you're talking about faulty goods unsuitable for use compared to (mostly) fully-functioning products with a theoretically infinite support window.

Fair point. Are we talking about support for online games, rather than fixing/replacing products that don't work?

Assuming that's the case, then their business model is broken and they need to charge for the online support and not bitch about someone selling on something they've purchased.

The fact that they think they have the right to tell me what I can and cannot do with the goods I purchase from them does my nut. And yes, I'm aware of the copyright/ip issue, but provided the game is only transferred, not copied, I can't see that they have a leg to stand on. Of course, that means nothing.

[Darat]

Originally Posted by Skepticemea

I think our difference of opinion on this is largely semantic. You say "losing out", I say "never theirs to lose".

Can you explain what "maturing of the second hand market" means? ...snip...

Can't see how a legitimate business stream can't be called "theirs", the market for lower cost/budget ranges was there and it did generate quite a lot of revenue.

Ten years ago there was really no second hand market of any significance at the retail level, over the last 10 years it has become a part of the standard game retailer business (and for the likes of Game a very important part).

Originally Posted by Skepticemea

Although it's a while since I've bought from the highstreet, Ebay and Amazon have been around for donkeys and I'd say the second hand market is suffering a contraction in the UK, especially with the loss of Game from the high street.

Well Game hasn't yet disappeared only contracted but if its retail space isn't replaced by another company that pushes second hand sales as aggressively then the game publishers and the developers will be pleased.

[Sceptic-PK]

Originally Posted by 3point14

Fair point. Are we talking about support for online games, rather than fixing/replacing products that don't work?

Yeah, the former (but not necessarily only online).

Originally Posted by 3point14

Assuming that's the case, then their business model is broken and they need to charge for the online support and not bitch about someone selling on something they've purchased.

Haha yeah, and I am not unsympathetic to those concerns. When Steam was first released I was adament I would never use it and hated it with a passion. Now I think it's the best thing to happen to PC gaming since GFX cards.

Originally Posted by 3point14

The fact that they think they have the right to tell me what I can and cannot do with the goods I purchase from them does my nut.

Agreed. Being a PC gamer though I guess I'm just used to it. Haven't bought a second-hand game in 15 years or so. Of course some developers don't need a right per se, and just do so anyway (Starcraft and presumably Diablo agreements/networks that outlaw mods for instance). It sucks on some levels but I guess that's what widespread piracy has come to.

[fuelair]

Originally Posted by IchabodPlain

As a used game reseller, I am obviously disappointed if true. That said, I've been waiting for something like this to happen. The used game market is horrendously under reported - nevermind gamestop - all the yard sales, craigslist ads, pawn shops, flea markets, estate sales, online venues, etc. I bet that it cuts into their pie quite a bit. Heck, some older games go for hundreds, if not thousands of dollars and the publisher doesn't see a dime. (Ironically, there is usually a correlation between games that sold poorly and price, because there weren't that many originally produced.)

And that said, this is a stupid way to do it. If you're going to piss off someone, do it to distributors: Sell new games online, download them onto massive hard drives or use a cloud service to pay for access for X amount of time. Take half of the savings from packaging costs, shipping, etc. and give the other half to consumers in the form of reduced prices. This removes the transferablity of discs, goes green, and saves the gamer a few bucks.

No offense, but: Heck, some older books (albums, posters, comics.....) go for hundreds, if not thousands of dollars and the publisher doesn't see a dime. (If this occurs, it tends to mean the publisher underproduced the item, developments after the item went out (not a publisher controlled situation) made it much more desirable or some combination. The answer to that is overproduce the item but hold back copies in case the rarity premium kicks in.

If you aren't willing to do that you have no kick when the price jumps in the aftermarket. And you should not be able to set up things that make you different from any other for sale market. Not to mention that the presence of an aftersale market tends to mean that many items of type will be purchased by speculators (and do you really care about that if your immediate cash flow improves?).

[3point14]

Originally Posted by Darat

Can't see how a legitimate business stream can't be called "theirs", the market for lower cost/budget ranges was there and it did generate quite a lot of revenue.

The world has changed and they have lost a revenue stream because, budding little capitalists that we all are, someone has found a better, cheaper way to fill the 'silver' game niche by selilng second hand games.

It's competition, it's how capitalism works. Someone has nicked one of their income streams. This happens to all busitesses, but most simply try to become more competetive. Apparently Sony can't be arsed to do that and want to change the rules of the game to suit themselves.

[Sceptic-PK]

28 viewers in the economics forum? Gotta be this thread surely!

[Darat]

Originally Posted by 3point14

The smallprint is not enforcable. Hence the disclaimer about statutory rights.

Are you confusing warranties with your statutory rights?

Such "small print" is enforceable since warranties are not part of your (purchasing) statutory rights, that is a contract between you and the manufacturer outside of your statutory rights. Some companies do offer transferable warranties (in some areas such as car warranties it is becoming standard practice).

Warranties are often nothing more than a marketing exercise since many do not "give" you anything additional to your statutory rights. Personally I think it's time we stopped allowing warranties to be used in this way. If they want to give you more than you are legally entitled to great but if they don't they shouldn't be able to market it as a warranty.

[Brian-M]

Originally Posted by KoihimeNakamura

They aren't precisely legitimate, is the thing. Also, many retailers push used games over new ones because they get more money that way.

What's not precisely legitimate about them?

I suppose that in some cases you could argue the used PC games might not be precisely legitimate, because there's no way to tell if the original owner deleted the installation from their hard drive, in which case they'd be in violation of copyright law. But this wouldn't apply to console games that are run directly from the disk.

Although, if the games retailers lack the proper permits to buy and sell used goods, I guess you could say they're not exactly legitimate.

Originally Posted by Darat

Why disingenuous? It's a fact that prior to the maturing of the second-hand market a publisher could look to make quite a bit of money from the re-publishing of games or the licensing of their back-catalogue to a budget-line publisher. (And we are talking potentially millions, so not small change.)

I'm pretty sure that second-hand games have been readily available to the general public since the very beginning. If I recall correctly, many of the Atari 2600 games I had as a kid in the 80s were second-hand, and I know my copy of Doom II in the 90s was second-hand. This isn't something that unexpectedly popped up overnight and started depriving the video-game industry of desperately needed funds.

ETA: The only brand-new full-version of a DOS game I ever bought was called Brain-Dead 13. Personally, I liked the outside areas in the demo better better than the areas inside the castle that came with the full version. I never finished it.

Originally Posted by Darat

Hence why most companies do produce a demo.

Ah, demos. Wonderful things. I've just spent an hour or two working my way through all five levels in the Little Space Duo demo. A nice diversion, but I probably won't bother spending the $6.95 (US) for the full 40-level version.

(I often wonder why people are so willing to spend $50 or more on a game, but I don't own a games console, and don't play many games, so I guess I'm not in a position to judge.)

[Darat]

Originally Posted by 3point14

...snip...

The fact that they think they have the right to tell me what I can and cannot do with the goods I purchase from them does my nut. And yes, I'm aware of the copyright/ip issue, but provided the game is only transferred, not copied, I can't see that they have a leg to stand on. Of course, that means nothing.

Long established precedent - companies have been actively enforcing their legal right to limit what you can do when you buy their product for decades. I mentioned the example of DVDs above - you can't rent out your retail purchased copy (and that's the crucial word in this) or broadcast it in any way.

[3point14]

Originally Posted by Darat

Are you confusing warranties with your statutory rights?

Such "small print" is enforceable since warranties are not part of your (purchasing) statutory rights, that is a contract between you and the manufacturer outside of your statutory rights. Some companies do offer transferable warranties (in some areas such as car warranties it is becoming standard practice).

Warranties are often nothing more than a marketing exercise since many do not "give" you anything additional to your statutory rights. Personally I think it's time we stopped allowing warranties to be used in this way. If they want to give you more than you are legally entitled to great but if they don't they shouldn't be able to market it as a warranty.

Yes, sorry, I'm aware of that. Having worked with warranties for years, I'm well aware that they're pretty unnecessary as the sale of goods act covers it. I was being brief. And unclear. Sorry.