Support NeoGAF

[Kai Dracon]

This just in:

Game publishers panic, as after-market videogame resell statistics suggest consumers prefer videogame prices in line with comparable electronic entertainment media such as DVD movies!

"OH SNAP!"


Meanwhile, the development team for Microsoft's Xbox 360 Live Arcade, comments on the issue!

"Oh what a beautiful morning, oh what a beautiful day!"

 

[MattKeil]

how would that work though?

with an online connection?

Something like that. Didn't Sony just patent some technology that would make game discs only work on one PS3 and never on any others? I'd hate to think Sony is so arrogant as to think gamers would put up with something that draconian, but their views on the used market do seem to point to them taking some kind of action against it.

 

[MrSardonic]

The second hand market is obviously a problem for the industry but I think Publishers need to realise videogames are too expensive

.

 

[DarkMage619]

You remind me of that The Simpsons episode where Mr. Burns is holding Lisa's and Bart's puppies in hostage to make them fur coats or something.

Mr. Burns: "Come on, call someone who cares!"

*Mr. Burns hands cell-phone to Bart*

*Bart dials 9-1-1*

Mr. Burns: "Grrr, give it back!"

*Mr. Burns yanks the phone off Bart's hands*

It was LISA, Burns gave the phone to LISA!! Bart would have never thought to call 911.

On to the topic at hand I am not surprised. Companies always want people to pay top dollar for their software. Perhaps instead of strong arming retailers to not resell older games perhaps they can include nicer bonuses for being an early adopter. Also less shovelwave would keep consumers from waiting 10+ months to pick up titles. There are tons of games that come out now I'd refuse to pay top dollar for, but <$20 perhaps.

The Dark One

 

[radioheadrule83]

Sony might be glad to hear that I recently sold my PSP on ebay.
But they might be more glad that I'm going to buy a white one. I don't know if they'd approve if they knew I planned on importing it though.

Whatever. Fuck Sony.

 

[Open Source]

The solution to the problem is easy. You make the license to the software (game) non-transferable. End users will not give a shit and will still trade amongst themselves, which is fine. Retail chains, however, will be scared shitless of the combined might of Sony/MS/Nintendo legal teams and will no longer sell used games, or will have to pay a fee per game to transfer the license for each used game they sell.

 

[truffleshuffle83]

i bought condemned pre owned :lol i thought thats what the thread was about

 

[artful_dodger]

Episodic content in next-gen games > second hand market

 

[Bloodwake]

I don't think Sony is really thinking anything through with this really. Don't they realize that they are releasing the PS3 to a market that has already experienced the 360 (which could be better, but is still pretty damn good) and that is hearing the hype about the new Revolution controller?

Meanwhile, from the Sony camp, we hear they are going to war with the used game market.

Wow.

 

[Panajev2001a]

I think you don't get it. There is no moral rule that says when you sell someone something that when they sell it to someone else they need to pay more money to you. It doesn't matter if it is a piece of software on a disk, or if it is an hdtv. The process and concept is still the same. There is no moral argument for paying a company twice once they have already sold a product. Making or losing money is not a moral issue.

Who said it is moral ? Of course it IS moral and just. Justice is IN THE LAWS, justice is in the legal agreement you sign, justice is in the price you agree to pay if you want to talk about justice in the economic system. That si not my point.

 

[Panajev2001a]

It was LISA, Burns gave the phone to LISA!! Bart would have never thought to call 911.

The Dark One

It was... feck you are right.

I suspected my memory was failing me darn .

 

[Raven.]

The solution to the problem is easy. You make the license to the software (game) non-transferable. End users will not give a shit and will still trade amongst themselves, which is fine. Retail chains, however, will be scared shitless of the combined might of Sony/MS/Nintendo legal teams and will no longer sell used games, or will have to pay a fee per game to transfer the license for each used game they sell.

Excellent idea

 

[cicero]

Yes, some people always buy used, but when it's practically shoved down your throat, many more will be turned to it. It shouldn't be legal to try and sway/convince someone to forgo the new game and take the used one(OH it's got no scratches, it's cheaper, blah blah blah.). Not to mention replacing new games on the stand with used ones. I've stopped going to gs, eb, since their stores have begun to look quite ugly as most shelfspace has been filled with ugly yellow/red pre-owned s/w.

How can you compete when you're thrown off the shelf into a small corner, if not a recent release a remote one, and if the costumer manages to find your title he's swayed to buy used instead?

Only thing they need to do is replace the overt stickers/signs with very small ones on the back, and clean up scratches, and consumers might not even realize they're buying used most of the time, given the vast prominent store space given to it. It is a direct threat to the industry.

ahah. Please do elaborate on your point about how it shouldn't be legal. Why not exactly? And why wouldn't whatever legal standard you apply, if indeed you can actually come up with one with a logical basis, not also apply to ALL used products? Are you proposing some large entity like the MPAA or RIAA be formed for the software/videogame industry that pushes for strict limits on how people use products and how they can be distributed?

All to protect the poor defenseless little publishers though, right?

I'd have no problem with stores reselling games be made illegal, but a person to person transaction should remain legal.

Why not apply those protectionist standards across the board? Why would you stop at person to person transactions? What is the basis for applying it to retailers and not individuals? Why hasn't anyone calling for it to be made illegal responded to the main underlying issue mentioned earlier, that being property rights?

 

[DDayton]

Why not apply those protectionist standards across the board? Why would you stop at person to person transactions? What is the basis for applying it to retailers and not individuals? Why hasn't anyone calling for it to be made illegal responded to the main underlying issue mentioned earlier, that being property rights?

.. because it can't be defended on the grounds of property rights. The only way you can create something like this is to concoct some "special exemption" status for the software industry, or for the software industry to work extra hard to create a bizarre series of gimmicks that force the scenario upon the populace.

As far as the law should be concerned, a copy of a game = a copy of a book = a copy of a movie. There are rules regulating public performance and reproduction of all of those, but nothing about selling off a copy you own. The software industry has tried to create vague "lending-type" licenses before, which claim that you only get to use the software as long as you agree to their terms, but those are generally presumed not to hold up in court. If you purchase a single copy of an item, you are (generally) free to do with it as you please... which is a reason I'm rather annoyed at the "you can't try to reverse engineer" provision tacked in via the DMCA.

 

[Panajev2001a]

Excellent idea

How will user trade amongst themselves ? On e-bay. Sure the same day Lapo can get cocaine easily on e-bay. Amazon ? Tough chance there too.

I think that this would limit the convenience of selling and buying used games for the single owners to the point of making it a hassle really. It would be what big publishers want.

People keep citing "Publishers do what they want", but they forget that corporations by mandate, to be good corporations aim to essentially flawless victory... to provide users with few, cheap to make, expensive to buy content and get them to buy it over and over. They are consumer friendly, IF they decide it is worth them something. The best way to help consumers think "I spend too much on videogames, maybe I should spend my money on something else or just cut-back" is to just let the Games Industry have it their way.... all the way.

This is not conspiracy theory at work: a corporation is an entity that has as its mandate from the shareholders to MAKE money, as much as possible and for as long as possible creating great return for those who invest in it.

 

[Brannon]

They want to charge more, we want to pay less. Fine. If the industry were to die tomorrow just like *that*, it'd be disappointing to me, but there are hundreds of other luxuries I can spend my money on, and for much less.

People keep saying that videogames are a luxury, and it is. If it's too expensive, then don't buy it, simple as that. That statement is going to scare publishers more and more in the coming months, because we might just start to listen to it more...

EDIT; Well, except for Nintendo (their entire catalog cheaply available on Revolution), and to a lesser extent, Microsoft's XBLA system (see, I can give props to MS when it's due). Guess we can see why Sony's up in arms about the whole thing.

 

[Panajev2001a]

They want to charge more, we want to pay less. Fine. If the industry were to die tomorrow just like *that*, it'd be disappointing to me, but there are hundreds of other luxuries I can spend my money on, and for much less.

People keep saying that videogames are a luxury, and it is. If it's too expensive, then don't buy it, simple as that. That statement is going to scare publishers more and more in the coming months, because we might just start to listen to it more...

EDIT; Well, except for Nintendo (their entire catalog cheaply available on Revolution), and to a lesser extent, Microsoft's XBLA system (see, I can give props to MS when it's due). Guess we can see why Sony's up in arms about the whole thing.

they will just have to use their Connect platform, enahnce it and offer their own micro-transactions based services as well as an XBLA like system.

Man, I was one of the people that thought the Live Arcade thing on XBOX was not going to work well, but on XBOX 360 they have integrated very well in the system itself and got a lot of HOT content for it (and are getting much more IMHO). I guess on XBOX it really was just a teaser preview of things to come on XBOX 360 and a way to work out the little technial problems.

 

[ziran]

the only solution i can think of is some kind of agreement between publishers and retailers. like no 2nd hand until 3 months after the release. perhaps even give incentives to do so. i doubt anyone can stop the 2nd hand market (especially privately) but this way is perhaps a reasonable compromise to limit it for a while.

still, imo retail is too expensive and for another example of europe, gba game prices are crazy, pokemon emerald is £35 which is over $60!
http://www.hmv.co.uk/hmvweb/displayProductDetails.do?ctx=-1;6;39;-1&sku=395998

 

[Polari]

Practically every other industry has to put up with second hand sales. The Sony should stop whining and deal with it. Want to curb second hand sales? Lower your prices.

Definitely encourages me to buy second hand though, if only out of spite.

 

[Player101]

I mostly only buy cheap/used games. I just cant afford full priced games. I wait 6 months and the price drops by as much as 70%. Once you get used to the time difference, its alright

Just recently I got Ninja Gaiden for AU$17, which is like US$9. with the "custom" exchange rates they price the games round here.

 

[Player101]

every single person I know that has a PSP has been illegally copying games on to their memory card. They haven't bought a single game yet. Does Sony think that THIS is caused by used game prices?
No way.
It's caused by the software being too expensive in the first place. You can sit there and say "oh well it costs a lot to make the games".. well that's tough then since people don't care how much it costs to make the games, they only care about how much money they can afford to spend on them.
And the amount of money people can afford to spend has nothing to do with the perception caused by used games- it's caused by having to pay for expensive hardware and then having to pay again for a game which is expensive.
It's not the consumers duty to pay for games. It's the publishers duty to make us want to pay for games- and right now we want to pay less. That is how business works and I don't see why the videogame industry should be treated differently than any other business.

Perhaps your friends could consider some other hobbies? more within their price range... say like playing Rock Paper Scissors