Sony to disallow resell or renting of PlayStation games after initially supporting it
quad damage
Sony to disallow resell or renting of PlayStation games after initially supporting it?
I hope this article is wrong!
Just as the launch date of PlayStation 4 comes closer, Sony has surprised potential customers by updating their Software Usage Terms to disallow resell or renting of all PlayStation games unless authorized by them and the publisher in case it is not Sony.
http://www.neowin.net/news/sony-to-disallow-resell-or-renting-of-playstation-games-after-initially-supporting-it?utm_content=buffer2b75e&utm_source=buffer&utm_medium=facebook&utm_campaign=Buffer
Ahh nope its all over the net - https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=Sony+to+disallow+resell+or+renting+of+PlayStation+games&oq=Sony+to+disallow+resell+or+renting+of+PlayStation+games&aqs=chrome..69i57.438j0j4&sourceid=chrome&espv=210&es_sm=122&ie=UTF-8
I hope this article is wrong!
Just as the launch date of PlayStation 4 comes closer, Sony has surprised potential customers by updating their Software Usage Terms to disallow resell or renting of all PlayStation games unless authorized by them and the publisher in case it is not Sony.
http://www.neowin.net/news/sony-to-disallow-resell-or-renting-of-playstation-games-after-initially-supporting-it?utm_content=buffer2b75e&utm_source=buffer&utm_medium=facebook&utm_campaign=Buffer
Ahh nope its all over the net - https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=Sony+to+disallow+resell+or+renting+of+PlayStation+games&oq=Sony+to+disallow+resell+or+renting+of+PlayStation+games&aqs=chrome..69i57.438j0j4&sourceid=chrome&espv=210&es_sm=122&ie=UTF-8
Replies
http://legaldoc.dl.playstation.net/ps3-eula/psn/e/e_tosua_en.html
didn't think legal TOS documents used "you," and "your" to describe the consumer and the rights. Maybe I'm wrong and dumb.
http://uk.playstation.com/legal/detail/item655893/Software-Usage-Terms/
As for EULA and TOS, its nearly always been explained that games are software and that as such it is licensed not owned by the individual. Eventually what you will see is a rush towards more PC centric platforms in the coming years.
Agreed. When you truly realise how much places like CEX and GAME are making off this you understand why its necessary. Why should a company make millions and build a business model around reselling your software....?
I smell a large shitstorm though.
Edit. Upon further research it looks like these terms were only updated for the UK.
"You won't be given a refund." - Well, unless you're looking for a $5-15 refund, in which case it's cheaper to just give you the money because it costs us $30 to fight it.
"You can't sell any of your games." Except that you've all pretty much got right of first sale anyway, and we saw what happened when Microsoft tried to actually implement anything of that nature... You know what, go ahead.
I don't intend to look into a PS4 for a year or two anyway, but I can't say I'm too worried given this alone.
Also:
http://news.softpedia.com/news/PlayStation-4-Owners-Can-Resell-Their-Own-Games-Sony-Confirms-399048.shtml
I am not sure you can apply the first sale doctrine to software. Rather, theres a key difference... with software you can sell or give away the physical media disc which holds the software, but the license to use it does not necessarily transfer with it.
Imagine going to a yard sale, and some guy has a bunch of old used cds with Autodesk software installed on them. Sure he can pawn off the disc, but if that buyer tries and or expects to use the software thats not licensed to them, then theres a problem. The first sale doctrine wont help them, nor should it. (there is actually a court case regarding such an event, the software company won).
As such, there is a bit of an honor system in play with console games, you can do whatever you want (outside of making copies) with the medium, but usage on the software level is not supposed to be done by another.
This means that the consumer who is embracing this used game lifestyle is pushing developers/publishers to tack on account locked games, key passes, online only activation... as well as DLC which will be locked unless you purchase it new or cough up more doh. Not very consumer friendly, but thats the action used games are forcing publishers to take.
No matter what, used game sales will have to be limited through other forms of consumer and content control, or a migration to a platform that doesnt allow used games, aka PC.
this. doesnt look like any of those articles are anything but speculation and semantics.
PC gaming were not always "ok with no used game sales"
We used to be able to trade/resell PC games easily. It fell out of fashion due to a variety of factors: none of which included any desire by end-users to shirk used-games and buy new to support the devs.
The first step was CD-Key DRM. While most people could just write down each other keys to pirate off of each other, buying used meant transferring of actual ownership. Unfortunately, unlike console games that had no keys and no installs, there was no way to trust a seller was legitimately handing over their game with all the CD-keys.
This was extra bad for multiplayer games. Second-hand shops eventually dropped PC games for this reason.
Price was also important. This is more recent, but anybody who is happy with Steam these days is probably also happy with some very good sales. With many PC games representing new game prices that well and truly compete with used console game prices - it is incredibly easy to 'forget' that there could be an even cheaper used pc game price, as the new price is already pretty good.
So why haven't PC gamers gotten up in arms about silently losing access to used-games? Piracy. It's just so easy on PC. If they don't want to pay for new, don't want to worry about untrustworthy resellers, can't find an old game, or whatever, they will get what they want by piracy.
I say all of this because it annoys me greatly that those who want to do away with used-games on consoles use PC gaming as a leading example. When PC gaming was never a bastion of righteousness and never willingly did away with used-games for the sake of developer goodwill. The platform itself is different than console and cannibalised that market. That market simply shifted, but not necessarily where they wanted it to.
Considering someone had to buy the game in the first place, this is a load of bullshit. Maybe I'm biased as I have my own used store selling vintage items, but I wouldn't be able to afford most games if I couldn't buy used copies.
Nothing has changed. It's just the usual legal faff.
Hell, even digital versions are getting into problems with that, especially in the EU, where the First-sale doctrine is getting approved by the courts.
Software is in the same boat as other products, except maybe they don't degrade as much. On the other hand, they get outdated faster (as tech advances). One sold used sofa, affects the industry just as much as one sold used software, or maybe even more, since you actually waste more money on a unsold sofa, then a unsold COPY of a software.
EDIT: The best way to solve it is to allow the sale, but do it in their 'house'. Just like ZBrush allows transfers of their licenses, and Steam working on sharing/trading games.
I'd argue that degradation isn't just physical, but also practical. In the used market, games get outdated so quickly that their value degrades to less than half in one year, and to around one-tenth in two years (and the new market isn't far behind). Digital copies almost never seem to mirror real market value, it's like publishers are trying to artificially inflate market value by enforcing higher prices than the real market would reflect.
I think publishers are trying to make money from people that are willing to spend $54.99 on a recently released used game, where they currently receive nothing.
There's probably a good middle ground between the current used sales model and everything moving to no resale at all.
Any ideas? That sounds like an oxymoron.
Gamefly
You are indeed biased, and its easy to understand why. I can understand the desire to confirm a bias that results in positive emotional response, in this case an individuals desire to keep something good coming their way while assuming or not wanting to believe its not having any negative impact. We see this in all facets of life, from those getting great bonuses and pensions or the demand for more when it technically results in less for others.
Objectively, used games however and the industry that formed up around them, is verifiably worse than piracy to the developer/publisher. There were a few gamasutra articles and a game business report awhile back which pointed towards the fact that of all the publishers losses, around 75% of that is from the used game market.
Now you would think Piracy would be high in north america right? On a list detailing where piracy is at its highest, both the US and Canada were closer to the bottom than top of this list. Why? A lot of it has to do with accessibility. Piracy is rampant in areas where the product is neither accessible or is for some reason beyond purchasing (see software prices in new zealand).
Thus, you have to understand that where used games are concerned, unlike with piracy, there exist an actual market in which to purchase the game. This means its been localized and being distributed officially. It also means that buyers of the software are willing to give money for the software, where as pirates are not necessarily consumers....used game buyers are.
So when you are willing to give money for something, you become a consumer, and if you give it to someone that is not the creator or rights holder of that software then you are literally causing them to lose out on revenue. Its like doing a piece of artwork, posting a picture of it online to show it off, and find out someone else is selling prints of your work for money that you will never get. The pirate is not a consumer though (most cases), no money is changing hands and thus no sales are even lost.
Used games have always existed in one form or another, this is true. Back then though, games cost far less to make and often the pain of copying and playing used games were not always worth it. For example, in one game I remember playing, I think it was lemmings or monkey island, you had a 100+ page game manual, and on each page was a set of codes. When ever you ran the software, it would ask for a specific code on a specific page, it was random which code they would want.
Consoles didnt have this problem, but their cost for making games was low as well and few stores would actually have used. When you did see them, they were usually in a small bin in the corner.
Today, games require more people and higher cost to make, more technology is required including but not limited to licensing middle ware and game engines, software used to make the assets...ect Certain retailers actually put effort into creating an industry around maximizing and marketing the used game side, not the new, because with that they can make far more revenue. This is why when you go to a retailer now, even BestBuy and GameStop, the majority of their inventory space is used games, not new. Where used would be hard to find in a little bin in the corner, you now have 70% of the shelf being used to sell and promote used, with the new stuff shoved off in a corner or behind a counter.
Used games are so profitable for retailers (not publishers or developers) that you even notice a dwindling selection of PC games being sold new. GameStop and other retailers used to have an equal sized selection of new PC titles. Now GameStop wont even stock new pc games, or the few that new have maybe 10-15 off on some side shelf and none of them are current. BestBuy (from my experiences so far) used to have two entire rows dedicated to new pc games, now not even one full row, but a small shelf hidden past all the console peripherals. Its a growing trend because they are going to maximize on what gives them the most profit, not what actually is good for the industry.
So its a fallacy to think that because a used game has come from a new one at one point, that its all ok and that profit was still made for the developer. It is simply not true, nor is it bullshit. Retailers dont want new, they will get enough to fill their stores with used, but at that point they will just push used. Neither will they restock new, but they will however price their used games close to new prices. As such Publishers have very little incentive to really polish games before they send them out... why? they only make money really within the first month of release, after that point they assume their games will have been flooded used, and those gamers who come in after will just buy used instead of new. Its still a lost sale, but the retailer benefits more.
Publishers started selling DLC and forced online features (including tacked on multiplayer, even for games where it makes no sense) because the DLC can get them some revenue from used game buyers (why its often priced so high) and multiplayer or online activation cuts down on the rate at which they go onto shelves used. This is not necessarily good for the consumer.
Used games also discourage certain types of games from being made. Single player narrative driven games are recycled far more than any other genre. Why would a publisher want to invest in another rpg or single player game? It only causes them to lose out more, instead its safer for them to just pump out another military FPS game with a bigger focus on multiplayer aspects. Thats also not good for the consumer. We lose out on the types of genres we used to enjoy.
Quantic Dream's co-founder Guillaurme de Fondaumiere estimates his studio lost between $6.8 to $13.7 million dollars worth in royalties because of second hand sales for their game Heavy Rain.
Heavy rain, in case you are not familiar with it, is an award winning narrative driven single player title. It is an amazing game, it can be played within a couple days and once you experience the story there is probably no replay value. Yet more people paid for the game used than they did for it new, many have played it, praised it, yet how many really actually paid for copies that reward the developers and their small studio? Not many.
See often times the developers are stuck making ends meet, or have to be tied to the publisher for constant funding because their studios on their own never can make enough to be truly independent. Buying used doesnt help, and it doesnt reward the developer for making certain genres.
All of this, this used game narrative, leads right back into the appeal of PC gaming and the success of Steam as a distribution platform, one which takes out the retailer's used practice. As such, it wasnt that long ago that Fallout New Vegas was being sold on steam for $2.50 as part of a promotion, one in which the new Tomb Raider game was going for 40% of its retail price, far less than you would find it new or used at a retailer. The key is that even with these lower prices, the publisher and developer still get rewarded for each copy sold.
Its not just about greed or profit for profit sake, its about keeping jobs and helping the studios that make it happen grow, rather than merely survive project to project.
Some of us have whats known as a normalcy bias concerning used games. We are so used to it, its become a normal way of life that its probably hard to look at what kind of impact they are having in any objective manner. Used games are worst than piracy, and made worse not by the actual losses incurred, or the type of drm and practices it pushes the publisher to adopt, but also because at the end of the day, the consumer (unlike the pirate) is willing to give money for something (software) and if that money isnt going back to the people who made it, then its no different than theft.
Services like GOG show that you can still bring in revenue with older titles, and I agree there should be some leniency for older physical copies (PS1, PS2 games for example), but with current gen games...they are just being exploited beyond belief. One could argue its the consumer that is greedy, wanting more for less, often demanding or expecting such, without thought or care about who and what makes that game happen to begin with. If the game is an escape mechanism, a coping mechanism which is constantly consumed at a high rate, sure the addiction will be stronger along with the demand.
Anyways the used game market, as it stands cannot sustain itself, it will be addressed eventually, it has to, if not this generation (both microsoft and sony were prepared to do it) (sony patented tech to prevent used games causing gamestop shares do drop drastically when it was found out), then it will be the next.
Gabe Newell and Valve see this direction, and will be pushing the steambox which can easily start taking over as a primary game console without a used game market to cannibalize it.
"Times They are a-Changin"- Bob Dylan
It wasn't perfect, but Microsoft's original xbox one policies might have worked. It seemed to regulate used game sales with their retail partners in a way that would've seen money going back to publishers and hopefully developers.
Really though, with everything moving to digital it'd be a temporary solution, and might not be worth discussing anyway. Maybe a rental system makes sense? Right now, I can rent a movie for 3-5 bucks and watch it once or I can pay 20 bucks and watch it whenever I want forever. I'd be curious to see how that would work for microsoft or sony to have game rentals integrated directly into their system.
The Witcher 2 cost $10.3 million to make, and it's a AAA quality game. Witcher 3 is budgeted at $30 million.
Tomb Raider, Hitman, and Sleeping Dogs are all considered a financial failure to Square Enix. As of last march Sleeping Dogs has sold an estimated 1.75 million copies, followed by Tomb Raider at 3.4 million and Hitman at 3.6 million (not counting digital sales). Reports say Tomb Raider needed 5 million sales just to break even.
There's just unrealistic expectations and inflated budgets.
As discussed in great length, those numbers do not count digital downloads. Sales numbers are still physical sales right now. http://www.gamespot.com/articles/tomb-raider-fails-to-reach-sales-target/1100-6405929/
But yeah when you have to pay A-list celebs to be in your commercial spots and that means you need another 25 million copies sold, that's just dumb.
As for reselling games, I don't have a problem with it right now as it is. I suspect we'll see a hybrid sales structure somewhere in the future.
I definitely agree with you on the advertising budgets. One of my favorites was the set of life sized bronze statues commissioned by Bethesda for Skyrim's release. Granted they knew they'd make money, but... really? The same goes for live-action trailers. The funny thing is that many of those media stunts reach a tiiiiiiiiiiny percentage of the audience.
I'm sure he has no incentive to make up numbers, especially when those numbers are purely speculative. There's no evidence that they lost anything and the range he gives is so large that's it's pretty obvious that he has no idea. The hens should never ask the wolf advice on how to avoid becoming his dinner.
I'm pretty sure that is not the definition of a consumer. In fact, a quick search on Google gives us this definition: "a person who purchases goods and services for personal use." Clearly, you're inserting your own definition. That's not a very good foundation for an effective argument. So your rationale on the "loss" of revenue is specious at best. And your analogy isn't very convincing either. You're treading a slippery slope with that one. First off, you aren't owed money on something you did just because others are making money on it. The world is full of instances of people using the fruits of other people's labors to profit without compensating them and there's absolutely nothing wrong about it, legally or morally. Used cars* are a colloquial example. People sell their cars all the time and nobody reasonably entertains any complaints that sales of used cars are wrongfully displacing sales of new cars, thus denying them of potential revenue. By your logic, everyone that makes goods that are resold by the consumer is guilty of making them lose revenue. Literally? I don't think so, not even close.
In your example, the person posted the image on the internet, which is functionally no different than giving a copy of the image to every person that passes by you on the street and then you're upset that someone sold copies of the image you essentially gave to them? Honestly, you did it to yourself. You made it available, regardless of your intent or the law. You put the image out there and enabled that person to copy it and make prints. That's your fault, not the copier's. It's really odd that people get upset about people copying works and/or profiting from it. The whole industry follows a business model that relies on the copyright holder being the only one capable of making copies. That's just not reality however. Anybody can make a copy of anything, easily. The tools are ubiquitous. They say insanity is doing the same thing over and over, expecting different results. It's insane to build your business around a model that only works when others can't copy. Used games are merely the path of least resistance for most consumers, but the industry insists on taking the path of greatest resistance and demands the rest of us change in order to sublimate to their wishes. People buy games used because they don't agree with the retail price. It's that simple. When people buy a used game, they are saying that your price is too high. The people that will pay regardless already bought the retail copy. You can't force people pay your price, they will pay the price they are willing to accept. If there is no alternative they would likely just go without.
You can't make money using the retail model because copying is so easy? Clearly, it's the wrong model. Change it. You really should stop blaming the world for the mistakes of an industry that can't adapt to the way the world is. If you want people to stop buying used, you're going to have to offer them something more appealing than used. Blaming GameStop and gutting the used market with vindictive tactics isn't doing the industry any favors. The basis of any business is to convince people to buy your goods, not punish them for going to a competitor.
*Yes, cars wear out and games don't. Nevertheless, they both depreciate in value over time when demand for them declines and that's what really matters.
TL;DR
If you can't make it despite the used market, you're doing wrong.
If we wish to argue that games are costing too much to make and thus have unrealistic expectations, then the answer is simply to spend less on games and have a smaller scope in the process. Of course what this means is that developers will get paid less, there will be smaller teams meaning less jobs, those who are working will probably have to wear multiple hats (not specialize as much), and even development times may decrease. Anyone up for a pay cut and more competition in the job market? Maybe less next gen graphics, and roll back expectations for tools used and quality of assets. Not a pretty picture.
If the cost goes up to make a game, bigger teams, bigger scope, more pay, then naturally we have to assume the games are also reaching a larger audience, we also have to assume that the larger audience is equal to larger new game sales, without that then there will certainly be problems in expectations.
Just call him a liar and get it over with, thats essentially what you are doing. Must be a lot of liars in the game industry then right? All those developers who are saying they are losing out are just making it up right?
Do you have a bias that wants to assume or protect the idea that used games are ok?
So you think studios should just barely make it? You are offering a straw man by implying that any of this is about "just making" despite a used game market. Why bother making a good game if its just about "just making" it? I think thats a good message to send if you want people to leave the industry and look for more rewarding lines of work, but I do not think your attempt to simplify it as "just making it" is an intellectually honest way to look at it.
If the used game market keeps going strong it will just mean certain genres will be made over others, more drm and online activation will occur, and publishers will focus on platforms that do not have such losses associated with them. If you want that, then by all means keep promoting that line of thought.
Surely the reverse can be true. That many of the doom-and-gloomers could be trying as best they can to express their dire straits, truths or not?
I think part of the difficulty in these discussions is that we're using business analytics against consumer psychology. As in: all those losses business usually complain about have no actual evidence (with exception to stuff like shoplifting) because there's no way to prove that they would have gained - a loss in too many cases is just not a sale. Of course we know businesses rely on trends and forecasting so as to mitigate risk, but facts they do not make.
On the other hand the consumer knows exactly why and why not they commit to a purchase and the factors wherein, there's just too many variables to take it beyond personal.
This argument is used often in used-game and piracy discussion. However I'm certain that it's without merit because it will always, always become a stalemate.
That's not the same at all, they're reproducing content without permission. Second-hand sales just exchange hands of the original.
This is only half true. While PC games do not currently have a working used game market for these retailers to push, PC has for the earlier part of this decade been declining in retail sales in general. Stuff like Steam has now taken up the slack, but I'm unsurprised that retailers would have pushed their still slowest moving stock to the back shelves.
Once again we're pegging a multi-facet issue with one contributor. Publishers have part to blame here; they want high sales numbers quickly - regardless of what will happen to the game at market. They have created huge hype campaigns were their games are only valuable to advertise during this period and the consumers respond.
Also I'm a bit of a cynic here but I have trouble believing that publishers want a long-tail revenue model for single releases. I mean their games are not going to sell gangbusters each and every day, and consumers expect markdowns for older games. Retailers also don't want old stock with low margins taking up space and costing taxes.
As I said, I'm a cynic and totally think that publishers would have tried this anyway, used-game/piracy pressure or not.
You copy pasting from your own replies in another thread about used-games? Their evidence was how many people had trophies vs. sales numbers - which was not definitive. There are so many ways that multiple accounts/people could have experienced that game without buying new and used is only one of them. It could have been friends or family, lending or rentals, simply switching accounts before a replay.
But PC is currently a different beast. I know you think used is worse that piracy but in that kind of market the person who is looking for an alternative method of acquisition will turn to piracy bar none.
---
Personally I'm a big fan of trial games like on the XBLA. Many people lament the loss of demos to assure them they are worth the money but nowadays it is just too much effort to have a taste of a game and then go and get the real thing. If people aren't willing to accept the prices offered to them then makers need to either lower their expectations or work harder on making sure we see the value.
I'm highly skeptical of his claims. If he provides false numbers that make him look like the victim and people believe him, he stands to gain from that. I don't trust anybody that claims a loss on something they never had and could never actually measure. You can't know what people would choose to do in the absence of used games. They are telling the industry that their prices are too high, so who is to say that they would just not buy at all without an alternative? You can't know, so any claim to losses is purely speculative. It wouldn't be the first time the content industry made up numbers pertaining to losses. The GAO office looked into the claims of the MPAA on the losses they incur from piracy and found those numbers to be wildly inflated.
Do you have a bias that wants to assume or protect the idea that used games are not ok?
First off, I didn't say "just" making it. "Making it" implies anywhere from "just barely" to "insanely successful". Don't put words in my mouth and use a straw man against me. You are about the most biased and intellectually dishonest person I've seen. It's hilarious that you accuse me of being as such.
The fact that you continue to insist that used games will destroy the industry makes clear that you can't think outside of the current business model. It's not used games that's dooming the industry, it's their refusal to adapt that's doing it. The world is not obligated to prop up a flawed business model for an industry that is either unable or unwilling to adapt. The game industry has become bloated and inefficient. They spend way more money on things that can't be justified by their returns (i.e. huge marketing campaigns that target people that aren't even prospects) and refuse to give up the current model because they believe the alternatives won't be as profitable as the old guard. Well, the old guard isn't as profitable as the old guard and it's only getting worse, so obviously a new model is in order. Clinging to something that just doesn't work the way it used to and trying to force the world to turn back the clock is not realistic nor productive. If used games is so damaging to the retail model, then the industry needs to abandon the retail model and try something else.
No, if the industry persists in trying to use those methods to force used games out of the market instead of having a good long introspective look at itself, they are going to fail. It's not anybody's fault but their own. Every other industry gets by just fine and dandy in spite of the existence of a second hand market. I really don't care if used games lives or dies (PC games have learned that price flexibility is a good counter to used games), but I can't abide people blaming the neighbors while denying the mess in their own yard is their own doing.
Unless a law forces Sony and Microsoft, they will not allow you to sell your digital downloads.
And i know the whole used game thing is iffy and you are either for or against it. But the truth is it DOES take away revenue from the publishers and developers. No one can deny that. People like to use the "free advertising" argument for it a lot, but that's just a bunch of horse shit to make themselves feel better about buying a used copy. But the facts come down to this. If you buy a new game, part of the cost goes back to the publishers and devs. if you buy a used game, nothing goes back to them. Skew it anyway you want, but purchasing a used copy does not support the devs in any way. Spend the extra $5 and get a new copy. For all new games, that's pretty much the difference anyways. $5.
Though, with that said, I think devs can also start bending on their end too. Lower their prices after a certain time. Or with all these digital downloads happening, do what steam does and put the games on sale from time to time. And for fucks sakes, make the digital copy cost less than the hard copy!!!! There's no reason for it to be the same price!!!
Really? I'm neither for nor against used games. What I'm against is publisher/dev behavior in response to it. I keep hearing that buying used takes away money from the developers, it's no more than a used car takes away money from Ford/GM/Chrysler, no more than buying used furniture takes away money from Lazyboy, and no more than buying used electronics takes away money from Sony. So how do they respond? By being jackasses. Instead of making new games more appealing to buy, they try to make used games shittier. DRM, locked content, etc., all try to break the game for the used buyer. All they wanted is to get that game for a better price, but the publishers don't want to lower the price and possibly make more in volume. $60 is not the equilibrium price, clearly. People still buy used because $60 is either too much or they don't value the game at $60. And believe me, there are many $60 games out there that can be finished before the end of a rental period and has no replay value. That's not $60 worth of game.
Anybody that buys a "used" game for a mere $5 discount is a sucker and so is the person that sells that game to the store. It's too bad there's a lot of suckers out there.
Also, it's not very honest to accuse people that don't support your point of view as "skewing" the issue. In truth, used games do support the developers. People buy those overpriced games with the assumption that they can make some of their costs back by trading it in. Without a used game market, they would have to eat the cost of a new game whether it's worth the $60 or not. So, if they have to take a risk that a game isn't worth what they're paying, they will be less inclined to buy it at all. This all ties back to the hypothesis that games are just priced too damned high. Lower the prices and people that bought used will feel inclined to buy full retail copies.
Or, they could try their hand at making their own used game "store". If the dev/publisher is buying/selling the used copies, that's more revenue, the customers can still get used games, and GameStop can't exploit the market. But they'll never do that, because they don't want to sell the games for less than retail.
This whole war against used games has come about because, like every other business, they don't want competition of any kind. The closer to a monopoly they can get, the happier they are. What's the difference between used games and a competitor? Essentially nothing. Yeah, the used market is competing against you with your own product, but that's true of any used market. When you get down to it, every dollar that Capcom makes is money that Activision isn't getting. By the same argument against used games, you could say that people who buy Capcom games aren't supporting Activision developers. It all just depends on where your bias lies.
and Overlord, turning every thread into a "game industry is going to fail" thread is becoming a bit tiring. I recently browsed through some industry doom threads from 2006 talking about how the industry was going to collapse, the PS3 & 360 would be the last consoles and indie developers were doomed but the exact opposite happened.
I'll bump this thread prior to the launch of the PS5 or whatever the next next gen is for some laughs.
That is really dumbing down the issues facing the industry when talking about the used games market. You could say the samething about piracy or DRM. Comparing used games to music and movies is valid, and not destroying those industries. The reason we are seeing a huge shift to digital games is because of used games, and I believe if Sony and Microsoft do it well, there will be less physical games that can be sold.
Now you are being silly, the examples is about selling a used product that you bought, there is no difference between those examples, the only difference is that Gamestop has got up and made it easy for people to do it.
I don't really see why you are so against seeing its the same thing, except maybe because of a dislike about how Gamestop does it, but that has nothing to do with the case. It would be the same to stop people trading comics and books, its the same principle, its a product that was created once and then copied onto a media and sold.
I never said the industry was going to fail, as in collapse, I said it would fail at trying to fight used games and keep up the same bad habits. That's what will fail. You're reading into my words more than there is.
If you sold your car at the depreciation rate of use games, you'd lose over half its value within a year. Madden 2013 is 27.99 compared to the typical $60 retail. Not a good plan. Even after just one week, a car retains a larger percentage of its value than a used game. Games depreciate very fast.