ejronin Blog - All Comments

re: Second Hand Citizens [UPDATED]

Shawn Gordon — Thu, 22 Sep 2011 17:11:19 GMT

Well, buying and selling used is more about the original media and the license with it. The licenses don't actually state the disk cannot be given to another for a sum of money. So long as the original licensee transfers the original license it is legally fair. Look at OEM copies of Windows, volume licenses, enterprise editions, and so on.

What it seems more to me is that developers and publishers want to charge per license, which is fine. Afterall, they're not selling the software, they're licensing it. Re-selling is not a sub license and since a disk is required to execute the software, that IS all they can do. However, they're arguing that despite the number of initial sale licenses, they'd prefer to get paid per personal experience. How one logically and fairly quantifies an experience is beyond me - and given no one can qualify one on a universal level, there's no way to quantify it.

re: Second Hand Citizens [UPDATED]

Skai76 — Thu, 22 Sep 2011 16:58:42 GMT

See, this is how I see it. The owner of the IP whether it be the developer or publisher has agreed to license copies of the software they created. Now that being said they also commision discs and cartriges to store said copies of said software on. Retailers as a whole are allowed to sell these titles as they see fit. When sold new the product is being used as the publisher thinks is correct. When boght used they see it as an illicit action. Now, in times like these when an ip owner doesnt want you to play their game if you bought it used they run into a little problem. That problem is that even though they own the software that is stored on the disc the buyer owns the disc. Now even though they want you to stop they cannot take, harm, tamper, or otherwise modify the disc that creates a problem for its original intended use. So even though it can be saw as illegal to buy or sell used games all the buyer or seller has to do is show their intent on buying or selling the discs which is what people do. So even though i have bought used games there is nothing that those publishers can do to me except restrict accews codes to a one time use.

re: Website Community Achievements and Trophies? No, Thanks. [A meta-blog]

Shawn Gordon — Mon, 19 Sep 2011 20:38:52 GMT

@eyros2k:

Being vague isn't a characteristic I admire.

re: Second Hand Citizens [UPDATED]

Shawn Gordon — Mon, 19 Sep 2011 20:28:07 GMT

pass / fail, in that order.

re: Second Hand Citizens [UPDATED]

BlackHeartedWolf — Mon, 19 Sep 2011 20:17:09 GMT

This is a test

re: Second Hand Citizens

Shawn Gordon — Sat, 17 Sep 2011 12:46:31 GMT

@Fever Ray:

Hm. well then we simply disagree. Fair enough.

re: Second Hand Citizens [UPDATED]

fsubones — Sat, 17 Sep 2011 12:44:50 GMT

I see used games hitting shelves a week or two after they were released. Maybe people play games in your city longer than mine, but you usually don't have to wait months.

I have bought used, and probably will continue to do on occasion. But if it's a title I'm really excited about, I'll support the publisher and buy the game new. I think EA and the likes adding "online passes" to the game is good from a business perspective. After all, they exist to make money. They have stockholders to answer to. If you but the game for $20 at GameStop, spending $10 on the online pass still gets you the game at a 50% discount. It's still a decent deal for you and instead of GameStop getting the ridiculous profit, the people who actually made the game get a little coin. If you're really upset about it, pick up a little stock so you can have a say. I doubt you'll win, but it might be worth a shot.

But don't worry, you may not have to feel like a second class citizen forever. After all, it will be hard to buy used if everything goes digital or "in the cloud."

re: Second Hand Citizens

Minister of Propaganda Fever Ray — Sat, 17 Sep 2011 04:01:42 GMT

@Shawn Gordon:
Regarding rentals, most companies with Online Pass have some sort of trial period which anyone can use once- at least that's been my experience with the THQ and EA games I've played with the pass. This pass is just as usable to any friends who might borrow your game or whatever.

Okay, you can lease other things (obviously- I lease my apt, I'm familiar); the fact remains that as the publishers see it using online functions is a continued service, not a part of the core product- again there's no legal precedent against this, it's just a matter of PR trade-off and gamers/consumers are free to not buy their products.

I don't want to get into politics, but in that analog, I believe 'illegals' who are working are more involved in the system than people who won't buy from a game's makers.

The whole "*** you" from the pubs I just don't see- again, you buy online pass, you've paid them once. They haven't said that buying used means you can't play online, just that like anyone else playing online, you're either using a temporary pass or you've paid the piper. You still come out paying less than the new price (because GS or whoever typically reduce the price of games with the Pass by the cost of the pass- and most other used sources are by necessity cheaper than GS prices). Whether or not the online content costs the publisher more money, or is actually dedicated servers is immaterial to their legal rights- granted it gives a lot of ammo for complaint. Again, however, the ammo would be used by people who weren't customers of the company in question- so in court it would likely misfire.

I must admit I'm completely unfamiliar with the whole hard-save thing that some of the Japanese pubs have started using (but it does sound like poor implementation).

That used games are cheaper, and the ability to trade-in old games gives gamers more money for new games doesn't ensure that money will be spent on new games, and it doesn't ensure you're buying from that publisher/dev.
Those are the concerns of the Publishers- seems that we agree that the publisher is concerned with making sure they're the ones getting paid for the use of a given game.

I guess we disagree on the ethics of such practice.

My issue with used markets, and assumptions on %'s there is that's a rather trickle-down method of making sure the people behind the games get paid instead of just GameStop. Now, I know it's naive to assume that just because Activision gets paid that so do their devs- but unless you make sure to buy your next one new after buying a used game from a dev/pub, buying used is most assuredly not the way.

You're right that a lot of used sales essentially don't matter because the numbers that do matter for a given title have long since been recorded- however you're not talking about that- you're talking about buying used as a way to get relatively new games for the price you want to pay. To me, particularly from the game makers' view (and likely from a legal standpoint) that's a pretty unsympathetic argument/attitude.

re: Second Hand Citizens [UPDATED]

Shawn Gordon — Fri, 16 Sep 2011 20:38:30 GMT

"But honestly, I don't buy used games. However, that has more to do with the fact that, as Cody Gilley put it, "I don't like cheese covered disks" than any real concern for the health of the industry. "

I really don't either. I buy 95% of my games new, but I will trade them in if I don't like them or their not up to my standard of "collectible." Having a PS3 makes used games less of an issue because of the BRD coating and I look at the disks before I let the CSR sell them to me (and clean it properly at the point of sale). Some of the used games I have were reconsiderations to a trade-in. For example, I had the Signature Edition of Dragon Age II. I wanted to play it again and felt stupid for trading it in. Should I pay the developer a second time? I did the same thing with Medal of Honor; I bought it new the first time, used the second. I went to play online and EA wouldn't acknowledge my pre-existing online pass unless I bought another online Pass. Seem fair?

I didn't trade in my Online Pass in context to any specific title, and that's what seems to be the driving point of publishers - that the online passes are designed to support the developers. When I bought MoH, I already supported them by buying new - now I have to pay them again for something I was granted when I bought it new?

"it kind of seems like they're trying to design their product in such a way that if it's purchased twice, a wheel falls off. "

Heard of the Lemon Law? I think that analogy could loosely find a response in it.

"If I bought a really nice looking used HDTV from some random dude at a yard sale for twenty bucks, I wouldn't be all that surprised if it didn't work perfectly when I got it home. "

I get your point, but that makes as much sense as the "invisible pink unicorn" debate point of some atheists. Prove it's pink *and* invisible and I might take you up on that debate but until then...

re: Second Hand Citizens [UPDATED]

DuskMirage — Fri, 16 Sep 2011 19:52:41 GMT

I don't buy used games for the same reason that I don't buy used toilet paper...

Wait, bad analogy -- but then again this entire blog is full of those (zing!). Okay, okay, that was horrible, and I'm sorry. But honestly, I don't buy used games. However, that has more to do with the fact that, as Cody Gilley put it, "I don't like cheese covered disks" than any real concern for the health of the industry.

It does bother me when people on different sides of the argument demonize each other, though.

On the one hand, I do think that some of the things that publishers do to incentivize people to buy new are kind of whack. To take the infamous used car analogy in a different direction -- it kind of seems like they're trying to design their product in such a way that if it's purchased twice, a wheel falls off.

However, whenever I hear the outrage of used buyers the old maxim 'you get what you pay for' comes to mind. I realize that you're arguing against that line of thought here, but as other people have pointed out, you're buying the game from a reseller, so it doesn't make sense to me to expect all the benefits of a new product. To take another analogy you DID make in a different direction again...

If I bought a really nice looking used HDTV from some random dude at a yard sale for twenty bucks, I wouldn't be all that surprised if it didn't work perfectly when I got it home.

Yeah, yeah...I know you said 'lease' an HDTV, but the whole leasing versus buying argument just adds a whole nother layer to the debate that I don't wanna get into.

re: Second Hand Citizens

Shawn Gordon — Fri, 16 Sep 2011 15:14:29 GMT

"Using the terrorism and indentured servant clause lines are a stretch at best."

They're meant to be. I don't really think that the games industry will compare used games to terrorism, despite the fact they've compared used game sales to cannibalism (an equal stretch). Additionally, the lawsuits against EA and Rockstar were based on being overworked and underpaid - which in essence is a similar enough to some modern misnomers of slavery, or the politically correct term, "indentured servitude." However, I know as should most others that those are isolated incidents and not representative of the industry as a whole. Some call it sarcasm and perhaps it was heavy on hyperbole, you still got the point did you not?.

"You suggest that publishers are double dipping, however the people that sell used games are double, triple dipping and more."

Are they? I'm the guy that sells a game to GameStop. How have I double dipped? From there GameStop sells the used title to someone else. Perhaps it could seen as double dipping from that point because GameStop got paid for the same of the game new and used. Do you expect GameStop to sell only new games?

Consider that GameStop stops selling used games. They make less money, hire fewer people, pay existing employees less. In conjunction, they charge publishers more to advertise, increase the price on new games. As a result, GameStop sells fewer games and the publisher, to get more return on their advertising, will increase the selling price to the retailer. That's two price hikes on top of nickel and dime DLC strucutres. If you want to pay $70-80 for games like Bodycount and New Vegas, great, but not many developers will enter the market and market diversity will plummet on things outside of the casual titles found on mobile devices. Tell me that's not at all plausible...

I find a lot of fault in GameStop, so I'm not just defending them. The Deus EX Onlive coupon thing was as ridiculous as their alleged "solution" and I see giving gift cards to people without the coupon a crafty revenue plan.

"Analogies are flawed in every sense when it comes to debates like this. Comparing a sponsored event that is paid for and put on by a third party where guests are invited to attend to used game sales is below your intelligence, by far."

It was more of a principle analogy and less an actual literal comparison. I've swapped it out for something I think is a bit more cerebral. I can't dispute that the analogy was a bad call on my part.

You are right and I do agree in that analogies are going to be always flawed because the comparison of used and new games sales are apples to oranges at the core. They're not comparable and both sides try to make one the other, unsuccessfully. I failed the audience in that rather than make a sound or valid case for my opinion, I resorted to a faulty analogy. Good call, thanks.

"however I also very strongly feel that it should be regulated and that some of the profits should be shared with the people that take the big risk."

Fair point, but I'm interested in hearing how you propose to regulate used market sales and what implications it would have on other markets.

Risk is a choice of the developer and publisher and although they take a bigger risk, they already get a bigger reward. That is unless you feel so inclined to quantify intangible experience to tangible goods. They are fully aware of the implications and negative impacts in a poor choice yet seem to avoid taking responsibility for them. Whether a developer should be paid after the initial sale is debatable; whether a developer has a "right" to lock content provided with no further incurred cost with regard to an already locked service (online) and only an "at will" obligation to support consumers under either, is not.

re: Second Hand Citizens

mojomonkey12 — Fri, 16 Sep 2011 14:54:06 GMT

I must say, I generally really like your blogs, this is no exception, however I do feel this is one of your weaker arguments. Using the terrorism and indentured servant clause lines are a stretch at best. It is a choice, and you of all people are very much a proponent of people educating themselves and making their own choice. You suggest that publishers are double dipping, however the people that sell used games are double, triple dipping and more. Analogies are flawed in every sense when it comes to debates like this. Comparing a sponsored event that is paid for and put on by a third party where guests are invited to attend to used game sales is below your intelligence, by far. I do feel that the used game industry is necessary, however I also very strongly feel that it should be regulated and that some of the profits should be shared with the people that take the big risk. Gamestop giving me $23(which I feel is fair, because once again it is an offer and should I choose to accept it I have no real right to complain) for a game is not much of a risk.

re: Battlefield: Modern Ware-Fare and the Required Elitism within Industry vs. Culture

Shawn Gordon — Fri, 16 Sep 2011 14:47:19 GMT

In my opinion, impudence has a deep quality lacking in ambivalence; namely, honesty.

re: Second Hand Citizens

Shawn Gordon — Fri, 16 Sep 2011 14:18:50 GMT

"If you want to make the car analogy..."

But I don't. It's an apples to oranges comparison that people make, and it's heavily flawed which is why I avoided that analogy in the first place. I get you derived the car argument from the term "lease" but you can lease more than a car. Other leasable items are an apartment, power equipment, a house, furniture; lease is just another word for rent. I can rent a game from Blockbuster for $1.99 a day. And, if the CSR isn't paying attention, get the bonus DLC code if i'm the first to rent it. Where's the outrage from the industry on renting games? How about the outrage where Blockbuster will sell previously rented titles for more than GameStop. the value of the game to the consumer is the same between both retail establishments, but it's GameStop that catches heat - why? because used sales are the majority of their business.

If I were to go lease an HD TV would it be justified that if I didn't buy directly from the manufacturer, I lose HD or function of my HDMI ports? No. I don't repa the benefits of a warranty or repair services from Samsung if I get a used LCD, but that's okay. I don't expect Samsung to grant me a warranty. I do expect that I have full access and functionality of the product, however. Bear in mind that places that lease, buy them outright from the manufacturer - they've been sold already.

"The whole second-class citizens argument is weak to me; if you don't buy from the manufacturer, I fail to see how you're a citizen at all- you're giving no custom to the creator- what do they owe you?"

Hmmm... interesting point. Would you use that same argument in a debate about illegal immigration? If so, then are you aware that the US Constitution provides for people on US soil, not just the citizens? I know that's not the debate here but I'm interested in seeing if your principle is as conditional as it sounds.

A rule of marketing is that the best business is return business and the best advertising is word of mouth. Used games promote return business and shares the experience with others. You don't think Activision doesn't tally their "sales data" with "used" games and reports a general number there do you? The creator has already been paid for the projected value of the item through the publisher, and the publisher through retailers. Like most industries, the developer is paid a certain percentage to start the work, then upon completion paid the rest.

What's more is that used games don't typically appear until months after the initial release. By that time the game is considered 'old' and the publishers don't count of income from the title. The only reason they're mad is because someone tapped the market before they did.

No publisher or developer has yet to present factual data on exactly how much money is lost to them in the used game market and no publisher or developer has responded to the fact that when a consumer saves money on a used game, it puts more money in their hand to buy a new one. Additionally, no data supports that there are a group of gamers that ONLY buy used.

Point of fact - less rotation means less money, yet publishers choose not to see that. Used and second-hand sales have been a part of numerous industries - books, clothes, cars, houses, small electronics and yet each one of those industries survive and flourish (partially because of it). I find it laughable to think that an industry that prides itself on creativity is the only one to complain and cry foul.

Cultures do need to change, but how is this "evolutionary" for gamers?

"Conversely, publishers are well within their rights to restrict access to things like online content- or really anything else."

I agree ONLY if the online mode of play is through dedicated servers set up by publishers or developers. In that case, developers and publishers would incur cost when people buying used went online to play. Typically, publishers don't have a dedicated server for a title thus incur no cost when I play online. Madden doesn't use a dedicated server... Medal of Honor wasn't using a dedicated server... Resistence 3 was a first party title so there's a stronger argument for Sony locking the multiplayer, but I did pay full retail for my PS3 and if multiplayer is peer-to-peer, I'm running my game through the hardware I paid for.

Speaking of which, do you seriously think Sony or Microsoft are stepping up and saying "hey, if you buy a used console then we can't make any money?" No. Why? Because it's a false argument.

What about with Capcom and Namco who implemented a permanent save? You don't think it devalues the game when you can't erase the save? In what appears to be an effort to break the incentive to buy a used game cart, a permanent save also means that if the person keeps the game there's no real excitement in playing it a second time. The game is good for a single experience to a single user.

In essence, if I'm to believe that selling or buying used games rapes the industry, then I guess I shouldn't take part in sharing a great experience I had with a game with other people that play games. "Too bad a$$holes, buy your own."

I still feel that to some extent the publishers are sour grapes because they're a leaner middle man than used item retailers. They're using developers and consumers as pawns, and no one thinks that's low - but *** me to hell if I want to get something second-hand?

To quote Michael Pratcher from GI.biz back in '09

If trade-ins occur at GameStop, they should position the trade-in customer to buy more new games than he/she would otherwise normally purchase. Because the average used game value is around 20 per cent of the new game price, we think that used game trade-ins fuel incremental sales of over six per cent of total new game sales, suggesting that the cannibalization from the used game ‘push’ is more than offset by the benefit from used game currency.

re: Second Hand Citizens

Minister of Propaganda Fever Ray — Fri, 16 Sep 2011 10:40:23 GMT

@Shawn Gordon:

The idea of "founding culture"- there are plenty of founding/ancestral cultures which needed to change; part of the culture of gaming and the games industry is not paying what's owed. That should change. In what way is buying a used game participating in the game creation industry?

I get the concerns for people who trade or sell to one another directly, but the fact is there is a huge booming second hand industry that exists on the labor of people it doesn't give a dime to. Without a way to distinguish, I don't fault publishers for trying to take some sort of action.

There is no double-dipping from the publishers because they were paid once and that first customer gets their full product and services included with the new product. Anything that happens after is between the buyer and the reseller- until that second buyer wants the continued services. Then they pay the publisher once.