# Does the pre-owned and used market kill the gaming industry?



## BlazeV (Mar 14, 2012)

Just as the title asks does the pre-owned and used market ki;; the gaming industry, I don't think it does and it actually helps the industry by circulating games around and letting gamers sell their old games in favor for new ones.


----------



## Nathan Drake (Mar 14, 2012)

The simple answer: used sales hurt absolutely every industry where the sales of used items is possible. Even the video game industry is hurt. If you buy used, you aren't buying new, and the circle of profit is disrupted.


----------



## Just Another Gamer (Mar 14, 2012)

So its expected that the consumer pay the dev extra for an old product?

Its just the industry being greedy, they make enough money each year to survive for another 5 years minimum yet they want more money even when they don't deserve it anymore, when someone sells a game or console and someone buys it then shouldn't have to pay any extra so the rich companies don't complain.


----------



## Taleweaver (Mar 14, 2012)

BlazeV said:


> Just as the title asks does the pre-owned and used market ki;; the gaming industry,


Yes.

Though this is probably the kind of discussion where people don't change their mind no matter what, I'll elaborate nonetheless. Bear with me for some paragraphs...


Creating a video game isn't free. It costs lots of time, effort and knowledge. There are fees and licenses to be paid, software libraries to be bought and costs for manufacturing to be handled. All of those are *facts*. Making a profit with a game is, before the game is actually finished, shipped and in store, almost completely *speculation*.

Now...the difference between those two isn't to be taken lightly. On the contrary: with current costs on producing games, the far majority of people don't have this kind of money to invest. And I write "invest", but it's probably much closer to say "gamble".


And that's the culprit: it's all fine and dandy to taut that games aren't creative enough anymore and everyone's cloning everyone else...until it's your house that may be publicly sold to pay off your debts if the game you're making isn't selling well.
The end result: producers go for the certain money. If not for the big profit, then at least a net income.


You can probably already understand where I'm going with this. What makes games profitable? The actual content of the games vary (tactical 3D shooters are hot, lately), but in the end, it's the very simple "if it sells well" that matters.

When gaming companies complain about bad sales, they usually blame piracy. But while that certainly is an issue, I honestly think two other factors matter much more:
1. the actual game is bad. While obvious, I feel the importance gets underestimated. The reputation of a game, and even a gaming company, can spread very rapidly and easily undo no matter what amount of marketing gets thrown at it.
2. the second hand market. this isn't just a factor by itself, but one that ties in almost directly with the previous. Bad games get sold again much faster than the good games, and with gamestores that sell secondhand games pretty much next to the first hand ones (except they're cheaper), it's a no-brainer how bad games sell less copies (note: sales about games are always about first-hand games).

The only surprise in this isn't so much that bad games sell less copies, but that they're selling *exponentially *less copies. I haven't seen much figures about second hand sales, but it wouldn't surprise me if games with lower sales have relatively high second hand sales figures.


You're probably thinking "Hey...wait a second. What's wrong with bad games selling badly? Shouldn't this motivate game companies to make better games, if nothing else to avoid them being put in the litter bin?".

My answer: on the surface, you would be right. But let's not forget the reality of the producer. This threat of the second hand market (along with piracy, obviously) doesn't really motivate him to make a *better *game...only to *sell more copies*. And while these qualities overlap, they aren't the same. In fact, there are quite some parts of the latter that are used so thoroughly that it hurts the quality of the game:
-overly hype a game...you should be playing it NOW (hidden message: not later, when you get it secondhand)
-focus on multiplayer and social networking stuff
-add ons and DLC (to prevent you from selling the game)
-limited edition thingies

and most of all:

-an even more frantic urge to stay on the beaten path, going for the same elements that everyone else uses


It's this kind of behavior that thrives the companies these days. It's not that they're evil or greedy...they just want to make a profit. I may be overly dramatic, but I see the second hand market as a sort of accelerator of doom for the gaming industry. Even more so than piracy: not only is there no way to prevent it (let alone prosecute it), it's also considered more "ethical". I really wonder why: in both cases, the developer gets nothing for his/her work.
Either way: the way the industry is acting now isn't beneficial for the long-term health of it. That is why, in my point of view, the second hand market will, in the long term, kill the game industry.


----------



## mehrab2603 (Mar 14, 2012)

Wever said:


> I may be overly dramatic, but I see the second hand market as a sort of accelerator of doom for the gaming industry. Even more so than piracy: not only is there no way to prevent it (let alone prosecute it), it's also considered more "ethical". I really wonder why: in both cases, the developer gets nothing for his/her work.


I have the same view. Have been wondering why used game sales is accepted and piracy not, when they both hurt the industry (used game sales more cause lots of people do it as it is not illegal and easier to do than piracy in most cases).


----------



## Rydian (Mar 14, 2012)

Would I be considered in the wrong for buying my neighbor's used lawnmower on the cheap?

Friend's moving and gives me his couch... oh shit I'm a detriment to the furniture industry, quick pass some laws to stop it!

I don't know why the entertainment industry is so self-entitled.


----------



## Veho (Mar 14, 2012)

Rydian said:


> I don't know why the entertainment industry is so self-entitled.


Inorite? Like, last week, they didn't let my girlfriend and me into the movie theater with only one ticket. We told them she would sit in my lap and we would only take up one seat but they said no, we had to buy two tickets. What a bunch of bullshit. Entitled assholes.


----------



## ThatDudeWithTheFood (Mar 14, 2012)

Veho said:


> Rydian said:
> 
> 
> > I don't know why the entertainment industry is so self-entitled.
> ...


Thats two people using the same thing at once instead of one person using one thing then selling it for someone else to use.
Difference pointed out.


----------



## mehrab2603 (Mar 14, 2012)

ThatDudeWithTheFood said:


> Veho said:
> 
> 
> > Rydian said:
> ...



In the case of 'one person using one thing then selling it for someone else to use', it's 2 persons using the same thing too. The only difference is the transfer of money, which didn't go to the developer. My logic may be completely wrong but I'm trying to understand it better.


----------



## ThatDudeWithTheFood (Mar 14, 2012)

mehrab2603 said:


> ThatDudeWithTheFood said:
> 
> 
> > Veho said:
> ...


Yeah but one is using it while the other isn't.
It would be the same to the movie industry I guess but honestly I doubt it hurts the gaming industry that much.


----------



## Elrinth (Mar 14, 2012)

I'd say no. Because you wouldn't buy the game at all if it wasn't cheaper.. So you buy it because it's cheaper pre-owned than new. If it was new, then you don't buy it at all. Games are most of the times at a very high price point which not everyone can afford.
However, buying games over the net sometimes can help this.


----------



## Rydian (Mar 14, 2012)

Veho said:


> Rydian said:
> 
> 
> > I don't know why the entertainment industry is so self-entitled.
> ...


Oh please, Veho.  Goods Versus Services, which it seems many people today do not know.  I know that the internet and digital distribution blurs the line somewhat when it comes to entertainment nowadays, but you can't consider only the end result (the viewing of intertainment), the production _and way the consumer comes in contact with it_ are also important and up for consideration.

*The fact that so many people don't know the fucking difference between goods and services is a big reason why companies can continue to rip people off and make unfair demands.*

When discussing the transfer of used games, we're discussing GOODS, which is why my examples focused on GOODS.

*Your examples focusing on a SERVICE are not relevant.*


----------



## Foxi4 (Mar 14, 2012)

To answer this question all we need to do is ask another question: "What was first, the gaming industry or the second-hand market?".

People always sold or exchanged their games, it's just that now the process has been facilitated. What years ago took going on a convention and walking around with your casettes and disks now takes going to the game store and just pawning in your game.


----------



## mehrab2603 (Mar 14, 2012)

Ah, that Good vs Service cleared some stuff up.
But I wonder what are games then? The disc is good, but the gameplay on screen is service, am I right?


----------



## Rydian (Mar 14, 2012)

mehrab2603 said:


> Ah, that Good vs Service cleared some stuff up.
> But I wonder what are games then? The disc is good, but the gameplay on screen is service, am I right?


No.  Just like with movies, whether it's a good or a service depends on how you're getting it.

Going to the store and buying a DVD?  That's a good.  That's a tangible product that enters your posession (the DVD itself) upon payment.  You're directly paying for the disc.

Going to the theatre to pay to see a movie?  That's a service.  You're paying for them to show you the movie, you're directly paying for their actions.

EDIT: So you can see how with things like Steam, the line is somewhat blurred... however since this thread is talking about used game sales, it's physical copies.


----------



## Guild McCommunist (Mar 14, 2012)

I can't really think of any game that has gone under because of used sales. In order to get a used market, you need to have a large new market. Then that gets siphoned down into a used market. So a game will need to sell a lot anyway to get a lot of used sales.

Plus with DLC nowadays, companies are still profiting off used games. You may deprive them of a sale of Modern Warfare 3 but you may just end up paying $50 for map packs anyway.

There's also plenty of countermeasures against it anyway. The used market for the PC is basically dead because of digital distribution. Piracy is still there but a lot of people prefer buying games for Steam and multiplayer anyway. On the consoles, you have online passes and incentives to get new copies of the game (like DLC or something).


----------



## Clydefrosch (Mar 14, 2012)

it hurts them yes, just as huge illegal download numbers hurt them

it does not kill them


----------



## mysticwaterfall (Mar 14, 2012)

The sales "lost" to used games are greatly exagerated. A lot of people who buy them wouldn't have ever paid full price for them. If there were no used games, the sale numbers wouldn't magically increase over night. 

Now, I personally prefer to wait for sales or what not where I can get the game new for the used price. Lego Harry potter 3ds comes to mind. Never would have bought it for 40. Got it on sale for 20.


----------



## alphamule (Mar 14, 2012)

I say yes and no...  Because the (used) sales of XXXXXXXX 1 will take money away from (new) sales of XXXXXXXX 2?  And like what was said above, used games don't have any real effect until the game has been out a few months or in some cases, weeks to years.  I know that I'll probably never sell my old Warcraft 2 or Total Annihilation games even now but most games people get tired of in less than a couple months?

But then people tend to go out and buy the sequel if they think it's better.  I think the real killer is non-industry reviews.  Remember the old days of Nintendo Power magazine or GamePro or...  I swear they never posted a negative review unless the game was impossible to like and even then not a solid 0.  Everyone tries to have (illegal) conditions in demos or betas or even full releases to not post unfavorable reviews.  Yeah, good luck with that one if your game absolutely isn't worth the $60 (more in Australia) you ask for.  I could see stuff like not wanting people to comment on bugs left in the demo or early prerelease versions but that's not what they usually try to protect themselves from.

And we all know that the reason downloads for Xbox games aren't like PCs is because it's much more convenient to just copy the entire hard drive which is what gets people selling modded Xbox's in trouble here in the USA...  Advertising 50 commercial games without the original discs is surely a way to invite legal trouble!  

A note about used/old release games:  Popcap (makers of Bejeweled/Zuma/etc.) had a special where you could get a bunch of their older games with a brand new license that bypassed retail so was marked way down.  Steam does the same thing.  Price them low and stack them high?  Sam's Club strategy, heh?

Regarding how used games are accepted and selling bootleg copies (piracy) isn't, think of a used car.  The term is depreciation.  The original customer paid a premium to get it 'fresh' and all the used buyer is doing is reimbursing the person who still has an interest in the product.  That idea that not making the company profit is itself a crime is absolutely evil and a form of... well I won't go into politics but this reminds me of candlestick makers complaining about windows and electricity+light bulbs.  Also, read up on the concept called a limited liability company (LLC) which protects your personal assets.  But yes, once your investment in a company goes belly up, you're stuck with harder time paying bills which can cost you your home.


----------



## Gahars (Mar 14, 2012)

Kill is a strong word, but it certainly isn't helping the developers, especially considering how expensive games can be to produce.


----------



## Foxi4 (Mar 14, 2012)

Gahars said:


> Kill is a strong word, but it certainly isn't helping the developers, especially considering how expensive games can be to produce.


Cars are more expensive to design, manufacture and distribute and yet nobody's nagging that there's a second hand market full of'em.

"We're making less moeny because people trade games" is the lazy man's excuse - games either sell or they don't, and if they don't they're either not worth the purchase or underappreciated. In the first case "try harder next time", in the latter "put some more money in advertising, build a name for your product". That's that.

If the game were any good and had replay value, the buyer wouldn't want to trade it in in the first place.


----------



## Veho (Mar 14, 2012)

Rydian said:


> *The fact that so many people don't know the fucking difference between goods and services is a big reason why companies can continue to rip people off and make unfair demands.*


And you call game developers "self-entitled"   

One person pays for a game, two or more get to play it. The only place that's justified, a "right" and anything other than piracy is in the heads of people like you, who are trying desperately to justify and rationalize your theft as a "customer right". 

And since you brought up the "goods VS services" thing, intellectual property is a service. It might not be as clear or intuitive because of the huge compromise that is data storage, which is unfortunately (and up until recently unavoidably) tangible, leading people to believe that the piece of plastic they're holding equals posession of the intellectual property itself. It doesn't. The tangible bit is a compromise because it's the only way to get the software to the users; unfortunate because it creates a perception of ownership that the user doesn't actually have. I can see where that might be confusing to some because the DVD is a "thing" and "things" are "goods", but the actual product you're paying for and getting, i.e. the software, is independant of the media it arrived on. Digital distribution doesn't "blur the line", it is getting the "line" to where it actually is. 

Here's the thing. Games are software. Software isn't sold, it is licenced. You don't "own" the game, you own the DVD it came on. You can resell the DVD, but the other person isn't allowed to run the game off of it because they didn't purchase the licence along with it; they merely purchased a severely overpriced bird repellant.  

tl;dr: Games are a service. 


*Your complaints focusing on GOODS are not relevant.*


----------



## mehrab2603 (Mar 14, 2012)

alphamule said:


> Regarding how used games are accepted and selling bootleg copies (piracy) isn't, think of a used car.  The term is depreciation.  The original customer paid a premium to get it 'fresh' and all the used buyer is doing is reimbursing the person who still has an interest in the product.


How can the idea of depreciation be applied to games? A used car's performance will not be the same as the new car's, but it's not like a used game will run at a lower resolution or with poorer graphics because someone else played it. The box and other stuff may get old but the game itself plays as good as a new copy. Again, there may be flaws in this logic so I'm willing to listen.

I know bad games won't sell and devs blame used games and piracy for that. But when I see Gamestop posting a profit of 3 billion, not a single penny of which went to the dev, I know it hurts the industry. It's not like all the devs are swimming in cash. Even big name like Square Enix was concerned because their FF13 (along with some other titles) didn't sell as much as they hoped. I know they didn't sell because of their quality, but the point I'm trying to make is just a few under-achieving games can put a game dev in trouble, so they need every penny they can get. I think this is because the gaming industry isn't as big as movie or music industries, but the cost of making games are increasing and getting closer to that of other entertainment industries.


----------



## Gahars (Mar 14, 2012)

Foxi4 said:


> Gahars said:
> 
> 
> > Kill is a strong word, but it certainly isn't helping the developers, especially considering how expensive games can be to produce.
> ...



I'd say that the complaints from developers are legitimate, at least partly. It's an all too common story; a game is released and does not do well financially (or only performs modestly well), and that is all she wrote. The developer has no chance to build upon that experience and "try harder next time". Instead, they are disassembled/sold off/etc. by the parent company. It's easy to see where their fears are coming from.

Also, the market isn't always the perfect indicator of quality. Sometimes, no matter how good your marketing campaign may be, people still won't buy your excellent game. Using it to judge a game's worth or merit, then, is unfair.

And your last statement is a bit of an oversimplification as well. People will sell a game because they want more money to put towards another one; it may not matter how great it is. Not every player is a collector, after all.


----------



## Just Another Gamer (Mar 14, 2012)

mehrab2603 said:


> alphamule said:
> 
> 
> > Regarding how used games are accepted and selling bootleg copies (piracy) isn't, think of a used car.  The term is depreciation.  The original customer paid a premium to get it 'fresh' and all the used buyer is doing is reimbursing the person who still has an interest in the product.
> ...


But if they're suffering because of poor quality then making a quality product will change that but some decided to keep the same model and sell the same stuff over and over again and even do a sub par job of it and they expect it to sell millions and anyone else who buys them pre-owned have to have extra just so the dev's feel more assured that they are still getting out hard earned money for no apprant reason.


----------



## InuYasha (Mar 15, 2012)

Well if the major gaming companys wanted to do something they could probaly just open up there own used stores with fair prices,which would be nice because I would love for them to squash gamestop and other stores that overcharge for alot of there used games,hell or just produce more copys and just lower their prices as time goes by...


----------



## Just Another Gamer (Mar 15, 2012)

InuYasha said:


> Well if the major gaming companys wanted to do something they could probaly just open up there own used stores with fair prices,which would be nice because I would love for them to squash gamestop and other stores that overcharge for alot of there used games,hell or just produce more copys and just lower their prices as time goes by...


As good as this is big companies are too greedy for this to even start happening.


----------



## Taleweaver (Mar 15, 2012)

Rydian said:


> Would I be considered in the wrong for buying my neighbor's used lawnmower on the cheap?
> 
> Friend's moving and gives me his couch... oh shit I'm a detriment to the furniture industry, quick pass some laws to stop it!
> 
> I don't know why the entertainment industry is so self-entitled.


First off: thanks for clarifying between goods and services, Rydian. Though it wasn't aimed at me, I appreciate it nonetheless. 

Still, that doesn't make the above a valid comparison. The entertainment industry, and especially video games, have a very short window of opportunity. As a lawnmower/couch producer, it doesn't really matter if you don't sell thousands of copies on the opening weekend. These things don't loose their value. At least not as fast. With video games, that's completely different: no matter how hyped a game is, sales will go down after as little as a year. within a couple years, it's old...or even history.

Also: entertainment by itself tend to wear off, though it doesn't take less effort to produce. Rather the contrary: I bet video games have a far larger total production cost than any couch or most lawnmowers. Nonetheless, you can see second hand sales of video games pretty much from the opening weekend (or even before, if you take different regions into account). How many couches or lawnmowers change ownership within 2 weeks? I don't think it'll be many. As such, the second hand market hurts these industries more than any other I can think of.



Foxi4 said:


> To answer this question all we need to do is ask another question: "What was first, the gaming industry or the second-hand market?".
> 
> People always sold or exchanged their games, it's just that now the process has been facilitated. What years ago took going on a convention and walking around with your casettes and disks now takes going to the game store and just pawning in your game.


Exactly. Except for the word "just". To take the couch example from above: suppose Ikea doesn't just sell first hand couches, but second ones as well. More precise: couches from the same brand that look exactly the same and are positioned directly next to the original couch. Up to the fact that the only difference is the price tag on it that is nearly half that amount and has the word "used" on it.

@[member='Rydian']: In that context...Yes, I'd say Ikea would be a detriment to the furniture industry.
(it's not even as remarkable as some electronics stores...I remember seeing a place where the stacks of empty discs were next to a program that tauted it could copy ALL sorts of CD's, which were in turn next to the games...all that was missing was a dummies book on how to pirate games).


----------



## Hyro-Sama (Mar 15, 2012)

I don't totally agree with what Wever wrote. Wouldn't the gaming industry heading towards digital distribution destory the used game market? The games of today will eventually be considered retro games(Which are usually bought second hand) but the games of the future will have digtial distribution which will only leave the threat of piracy (Which seems like at this point the Gov't will win. Only time will tell.)


----------



## Midna (Mar 15, 2012)

You buy a game. Nintendo gets no money
You your friend was about to buy that game, but you instead sell it to him. The industry gets no money

It's worse than piracy. But it breaks no laws so too bad, gaming industry.

Edit: Although the same could be said of any used products. It's basically a given in our economic system. And it's not killing anything, really. People just like to pull the card that you would do the same "damage" to the industry whether you bought your copy used or you pirated it.


----------



## Just Another Gamer (Mar 15, 2012)

Midna said:


> You buy a game. Nintendo gets no money
> You your friend was about to buy that game, but you instead sell it to him. The industry gets no money
> 
> It's worse than piracy. But it breaks no laws so too bad, gaming industry.
> ...


But the gaming industry still rack in billions of dollars every year so I hardly find buying used games or consoles as killing it as every year they still make alot money and possibly enough to survive the next 5 years as well its just they like all the industries are greedy and too stubborn to change when it comes to it.

Look the Australian retailers, they over price everything they sell and they want people to not buy online where it is cheaper but buy in their shops where you would pay $100+ for something you can easily get for less overseas and their reason fro acting like this: greed.


----------



## Qtis (Mar 15, 2012)

Yes and no. It's a matter of opinion. Used game sales make profit for the stores, but not the gaming industry. On the other hand the gaming industry makes money of DLC and digital content which so far hasn't been sold at stores (PSN/XBL are online in this matter and don't count as stores (physical)). Personally I see a problem with launch prices and game availability at launch.

For example in Finland a new PS3 game costs around 70€ at launch and the same game is sold at 45€ at a UK based online store. Used games are at 50-60€ After a while the stores start selling it at 50€ and difference isn't that big. The online store starts selling the game at 25€ and the difference is there again. At the same time, the PSN version is still at around 60-70€.

What is the biggest issue here then? Prices, availability, everything. Used sales do hurt the industry, but if a person knows where to look, the game is available for a lot less new than used on most occasions.


----------



## Rydian (Mar 15, 2012)

As far as I see, this thread is about the sale of used games, which is not possible with digital distribution like Steam.  It's about the transfer of games, say giving a friend a PS2 game you no longer play.  Nor is it about piracy, since the phrases "pre-owned" and "used" indicate a previous purchase.



Veho said:


> And you call game developers "self-entitled"
> 
> One person pays for a game, two or more get to play it.


One person buys a couch, whole family uses it.
One person buys a pizza, multiple people eat off of it.
One person buys a condom, multiple people (_should_) enjoy it's use.
One person buys Mario Party 3, multiple friends come over and play it too.

I don't think these situations are morally wrong.  More than one person making use of the physical purchase of a single person _with permission_ is not wrong in my eyes.

So the concern here is when one person gives a used item to somebody else to enjoy, that is _the item leaves their possession first, it's not being shared_.  To provide examples of why I don't think this is wrong, I compared it to the simple transfer of other goods, where a wanted good leaves the hands of one person to enter another via an agreement between them, with no additional revenue going to the creator.

*If giving or selling a used game to a friend is morally wrong, then so is giving or selling a used lawnmower or pretty much any other product they could go buy in a store instead.*  It's the same situation, the transfer of a good, *and no additional money is given to the originator of that product*.



Veho said:


> The only place that's justified, a "right" and anything other than piracy is in the heads of people like you, who are trying desperately to justify and rationalize your theft as a "customer right".


*This thread is not about piracy*, please go read the first post again.



Veho said:


> And since you brought up the "goods VS services" thing, intellectual property is a service.


How can a concept that doesn't involve customers be a service?  My character, Rydian, is my own intellectual property (though not registered of course)... but Rydian is not a service.  Now while I could sell access to media involving the ideas (stories, movies, crap like that) as a service, the actual service would be the displaying of the media in return for a fee, not the media itself (and if the media itself was physically transferred for a one-time purchase, such as on a DVD, it'd be a good).

The reason that IP laws exist are to protect somebody's ability to sell goods or services that use, contain, or focus on a specific IP.  The IP itself is not the service.



Veho said:


> leading people to believe that the piece of plastic they're holding equals posession of the intellectual property itself.


It is not, but *the tangible property is a good that was sold to them*.  This is a separate concept from IP.

And if you're going to claim that there's no right to sell a used game because you're transferring IP, *the same goes for tons of other products*.  That lawnmower I mentioned?  It's likely got a trademarked name printed on it, the name of the company.  The designs?  Well if it's a modern lawnmower, we can assume they're patented!  There's most certainly IP involved in the lawnmower itself, it's design and construction as well as it's branding.

If it's wrong to sell used games because you're transferring a physical representation of IP without the originator's consent, then it's also wrong to sell a used lawnmower or other non-game devices that are or hold a physical representation of IP.

This is the origin of what I said originally, game companies seem to be self-centered, they want these types of morals to apply to them when they don't apply to other things in the same sort of situations.



Veho said:


> I can see where that might be confusing to some because the DVD is a "thing" and "things" are "goods", but the actual product you're paying for and getting, i.e. the software, is independant of the media it arrived on. Digital distribution doesn't "blur the line", it is getting the "line" to where it actually is.


If this is true, then selling a used lawnmower with a patented design without the permission of the patent holder is patent infringement?  *IP only extends so far.*



Veho said:


> tl;dr: Games are a service.
> 
> *Your complaints focusing on GOODS are not relevant.*


The United States Patent and Trademark Office disagrees.
http://tess2.uspto.gov/netahtml/tidm.html

Search for "DVD".

"DVDs featuring {indicate subject matter}" are a good.
"Electronic publishing services, namely, publication of text and graphic works of others on {indicate format, e.g., CD, DVD, on-line} featuring {indicate specific subject matter}" is a service.

Right there in a searchable table for 'ya, classified with a G for goods and an S for service.

EDIT: And yes, "Computer game software" is listed as a good, while "Electronic games services provided by means of the internet" is a service.

To clarify... So yes, this is partially what I meant by indicating the companies are trying to mislead you.  They really want to sell games as a service instead of a good because that means more income.  I mean look at the recent trend of trying to sell you DLC that's already on the game disk.  They want to squeeze more money out of a sale, but know that people are still rather intent on purchasing games 
as a good (physical copy ofr PS3 for example) and a little wary of buying things as a service (MMO subscriptions declining, PSP Go loathing because of online-store-only, stuff like that).

The US patent and trademark office, which reigns over the concept of IP in regards to sales and commercial venues, dictates that games sold as a physical copy are a good.  Companies want this to not be true, but too fucking bad for them.


----------



## Veho (Mar 15, 2012)

Rydian said:


> *This thread is not about piracy*, please go read the first post again.


I never said it was about piracy, I said it was tantamount to piracy. Please go read my post again. 

As for the rest of your reply: 

Software is licenced, not sold, the licence is non-transferrable. Software is a service (or close enough) regardless of the medium it comes on because those are the terms under which you purchase it.


----------



## marcus134 (Mar 16, 2012)

Veho said:


> Software is licenced, not sold, the licence is non-transferrable. Software is a service (or close enough) regardless of the medium it comes on because those are the terms


LOL source Fail.
typical read the title but not the article ( and of misleading titles)

from the daily finance:
_"That's because, the court ruled that when the people and companies who sold Vernor the Autodesk products "bought" the software, they actually didn't -- instead, they licensed it. Since they licensed it, they didn't have any right to resell it to Vernor, who also didn't have the right to resell it on eBay. _
_[...]_
_Copyright law allows people who bought copyrighted material to resell it as long as no copies are made, under the "First Sale Doctrine." If you own it, you can dispose of it as you wish: sell it, loan it, whatever."_

from Wired:
_""The first sale doctrine does not apply to a person who possesses a copy of the copyrighted work without owning it, such as a licensee,” the court ruled."_

The thing you probably don't know about autocad is that the software is clearly licensed, people who purchase autocad must sign a license contract which gives them access to a whole range of *services* provided by autodesk including a software *for a year*.

From store.autodesk.com:
_"purchase a new* license* of AutoCAD LT with Autodesk Subscription and save $250 PLUS the equivalent cost of *one full year* of Subscription"_

You're probably more familiar with anti-virus software, you pay a certain amount of money up-front and you receive antivirus protection and updates for a year.  Purchasing a second hand anti-virus software doesn't make sense.


----------



## kthnxshwn (Mar 16, 2012)

I don't see a problem. It'd be different if the person had liked the game, sold it, and that was just an endless cycle. However, they're selling it because they didn't like it enough to keep. Look on your shelves -- how many games are you willing to sell?


----------



## Rydian (Mar 16, 2012)

Veho said:


> Rydian said:
> 
> 
> > *This thread is not about piracy*, please go read the first post again.
> ...


You claimed my viewpoint was to try to make my own piracy seem harmless, which is not true.  My posts concern the sale and transfer of games other than through a retailer that gives a cut to ther developer.



Veho said:


> As for the rest of your reply:
> 
> Software is licenced, not sold, the licence is non-transferrable. Software is a service (or close enough) regardless of the medium it comes on because those are the terms under which you purchase it.


*That article does not say that software in general is a service,* read more than the opening.

It says that, _if control is given under a certain license_, resale can be restricted.  Restrictions can be placed on the sale and transfer of goods all the time, but *it is not inherent*.  They specify it in their sales agreements, otherwise it's not a restriction.  Hell, the JSON license states that the software will not be used for evil, and people have brought up that the restriction will be very hard or impossible to follow due to the definition of evil being variable, and suggest not using the software because of that... so applying restrictions to what can be done with a product is nothing new, but the restriction on reselling _is not inherent_ because a bought physical game is a good.

That doesn't mean the ability to stop resales or loans is a good thing.  Even the library of congress recognizes that current copyright law allows far too many restrictions to be placed, and in fact suggests repealing sections of the law.


----------



## alphamule (Mar 16, 2012)

Veho said:


> Rydian said:
> 
> 
> > *The fact that so many people don't know the fucking difference between goods and services is a big reason why companies can continue to rip people off and make unfair demands.*
> ...


Look up the word copyright.  It does not give you the right to profit but the right to prevent others from making copies for sale.  You inherently gave the buyer a copy and all the rights that go along with owning it.  It is no more right for someone to keep the game installed on their computer and then sell the disc than it is to force them to pay the entire price of a new disc just to activate it on the next computer.  There's a whole lot of 'entitlement' attitudes going around.  



> And since you brought up the "goods VS services" thing, intellectual property is a service. It might not be as clear or intuitive because of the huge compromise that is data storage, which is unfortunately (and up until recently unavoidably) tangible, leading people to believe that the piece of plastic they're holding equals posession of the intellectual property itself. It doesn't. The tangible bit is a compromise because it's the only way to get the software to the users; unfortunate because it creates a perception of ownership that the user doesn't actually have. I can see where that might be confusing to some because the DVD is a "thing" and "things" are "goods", but the actual product you're paying for and getting, i.e. the software, is independant of the media it arrived on. Digital distribution doesn't "blur the line", it is getting the "line" to where it actually is.


They can't have it both ways.  They want to force us to buy a new disc when it can't be read, and yet they want the protection of a intangible good.  We can't have it both ways... or at least not without people pointing out the contradiction.  It would be nice if publishers could sell a license that needs no disc and is sure to not work on the old machine once it's installed on a new one and then no one pulls a dick move and makes you pay $10-$20 to move it to a different owner.  But that's asking too much, hehe.  That stinks though when the implementation is a single-player game that has to be constantly online.  Thus the compromise of dongles/disc checks/etc. to allow offline play.

If we could just send in the (broken) dongle for ALL of a publisher's products and then they'd let us reactivate on another, that might be a good compromise.  Most dongles (aka smart cards) are designed to allow transfers of specific licenses from a pool.  In fact, in theory you could support multiple publishers but good luck with getting them to go along with that one.    Either way, the old days of 50 cards were super asinine.  The nice thing is that you could transfer a license physically without dealing with the publisher and thus no 'reprofit' fees.  The cards would be like HDCP but hopefully not as inept (Sony and company have questionable encryption practices?).  Of course, they'd eventually get hacked but so did satellite cards and those got updated every so often.  They learned a lot and the newer cards are damn near impossible to hack compared to the first ones.  You could do like the satellite companies and refuse to use the old encryption anymore so that your published games don't get trivially shared until a few years after release on average.  Each generation of smart card security has gotten harder and harder (and thus longer) to hack.

And yes, it would suck to lose the card.  That's why a lot of people let you reset them every so often...  But we're talking about limited markets where there's not exactly a lot of people looking to buy the used software.  Think of data logging systems with per-point licensing.  Say, 48 data points at a time for $xxxx.xx and unlimited at $xxxxx.xx.

*TL;DR*
Think of books.  The paper is not really why people are willing to pay for one, new or used.  Now apply techhobabble like I did.


----------



## alphamule (Mar 16, 2012)

mehrab2603 said:


> alphamule said:
> 
> 
> > Regarding how used games are accepted and selling bootleg copies (piracy) isn't, think of a used car.  The term is depreciation.  The original customer paid a premium to get it 'fresh' and all the used buyer is doing is reimbursing the person who still has an interest in the product.
> ...


You think someone's willing to pay $60 for a new game and then pay the same 3 years down the line?  I sure don't.  Imagine if for example, a company like 3D Realms had been able to sell Duke Nukem 3D for the same price and rate of sales for a decade or more.  In the real world, information/content generally depreciates in value.  This is not even counting the fact that there's plenty of used copies of the game available, although that and the boredom factor combine to collapse prices even further that people are willing to pay.



> I know bad games won't sell and devs blame used games and piracy for that. But when I see Gamestop posting a profit of 3 billion, not a single penny of which went to the dev, I know it hurts the industry. It's not like all the devs are swimming in cash. Even big name like Square Enix was concerned because their FF13 (along with some other titles) didn't sell as much as they hoped. I know they didn't sell because of their quality, but the point I'm trying to make is just a few under-achieving games can put a game dev in trouble, so they need every penny they can get. I think this is because the gaming industry isn't as big as movie or music industries, but the cost of making games are increasing and getting closer to that of other entertainment industries.


Answer:  Publish digitally and bypass Gamestop entirely if that's your goal.  Every penny that Steam makes Valve is a penny that Gamestop will *never* see!  Gamestop is kind of obsolete, anyways?  Probably because of companies doing that?  You'll always have the people who go to Wal-Mart or Best Buy or the like to buy video games, though...

The real answer:  People are selling their used copies for much less than they're worth - LOL talk about a ripoff!  I never did see a reason to use Gamestop.  Most people are just too lazy to trade their games directly?



InuYasha said:


> Well if the major gaming companys wanted to do something they could probaly just open up there own used stores with fair prices,which would be nice because I would love for them to squash gamestop and other stores that overcharge for alot of there used games,hell or just produce more copys and just lower their prices as time goes by...


Ah, OK InuYasha got there before me.



Just Another Gamer said:


> Midna said:
> 
> 
> > You buy a game. Nintendo gets no money
> ...



Revenue:  Gross(sales) or net(profit)?

@Rydian
Copyright and other lawslegal constructs/concepts such as incorporation were derived from tangible goods and practical experience.  Marriage is related to corporations in that manner.  The legal system builds on existing laws and cases.  But this isn't a politics forum, so...  hehe, I'll leave the history of the world a Google search away or something.


----------



## Veho (Mar 16, 2012)

Rydian said:


> My posts concern the sale and transfer of games other than through a retailer that gives a cut to ther developer.


 And my post said that's tantamount to piracy. 




> It says that, _if control is given under a certain license_, resale can be restricted.  Restrictions can be placed on the sale and transfer of goods all the time, but it is not inherent.


All games today are sold under such a licence. We're not talking about SNES games here, we're talking about current titles.


----------



## alphamule (Mar 16, 2012)

And those restrictions are very new compared to the other mediums that most resemble games(books/movies).  Kind of like the "notice not required for copyrights" thing that makes it so that it's practically impossible to copy photographs without negatives anymore.

This restrictions aren't often even moral, if even legal.  Sadly, if they are determined to be illegal, someone will just pay a lobbyist and presto - legal!  If people start to complain, just hire a spin artist and marketers and even the moral issues can be solved.  After all, if people expect to pay $5 for the digital version of a game that is selling used on disc for $15, and not be able to resell it, then that would likely not be as unacceptable to most people.  College books work this way, of course.

It's possible to have box office sales of $300m and spend $400m on a movie, by the way.  It's hard to know the real profits/losses of studios though, because of the way they try to avoid taxes.


----------



## Guild McCommunist (Mar 16, 2012)

>Rydian says this topic isn't about piracy.
>Derails the topic to a different topic anyway.

'Kay.


----------



## purplesludge (Mar 16, 2012)

Veho said:


> Rydian said:
> 
> 
> > My posts concern the sale and transfer of games other than through a retailer that gives a cut to ther developer.
> ...


Where can I read this license?


----------



## marcus134 (Mar 16, 2012)

purplesludge said:


> Where can I read this license?


there's a short version on the game box and a long one inside the game and/or on the games website

example:
BFBC2 (PC):
*on the box:*
online feature are limited to one account per serial code and is non transferable. (says nothing about offline feature)
*inside the disc:*
_"Through this purchase, you are acquiring and EA grants you a personal, limited, non-exclusive license to install and use the Software for your non-commercial use solely as set forth in this License and the accompanying documentation. Your acquired rights are subject to your compliance with this Agreement.  Any commercial use is prohibited. You are expressly prohibited from sub-licensing, renting, leasing or otherwise distributing the Software or rights to use the Software, except by transfer as expressly set forth in paragraph 2 below. The term of your License shall commence on the date that you install or otherwise use the Software, and shall end on the earlier of the date that* you dispose of or transfer* the Software; or EA's termination of this License. _
[...]
_You may make *a one-time permanent transfer of all your rights* to install and use the Software* to another individual or legal entity* provided that: (a) the Technical Protection Measures used by the Software supports such transfers; (b) you also transfer this License and all copies of the Software; © you retain no copies of the Software, upgrades, updates or prior versions; and (d) the receiving party accepts the terms and conditions of this License.  Such transfer may not include access to any online feature, service or functionality, or right thereto, including updates, patches, unlocked or downloadable content, dynamically served content and other online features and/or services that require registration with the enclosed access code, that are limited to one user account and/or that are otherwise non-transferable.__"_

Splinter cell: double agent:
*on the box*:
usual copyright shit about logo character and design.
*inside the disc:*
_"Ubisoft grants the User a non-exclusive and non-transferable Licence to use the Multimedia Product, but remains the owner of all the rights relating thereto._
_Any rights not specifically transferred by this Licence remain the property of Ubisoft._
_The Multimedia Product is licensed and not sold to the User, for private use._
_The Licence does not confer any right or title to the Multimedia Product and cannot be understood as a transfer of intellectual property rights to the Multimedia Product._
[...]
_The User cannot sell, sublicense or lease the Multimedia Product to a third party._
_*The User can only transfer the Multimedia Product* if the recipient agrees to the terms and conditions of the Licence. In this event, the User undertakes to transfer all components and documentation relating to the Multimedia Product. He also undertakes to delete any copy of the Multimedia Product from his computer. In this event, this Licence is automatically and immediately terminated."_

The thing about terms agreement and those kind of stuff is that quite often, companies put invalid clauses in them, or clause that are valid in some countries but not in others. One of the main problems that affect most legal systems in the world is the use of invalid or abusive clause because company can coerce into paying/sue a person (most of the time poor people that can't defend themselves), and the defendant has to prove that the clause is not applicable.

The splinter cell license is amusing to read as the owner can't transfer the use of the product but can transfer the product which actually forfeit the point of transferring the product in the first place. it's like saying you can transfer a nut cracker but not its nut cracking ability.

Also the second paragraph ("_the user cannot sell ... the multimedia product_") is invalid in the u.s. as it goes against the first sale doctrine. (_"distribution rights of a copyright holder end on that particular copy once the copy is lawfully transferred"_)

judgement:
software licensing (adobe) Long: http://www.tabberone...beSystems.shtml  Short: http://www.tabberone...Systems_A.shtml
not for resale clause is invalid: Long:http://www.tabberone...oyAugusto.shtml  Short: http://www.tabberone...Augusto_A.shtml
Shrinkwrap license aren't enforceable: Short http://cyber.law.har...s/stepsumm.html


----------



## Veho (Mar 16, 2012)

purplesludge said:


> Where can I read this license?


Here.


----------



## Smuff (Mar 16, 2012)

You can print anything you like. Upholding it in a court of law is another matter entirely.

If the second hand market is hurting the industry so much and is a breach of these licences, why are there not massive lawsuits from the gaming companies to shut down the practice of selling used games in the same way they shut down torrent sites etc ? Because they would not win as no laws are being broken, simple as that.

If it was legal to enforce these licences, the software companies would have done so by now.

It's all a load of bollocks.


----------



## alphamule (Mar 16, 2012)

marcus134 said:


> purplesludge said:
> 
> 
> > Where can I read this license?
> ...


If the buyer is that lucky to actually see them before breaking the "can't return it" seal, and they don't have a "if you want to continue to use this game online(and it's an online game), you must agree to new terms we post every month in the middle of a 50-page document" loophole.  



SmuffTheMagicDragon said:


> You can print anything you like. Upholding it in a court of law is another matter entirely.
> 
> If the second hand market is hurting the industry so much and is a breach of these licences, why are there not massive lawsuits from the gaming companies to shut down the practice of selling used games in the same way they shut down torrent sites etc ? Because they would not win as no laws are being broken, simple as that.
> 
> ...


[
Try opening a used-games store in Tokyo.  _Actually, that applies to used hardware sales and game rentals? I think I misunderstood._

*Edit*
http://en.akihabaranews.com/6699/legacy-unused/pc/2nd-hand-electronics-sales-will-soon-be-illegal-in-japan
Does anyone have a link to any articles showing what actually got enacted?

http://www.1up.com/boards/posts/list/54626.page
http://www.ithinkimlost.com/japan-jet-school-related/10206-why-cant-you-rent-games-japan.html

Yeah, it's the rentals and old hardware.  My bad...


----------



## Rydian (Mar 16, 2012)

Veho said:


> Rydian said:
> 
> 
> > My posts concern the sale and transfer of games other than through a retailer that gives a cut to ther developer.
> ...


Then so is selling a used lawnmower.  Transferring a physical product containing IP to another person without direct consent of the originator and without them getting any profit.

If you apply the same logic to a different product and it suddenly seems stupid, _maybe the logic isn't sound_ (or in many cases the logic is just too broad).



Veho said:


> > It says that, _if control is given under a certain license_, resale can be restricted.  Restrictions can be placed on the sale and transfer of goods all the time, but it is not inherent.
> 
> 
> All games today are sold under such a licence. We're not talking about SNES games here, we're talking about current titles.


I don't remember a time limit being mentioned.  That said, it's not inherent, and it'd only take one example without that clause to prove your statement incorrect anyways (as stated above, your logic is too broad).



Guild McCommunist said:


> >Rydian says this topic isn't about piracy.
> >Derails the topic to a different topic anyway.
> 
> 'Kay.


tl;dr'd, much?

My posts have been about reselling and giving away used games.  That's the topic of this thread, as stated in the first post and the title of the thread.


----------



## tbgtbg (Mar 16, 2012)

Treating the customers like cash cows is killing the gaming industry, not the used market.


----------



## marcus134 (Mar 16, 2012)

alphamule said:


> If the buyer is that lucky to actually see them before breaking the "can't return it" seal, and they don't have a "if you want to continue to use this game online(and it's an online game), you must agree to new terms we post every month in the middle of a 50-page document" loophole.


1. I don't know in the U.S. but here, in Quebec, if you open a software box and realize that you're in disagreement with the included terms, you can return the software even if you broke the seal and even if it's part of the store policy to not accept software return, the retailer is obligated to refund the customer.
2. you probably missed the point about shrinkwrap contracts at bottom of my previous post, which aren't enforceable.  I believe there's a strong point of defense in there, when purchasing a software you technically sign a purchase contract (even if you don't literally sign the invoice), however the content of the contract is hidden from you until you open the box which doesn't make sense at all.


----------



## purplesludge (Mar 16, 2012)

Veho said:


> purplesludge said:
> 
> 
> > Where can I read this license?
> ...


Oh cool a EULA from one company. Are you saying that there isn't some general rules and that each game must be covered by an all encompassing EULA that does't work in the US?
Example I'm assuming that EULA isn't valid since gamestop purchases and resells copies of Rockstar games.


----------



## alphamule (Mar 16, 2012)

marcus134 said:


> alphamule said:
> 
> 
> > If the buyer is that lucky to actually see them before breaking the "can't return it" seal, and they don't have a "if you want to continue to use this game online(and it's an online game), you must agree to new terms we post every month in the middle of a 50-page document" loophole.
> ...


No, I got it, but even if they're valid, they're being applied in a way that is generally considered illegal (actually, I think the term is unbinding for civil law - it's an 1-sided 'agreement' like some crackpot writing on piece of paper that you owe them 5 billion US dollars for permission to breath their air).  Yeah, it's generally only considered legal on certain kinds of terms and products.  For example, if you agree to a term saying that you have to subscribe to play World of Warcraft.  It even says on the box if you can still find it in store, that it requires an online subscription=repay over and over and over and...  Someone would find it hard to argue in front of even the most friendly court that you should be able to play without fulfilling the charge needed to have a subscription.  I could use hyperbole about 'first-born child' clauses but the real ones are pretty bad, already!  Like the 'no review' clause I mentioned.  Last I checked, slavery was illegal.  

Look into the license of PC3000 or Salvation Data's HD Doctor.  They have a good reason to worry about reverse-engineering.  The PC3000 cards are essentially dongles that act as a hard drive controller.  Nothing keeps someone from recording a log between the SATA end points or with a 2-device EIDE cable, though.  The kinds of people buying it are just wanting something that works and gets fast turn-around times and doesn't require them to spend all their time reverse-engineering HDD firmwares.  The people capable of reversing the data recovery (read:  HDD firmware hacking) tools are more into it to make clones or to save themselves the 6-digit figures needed in paying people to figure out vendor codes.  But PC3000 is really relying on honesty/laziness/vested-interests/reputation of 'dud' clones to protect their software.  It's a niche software, so I'm not sure if it's completely the same as mainstream games like Splinter Cell.  I tried that on my stepbrother's Xbox and thought it was kind of cool.  It's one of the few games that I'd probably prefer on a console.  Yeah, I normally prefer PC's but I'm no console-bigot if the game runs well.  

In the US, it wildly varies by state?  I know that each state has different consumer-seller laws.

*An interesting article:  http://www.azubu.com...0/re_url/voices*
Pretty damn funny:  http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2011-11-21-video-game-rentals-to-eradicate-pre-owned-sales


----------



## Guild McCommunist (Mar 16, 2012)

SmuffTheMagicDragon said:


> You can print anything you like. Upholding it in a court of law is another matter entirely.
> 
> If the second hand market is hurting the industry so much and is a breach of these licences, why are there not massive lawsuits from the gaming companies to shut down the practice of selling used games in the same way they shut down torrent sites etc ? Because they would not win as no laws are being broken, simple as that.
> 
> ...



Considering most of the retailers of video games also sell used games, effectively cutting off one of their largest sources of their retailer's revenue cuts theirs. It's kinda like separating yourself from you conjoined twin brother because he slept with your girlfriend. You really want to take that kitchen knife and do it but in the end you'll both end up dead.


----------



## Rydian (Mar 17, 2012)

Because I forgot to do it earlier... Here's where I, for like the 80th time, point out that an EULA/ToS cannot override law _and game companies know that_ (mainly to go along with Smuff's post).

Since Veho pointed out recent games, I'll include a snippet from a game for the Wii after the Wii's EULA to point out that while they damn well want to control what you can do, they can only do it so far before overstepping the law.

Wii, EULA.


> Article 16: Agreement Interpretation
> If any part of this agreement is found to be invalid or unenforceable, that part of the agreement will no longer apply. You agree that the invalid part will be considered deleted from the agreement, but that all other parts of the agreement will remain in effect. You further agree that we may replace the invalid part by a provision which reflects or comes closest to reflecting the initial intention.



Wii, Backyard Football, page 21 of the manual.


> MISCELLANEOUS
> If any provision or portion of this EULA is found to be unlawful, void, or for any reason
> unenforceable, it will be severed from and in no way affect the validity or enforceability of
> the remaining provisions of the EULA.


----------



## Veho (Mar 17, 2012)

Rydian said:


> > And my post said that's tantamount to piracy.
> 
> 
> Then so is selling a used lawnmower.


Only if selling a used lawnmower gives the buyer the right to use the blueprints and company logo any way he sees fit. 



> If you apply the same logic to a different product and it suddenly seems stupid, _maybe the logic isn't sound_.


If you apply a different set of values to the same product based on how it's distributed, maybe your logic is flawed. 



Rydian said:


> Since Veho pointed out recent games, I'll include a snippet from a game for the Wii after the Wii's EULA to point out that while they damn well want to control what you can do, they can only do it so far before overstepping the law.


And I'll (again) point out that the "games are licenced, not sold" part of the agreement is not overstepping the law in any way and has been upheld by the court. That part of the agreement is valid, if somewhat fiddly to enforce because pursuing every individual resale is like punching fog.


----------



## alphamule (Mar 17, 2012)

Actually, having the lawn mower in front of me lets me modify it...  thus making a derivative device.  And not pay a patent fee.  The people selling new ones must hate that I can add/refurbish my own air intakes and fuel filters and plugs instead of buying a brand new one every Summer!  Imagine trying to sell a lawnmower that can't use standard plugs...  And suing people for cleaning their old filters or using a different piece of foam with the same flow properties.  Ouch!  Of course,  most people would just look at the "oh wow, that one's cheap" price and then get nailed 10 months down the line for the filters and nonstandard-slotted plugs from the same store.

Also, I'm not sure if Nintendo ever liked the Game Genie or ever will.  Technically a game cheat/mod is the same as a derivative work.  

_Patents and copyrights are...  special and different._


----------



## Rydian (Mar 17, 2012)

Veho said:


> Rydian said:
> 
> 
> > > And my post said that's tantamount to piracy.
> ...


But you're the one saying that selling or giving away a used game is tantamount to piracy?  That's not what happens with used games though.  If I sell a used game to somebody, the same sort of transfer happens when a place like Gamestop sold the original to me.  I'm getting a copy of it to play, I do not have any rights to reproduce it.  The copyright of the IP holder is still intact, no additional copies have been created.

I used the lawnmower comparison to show that applying the same sort of ideas/restrictions to other products would be silly, but it seems that's not going over very well, so let's say books are another example.  Books are much easier to think of in comparison to what sold games really are.  A good, a physical copy transferred to you, that contains IP and copywritten stuff all throughout it.  As somebody mentioned before, people are buying a physical thing, but they're not buying it for the paper, they're buying it for the words.  The fact that it's a physical container and representation of ideas means to either teach or entertain, so people buy the physical thing in order to get education/entertainment out of it.

But I don't think that selling a book you've already read is morally wrong.  Yard sales?  Used book stores?  Hell, libraries might even count, I don't think they need to get permission from every single copyright holder involved in every single book they have on-hand.



Veho said:


> > If you apply the same logic to a different product and it suddenly seems stupid, _maybe the logic isn't sound_.
> 
> 
> If you apply a different set of values to the same product based on how it's distributed, maybe your logic is flawed.


Check up on your history.

The entire concept of goods versus services has existed for hundreds of years.  Hell, here's a book from 1887 discussing the differences (in regards to the trade issues of the day).

Last I checked It's taught in secondary (middle) school when kids learn the basics about businesses.  There's online resources for instructors strewn about.

It's taught in business classes since it's such an important concept, and there's plenty of books that cover it, at least in part.
This is NOT my idea, *the fact that an entire section of the US patent and trademark office is dedicated to recording the differences should show that*, and also show how important of a concept it is.



Veho said:


> Rydian said:
> 
> 
> > Since Veho pointed out recent games, I'll include a snippet from a game for the Wii after the Wii's EULA to point out that while they damn well want to control what you can do, they can only do it so far before overstepping the law.
> ...


WoW's online play is a service, so the software was being modified in order to tamper with the service, so I'll argue on one hand that that's what made this decision overstep normal bounds...

But on the other hand, I haven't been just discussing law.  It's well-known that the big companies often hold the law in their hand unfairly, I'm discussing morals and whether it actually hurts them (which is the actual topic, not legality).

I stand firm, if reselling used games is such a detriment, then so is reselling books and lawnmowers.


----------



## Veho (Mar 21, 2012)

Took me a while to get to writing this post, because long, argumented posts are not my thing. I prefer short, trolling ones   



Rydian said:


> But you're the one saying that selling or giving away a used game is tantamount to piracy?  That's not what happens with used games though.  If I sell a used game to somebody, the same sort of transfer happens when a place like Gamestop sold the original to me.


When selling a new game, Gamestop hasn't installed or played the game and therefore isn't bound by the licencing agreement (but more importantly, they aren't playing the game, they are a method of distribution, not the end user). When buying and reselling used games, they're just being dicks. They're making a (massive) profit off of games without giving a cent to the authors. It's bootlegging with a slightly more limited supply. 



> I used the lawnmower comparison to show that applying the same sort of ideas/restrictions to other products would be silly, but it seems that's not going over very well


Because the comparison breaks down very fast.  



> so let's say books are another example.  Books are much easier to think of in comparison to what sold games really are.  A good, a physical copy transferred to you, that contains IP and copywritten stuff all throughout it.  As somebody mentioned before, people are buying a physical thing, but they're not buying it for the paper, they're buying it for the words.  The fact that it's a physical container and representation of ideas means to either teach or entertain, so people buy the physical thing in order to get education/entertainment out of it.


 But books also contain all the necessary hardware to display the IP, making them more akin to those LCD games   

But yes, that's the valid comparison. The physical book is a medium to hold and distribute the contents. And like you said yourself, people aren't buying it for the paper, they are buying it for the text. The physical object is just storage. You're not buying it for the paper, you're buying it for the idea. You're paying for access to the idea. The paper is a way of giving you access to the idea, but the paper is not the idea, and the idea is not the paper. So we have the distinction between the storage and the content down. 

What makes the idea an integral (and resellable) part of the storage in books is the first sale doctrine, which, ignoring completely the distinction of data and storage, says owning the paper gives ownership of the text as well, and the author can go soak his head. It's not _logically_ inherent, it's legally defined that way. 




> But I don't think that selling a book you've already read is morally wrong.  Yard sales?  Used book stores?  Hell, libraries might even count, I don't think they need to get permission from every single copyright holder involved in every single book they have on-hand.


It's not like the copyright holder has any say in the matter one way or another. 

There is a thing called a public lending right, that acknowledges the author's right to receive royalties for every person that reads his book. The droit de suite grants the artist a fee for every resale of his work. A similar act exists in the US. It recognizes the author's right to receive royalties for every resale of his work under certain conditions (and while the whole "games are(n't) art" thing is debatable, a parallel can be drawn here between art galleries and Gamestop). I admit I, too, am not inclined to grant a sculptor the resale fee, but it often pops up in used books discussions, and it's a valid view on the morality of the transaction. 

_Morally_, the author deserves compensation for every person that gains access to his work (i.e. the text, in case of books), because that's what's being sold here. The author might (and probably will) choose to fortfeit that right in exchange for exposure (i.e. used book sales and libraries), keeping his works in circulation, making them available to a wider audience (and also chasing down every resale is impossible and more trouble than it's worth). Would a business model where you force everyone to pay you royalties for taking a peek at your work? Hell no, it would fail and fail hard. With stuff that is pure creative output, you bombard people with your work until some of them decide to give you money. But does that mean people have an inherent "right" to someone's work? No.  



> This is NOT my idea, the fact that an entire section of the US patent and trademark office is dedicated to recording the differences should show that, and also show how important of a concept it is.


It doesn't make the logic any less flawed. But then again their job isn't to use logic, it's to draw arbitrary lines and enforce them. The "software on a CD is different from downloaded software" distinction stems from the first sale doctrine, not the other way around, and you can't convince me anyone in the decision process gave a rat's ass about "concepts". 

That's where the software licence comes in. It is legal and legally binding, and while rulings in various cases vary, they all say that "if it looks like a sale, it's a sale, _if it looks like a licence it's a licence_", and that if you at any point agree to the licence (by installing the software, if you were warned beforehand, or clicking on "I Accept" anywhere in the purchase or installation process) you are bound by it, including where it says "no resale", because that part of the agreement is legal. 

And since software is licenced and not sold, neither the goods VS service issue nor the first sale doctrine apply, despite the tangible physical bits. 



> But on the other hand, I haven't been just discussing law. It's well-known that the big companies often hold the law in their hand unfairly, I'm discussing morals and whether it actually hurts them (which is the actual topic, not legality).


Legally, software isn't sold, it's licenced. Morally, it is wrong to acquire access to software without paying the author a dime. 

Does it actually hurt them? Too many arguments to both sides, with no easy way to check any of the theories. I'm going to say "maybe".  



> lawnmowers


Now you're just being facetious.


----------



## Foxi4 (Mar 21, 2012)

Veho said:


> Legally, software isn't sold, it's licenced. Morally, it is wrong to acquire access to software without paying the author a dime.
> 
> Does it actually hurt them? Too many arguments to both sides, with no easy way to check any of the theories. I'm going to say "maybe".


It really depends on the definition. In most countries video game licenses (as far as discs and cartridges are concerned) state that the lawful holder of the disc/cartridge/whatever other medium used is the holder of the license. In this definition, the lawful holder is the person who purchased the disc, regardless of whether it was bought first or second-hand. Moreover, I'm pretty sure they also state that selling the disc/cartridge equals forfeiting your claims as far as license is concerned - otherwise it would be legal to buy a game, dump it and return it to the store.

Unfortunatelly I am too lazy to actually look through a document like this for meaningful quotes, but in practice that's how it works where I live. The idea is that the "first person who purchased the game new" has paid the "tribute to the author" for this particular copy. It's "paying tribute for one copy several times" that would be unfair.


----------



## Hyro-Sama (Mar 21, 2012)

@[member='Veho']: Are you trying to say that selling and purhasing pre-owned games is illegal?


----------



## Foxi4 (Mar 21, 2012)

Hyro-Sama said:


> @[member='Veho']: Are you trying to say that selling and purhasing pre-owned games is illegal?


He doesn't say it's illegal, he says that it's a matter of the license and he doesn't take sides on whether or not it hurts developers. In other words, he's impartial.


----------



## Rydian (Mar 22, 2012)

Veho said:


> > I used the lawnmower comparison to show that applying the same sort of ideas/restrictions to other products would be silly, but it seems that's not going over very well
> 
> 
> Because the comparison breaks down very fast.


If books are a valid comparison, why not a lawnmower?  I said "it's not going over very well" as in "people don't like to think that way", which is why I switched to books, where it's almost unavoidable to note the huge similarities.

I think that games are an art form... and just like there's 583,405 girls on DA making shit notebook sketches of flat-faced "anime" characters, there's tons of companies making shovelware where the advertisement doesn't even mention what genre of game it is because it sucks so bad.  Then on the other hand, just like there's printed works that bring people to tears, many a teen cried when Aeris died.

Back on topic... of course the idea of expecting royalties to be paid every time an object changes hand is flawed.  That's simply not feasible, which is why it's constantly ignored.  But, if it is a right, then doesn't that mean selling a used book is ripping off the author?

*I think these ideas are very dangerous.  This is getting into the realm of controlling who is allowed to know what sort of information.*



Veho said:


> > This is NOT my idea, the fact that an entire section of the US patent and trademark office is dedicated to recording the differences should show that, and also show how important of a concept it is.
> 
> 
> It doesn't make the logic any less flawed. But then again their job isn't to use logic, it's to draw arbitrary lines and enforce them.


Their concern is with real commerce.  Ideas that simply are not feasible don't fit into it, and so are ignored.  We, as a society, choose to agree on other methods that can be done, then.  Public/commercial deals can be feasibly controlled.  Private deals rarely can without backlash (unless you get into socially-"bad" things like drugs and sex).


----------



## alphamule (Mar 23, 2012)

Veho said:


> It's bootlegging with a slightly more limited supply.



Not according to (even the heavily-modifed to be pro-publisher at this time)copyright law.  Darn those fair use and first sale doctrines!  Now, if someone were able to play a game on their Xbox without the original disc... D'oh, mod chips!  Yeah, they're indirectly helping people break the law.  Just like VCR's, there's a lot that don't, though.  You see people recording shows and not selling them but rather watching them at a later time.  The copies are so awful compared to legitimate ones, that people wouldn't want to buy them,  anyways!  The real problem is when they go digital stuff like a HDD.  



> What makes the idea an integral (and resellable) part of the storage in books is the first sale doctrine, which, ignoring completely the distinction of data and storage, says owning the paper gives ownership of the text as well, and the author can go soak his head.


Actually, the concepts of data and storage are the same but with different technology.  Just ask the Catholics about archiving huge amounts of and old information.  I think there's a 'few' famous museums and libraries in Vatican City.  They practically invented copyright since you had to be authorized to even own many texts long before modern times.  Weakening of those protections lead to the industrial revolution among other things.  Rather that is good or bad for our species in the long run has yet to be seen, heh.



> It's not logically inherent, it's legally defined that way.


 All laws of this sort are artificial, though.  And no, that's not trolling.  It's the whole point of not letting a King decide the laws with no way to say no.  It takes a society to create, enforce, and respect a given law.  There are however laws that a reasonable person would say are 'natural' in the sense that rampant murder isn't something most people like to have happen to them and their families.  The closer to 'natural' a law is, the easier it is to gain respect.  This is based highly on intuition and instinct as well as cold, hard logic.  Logic and reason are 2 different things - you can use logic to sidestep reason and instinct to ignore both logic and reason.  



> There is a thing called a public lending right



Some quotes from that first Wikipedia article you mention:

"The first PLR program was initiated in Denmark in 1941. However, it was not properly implemented until 1946 due to World War II.[2] The idea spread slowly from country to country and many nations' PLR programs are quite recent developments."

"For a nation like Canada or Australia the majority of funds would be going to authors outside the country, much of it to the United States, which is unpalatable to those nations."

The USA doesn't implement this except in 'little Europe'.  The 'PLR' would be misleadingly named if enacted here.  The public in the USA already has a lending right.  If this was enacted, it would restrict that after the law to protect the publishers.  In countries where you don't inherently have a lending rightprivilege due to the way the law is written, this makes lending legal?  This argument doesn't exist in countries like the USA where copyright is a lease on the public's rights and where owning the article (book/disc/system) gives you a right to resell it even if it has data (text/files/firmware) since you already paid for the right to resell in the (inflated) price of the article.  By the way, there are machines that you can lease that have contracts that prevent outright purchase (effectively stops reselling).  Any 'used' 'wetvac' of a certain famous brand is in fact stolen property since they never really sell them even to the store.  Hardware that has a very limited application and exists strictly for proprietary software/data/services could also be 'sold' but be useless unless you have a license.  Cell phones, for example are useless without the service.  Many of them won't even let you access the 'free' functionallity (games/music/etc. on your SD card) without a SIM card but this is more because of firmware limits than any license.  I imagine the automotive industry has some examples as well.

From an actual USA law school site instead of a stub article on a layman site, heh:  http://cyber.law.har...and_Limitations

"Given the highly incomplete coverage of rental and public lending rights in the supranational agreements, it is not surprising that many countries currently do not recognize them. Of particular importance to libraries, currently only 29 countries have established public lending rights systems. Most of those countries are in Europe. The United States does not have one, nor does any country in Latin America, Africa, or Asia. "  This article doesn't mention it, but PLR fees are a joke for most authors as it is.    California does not a nation make - it really is like 'little Europe' with these types of laws that are similar to what you see in Europe.  It's been about 4 decades and the rest of the nation hasn't followed along.  Again, with Wikipedia, you need to read the references.  That's less than $10K/year for all authors who collected.  Ouch!  Even with low enforcement, that's pretty sad.  The overhead alone must take most of it.  ;(



> That's where the software licence comes in. It is legal and legally binding, and while rulings in various cases vary, they all say that "if it looks like a sale, it's a sale, if it looks like a licence it's a licence", and that if you at any point agree to the licence (by installing the software, if you were warned beforehand, or clicking on "I Accept" anywhere in the purchase or installation process) you are bound by it, including where it says "no resale", because that part of the agreement is legal.
> 
> And since software is licenced and not sold, neither the goods VS service issue nor the first sale doctrine apply, despite the tangible physical bits.



Having a license for software cover the resell of the hardware that you owned before agreeing is kind of funny.  It's like having our cake and eating it too (for both the purchaser of the disc and the licensor of the software).  The publisher wants to prevent users from keeping the installation and reselling the disc but since they sold them a physical device that holds the software...  They're effectively wanting a license upon opening a book.  There aren't a whole lot of books with tape seals that require you to agree not to sell them or even let others see the insides of them.  Probably because they would be laughed out of court!  The fact that there's an inconsistancy with software is due to the perception that any form of data is special just because of the physical format that it comes in.  Books have to be interpreted as much as a computer program.  It's not like either the brain or a CPU are passive devices.  Either the license is tied to the disc, or the publisher just commited a type of fraud by selling a worthless disc and then being generous and giving you a license to prevent lawsuits/prosecution.  There's a reason that most people have been suggesting that the physical should cost more but come with unlimited license transfers.  The same reasoning would apply to a $5 single-account (Steam) version compared to a $15-$20 transferible 'GOTY' version of a game.  But consumers would probably pay $20 for the  $5 version and think they got the $20 'play anywhere, resell if you get bored' version and then get a big surprise.



> Morally, the author deserves compensation for every person that gains access to his work


  Says who?  The author?  The publisher?  Certainly not tradition or the common practices in other (older) lines of work.  You don't expect to get paid again for services or material goods that you keep benefiting from them or decide to give the benefits to a third party.  When selling a car, you don't pay the mechanic another fee because they fixed the tail lights 2 years ago.  I'm sure that mining companies would love to get a kickback on every time someone recycled copper - not to mention the people that recycled it before!  Both of this jobs take skill the same as writing does so there is the basics of the moral situation.  Limiting the access at a given time is what a book does.  Thus, the concept of a number of copies being the determining factor on how much an author is owed.  What's funny is that from a certain point of view, copying the software from the CD to computer's RAM and HDD are themselves a violation of copyright if they allow the original disc to still be readible by another computer.  This ignores the fact that the disc is a useless form of the software without a copy in RAM and thus fair use provisions, though.

"chasing down every resale is impossible"  Not really, if you force everyone to only trade through 'official' channels if they want to be legal.  Namely, eBooks since you can simply deny them the right to transfer it to another device rather the other laws allow it or not simply because of the standard interpretation of the DMCA that ignores it's own compatibility provision or first sale provisions of the other laws.  Rather this is worth the effort is another matter - people probably don't want to pay $20 (same price as hard cover) for leaseware.  Publishers release multiple formats for this very reason.


----------



## alphamule (Mar 23, 2012)

Meh, the lawnmower analogy when applied to patents would be similar if the company wanted to get paid for the patent license every time you road or when you sold it.  You can only do that with the kinds of models that 'wetvac' companies and Net10 and the like use.  In most states, once you've sold it, it STAYS SOLD unless the sale itself was illegal.  Say, stolen goods, or a patent violation like Kodak/Polaroid.


http://www.techdirt....432910745.shtml  HAHAHA, I knew it.  It took me a while but someone *IS* trying to get a claim on future sales of a physical good!

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120315/22541318119/how-much-todays-copyright-mess-is-due-to-bad-definitions-word-copy.shtml
Interesting... We might be better off with a copyright topic, LOL.


----------



## Veho (Mar 25, 2012)

Rydian said:


> If books are a valid comparison, why not a lawnmower?


Because you can't download a lawnmower.    



> But, if it is a right, then doesn't that mean selling a used book is ripping off the author?


Buying, actually, and it depends on what you're buying it for (we're talking about morals here). If you haven't read it before and you're buying it to get the text, then yeah, kind of. If you've read it before and you're buying it just to have on your shelf then no. If you're buying it to, say, carve sculptures, then not at all. But that's the difference between the novel itself and the paper it's printed on.  

It would be nice to have a "donate" button to donate a dollar to the author if you liked the book but didn't come across it via a means that pays royalties. And in an ideal world there would also be a "punch in the face" button for books like Twilight. One can but dream. 



> *I think these ideas are very dangerous. This is getting into the realm of controlling who is allowed to know what sort of information.*


Come now. That's slippery slope fallacy and you know it. There's a difference between saying an author has a moral right to be compensated for their work, and 1984. 



> Their concern is with real commerce. Ideas that simply are not feasible don't fit into it, and so are ignored.


That's not really contradicting what I'm saying. The law doesn't stop at the logical extent of the issue it regulates, it stops at a point where it's feasibly enforceable. That also means you can't apply the boundaries of the law when examining the logical implications of another issue. 








alphamule said:


> Not according to copyright law.  Darn those fair use and first sale doctrines!


And that's why software is licenced, not sold, and the first sale doctrine doesn't apply.



> The public in the USA already has a lending right.


The "public lending right" refers to a right of the author, not the public. If that law didn't exist people would still have the right to lend books. The law just says/acknowledges that compensating the author in a small way is the decent thing to do. 



> Having a license for software cover the resell of the hardware that you owned before agreeing is kind of funny.


But it's legal. Also, you're not buying the hardware, you're buying the software.  



> There aren't a whole lot of books with tape seals that require you to agree not to sell them or even let others see the insides of them.  Probably because they would be laughed out of court!


Nope. In fact it is well within their right to slap a licencing agreement on the book saying "this book is not sold, it is on extended lease." Poof, reselling forbidden. 



> Says who? The author? The publisher?


Morals? Common decency? 



> Certainly not tradition or the common practices in other (older) lines of work.


Other, older, completely different, entirely unrelated... 



> the disc is a useless form of the software without a copy in RAM


My point exactly.


----------



## alphamule (Mar 25, 2012)

Meh, might as well close this one.  I highly doubt anything will change.  TL;DR version is Veho thinks software should be granted profit on all transactions and I don't while Rydian is saying that paying again for software after every sale is like charging a patent license fee every time you resell a lawnmower which Veho is saying is different than copyright license fees.  I think we pretty much derailed, blew up, crushed, recycled, rebuilt, and resold the topic train.


----------



## Veho (Mar 25, 2012)

alphamule said:


> TL;DR version is Veho thinks software should be granted profit on all transactions and I don't while Rydian is saying that paying again for software after every sale is like charging a patent license fee every time you resell a lawnmower which Veho is saying is different than copyright license fees.



And alphamule is twisting everyone's words.


----------



## Rydian (Mar 25, 2012)

Veho said:


> Rydian said:
> 
> 
> > If books are a valid comparison, why not a lawnmower?
> ...


I have no idea what you mean here.



Veho said:


> > *I think these ideas are very dangerous. This is getting into the realm of controlling who is allowed to know what sort of information.*
> 
> 
> Come now. That's slippery slope fallacy and you know it. There's a difference between saying an author has a moral right to be compensated for their work, and 1984.


*You're* presenting the idea that it's wrong to deal with a used book _in order to gain the information inside it_.


----------



## Veho (Mar 26, 2012)

Rydian said:


> Veho said:
> 
> 
> > Because you can't download a lawnmower.
> ...


I'm illustrating the difference between a novel and a lawnmower. 



> *You're* presenting the idea that it's wrong to deal with a used book _in order to gain the information inside it_.


Only in the sense that it's wrong to pirate a game _in order to gain the information inside it_ (as you put it).


----------



## Rydian (Mar 26, 2012)

I'm talking reselling, not piracy.


----------



## Veho (Mar 27, 2012)

What's the difference?


----------



## Just Another Gamer (Mar 27, 2012)

One is paying for something old and the original company doesn't profit but the shop selling it does the other is finding and downloading the game for free and the original company doesn't profit.


----------



## Hyro-Sama (Mar 27, 2012)

If selling used games is illegal, then selling anything second hand is illegal.


----------



## Veho (Mar 27, 2012)

Hyro-Sama said:


> If selling used games is illegal, then selling anything second hand is illegal.


Didn't read the thread, did you?


----------



## Hyro-Sama (Mar 27, 2012)

Veho said:


> Hyro-Sama said:
> 
> 
> > If selling used games is illegal, then selling anything second hand is illegal.
> ...



Nope. Too long. So I thought I would post and see what happened.


----------



## Magsor (Mar 27, 2012)

To get back on topic. The problem with the gaming industry is that its hurting itself.
They should do like every other goods and make it less durable. Maybe put a DRM that will autodestroy the game after a certain time.

Really game makers should just review their whole business models. What was profitable yesterday will not be tomorrow. Used market, digital distribution and DRM management are just part of the equation. The licences you talk about do not exist in china.


----------



## Tigran (Mar 27, 2012)

If they make buying used games illegal, than it should be a requirement that old games are still produced and buyable. And I mean NES-Today. EVERY old game.

They don't want -used- sales.. That means I should be able to go to the store and buy Azure Dreams.


----------



## Rydian (Mar 27, 2012)

Veho said:


> What's the difference?


The number of copies in cirulation and the number of purchases made.


----------



## Veho (Mar 27, 2012)

Like I said, bootlegging with a slightly more limited supply.


----------



## Rydian (Mar 27, 2012)

Botlegging involves the creation of additional copies, used sales don't.

There are differences here Veho, you can;'t pretend they don't exist.


----------



## Foxi4 (Mar 27, 2012)

Veho said:


> Like I said, bootlegging with a slightly more limited supply.





Rydian said:


> Botlegging involves the creation of additional copies, used sales don't.
> 
> There are differences here Veho, you can;'t pretend they don't exist.


Not only Rydian is right, the authors of the program already recieved their share whenever a used game is bought.

People treat Software as if it was a sandwich - it is not quite so. Person A bought Game/Program, a certain part of the money goes to the developer who in turn gives the purchaser the right to utilize said Game/Program. Then, Person A sold it to the store which in turn sold it to Person B. Person A relinquishes his or her license to use the Software in question in favour of Person B. Moreover, it's not entirely certain whether Person B, or C, or D would even *buy* the game in the first place if he had to buy it for the full price.

You can't pay the developer two times for the same license. A license is not expandable, it's not like a sandwich that can be eaten only once - it can have multiple subsequent users, like a car or a house. When you buy a house, do you have it demolished and have a new one built on the plot? No, you look for a house that gives you the best balance of Quality and Price - if you wanted to build a house from scratch, you'd likely just buy an empty plot of land.

Not to mention that some companies give DLC which works only on video games that were purchased new and registered, effectively crippling the copy DLC-wise for the users which may buy it pre-owned later on, which is *perpostrous* and *unfair*.


----------



## Veho (Mar 27, 2012)

There are differences between a lawnmower and a video game, yet you pretend those don't exist. 

The biggest point of content here is that you claim a video game on a DVD is more similar to a brick than to a video game sold over Steam, because a tangible storage makes it subject to different standards than digital download, while I maintain a video game is the same product regardless of the method of distribution. Can this be settled in any way short of pistols at dawn? 




Foxi4 said:


> You can't pay the developer two times for the same license. A license is not expandable


You can't have two people on one licence. That's not how licences work. The licence is non-transferrable. You can relinquish it. But you can't transfer it.


----------



## Foxi4 (Mar 27, 2012)

Veho said:


> There are differences between a lawnmower and a video game, yet you pretend those don't exist.
> 
> The biggest point of content here is that you claim a video game on a DVD is more similar to a brick than to a video game sold over Steam, because a tangible storage makes it subject to different standards than digital download, while I maintain a video game is the same product regardless of the method of distribution. Can this be settled in any way short of pistols at dawn?
> 
> ...


...and all of a sudden I agree with Veho.

The method of sales is irrelevant - effectively the End-User buys a license to use given Software. The medium on which the software is held is completely outside of the argument and only affects the end price of the product. In fact, I believe that introducing a "Resale/Pre-owned" system into Digital Distribution would be beneficial.

Person A doesn't feel like playing a given game anymore and "sells" it to the store for a given ammount of Virtual Currency for which he or she may purchase other games *or* chooses to exchange games with a different user, or give the game to a different user as a gift. It only makes sense to exchange goods digitally the same way we distribute them when the medium is physical.


----------



## Rydian (Mar 27, 2012)

Veho said:


> There are differences between a lawnmower and a video game, yet you pretend those don't exist.


I was speaking of them in terms of a good for sale, where many of the differences do not come into play.  For example a dildo and a toilet brush are certainly not the same object, but they are sold under the same laws and assumptions.

You know, the same sort of concept as a metaphor.  Comparing two different objects on the basis of what relationships and aspects they share.



Veho said:


> The biggest point of content here is that you claim a video game on a DVD is more similar to a brick than to a video game sold over Steam, because a tangible storage makes it subject to different standards than digital download


Yes, I'm claiming there's a difference between goods and services.

There is a concrete difference, and I have shown that it has been recognized for years and even the law notes the differences.

Since your argument hinges on this difference not existing, then of course we can't agree.


----------



## Veho (Mar 27, 2012)

Rydian said:


> I was speaking of them in terms of a good for sale, where many of the differences do not come into play. For example a dildo and a toilet brush are certainly not the same object, but they are sold under the same laws and assumptions.


But they still share more similarities than either of them shares with a video game. 



> Yes, I'm claiming there's a difference between goods and services.
> There is a concrete difference, and I have shown that it has been recognized for years and even the law notes the differences.
> Since your argument hinges on this difference not existing, then of course we can't agree.


And I'm saying that since games are licenced, not sold, the whole "goods/services" thing goes out the window. Since you keep repeating there's no such thing as a software licence, yes, it is true we can't agree.


----------



## Foxi4 (Mar 27, 2012)

Veho said:


> Rydian said:
> 
> 
> > I was speaking of them in terms of a good for sale, where many of the differences do not come into play. For example a dildo and a toilet brush are certainly not the same object, but they are sold under the same laws and assumptions.
> ...


*Veho is right*. You can poses a license for a given piece of software and no longer poses the medium it was stored on, and that alone still entitles you to use said software. If I for example buy a Windows DVD and have the license to prove it, I can shatter the DVD into fine dust and I'm still entitled to have Windows in this form or another - for example in ISO format or... just installed already. I have the license for the Software, thus I own it. Software is not physical - only the medium it is stored on might be.

Digital Distribution is only a *service* when you consider it as means of medium delivery, in this case barebones software with no physical medium.


----------



## kthnxshwn (Mar 27, 2012)

It's good that we have Foxi4 around to tell us who is right and who is wrong.


----------



## Foxi4 (Mar 27, 2012)

kthnxshwn said:


> It's good that we have Foxi4 around to tell us who is right and who is wrong.


It's really not that hard to determine who is right and who is wrong when the issue at hand is controlled via a fixed variable, in this case the license. It's not a matter of personal feeling but a matter of understanding of the law and the license itself. Your snarky comment doesn't change a thing.


----------



## Sappoide (Mar 27, 2012)

What really kills the game industry is piracy. One that buys an used game could buy a new game sooner or later.


----------



## Foxi4 (Mar 27, 2012)

Sappoide said:


> What really kills the game industry is piracy. One that buys an used game could buy a new game sooner or later.


One that pirates games could buy a new game sooner or later too. The only people who make money on pre-owned copies are the store owners, you do realize that? Moreover, piracy in general is a really small fraction of the market, especially when it comes to console games which require modifications to boot pirated copies.


----------



## Sappoide (Mar 27, 2012)

Foxi4 said:


> Sappoide said:
> 
> 
> > What really kills the game industry is piracy. One that buys an used game could buy a new game sooner or later.
> ...


Piracy depends from the gaming platform it's done, if a modification is simple to do like on NDS or PC there's a good amount of users who pirate. I think that if someone use to pirate games, then continues to do it, besides a pirated game costs 0 and it's always more convenient than buy an original copy of a game.


----------



## Foxi4 (Mar 27, 2012)

Sappoide said:


> Foxi4 said:
> 
> 
> > Sappoide said:
> ...


You're forgetting about the huge masses of people who pirate games to test them out and then buy original games, not to mention buying games for their collector's value solely. Moreover, certain Anti-Piracy techniques limit the functionality of a pirated copy greatly - for example DS users may not for the most part use DSiEnhanced features despite the fact that their hardware supports it simply because the flashcart doesn't boot in that mode. Moreover, a person who ONLY pirates games as you said likely wouldn't buy any if there was no way to do so - that person wouldn't buy the console in question at all. Your argument really isn't a good one, sorry.


----------



## MelodieOctavia (Mar 27, 2012)

Does the used game market HURT the gaming industry? Absolutely. The same could be said about every other industry. Used cars, DVDs, CDs, electronics, etc...

The sale of used *goods* has been around much much MUCH longer than the invention of video games. In fact, it has been around longer than even the invention of monetary currency.

Has any industry died from the sale of used stuff? No. They may have suffered heavily from making something TOO well, so that people rarely buy a new one (ladders), but nothing has actually died from it.

As said previously, A used game market relies on a new game market. There needs to be a NEW game for there to be a USED one.


----------



## kthnxshwn (Mar 27, 2012)

Foxi4 said:


> kthnxshwn said:
> 
> 
> > It's good that we have Foxi4 around to tell us who is right and who is wrong.
> ...


I'm glad you were there to make it clear for everyone. Thank you for your diligent service.


----------



## Sappoide (Mar 27, 2012)

Foxi4 said:


> Sappoide said:
> 
> 
> > Foxi4 said:
> ...


It will be quite an huge mass but the only people I know in real life only pirates to play for free, it's sad but no one of them cares about buying a game and if they can't play a game because it's unhackable they simply don't play it until it's hacked. One can buy a wii and don't buy a single game for it since there's the softmod.


----------



## Just Another Gamer (Mar 28, 2012)

Sappoide said:


> What really kills the game industry is piracy. One that buys an used game could buy a new game sooner or later.


No it doesn't. That type of idiotic claim is only made by the big companies so they can make more money but when in truth piracy probably only causes minimal losses to the industry otherwise there will be no new consoles like the 3DS or the Vita since the DS and PSP were hacked and had their games pirated yet they still sold very well. Whenever I see someone say stuff like this all I see is corporate brainwashing working on making people hate pirates and worship the big companies.


----------



## Rydian (Mar 28, 2012)

Veho said:


> Rydian said:
> 
> 
> > I was speaking of them in terms of a good for sale, where many of the differences do not come into play. For example a dildo and a toilet brush are certainly not the same object, but they are sold under the same laws and assumptions.
> ...


(Non-electric) dildos and toilet brushes aren't exactly marvels of modern technology so they don't share much in common in the terms of involving protected IP, which is why I used a lawnmower for my first comparison (since a lawnmower more involved technology in the form of machinations and intellectual work that is legally protected in some form).



Veho said:


> And I'm saying that since games are licenced, not sold, the whole "goods/services" thing goes out the window. Since you keep repeating there's no such thing as a software licence, yes, it is true we can't agree.


I've never said there's not a software license.  Two things have been stated in this thread.

1 - They are inherently goods.

2 - Software licenses often try to impose limits that may or may not be held up in court.  This was mostly posted by others, not myself (but I pointed out, as usual, that licenses themselves recognize that the law might find them invalid).

*Honestly, I give up here.*  Any further postings would be me simply repeating myself and linking the same sort of sources.


----------



## Guild McCommunist (Mar 28, 2012)

tl;dr.

But here's an interesting article:



> If second-hand/pre-owned/used game sales continue unabated, our industry will "cannibalise" itself, Silicon Knights boss Denis Dyack believes.
> 
> "It used to be that game makers could rely on sales "tails". That is, a game would sell in decent quantities weeks, months past launch."
> 
> ...



Source

Such wise words from the people who made such quality games as Too Human and X-Men Destiny. I'm sure that the used game industry caused your downfall and not those two excellent games.


----------



## Tigran (Mar 28, 2012)

Interesting...Nintendo seems to have no problem selling their games "YEARS" after they've been released.


----------



## Qtis (Mar 28, 2012)

Tigran said:


> Interesting...Nintendo seems to have no problem selling their games "YEARS" after they've been released.


Nintendo is also probably the only developer whose games don't drop in prices after time passes. That's one of the reasons I see people sharing/buying used games (and piracy if you will). I actually bought my first Wii games about 8 months after buying the console since I had Wii Sports + about 10 games from a friend. I did buy a second Wiimote and Nunchuk a few months afterwards 

What I see odd is that people are willing to get a console modded (for example a PS3 /w 3.55 CFW) and stay on that firmware for the sake of piracy (and in my example not for homebrew). They can play games of the HDD, but they miss out on newer games which require a higher OFW. Guess what they do? Buy the games and leave them on a shelf to wait for a new CFW/patches for the games. 

Also an interesting feature for games is that the cycle of churning out titles has become shorter. I've just checked my game collection and I have quite a few CoD, NFS, etc. games. Most of them I bought for about £10-15, but buying them new (when most people start playing them) could cost easily £60. Per game. Per 6 months or so. Not that every game needs to be bought new, but online is usually the reason for such games. Why not make more content for the older games and then keep the servers running. Closing down servers for older games makes sure that people will never buy the games since the reason for buying them *isn't there anymore*... :I


----------



## triassic911 (Mar 29, 2012)

Well I see it like this: I recently bought Dirt 2 for the xbox 360 USED off ebay for $12. The game NEW is $30 (games on demand). I saved $18. If I didn't save a big percentage of money, I probably wouldn't have bought it all.

I guess you can say it doesn't hurt much at all.


----------



## Guild McCommunist (Mar 29, 2012)

triassic911 said:


> Well I see it like this: I recently bought Dirt 2 for the xbox 360 USED off ebay for $12. The game NEW is $30 (games on demand). I saved $18. If I didn't save a big percentage of money, I probably wouldn't have bought it all.



In all honesty Games on Demand is quite shit when it comes to prices. Nowadays you can get Dirt 3 for around $25 new (Dirt 2 is like $55 for some reason, I'm guessing that it's out of print now).


----------



## GreatZimkogway (Mar 29, 2012)

I'd say the "industry" is just coming to a point where they need to realize they're trying to get far too much money for games that generally last you maybe...what?  5-10 hours?  $60 for that?  I mean, arguably and YMMV, some games are well worth that $60+.  But I guarantee you that most games are not.  Even $40, which is the norm for 3DS(Are Vita games at this price too?) is too much for something with lackluster gameplay, and barely decent storytelling.

Maybe these people just get paid too much to develop these games, and then when crunch time hits, they expect to hit big bucks...and don't.


----------



## Just Another Gamer (Mar 29, 2012)

alunral said:


> I'd say the "industry" is just coming to a point where they need to realize they're trying to get far too much money for games that generally last you maybe...what?  5-10 hours?  $60 for that?  I mean, arguably and YMMV, some games are well worth that $60+.  But I guarantee you that most games are not.  Even $40, which is the norm for 3DS(Are Vita games at this price too?) is too much for something with lackluster gameplay, and barely decent storytelling.
> 
> Maybe these people just get paid too much to develop these games, and then when crunch time hits, they expect to hit big bucks...and don't.


In my eyes the ones that are worth $60+ have to have alot of reply value and or can last for a good few years but this attitude of the industry will continue regardless but its that attitude that I think is killing the industry because it dives some people away from buying because they priced it to high and expect way too much sales of a game that is probably subpar or has limited to no reply value. If anything the higher prices encourage buying the used and pre-owned games more than stopping people from buying them.


----------



## Guild McCommunist (Mar 29, 2012)

alunral said:


> I'd say the "industry" is just coming to a point where they need to realize they're trying to get far too much money for games that generally last you maybe...what?  5-10 hours?  $60 for that?  I mean, arguably and YMMV, some games are well worth that $60+.  But I guarantee you that most games are not.  Even $40, which is the norm for 3DS(Are Vita games at this price too?) is too much for something with lackluster gameplay, and barely decent storytelling.



Um, that's like absolutely wrong. Last game I played that I beat around the 5-10 hour mark was Vanquish, and that's supposed to be replayed for scores and shit. Most other games I've played are either 5 hour single players with multiplayer to carry your purchase or a great mix of long single player campaigns with a lot to do and multiplayer to compliment that.

There's a few platformers that hover in that "5-10 hour mark" for a single runthrough but you'll probably want to get all the goodies and stuff. You can probably shoot through Super Mario 3D Land in an afternoon if you're good but you'll spend plenty of time getting all those goddamn coins or stars or sparklers or whatever goodies they have. It's the same case for practically every platformer.

Most games that are only 5-10 hour experiences that aren't designed around replaying or without multiplayer often suck and no one buys them anyway.


----------



## Taleweaver (Mar 30, 2012)

Interesting article, Guild. It kinda makes me wonder...I always thought that Moore's law would come to an end sooner or later. But with this article, I'm starting to think that the used games industry may even be the one factor that will cause that to happen. (remember: being able to play the newest games smoothly is pretty much the main reason to upgrade your PC nowadays).





alunral said:


> I'd say the "industry" is just coming to a point where they need to realize they're trying to get far too much money for games that generally last you maybe...what?  5-10 hours?  $60 for that?  I mean, arguably and YMMV, some games are well worth that $60+.  But I guarantee you that most games are not.


I certainly agree. But on the other hand, even those bad games take plenty a budget to realise. Guild's quoted article already mentioned it: every generation of gaming doubles or triples the development cost. But though the games get graphically better, that doesn't say anything about the quality...until it's nearly done and the budget money is already (largely) spent.


----------



## Just Another Gamer (Mar 30, 2012)

Wever said:


> alunral said:
> 
> 
> > I'd say the "industry" is just coming to a point where they need to realize they're trying to get far too much money for games that generally last you maybe...what?  5-10 hours?  $60 for that?  I mean, arguably and YMMV, some games are well worth that $60+.  But I guarantee you that most games are not.
> ...


But blaming it on the pre-owned market and then saying because of piracy which has already been shown to not affect the gaming industry as much as they emphasize it to be is nothing more than an excuse from the devs who spent way to much money and made a low quality game that is nothing more than a graphics show and then expect to profit too much from something they probably half assed at the end. If they put the effort in then they will profit because people want to buy it but if they don't then they shouldn't be expecting anything.


----------



## Veho (Mar 30, 2012)

Rydian said:


> (Non-electric) dildos and toilet brushes aren't exactly marvels of modern technology so they don't share much in common in the terms of involving protected IP, which is why I used a lawnmower for my first comparison (since a lawnmower more involved technology in the form of machinations and intellectual work that is legally protected in some form).


There are licencing fees and royalties and a lot of protected technology in the manufacturing of a DVD too, that are no part of the software.  

In order to even use the software you have to copy it onto the computer. That's not how you use a lawnmower. You can (legally) make a backup copy of your software and keep the original in a box. Not something you can do with a lawnmower. A lawnmower is the end product. The DVD is not the end product, it's just a method of distribution of the actual product. 



> 1 - They are inherently goods.


It is not _inherent_, they are _classified_ as goods because of a hundred year old ruling concerning books, and isn't based on anything inherent but on what's practical to enforce. 

But it only applies at the point of _sale_, so if the transaction is something other than a sale, say, a licence or an extended loan, it doesn't apply. 



> 2 - Software licenses often try to impose limits that may or may not be held up in court.  This was mostly posted by others, not myself (but I pointed out, as usual, that licenses themselves recognize that the law might find them invalid).


And I have pointed out that the resale limitations can and have been held up in court if the user has acknowledged and agreed to the licence agreement. If the transaction is recognized as a licence and not a sale, the resale limitations are legally valid.


----------



## Foxi4 (Mar 30, 2012)

Veho said:


> > 2 - Software licenses often try to impose limits that may or may not be held up in court.  This was mostly posted by others, not myself (but I pointed out, as usual, that licenses themselves recognize that the law might find them invalid).
> 
> 
> And I have pointed out that the resale limitations can and have been held up in court if the user has acknowledged and agreed to the licence agreement. If the transaction is recognized as a licence and not a sale, the resale limitations are legally valid.


Subject to the country in question. To be legally valid, the license first has to be constructed according to the rules of the law of the country where software is distributed. If it stands directly againts it, even if the user agreed to it, it is null and void as domestic law stands superior to licensing.


----------



## Veho (Mar 30, 2012)

Foxi4 said:


> Subject to the country in question.


Of course.


----------



## Taleweaver (Mar 30, 2012)

Just Another Gamer said:


> Wever said:
> 
> 
> > alunral said:
> ...


Hold on a second...your first sentence assumes some things and blanks out some important nuances.
1. you can read the article as if the industry is "blaming" the pre-owned market. But I don't think that is the intention of the article. I think the author started out with the question: "why the hell does the team that brought us a gem like Sanity's requiem need to cut over half of its staff?". Yes, the follow-up games didn't do too well. Which was why people sold them. Which furthers the effect of the second hand market. I already mentioned it before: bad games don't "just" sell worse than good games...they sell *EXPONENTIALLY *worse. And that's a reality to be dealt with.
For an analogy, look at comedians. They write a bunch of jokes, but often cannot truly tell HOW funny they are until tested out on an audience. With time, they should learn what works or what not. But to complete the analogy: the factor of the second hand games market is the same factor as rotten fruit scales handed out to the audience: if even ONE of the jokes slips up, he can be targeted by boo-callers before he can tell something that actually IS funny.
(sorry if this sounds a bit vague...I don't really know how to properly explain this analogy).
2. it's impossible to say exactly how much piracy affects the real sales. On the one side, you have pirates who defend with "I wouldn't have bought it in the first place!" or "I'll only buy it if it's worth it". On the other end, there's the gaming companies who claim that each download is a lost revenue.
Both of these are opinions. The truth is somewhere in the middle, but by that "it is already shown" remark, you make it sound as if you can predict what thousands of pirates would have done if they wouldn't be able to have pirated at all. And that would be a pretty bald statement. So if you can back that up...I'm VERY interested in sources. 
3. "spending way too much"...I agree on this. But not without nuance. During my education (Applied Informatics), I learned that an astonishing percentage of huge IT-projects was overly costs, was delivered too late, didn't function well, and so on. There are many factors for that, and if you look closely, you'll find that these are in reality very hard (if not impossible) to truly avoid. Yes, the budget may run out in which case something half-assed comes out. But what's the alternative? Delaying things and throwing more money at it isn't a solid answer (duke nukem forever, anyone?).
I think the sad reality is that all the developpers DO put in the effort...but that effort won't be enough without proper coordination, co-operation, estimation of what is wanted to be achieved, timeframes, targets and even a good deal of luck.


----------



## Just Another Gamer (Mar 30, 2012)

Wever said:


> Hold on a second...your first sentence assumes some things and blanks out some important nuances.
> 1. you can read the article as if the industry is "blaming" the pre-owned market. But I don't think that is the intention of the article. I think the author started out with the question: "why the hell does the team that brought us a gem like Sanity's requiem need to cut over half of its staff?". Yes, the follow-up games didn't do too well. Which was why people sold them. Which furthers the effect of the second hand market. I already mentioned it before: bad games don't "just" sell worse than good games...they sell *EXPONENTIALLY *worse. And that's a reality to be dealt with.
> For an analogy, look at comedians. They write a bunch of jokes, but often cannot truly tell HOW funny they are until tested out on an audience. With time, they should learn what works or what not. But to complete the analogy: the factor of the second hand games market is the same factor as rotten fruit scales handed out to the audience: if even ONE of the jokes slips up, he can be targeted by boo-callers before he can tell something that actually IS funny.
> (sorry if this sounds a bit vague...I don't really know how to properly explain this analogy).
> ...


Thanks for numbering them by the way, it makes replying easier.
I understand the analogy but saying that they have every right to hate the pre-owned market just because they can't make the sales they wanted by this so called testing is just plain wrong and stupid, I mean you can just look at the games currently selling well in your country or just see what type of gamers you want to target first before making something. I'm sure they put alot of effort into it but with alot of the bad games it seems they didn't understand the market they were going after and then just screwed it up in the end.
I never said I can predict what pirates would've done. I'm say stating that piracy's effect on any industry is smaller than what the big companies are actually stating and its when some brainwashed people who think they are the scum of the earth that needs to actually see the facts that piracy isn't harming the industry more than the industry is harming itself. Increasing prices and all that isn't helping either, yes i'm aware that companies want to profit but its usually this that drives people to get games through different means, there are also other reasons for pirating but for the sake of discussion lets not go into that.
I don't disagree but I can't really say what they can do. I mean half assing it isn't the answer since it just makes everything you put in so far become invalid since you can't be stuff to atleast put any effort now and delaying it isn't the answer either cause then when it comes out people are usually very disappointed. Can't really say much on that point since its too hard to not disagree with.


----------



## Taleweaver (Mar 31, 2012)

Okay...lemme start off with 2. and 3. I can agree to that completely, and don't have anything to add to it. 

In fact, I also agree on the first thing. However, that is exactly what I said in my first post in this topic. My post was pretty much about illustrating how that very idea will lead to the death of the gaming industry*: you can't "just" make a game anymore: it simply costs way too much to simply run with an idea and hope things will turn out. Like you said: you need to make sure it will find its target.

The end result: there are more sequels than new games being made. And if it's a new game, it's practically a clone of another game that sold well.
Product placement is another such thing. You didn't think EA would come up with a soccer game each year if there weren't soccer fans around the world who actually _bought _these games, right? Same with famous musicians (or, in Michael Jackson's case: his brand manager), deejay's or cartoon characters. It's only a matter of time before "facebook: the game" gets made...which will obviously be a 'the sims' clone.

Sometimes that target isn't even exclusively "the gamer". UT3 is my favorite example, here. That wasn't a game...it was a tech demo which happened to be disguised as a game. Their main market was the other companies, which they had to convince by making an engine that was capable of good, smooth graphics and sounds, was adaptable, had a decent editor and ran well on both PC, PS3 as Xbox. Oh, and a game that just happens to demonstrate all this.

Either way...the reality the industry is facing is making it virtually impossible to be creative: the costs are too high to take risks. Which lead to bizarre end results: "Just dance: best off" gets made...but Psychonauts 2 never got the needed funding because there was no market for it.

Is all this because of the second hand market? Directly: no. But indirect: in my opinion: absolutely. The thing with adventure games, for example, is that they have barely any replay value. So why would a company make one? They know that once someone completes it - no matter how good it is - the chances are high the player will pawn it for another game. And another gamer who was busy working through his backlog of games can choose between that very game in retail version, or a second hand version that is pretty much exactly the same but in the price.




*after reading other posts, I think I was a bit harsh in my conclusions. I should probably reword it to "it will kill the gaming industry as we know it". I don't follow the Indy market well enough to give proper predictions on the impact it will have on the gaming industry...but it may be huge.


----------



## xwatchmanx (Apr 2, 2012)

BlazeV said:


> Just as the title asks does the pre-owned and used market ki;; the gaming industry, I don't think it does and it actually helps the industry by circulating games around and letting gamers sell their old games in favor for new ones.


I think so. I don't even think that's a debatable answer. But that said, I don't think that makes it "immoral" or harmful to the point where the industry is put in danger.


----------



## Rydian (Jun 14, 2012)

I'm bringing this thread back because of a recent development that ties right into the huge discussion we were having.

So remember how I was all "Well if you take copyright as the companies want it one step further it'd be illegal to sell your lawnmower" and you all thought I was crazy?

Well, here we go.



> For instance, that iPad you sold. You noticed this statement: "Designed by Apple in California. Assembled in China." Same for the iPods you've owned, the iPhones, and the MacBooks. _Because those products were manufactured abroad, according to the Second Circuit, the first-sale doctrine doesn't apply to them. You need the permission of every copyright holder to sell the iPad._


The case only concerns products made abroad, but hey, slippery slope.

EDIT: Also, KingVamp tipped me off to this news.


----------



## Nah3DS (Jun 14, 2012)

no, the gaming industry is killing the gaming industry


----------



## xwatchmanx (Jun 14, 2012)

Rydian said:


> I'm bringing this thread back because of a recent development that ties right into the huge discussion we were having.
> 
> So remember how I was all "Well if you take copyright as the companies want it one step further it'd be illegal to sell your lawnmower" and you all thought I was crazy?
> 
> ...


It's Apple... I'm honestly not surprised at all. This is absolutely disgraceful


----------



## Veho (Jun 14, 2012)

Rydian said:


> So remember how I was all "Well if you take copyright as the companies want it one step further it'd be illegal to sell your lawnmower" and you all thought I was crazy?


Hey, remember when you called me silly for claiming something not nearly as absurd as this?     

But this is just absurd. 

On a related note, remember how Sony sued Lik Sang (and forced them to close down) for selling Japanese PSPs in the UK before the European release?


----------



## Rydian (Jun 14, 2012)

Veho said:


> Hey, remember when you called me silly for claiming something not nearly as absurd as this?


Abstract concepts do that. 



Veho said:


> On a related note, remember how Sony sued Lik Sang (and forced them to close down) for selling Japanese PSPs in the UK before the European release?


Nope, but I assume that's different because of exporting laws and all that jazz.


----------



## Veho (Jun 14, 2012)

Rydian said:


> Veho said:
> 
> 
> > On a related note, remember how Sony sued Lik Sang (and forced them to close down) for selling Japanese PSPs in the UK before the European release?
> ...


Violation of trademark. Lik Sang operated from Hong Kong, shipped to the UK, the recipients paid customs fees. All legal on that front. Sony claimed that Lik-Sang infringed its "trade marks, copyright and registered design rights by selling Sony PSP consoles from Asia to European customers". 

EDIT: I'm mentioning the Lik Sang case as an absurd extreme.


----------



## triassic911 (Jun 15, 2012)

I'll never forget Lik-Sang... I was going to buy a Panasonic Q when all of sudden the site was no more...


----------



## alphamule (Jun 17, 2012)

*cough*dlsite*cough*
*cough*rootkits*cough*
Yeah, the more absurd of an argument they present, the more they figure we'll just be too bewildered to think of the obvious solution of nullification(as in ignore when you see it happen and even discourage people from reporting it - not just [yourself] 'doing it anyways' like some think that means).  If an adult keeps cheating at poker, you don't keep playing their game - when someone sees 'extra' decks, all hell breaks loose.  If a child keeps changing the rules when they start to lose, no one will want to play with them.


----------



## Clydefrosch (Jun 17, 2012)

yes, used sales hurt an industry as long as its the recent games that are bought and sold used.
even if that used money is used to buy a new game, its going to be a new used one pretty often too.


on the other hand, i see the giant used market as a sign for crappy games. no replay value, no awesome story, nothing you'd want to show around much. you just shrug the old off and get the new one thats shrugged of just as fast.

obviously it may be different today, cause its so easy to sell used games around the world, but as a kid, i would've never sold my tekken 3 or super mario world :/


----------



## xwatchmanx (Jun 17, 2012)

Clydefrosch said:


> on the other hand, i see the giant used market as a sign for crappy games. no replay value, no awesome story, nothing you'd want to show around much. you just shrug the old off and get the new one thats shrugged of just as fast.
> 
> obviously it may be different today, cause its so easy to sell used games around the world, but as a kid, i would've never sold my tekken 3 or super mario world :/


^This. I've actually said this before, and was laughed at. The only time I ever give away or sell a game is if I genuinely didn't care for it. I just can't imagine giving away even games that were "succeeded" by sequels (id est, Brawl succeeded Melee), simply because I enjoy them so much and still play them.


----------



## FireGrey (Jun 17, 2012)

This is a way for the game stores to get money.
It would be unfair for the game companies to get all the money and not hire too many people.
We have to pay more and only they get the money, but with pre-owned money the game stores and game store workers get more money, most of the time the game store workers spend the money the make but it's nowhere near 1:1 and we get to get games for cheaper, pushing game companies to lower their prices.


----------



## Cartmanuk (Jun 17, 2012)

BlazeV said:


> * Does the pre-owned and used market kill the gaming industry?*



I think the pre-owned / used game market doesn't kill the industry, I think this because I have purchased many used games that I think were over priced so I purchased second hand games and If I like a game enough then I'm likely to go and buy new games from the DEVs that made that game. Also when you trade pre-owned games you can trade them for new so I don't think it is killing the industry but infact in this case is helping it.

I also think that pirate games don't hurt as much as the industry makes out, because its a great way to try games out as most consoles the DS for example don't offer demo's of most of its games.

Well soon enough most games will be download only via a system like Steam so no more CDs or DVDs and not so much pirating then we will see just how well Game Devs do and I think this type of media will damage some sales of games.


----------



## alphamule (Jun 18, 2012)

Kind of optimistic, man...  Just saying.


----------



## DinohScene (Jun 18, 2012)

Good luck on finding new Xbox or GCN games in a big retail gamestore.

I don't think used game stores are that bad.
At least you can still find a lot of 8, 16, 32, 64 bit games.


----------



## xwatchmanx (Jun 18, 2012)

DinohScene said:


> Good luck on finding new Xbox or GCN games in a big retail gamestore.
> 
> I don't think used game stores are that bad.
> At least you can still find a lot of 8, 16, 32, 64 bit games.


Play'N'Trade, anyone?


----------



## alphamule (Jun 20, 2012)

Weird:  We traded games all the time.  No need for some game shop unless you're looking for something unpopular back then.  Then again, we got bored with even 200+ titles at most video rental stores for their NES selection.  Funny how they had the "Nintendo Seal of Quality" and so damn many of those games were absolute BS.  I'm thinking TMNT, Wolverine...  First one crashed a lot (not just on emulators) for example.


----------



## Rydian (Jun 26, 2012)

Rydian said:


> I'm bringing this thread back because of a recent development that ties right into the huge discussion we were having.
> 
> So remember how I was all "Well if you take copyright as the companies want it one step further it'd be illegal to [strike]sell your lawnmower[/strike] *lend a book to a friend*" and you all thought I was crazy?


http://torrentfreak.com/anti-piracy-patent-prevents-students-from-sharing-books-120610/

Not making it illegal, but trying to prevent students from sharing or lending textbooks by making them tie in one-time purchase codes.  Same sort of deal, they consider it piracy and think it's bad behavior and want to stop it.

Geeze, at this rate, I give it about another month before I raise this thread again with an example where reselling a DVD gets you into legal trouble.


----------



## xwatchmanx (Jun 26, 2012)

Rydian said:


> http://torrentfreak....g-books-120610/
> 
> Not making it illegal, but trying to prevent students from sharing or lending textbooks by making them tie in one-time purchase codes.  Same sort of deal, they consider it piracy and think it's bad behavior and want to stop it.
> 
> Geeze, at this rate, I give it about another month before I raise this thread again with an example where reselling a DVD gets you into legal trouble.


Remember when companies had to CONVINCE us to spend money on their products instead of going for cheaper alternatives? I miss those days.


----------

