THQ: Buying used games is "cheating".

[Calax]

Why are you talking about houses? That's the worst analogy in this thread yet.

 

 

Isn't that what we are discussing. Vendors who sell new property...and then are unhappy when the buyers resell it, but the original Vendors don't get any of the money even though the original Vendors didn't lift a finger to do anything more to add or even earn any more money from it?

Houses are an investment, games are not. Houses actually appreciate over time rather than depreciate like games or 90% of the other things that are mentioned in this thread. Thus you're using quite possibly the absolute WORST analogy for this particular discussion.

 

Why do houses increase in value? I have some star trek games people for some odd reason were willing to pay MORE then what I got them for...they apparantly appreciated in value. Was it the same reason? Both are property. Both are designed before being created. Both are then built on a framework and developed. Then both are sold to a buyer. It's the sellers and buyers that determine the market.

I'd like you to meet the Used madden series on the PS2 between the years of 01 and 06. They cost less than five bucks a pop at gamestop. Very Very VERY few games ever appriciate in value and usually only if there are like 100 copies of the game in total (Marvel Vs. Capcom 2 was a stunning example that promptly has dropped in price because of it's release on XBLA).

 

Compare this to houses, where almost all houses rise in price over time due to a need for space. Games are not space, nor are they part of the survival necessity in our current society. Also a house still has an after construction market based around it's maintenance and improvement, while games have jack squat after market.

 

Are they both property? Yes, but that's like saying that a can of compressed air is fantastic as a thermos, they're both containers!

[Wrath of Dagon]

Again, when you buy games, you don't buy property like a house or a car. You buy the use of someone else's intellectual property. It's not fully yours, for example it's illegal to copy it and sell it to someone else. So long as you get it on a physical medium, you can resell that medium. If all they sell you is a license, like digital distribution, then you can't resell the license. That's all there's to it.

[Amentep]

If it was a truly reflective market, the price point on games would have went down when they switched to CDs since the cost to produce cartridges was higher than CDs.

 

It did. Adjust your costs for inflation. Furthermore, factor in the cost of game development compared to what the end user pays.

 

I'm not sure how games being $50 dollars as a cartridge and then in months being $50 as CDs (which was the case with the PSX generation of games) is actually adjusted for inflation as I don't think there was THAT much inflation in a years time.

 

Actually my real complaint has been that I don't think that this will stop to online, extra or additional content but taken to its (logical?) extreme which would make it impossible to sell a game used as no second hand user would be able to play the game since the second hand user didn't pay the publisher for it.

 

This is the slippery-slope logical fallacy.

 

If this is actually as big of an issue as you are indicating that it will be, wouldn't this cause people to buy less games and see a significant reduction in revenues for the game devs, leading to them rethinking the actual policy?

 

Perhaps, but if the horse is already out, its a bit late to close the barn door.

 

But as I said, I was being a bit alarmist. I may be completely off-base on the effect of this on the consumer, and as mentioned I think a predicted move to digital distribution for all games will render it a moot issue eventually.

 

The company now wants Person B to pay to access the servers; except Person A's purchasing price on that disc "covered" that access (ie if Person A kept the game he'd be able to access the online content as long as that service was available from the company).

 

The entire online component is not covered with the resale of a used game. Take an extreme example. I buy a game, and create my online user profile that the game uses to log my match history, statistics and so forth. I resell this game and this game continues to be resold a million times. The online servers still log each and every individual profile that was created and keeps track of a million times more data than they were originally compensated for.

 

The only cost is not just bandwidth and the matchmaking service.

 

Your scenario would only make sense if upon being resold, the game's online profile was now in possession of the new owner as well. This is not the case.

 

Why wouldn't the company clear the server of inactive accounts (I know Battle.net cleared mine 4 or 5 times)?

 

Just gonna point out that you can't trade or sell your Steam account, or your Xbox Live account, or world of warcraft account because of EULA. Locking online stuff to a specific person is pretty standard these days.

 

Sure, but I don't really see that as the same thing, particularly given that Live and a MMORPG require subscriptions to cover the maintanence of the servers (I have no clue how STEAM works). And I have no problem with that kind of fee.

 

My problem is player A buying something with access to content that is - to him - free for the life of the product, but player B who buys the game from player A now has to pay for that same content. This wouldn't apply to additional content bought by player A, profiles and subscriptions bought by player A, etc.

 

In a WoW scenario, player A could uninstall the game and sell the discs to player B, but player B would still have to subscribe to play the game. Makes sense to me.

[Thorton_AP]

I'm not sure how games being $50 dollars as a cartridge and then in months being $50 as CDs (which was the case with the PSX generation of games) is actually adjusted for inflation as I don't think there was THAT much inflation in a years time.

 

The cost of buying games has continuously decreased since games came out, especially in my neck of the woods when NES cartridges were $60-$70 upon release. Games DID get cheaper when the conversion was made to CD (see: N64 vs PSX) moving to their $50 price point. They then returned to $60 price point again in the 2000s. Maybe it's different where you are.

 

 

Why wouldn't the company clear the server of inactive accounts (I know Battle.net cleared mine 4 or 5 times)?

 

Irrelevant. In this case they're spending time and money doing this then. Furthermore, how long do you allow an account to be inactive before removing it? There's additional overhead regardless of what you do. Now you're just warping your original premise in order to try to keep some footing under yourself.

 

 

 

@Greylord IMO your analogy only demonstrates that you don't actually know what is being discussed.

[Calax]

Just gonna point out that you can't trade or sell your Steam account, or your Xbox Live account, or world of warcraft account because of EULA. Locking online stuff to a specific person is pretty standard these days.

 

Sure, but I don't really see that as the same thing, particularly given that Live and a MMORPG require subscriptions to cover the maintanence of the servers (I have no clue how STEAM works). And I have no problem with that kind of fee.

 

My problem is player A buying something with access to content that is - to him - free for the life of the product, but player B who buys the game from player A now has to pay for that same content. This wouldn't apply to additional content bought by player A, profiles and subscriptions bought by player A, etc.

 

In a WoW scenario, player A could uninstall the game and sell the discs to player B, but player B would still have to subscribe to play the game. Makes sense to me.

Ok, steam works as online distribution. It's just a platform that houses and runs the games and keeps track of what you have purchased. However, if you have been found cheating (severely) or pirating games you are liable to have your account banned and all your games inaccessible.

 

As to Warcraft, one thing to look at with that is that your specific game (and keycode) are specifically tied to your battle.net account (which don't die from inactivity anymore). Meaning that for everyone who wants to own an account, they are required to purchase a retail copy of the game and keep it up to date via expansions.

 

For steam, you do not have to pay an amount of money for the service, Valve gets paid as retailer (I think) to maintain the system. Warcraft you can't just give the disks away because you need that keycode to make an account.

[Amentep]

I'm not sure how games being $50 dollars as a cartridge and then in months being $50 as CDs (which was the case with the PSX generation of games) is actually adjusted for inflation as I don't think there was THAT much inflation in a years time.

 

The cost of buying games has continuously decreased since games came out, especially in my neck of the woods when NES cartridges were $60-$70 upon release. Games DID get cheaper when the conversion was made to CD (see: N64 vs PSX) moving to their $50 price point. They then returned to $60 price point again in the 2000s. Maybe it's different where you are.

 

Hmmm, there were only a few cartridges that were super-expensive here that I recall Phantasy Star IV for example being $100. Most cartridges of the SNES/Genesis era was $50 here though. PSX games started around $50 as did Saturn games.

 

There was, I recall, a rather large debate over this fact on rec.arts.games.video.* heirarchy on USENET complete with a breakdown of the costs to make a cartridge at the time and a CD and based on those numbers it was much cheaper to make the CD without any resultant difference in the price of games to the consumer (but perhaps it was the game seller's markup as opposed to the publisher?)

 

Why wouldn't the company clear the server of inactive accounts (I know Battle.net cleared mine 4 or 5 times)?

 

Irrelevant. In this case they're spending time and money doing this then. Furthermore, how long do you allow an account to be inactive before removing it? There's additional overhead regardless of what you do. Now you're just warping your original premise in order to try to keep some footing under yourself.

 

Actually I was asking a question.

[Amentep]

Ok, steam works as online distribution. It's just a platform that houses and runs the games and keeps track of what you have purchased. However, if you have been found cheating (severely) or pirating games you are liable to have your account banned and all your games inaccessible.

 

As to Warcraft, one thing to look at with that is that your specific game (and keycode) are specifically tied to your battle.net account (which don't die from inactivity anymore). Meaning that for everyone who wants to own an account, they are required to purchase a retail copy of the game and keep it up to date via expansions.

 

For steam, you do not have to pay an amount of money for the service, Valve gets paid as retailer (I think) to maintain the system. Warcraft you can't just give the disks away because you need that keycode to make an account.

 

Interesting about WoW. I suppose you can't clear your personal information out and sell the keycode access as well then?

[Thorton_AP]

Why wouldn't the company clear the server of inactive accounts (I know Battle.net cleared mine 4 or 5 times)?

 

Irrelevant. In this case they're spending time and money doing this then. Furthermore, how long do you allow an account to be inactive before removing it? There's additional overhead regardless of what you do. Now you're just warping your original premise in order to try to keep some footing under yourself.

 

Actually I was asking a question.

 

It's irrelevant because whatever action they take, additional cost is occurred rather than the original game purchaser continued playing the game. The point is that a new user playing a resold game with a new online account is not equivalent to the original user still playing the game with his online account.

 

 

 

Interesting about WoW. I suppose you can't clear your personal information out and sell the keycode access as well then?

 

No. When I reinstall WoW I no longer need my CD Key because I already have an account. YOu need a CD Key in order to create a new account.

Edited August 28, 2010 by Thorton_AP

[Amentep]

It's irrelevant because whatever action they take, additional cost is occurred rather than the original game purchaser continued playing the game. The point is that a new user playing a resold game with a new online account is not equivalent to the original user still playing the game with his online account.

 

Well that certainly puts a different face on things, I suppose. Of course as I mentioned way back in the begining I was being a bit of an alarmist; taking things to a scary extreme (and yeah I'd be rather put out to be locked out of offline content which was my alarmist reaction).

 

Does seem like there's a legitimate point to the additional fee that wasn't obvious to me.

 

Interesting about WoW. I suppose you can't clear your personal information out and sell the keycode access as well then?

 

No. When I reinstall WoW I no longer need my CD Key because I already have an account. YOu need a CD Key in order to create a new account.

 

But couldn't you give the entire account over to someone? Or is your personal information locked into the account in a way that makes it, essentially, something you could never "blank out" and give away?

[greylord]

Houses go up in price in the US...but not everyplace. How about a copy of Axis and Allies 50th edition. That's a boardgame...but it's a game. Many would say boardgames are even less value then video games. How about a real copy of Merchant of Venus...or better yet, Star Wars: The Queen's Gambit. The reason houses go up in value is the entire reason games also cost as they do.

 

People on this thread want us to believe the Gamestop get's a 500% markup on second hand games, (Note also, that I don't believe that and stated it already) that they make 500% more than the game originally is worth...which would actually put the games at a MUCH HIGHER value than any house I've ever seen marked up in that short of a time period...even in the US. SOOOO, for those saying that...housing is more than appropriate. (and in the US currently, the housing market has actually crashed...so typically a house you bought 5 years ago is actually going to be worth 20% less or even worse than that in some areas).

 

Even without, when you accept property in general (whether games, books, autos, etc.) it's worth is determined by buyers and sellers...whether property...or Video Games. This is why some games are worth a lot...and many aren't. The entire thing about second hand applying to one set of property but not another is rather absurd...it's all property...and it's value is decided by those buying. Similar principles apply to them as well. This is why the housing market in the US has had a reduction in prices...people are not willing to buy as many or pay as much as they used to. The basic ideas of capitalism apply.

 

What companies are attempting to do is to create a rental model instead of a Buying model. The rental model is already in works with the MMORPG concept in general. Then there's the communities (home owners association), which is another idea being incorporated, where you buy a house, but it's in a community with rules and that you constantly have to pay an association an annual amount, which I see more like Steam. You pay to get games, and then to get benefits and other items, you must pay more money.

 

Basic ideas already in usage elsewhere...but adapting to the housing market. It's all property...I personally like to own rather than to rent though...but some companies want to kind of keep you on a situation where it's none of the above. You buy the house...but it's only temporary...because if the realtor ever goes under...you are kicked out (Ubisoft I'm looking at you). That's the type of property that's poison.

[Calax]

Interesting about WoW. I suppose you can't clear your personal information out and sell the keycode access as well then?

 

No. When I reinstall WoW I no longer need my CD Key because I already have an account. YOu need a CD Key in order to create a new account.

 

But couldn't you give the entire account over to someone? Or is your personal information locked into the account in a way that makes it, essentially, something you could never "blank out" and give away?

No, Actually I know there are rumors of a few people who scam by "selling" their account, and then having the info reset and reselling it. And others who don't have the info in (they put in jibberish) and thus cannot recover their account if they're hacked. They also request a phone number just in case you're COMPLETELY boned online you can still call and retain your stuff.

 

And greylord... you just are wayyy off base. True, property is property but then food is food and by your comparison, we should be hailing dog food as the best most economic way to survive.

Edited August 28, 2010 by Calax

[Nepenthe]

Houses go up in price in the US...but not everyplace.

 

[Hassat Hunter]

Sure, but I don't really see that as the same thing, particularly given that Live and a MMORPG require subscriptions to cover the maintanence of the servers (I have no clue how STEAM works). And I have no problem with that kind of fee.

But you do when game publishers do the same thing? I don't get it...

My problem is player A buying something with access to content that is - to him - free for the life of the product, but player B who buys the game from player A now has to pay for that same content.

Companies need money to survive you know. And they don't do that if *another* company makes $500,- for every $20,- they make. They rather have that themselves. Why should THEY care if people no longer buy second hand? They make no money of it. And the people who wait out till the price drops because they can no longer sell it would be well compensated by second hand buyers who now buy "straight from the source". Having 5 costumers pay you $20 instead of $50, while getting an additional 10 costumers for $40 that previously got you $0 doesn't seem a bad deal, does it?

In a WoW scenario, player A could uninstall the game and sell the discs to player B, but player B would still have to subscribe to play the game. Makes sense to me.

Same with this. Player A sells game to player B, but still needs to subscribe to play the game.

 

Yes, it's kind of annoying for us, the users, but I can totally understand why producers do it with the cash GameStop makes over their back.

[LadyCrimson]

Again, when you buy games, you don't buy property like a house or a car. You buy the use of someone else's intellectual property. It's not fully yours, for example it's illegal to copy it and sell it to someone else. So long as you get it on a physical medium, you can resell that medium. If all they sell you is a license, like digital distribution, then you can't resell the license. That's all there's to it.

I'm going to side with Wrath on this aspect, at least in legal theory. Despite having a physical thing in your hands, you have not bought the rights to the property, only the right to use that property, and it's up to the owners of that intellectual property what they consider/want "use" to mean. Whether we think the decisions are "fair" or even rational, means nothing from a legal standpoint.

 

And you definitely can't "resell the use-license", digital or otherwise.

Edited August 28, 2010 by LadyCrimson

[Nepenthe]

Again, when you buy games, you don't buy property like a house or a car. You buy the use of someone else's intellectual property. It's not fully yours, for example it's illegal to copy it and sell it to someone else. So long as you get it on a physical medium, you can resell that medium. If all they sell you is a license, like digital distribution, then you can't resell the license. That's all there's to it.

I'm going to side with Wrath on this aspect, at least in legal theory. Despite having a physical thing in your hands, you have not bought the rights to the property, only the right to use that property, and it's up to the owners of that intellectual property what they consider/want "use" to mean. Whether we think the decisions are "fair" or even rational, means nothing from a legal standpoint.

 

And you definitely can't "resell the use-license", digital or otherwise.

 

Consumer protection legislation forces some limits into what shrink-wrap licenses can do to limit the purchasers or 'licensers' rights. Not necessarily in the US, but games are still sold in other places, as well.

 

This can lead to strange things, were physically distributed games and digitally distributed copies, while theoretically having the same end-user license, will be subject to a completely different set of rules (generally more favourable to the terms of the license in the case of digital downloads).

[LadyCrimson]

Aye, legalities differ from place to place.

 

Then there's also how enforceable some things are & whether companies want to go to the expense/bother of trying to enforce them. My guess is that it's often not worthwhile to do so, which can lead to ppl thinking that (from a legal standpoint) something is ok...since no one gets taken to court except in occasional extreme circumstances.

[Calax]

http://spoonyexperiment.com/2010/03/18/tse...training-video/

 

That has some overwrite but they make a point about the fact that gamecrazy/gamestop make large amounts of money off used.

[Amentep]

Sure, but I don't really see that as the same thing, particularly given that Live and a MMORPG require subscriptions to cover the maintanence of the servers (I have no clue how STEAM works). And I have no problem with that kind of fee.

But you do when game publishers do the same thing? I don't get it...

 

I think we established a few pages back that I was under the mistaken impression that the online content being locked out was not server based.

[Hassat Hunter]

Even when not talking about servers (like ME2) they do need money to cover the production, no? Which new users give them and used users give GameStop instead.

 

Penny Arcade article: http://www.penny-arcade.com/2010/8/25/

"Hey Mike. I worked at a Gamestop for three years in Dixon, CA, and I can no longer support saving $10 on used games after seeing all of the profit Gamestop turns by hurting the very developers that fuel their business. Every used game purchase means another chance to sell Game Informer, which is just a rag to hype GS pre-orders, which just happens to come with a card that entices you to buy more used games and trade in your new games for less than a third of what you paid for them, which in turn will be sold to someone else for 200% markup. I realize that economic times are tough and people need to save money where they can, but buying used is bad for the industry that is providing you with all of this entertainment. No one wants to see the big picture, so now we get these "buy new or get effed" tactics that publishers are pushing.

[Orogun01]

If the industry is really suffering so much then without doubt there is a market for another distribution chain to take the contracts. This seems to be just an isolated rant from one disgruntled developer.

[Amentep]

Even when not talking about servers (like ME2) they do need money to cover the production, no? Which new users give them and used users give GameStop instead.

 

ME2 is Mass Effect 2? It just had downloadable content, yes? I've never had a problem with paying for additional downloadable content or expansions and the like (as mentioned before).

[Nepenthe]

Even when not talking about servers (like ME2) they do need money to cover the production, no? Which new users give them and used users give GameStop instead.

 

ME2 is Mass Effect 2? It just had downloadable content, yes? I've never had a problem with paying for additional downloadable content or expansions and the like (as mentioned before).

 

It had Day-1 DLC that comes free with original copies. And entertainingly costs roughly the same as the difference between a used and a new copy bought from Gamestop.

 

A lot of people apparently had a problem with that, I didn't and don't.

[Nightshape]

I can't buy a PC game from retailer anymore, shelf space is more useful for used games, and on the rare occasion that I can, it use's steamworks.

 

I often can't buy older games either, it sure took me a while to get a copy of MGS4 for the PS3. If I had been willing to buy it second hand it wouldn't have been a problem.

 

I like services like Steam, XBLA, Games on Demand, Playstation Network, Wii Ware, Virtual Console stuff, and such stuff. I know that if I purchase something on steam it helps the developer, this could be an indie or a larger dev, but I know where the money is going.

 

I can usually purchase products off Steam that I cannot find from the retailer, and those older titles? Well, I use Amazon. The only time I step foot into a retailer is when there is a sale on, and damn I enjoy a good retailer sale , Oh this is the stock paid for new that you haven't cleared, excellent, time for me to stick the boot it.

 

I will often spend

[Amentep]

Even when not talking about servers (like ME2) they do need money to cover the production, no? Which new users give them and used users give GameStop instead.

 

ME2 is Mass Effect 2? It just had downloadable content, yes? I've never had a problem with paying for additional downloadable content or expansions and the like (as mentioned before).

 

I see now I kinda missed the point a bit; I guess the idea of buying a new game for $10 less never made sense to me. I know other people do that, but first few weeks a game is out, if I really want it I buy it new.

[Hassat Hunter]

Yeah, ME2 is shipped with a code that gives a few free DLC's.

 

Without the code (read: second hand), that stuff would cost the user $15,-