Developers rights

[Nonek]

With the recent judgement by the european court of justice on gamers rights to own and sell on the property they purchase, i'm left thinking that though good for clarifying a buyers rights and actually challenging all the restrictive articles we see in EULA's, it may prolong or possibly exacerabate the poor treatment developers recieve from publishers and retailers.

 

Publisher take a financial risk in developing a game, this cannot be argued but to say that developers do not is ludicrous, surely both parties should be re-imbursed to some extent for every sale AND re-sale of their intellectual properties. Thus i'd propose a system somewhat like the royalties used by music publishers, so that re-sales are not just enriching retailers but actually putting a little financial assistance in the pockets of the creators.

 

Obviously this would be an enormously complex undertaking, but it seems rather prohibitive for this portion of the entertainment industry to be so prohibitively ignored. What are your thoughts?

[Tale]

Why should either be reimbursed for re-sale of a copy? The 2nd hand market is a system for recovering value for the consumer. No more, no less. It is, in essence, a pricing problem. Given the relatively fixed pricing on games, it's just about the only way for competitive pricing to occur. The health of the used market on any particular title ends up reflecting its actual value to and demand amongst consumers.

 

If they were paid more than was actually valued by the consumer on the initial sale, giving more on a second sale doesn't make a lot of sense to me.

[Nonek]

Fair point I admit, if i've purchased a product then it's mine to do with as I wish in theory. Barring certain copyright infringements.

 

However I still think that developers should be accruing some form of compensation for older titles that are still being sold, GOG and Steams back catalogue includes many classic games that the publisher must have been re-imbursed for. A percentage of profits form these transactions should surely be going to the actual creators. As well as retailer re-releases and value lines.

 

Seems a trifle unfair as it stands.

Edited July 3, 2012 by Nonek

[Orogun01]

Fair point I admit, if i've purchased a product then it's mine to do with as I wish in theory. Barring certain copyright infringements.

 

However I still think that developers should be accruing some form of compensation for older titles that are still being sold, GOG and Steams back catalogue includes many classic games that the publisher must have been re-imbursed for. A percentage of profits form these transactions should surely be going to the actual creators. As well as retailer re-releases and value lines.

 

Seems a trifle unfair as it stands.

That's between the publisher and the retailers not the customer. An example, Netflix is based around the concept that for a flat fee you can get all the movies you want through mail. Netflix pays their own flat fee based on the number of subscriptions to the movie studios, now they had a bit of scuffle with them over their internet streaming ultimately leading them to separate both services. The reason for that it's that it got to expensive to keep both under the same contract since a lot of people didn't use the streaming service but would have had to pay for it anyways.

It works as a great example of the companies who own the product making sure that they are paid. Now game publishers on the other hand have allowed retailers to do as they please with all transactions of used games, the profits of which never get back to the publisher. So game companies didn't protect their investment, they had bad management of their products and their solution was to blame the losses on piracy (which while significant i'm sure that pales compared to the used games market). Their response was intrusive DRM which drove customer away and forced them to pay for an used game.

 

TL;DR: Consumers shouldn't have to pay extra because publishers are unable to strike a deal with retailers.

[Nonek]

I'm in total agreement with you there Orogun, the publishers have been making all kinds of nonsensical moves for a long time, and are still hung up on piracy being the real enemy. However i'd not ask for a change in pricing, merely a change in what percentages of current prices go to whom. Of course I realise that publishers and retailers would fight this tooth and nail, as it infringes on their profit margins at a time of market instability, and no doubt try to pass price rises on to the consumer. Still it seems the right thing to do.

Edited July 3, 2012 by Nonek

[Volourn]

"if they were paid more than was actually valued by the consumer on the initial sale"

 

This doesn't make sense. A customer never overpays for a product. tehy pay what they are willing to pay. Period.

 

If you think a game isn't worth $50 you wouldn't pay $50. If you do, you are retarded.

[Nonek]

I think what the gentleman was trying to say was that they wouldn't be interested in selling on the product if they were completely happy with it, so if they are selling, then by extension they believe themselves to have paid too much (and are trying to reimburse themselves somewhat.)

[Zoraptor]

You can sell on stuff you're completely happy with, plenty of people sell on cars to get a new model for example. While the cash outlay is obviously a lot greater for a car the theory as to why you may trade up is pretty much the same.

 

I think that people here are certainly not a representative sample- I'd never sell my boxed Fallouts, System Shock 2, Wing Commanders, Baldurs Gates etc, personally. But most people likely don't think about themselves as being 'completely happy' with games and view them as consumables, else there wouldn't be such a big market for 2nd hand physical media games already. If you've finished with a game and don't want to play MP extensively and aren't likely to replay it and want to move to the next big new thing then getting a discount on your next purchase is a sensible thing to do from their perspective. The Next Big Thing mentality is actively encouraged by publishers so they have to take the good of that with the bad.

 

On the original post, at a fundamental level I see no compelling reason why designers of video games should be treated differently from designers of physical products, as the market exists now; and they (generally) do not get anything from 2nd hand sales. If there were a strong creative guild for gaming like the SAG they might be able to get some sort of residual set up and I certainly wouldn't object to that- but without that it won't happen as it isn't in the publishers' best interests, and the publishers have all the leverage. Best solution if you're independent (and lucky, almost certainly) is kickstarter or equivalent, so you get directly rewarded by its fundamental nature

[Nonek]

Yes i've still got all my old Ultima feelies and maps, they're rather a part of me. A lot of games on Steam i'd be more than happy to give away for a pittance however, still I understand your point.

 

Is that Kerr Avon? If so much respect sir.

[Hurlshort]

In theory I have no problem with a second hand market, but in this digital age it has become extremely complicated. Games are no longer just a disc that goes into the computer, they are tied directly to your personal accounts.

 

So say you want to sell your product key back to a retailer, the one that is tied to your account. How do they deactivate the key for you? Why would a retailer even want your digital key? Can you imagine Steam paying you for your keys? They already offer games at dirt cheap prices, I don't see how they benefit from a secondhand market.

 

As for selling your key without a retailer, how is that going to work? Who is going to make sure that the key is deactivated for you and works for the buyer?

[Orogun01]

On the original post, at a fundamental level I see no compelling reason why designers of video games should be treated differently from designers of physical products, as the market exists now; and they (generally) do not get anything from 2nd hand sales. If there were a strong creative guild for gaming like the SAG they might be able to get some sort of residual set up and I certainly wouldn't object to that- but without that it won't happen as it isn't in the publishers' best interests, and the publishers have all the leverage. Best solution if you're independent (and lucky, almost certainly) is kickstarter or equivalent, so you get directly rewarded by its fundamental nature

They should be treated differently from physical products because they are different, they're intangible products. Just like acting which you used as an analogy.

While i'm totally in support of a developer's union and I don't see it happening for the same reason you give, this is a problem with the publisher.

 

Also, they're exaggerating about the death of AAA gaming, a blow will be dealt and there's probably some major companies whose presence on the market will diminish if not disappear. Other companies did the smart thing and used their resources wisely and more importantly they diversified; CD Projekt has GOG, Valve has Steam, Epic Games has UDK. The only thing that's over its the years of churning out a new iteration of a game series every year, maybe now Activision will actually go back to making games instead of recycling them.

[Humodour]

In theory I have no problem with a second hand market, but in this digital age it has become extremely complicated. Games are no longer just a disc that goes into the computer, they are tied directly to your personal accounts.

 

So say you want to sell your product key back to a retailer, the one that is tied to your account. How do they deactivate the key for you? Why would a retailer even want your digital key? Can you imagine Steam paying you for your keys? They already offer games at dirt cheap prices, I don't see how they benefit from a secondhand market.

 

As for selling your key without a retailer, how is that going to work? Who is going to make sure that the key is deactivated for you and works for the buyer?

 

You have a lot of questions. The digital store Green Man Gaming which allows digitally purchased game reselling answers these questions for you.

 

Just for future reference, being able to raise a lot of questions about something does not say anything about how difficult that thing is to implement - merely that you can think of a lot of details that need to be clarified.

 

Green Man Gaming posted a blog entry about their thoughts on this EU ruling 7 hours ago. Green Man Gaming's game reselling system works similarly to that described by the OP - where the publisher gets a cut each time a game is resold. But the law does not require that stores implement Green Man Gaming's method of paying publishers multiple times for the purchase of a single game.

 

http://blog.greenmangaming.com/2012/07/eu-rules-publishers-cant-stop-you-reselling-digital-games/

[Hurlshort]

If Steam is forced to implement this, is anyone concerned that this will lead to the end of those great sales they run? Maybe I'm being paranoid, but if Steam ends up having to buy back keys, that seems like it will change quite a bit about their business model.

[Gorgon]

Maybe they could put a time limit on it. Own it for a year and you can resell it, by then the game will have aged and not sell at full price.

[Hurlshort]

mkreku wrote:

 

This verdict means you actually own the software that you buy. It means you own your OS and can resell it later, for example.

 

Only on the internet can you find someone who thinks this is a bad thing.

 

I know it sounds a little crazy to be skeptical about giving the consumer more rights, but I do worry about a backlash. I'm very happy with the fact that games are cheap, and a few months after release they become dirt cheap. I don't want that to stop.

 

I just see this all as a fantastic excuse for IP holders to charge way more for new products.

 

 

edit: Or maybe Steam will simply offer pennies for these keys.

Edited July 4, 2012 by Hurlshot

[WDeranged]

The EU doesn't often make decisions that I agree with but the rental like nature of "buying" downloadable software has been a huge turn off for me, I don't know how it will pan out but I agree with the principle

Edited July 4, 2012 by WDeranged

[Orogun01]

If Steam is forced to implement this, is anyone concerned that this will lead to the end of those great sales they run? Maybe I'm being paranoid, but if Steam ends up having to buy back keys, that seems like it will change quite a bit about their business model.

Or they could just allow the market to set the price, they can simply transfer the game from account to account for a portion of the transaction.

[Zoraptor]

They should be treated differently from physical products because they are different, they're intangible products. Just like acting which you used as an analogy.

While i'm totally in support of a developer's union and I don't see it happening for the same reason you give, this is a problem with the publisher.

I don't see how intangibility has anything to do with it really, there have already been multiple rulings about software being a product like pretty much anything else, prior to this one. The usual argument is that software does not 'degrade' as a physical product like a car does, but that's not really true, in may ways the value of software degrades at a rate that makes a car's devaluation look positively, er, pedestrian. This is a world in which it is not unusual to see a game being sold ®etail for half its nominal value within a month of its release and often for $10 or less within a year. And a lot of software simply becomes worthless within a decade or less because it is superceded, won't work on a new OS or whatever. Sure, you can duplicate software relatively easily which is not a concern for most physical products, but if you're going to be doing that you probably wouldn't have been buying your software anyway.

 

Is that Kerr Avon?

Yep.

[Volourn]

"I think what the gentleman was trying to say was that they wouldn't be interested in selling on the product if they were completely happy with it, so if they are selling, then by extension they believe themselves to have paid too much (and are trying to reimburse themselves somewhat.) "

 

Eh. I'm sure plenty of people (iincluding myself) have sold/gotten rid of products they were quite happy with. If I didn't, I'd probably have upwards of 1000 games and I simply don't have space for that many. L0L

 

I doubt people think oh this game is too expeensvie, but I'll buy it anyways then proceed to sell it later to get a return. People sell games they are done with it whethern they like it or not (of course, games people hate tend to be resold quicker for obvious reasons) but it has nothing to do with how much they paid for it.

 

Afterall, if a game is being sold for $50 but you only think it is worth $40.. do you buy it for $50, then sell it for only $10 if someone offers you $15 for it? No, you grab the $15 no contest.

 

the logic you used is illogical.

[Orogun01]

I don't see how intangibility has anything to do with it really, there have already been multiple rulings about software being a product like pretty much anything else, prior to this one. The usual argument is that software does not 'degrade' as a physical product like a car does, but that's not really true, in may ways the value of software degrades at a rate that makes a car's devaluation look positively, er, pedestrian. This is a world in which it is not unusual to see a game being sold

[Nepenthe]

I think what the gentleman was trying to say was that they wouldn't be interested in selling on the product if they were completely happy with it, so if they are selling, then by extension they believe themselves to have paid too much (and are trying to reimburse themselves somewhat.)

Nah, it's just that they view games as single-use products no matter how good they are. Personally, have yet to sell a game, though I've considered it with GTA IV (overrated) and Fallout 4 (to mebbe get the version with all dlc). Everything else I have bought is still neatly in its shelf, starting with Pool of Radiance (for mac, of course).

 

... I have three versions of Baldur's Gate... And a fourth one coming soon! ;D

Edited July 4, 2012 by Nepenthe

[Blarghagh]

I hate the ruling that you can resell digital games. Why? Because it's just the push publishers need to turn all games into having access to a service ala Diablo III rather than buying it as property. This isn't a win in the long run.

[mkreku]

...and Fallout 4...

Uh.. feel free to sell it to me, time-travelling Finn.

[Tale]

I think what the gentleman was trying to say was that they wouldn't be interested in selling on the product if they were completely happy with it, so if they are selling, then by extension they believe themselves to have paid too much (and are trying to reimburse themselves somewhat.)

Nah, it's just that they view games as single-use products no matter how good they are.

That doesn't make any sense to me. If a person views all games as single-use, then he is functionally undervaluing them. They may not be valuing them less by comparison between titles, but you'll have a hard time convincing me that they don't value the games less than the collector.

 

Parts of the industry depend upon this undervaluing, the yearly rehash. They want people to toss the old title and move on to the new one. They want the longer term attachment to be gone. They are, in essence, cannibalizing themselves.

[Azdeus]

I hate the ruling that you can resell digital games. Why? Because it's just the push publishers need to turn all games into having access to a service ala Diablo III rather than buying it as property. This isn't a win in the long run.

 

This.

Publishers won't conform to this ruling, it's much more likely they will adapt and overcome. Either by as you say, that they implement service/subscription type DRM or payment model or worse, they all just turn to streaming/clouds instead.

Or they change the license to a timelimited one.

 

And consider the type of DRM that will be required to ensure that the software is gone from your computer.

Edited July 4, 2012 by Azdeus