Originally posted by drbaltazar

everybody want a piece of the game pie but nobody wants to make them !in the end we ll end up with no game to play

thats easy, get rid of gamestop!

I would personally care more if this situation weren't directly attributable to the actions of the game publishers.

The fact is that they defined the product that they would sell to you. A lot of people took a lot of time going over what this product was, how much it would make them, etc. They absolutely took into account that once they shipped that product, it would be out there in the world being played by someone. They knew that they were selling a product like most other businesses do, and they expected the product to be change hands like most other physical products.

So any situation they have with their business model is on their heads, because they were totally in charge all this time. Regarding additional expenses like online play and DLC, I have no sympathy for them there either. They put "Free Online Play!!1!" and "Free Downloadable Content!!11!!" right on the game box before they sold it. Therefore, that goes along with the product no matter who is playing it.

MMORPGs have always been hard to re-sell because you have to give away your password and account name, which leads to concerns about someone getting your credit card info since you used that to subscribe, and the value is often in the free month of subscription, which is gone in a used game.

But yea, games like Spore, and games on Steam suck.

I have Borderlands. I can give or sell it to you, you can load the game, put in the code that came in the box and play the game.

That's the way to do it.

Originally posted by mklinic

Originally posted by Rabenwolf

I have been saying this all along, but buying used console games is no different than pirating a game.

Actually, as previously posted, US case law says no, it isn't. Now, providing an incentive for someone to be a "first hand" purchase is fine, but selling a game I bought is no different then selling a DVD or CD I bought. Both of which are perfectly find and established as legal activities (in the US at least. cannot speak for other countries copyright laws).

Short version, I would be more inclined to believe the legal experts who have come to the conclusion that it is, in fact, not like pirating.

Did you bother to actually read and comprehend my post? Its not about legality, its about the effect it has on the publisher. Cmon now, you are smarter than that i would hope.

For my consoles I almost always buy used. To me it is just like buyin cars used. Let someone else take it for a run n loose some money on it then I will pick it up for less.

I have to agree with some points. Places like Gamestop are at the point of reselling their popular used games for close to the same price as a brand new one. So they are rippin off the customer and the game devs. IMO get rid of the used game market...well people simply won't be as quick to buy a new title every month. Those who buy/power game then sell the game a month later, won't be as quick to buy a new title till they are sure it is worth the money. And those like myself who buy used console games, won't be as quick to buy new titles unless I get a really really good demo.

When it comes to PC games. I like having the CD around. Slower net connection makes for a quick install with cd. Those who think digital download is a great thing. Might not be singing the same tune when their net providers begin to limit the amount they can d/l. Or start charging for extra bandwidth  used when everybody else needs to d/l games.

this is no biggie for me, i never trade in any of my games and never buy any used games.

Originally posted by Rabenwolf

Did you bother to actually read and comprehend my post? Its not about legality, its about the effect it has on the publisher. Cmon now, you are smarter than that i would hope.

Alright, for the sake of semantic excercises....Now, the whole post I replied to:

"I have been saying this all along, but buying used console games is no different than pirating a game. The Publisher/Developer will not benefit from it what so ever and it means one less new game sale. It would be the same as if you bought a game, beat it, gave it to a friend, they beat it, they gave it to someone else...ect If one person buys a game 10 people want to play, thats 9 sales lost. Same concept applies to piracy, doesnt matter if you lose money in the process, if the money doesnt go to the people who made the game its pointless."

Minus your leading and trailing sentences, you spent the whole post painting resale as equivalent to piracy in order to drive your point. So, your opinions on comprehension aside, establishing that there is in fact a legal difference between piracy and resale provides a counterweight of accuracy to the misinformation you are putting out there.

Now, another flaw with the quoted, that also exists with piracy, is the fact that one resale equals one lost first-hand sale. As purely anecdotal evidence, I have at least a handful of games I would not have ever purchased had they not been in the used game bin for cheap prices. Now, having owned these games, I know of at least one that I have purchased downloadable content for. So, in my scenario, I've actually paid the developer/publisher for something they would otherwise have not gotten my money for even though they did not get the first sale on the game. Seems to me they actually made out better thanks to resale. To that end, I am perfectly willing to concede that my situation might not be typical of the majority, or maybe, as we are moving to more DLC content, and continued revenue from existing titles, I am representative of a larger number of gamers...who knows. 

The industry has had decades to account for the fact resales are legal. It's hard to paint them as a victim when they've had ample time to adjust. It's like the bad guy in Who Framed Roger Rabbit yelling at the steam roller as it is slowly moving toward him. Companies like Gamestop didn't just pop up this year and start taking a chunk out of studio profits. The solution to the perceived loss of revenue though, is not to punish the consumer for partaking in a legal activity, but instead to provide ongoing value for the product they purchased.

Originally posted by Rabenwolf

Originally posted by AnonymousMe

Originally posted by Rabenwolf                                                                                                                                                          buying used console games is no different than pirating a game.

 

Yeah, so when I buy a new car and then sell it, I'm pirating the car because I didn't give GM the money? How about this nice living room furniture I bought? Am I pirating the sofa when I sell it because I didn't send the furniture store a cut?

Don't talk about something when you don't have a freaking clue what you're talking about to begin with, dude.

When I buy a game, it's mine. I own it. If I want to burn it, use it for a frisbee, or sell it, it's my decision to do so.

When people are fed up with this kind of bullshit, and the stores like Gamestop start seeing they are being pushed out of business, there will be lawsuits. And the game companies WILL lose.

 

You are comparing car's to software? Really? Question, how much do you really know about game development?

A car, in case you forgot, is a utility and expected to be a long term investment. Auto makers make their vehicles based on demand.

The entertainment industry is completely different, and you should know better.

I am not sure you understand what it means to buy a game. It means you purchase the right to play their copywritten material. Do you get it? You dont own anything other than materials made to make the game. You cannot sell the license to play it. Again this is SOFTWARE. Waiting to buy used games and selling them after one play through has the exact same effect as piracy. What do you not understand about that? To buy used means you dont want to spend as much, why not go the extra mile and just pirate it then? Paying for it doesnt mean much if its not going to the developers and publishers who invested in the project.

I am not sure you understand the effect this is having on the industry. Publishers thought they were safe with consoles, they even raised the price of a console game higher and are now forcing content to be left out for DLC because of used game sales. Did you know used game sales have more of a negative impact than Piracy?

But hey, go ahead and play dumb if you wish. I dare you to go to next years GDC and suggest what you have, lets see what those under paid developers think of you.

And I suggest you keep up with current news of the last twenty or so years. Microsoft already lost the "you only get to use the software not own it" years ago in court. Software code may belong to the developer, but the game I buy made with that code is mine. The same way that the engine design made in Taiwan belongs to the mechanical engineering team, but the engine made from that design is mine when I buy it.

So I'm sorry if you feel bad about it, but that's the way it is. You have no argument. Period.

All this would be mute if the re-sellers like gamestop would throw a bone in sharing the resell profits a bit. They eventually will regret this and could start to be a company like blockbuster. Technology is growing everyday and the need for stores are dwindling and they will only have themselves to blame when the game companies wont need them any more.

Ive never bought the used car analogy because alot of the times its the same car company thats reselling the car, and they do wear out, where a game if taken care of can last a long time. But Im not arguing that people dont have a right a sell their games, but just dont whine when the game companies bypass stores and dvds so they can make a better profit off their work and not amazon or best buy re-sellers.

This wont have an affect on me at all.

If i want a game I buy it, Full price, reduced price or used.

If there are no more used games ill just buy the reduced price ones 5 bucks more. If they take longer to reduce due to not having the money from used games then ill wait longer or buy the good games new.

I don't lose sleep over these guys, its only a video game.

Originally posted by Rabenwolf

Originally posted by alucard3000

publishers/developers are getting pretty greedy these days whats next are the car dealers and electronics retailers going to be demanding a piece of the pie when you resell your cars and tv's/computers lol

 

You are joking right? Developers are underpaid for the amount of money the game industry brings in.

I have been saying this all along, but buying used console games is no different than pirating a game. The Publisher/Developer will not benefit from it what so ever and it means one less new game sale. It would be the same as if you bought a game, beat it, gave it to a friend, they beat it, they gave it to someone else...ect If one person buys a game 10 people want to play, thats 9 sales lost. Same concept applies to piracy, doesnt matter if you lose money in the process, if the money doesnt go to the people who made the game its pointless.

 

Why do you think EA kept out content for used game sales on Mass Effect 2 unless they pay for it?

ok buddy whatever you I guess it must be true because "you" said it sry its a product like anything else and if your making so little money maybe you should try a career change oh and I guess you must also be saying buying used dvds from blockbuster and hollywood video is pirating also lmao
 

Originally posted by Ilvaldyr

Originally posted by mklinic

Originally posted by Ilvaldyr

Originally posted by merv808

Originally posted by Ilvaldyr

Originally posted by merv808

I understand how game makers can be upset on this one, but they honestly have no right to the money made on second hand sales. I understand that they own the rights to the game itself and all of its properties, but that particular copy that I bought is MINE, to do what I please with. Hell if I buy a game as a gift to someone, do I have to put the publisher/devs name on the wrapping???

That's the problem, technically .. it isn't.

You don't buy a game, you buy the licence to play a game. It's an EULA thing.

 Don't remember agreeing to a EULA on any console games.

Nope, you won't .. check the wee text in the bottom-left on the back of one of your PS3 games.

"Resale and rental are prohibited unless expressly authorised by SCEE"

It's sneaky, but you agree to the EULA when you buy the product because the product packaging states that purchase of the product is dependant on the acceptance of the EULA.

You don't actually read the EULA, of course (no-one does) but that doesn't matter.

The text might be different depending on what country you're from, I'm quoting from an EU game.

Specific to the US, this is not a matter of EULA. The EULA does not allow a company to override law. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-sale_doctrine the section titled "Computer Software" lists/links relevant case history establishing that First Sale Doctrine applies to software. That said, single-use codes and what not are a convenient circumvention of the spirit of the law, but I more wanted to address the idea that the EULA gives the producer/developer the ability to restrict resale.

I'm not familiar with US law, being from the UK .. but that's an interesting read, regardless.

I also noticed the following:

".. the court found the plaintiff's EULA, which prohibited resale, was binding on the defendants because "The defendants .. expressly consented to the terms of the EULA and Terms of Use by clicking 'I Agree' and 'Agree.'"

Seems like a bit of a grey area; your courts have ruled that EULAs aren't binding in some cases but are binding in others, and there isn't any mention of game software.

What a lot of people don't understand is that in the U.S. your rights are your rights whether you want them or not. You CAN NOT sign away/wave etc. your legal rights.

For example... I go to a rock climbing gym downtown, when I joined I signed a waiver stating that "rock climbing is dangerous, blah blah blah, management not liable for you busting your ass, blah blah." We've all signed waivers like that, and they all read like the point is that we hurt ourselves we can't sue. This is absolutely wrong. If this was the case, why is the owner (a friend of mine) paying out the ass for insurance? What's he insuring against? See, the point of the waiver is NOT so Dan can't be sued if someone hurts himself, people couldn't legally sign away they're rights if they wanted to, the point of the waiver is that if someone hurts themselves and sues, they can't used the arguement in court that they wheren't warned that climbing was dangerous, proving that the plaintiff understood the risk and was willing to accept the risk and liablity for said risk before engaing in the activity helps the defendant.

Likewise, 90% of everything in a EULA would not hold up in court. Ever. But here's what it REALLY means: it's means that the software makers contract with you says they don't have to support if you don't play by there rules (and ussually says they don't have to support you even if you do). A lot of software today (particularly anything with an online component) relies on the software providing a continuing service... which they wouldn't be legally obligated to do even if there was no EULA because any business has a legal right to refuse service to anyone at any time for any (or no) reason.

Once again the EULA doesn't (and legally can't) grant or revoke any parties legal rights, in fact in the case of a EULA it can't even be used in court as "you can't say you wheren't made aware" document because in the case of most software, you had to buy the software BEFORE you where presented the EULA, so it can't legally be considered a sales contract.

A EULA does ONE thing and ONE thing alone: It establishes that the software manufacturer is not liable for in any for any service related to the software. That's it. That's all it even can do. And that would still be true without the EULA.

Originally posted by mklinic

Originally posted by RavingRabbid

The publisher or makers of the game do have a right to that money after all it is thier game. If I made a game and it got resold and I didnt see any money out of it I'd have a problem with it also...after all I made that game..I should benefit. Rememeber that companies have the right to sell the game but dont own rights to the game itself! I dont agree with limited installs or multiplayer rstrictions at all either.

( BBBBBBBWWWWWWWAAAAAHHHHHH raises plunger in salute to new clash of the titans Movie!)

 

Personal opinions aside, I believe this idea has been covered by law already:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-sale_doctrine

The wikipedia article cites some specific cases relating to software.

You should know that laws can overturned......this means nothing.

Originally posted by RavingRabbid

You should know that laws can overturned......this means nothing.

Until such time as the law is overturned, this means everything.

Originally posted by Lamarak

All this would be mute if the re-sellers like gamestop would throw a bone in sharing the resell profits a bit. They eventually will regret this and could start to be a company like blockbuster. Technology is growing everyday and the need for stores are dwindling and they will only have themselves to blame when the game companies wont need them any more.

 

Ive never bought the used car analogy because alot of the times its the same car company thats reselling the car, and they do wear out, where a game if taken care of can last a long time. But Im not arguing that people dont have a right a sell their games, but just dont whine when the game companies bypass stores and dvds so they can make a better profit off their work and not amazon or best buy re-sellers.

 I didnt state my case enough earlier very well at all and the used car anogly is a horrible one. Recently I traded my paid off Nissan Titan Back to get an Nissan Altima Coupe at a Nissan dealership. Nissan can resell my Titan to someone else. So thier anology doesnt nessarily apply. Computer games dont wear out and can re written to play on new system like the site Good old games. Cars, Comps, phones, tv's mechanics wear out over time. Games nesssarily dont.  the word greed is thrown around like candy. Last time I checked people are allowed to make money (imo).

Originally posted by RavingRabbid

 

 I didnt state my case enough earlier very well at all and the used car anogly is a horrible one. Recently I traded my paid off Nissan Titan Back to get an Nissan Altima Coupe at a Nissan dealership. Nissan can resell my Titan to someone else. So thier anology doesnt nessarily apply. Computer games dont wear out and can re written to play on new system like the site Good old games. Cars, Comps, phones, tv's mechanics wear out over time. Games nesssarily dont.  the word greed is thrown around like candy. Last time I checked people are allowed to make money (imo).

The car analogy is indeed flawed, but your reasoning doesn't do much to illustrate that. By this, I mean, I am not compelled to sell my car back to the dealership. I  can sell myself, to an independant used car lot (Car Stop?), or the dealership. Perhaps a solution would be for the game publishers to offer their own resale outlets. That'd be an interesting approach.

That said, a more direct comparison would be to the resale of movies and music which is also allowed. The movie and music industry are certainly allowed to make money off their product when they sell it. After that, the DVD/CD is mine to sell or keep. Now, if I got into copying, then sure, the industry has every right to go after that if it is not permitted. The same rules apply to the game industry.

Originally posted by NotNiceDino

Originally posted by Ilvaldyr

I'm not familiar with US law, being from the UK .. but that's an interesting read, regardless.

I also noticed the following:

".. the court found the plaintiff's EULA, which prohibited resale, was binding on the defendants because "The defendants .. expressly consented to the terms of the EULA and Terms of Use by clicking 'I Agree' and 'Agree.'"

Seems like a bit of a grey area; your courts have ruled that EULAs aren't binding in some cases but are binding in others, and there isn't any mention of game software.

What a lot of people don't understand is that in the U.S. your rights are your rights whether you want them or not. You CAN NOT sign away/wave etc. your legal rights.

For example... I go to a rock climbing gym downtown, when I joined I signed a waiver stating that "rock climbing is dangerous, blah blah blah, management not liable for you busting your ass, blah blah." We've all signed waivers like that, and they all read like the point is that we hurt ourselves we can't sue. This is absolutely wrong. If this was the case, why is the owner (a friend of mine) paying out the ass for insurance? What's he insuring against? See, the point of the waiver is NOT so Dan can't be sued if someone hurts himself, people couldn't legally sign away they're rights if they wanted to, the point of the waiver is that if someone hurts themselves and sues, they can't used the arguement in court that they wheren't warned that climbing was dangerous, proving that the plaintiff understood the risk and was willing to accept the risk and liablity for said risk before engaing in the activity helps the defendant.

Likewise, 90% of everything in a EULA would not hold up in court. Ever. But here's what it REALLY means: it's means that the software makers contract with you says they don't have to support if you don't play by there rules (and ussually says they don't have to support you even if you do). A lot of software today (particularly anything with an online component) relies on the software providing a continuing service... which they wouldn't be legally obligated to do even if there was no EULA because any business has a legal right to refuse service to anyone at any time for any (or no) reason.

Once again the EULA doesn't (and legally can't) grant or revoke any parties legal rights, in fact in the case of a EULA it can't even be used in court as "you can't say you wheren't made aware" document because in the case of most software, you had to buy the software BEFORE you where presented the EULA, so it can't legally be considered a sales contract.

A EULA does ONE thing and ONE thing alone: It establishes that the software manufacturer is not liable for in any for any service related to the software. That's it. That's all it even can do. And that would still be true without the EULA.

That doesn't explain the pink highlight, though.

Why did the courts find in favour of the plaintiff? .. purely because there was express consent? .. if that's the case, couldn't game companies simply change to digital distribution with an EULA prior to purchase/download which would surely be legally binding under the same ruling?

Originally posted by mklinic

Originally posted by RavingRabbid

 

 I didnt state my case enough earlier very well at all and the used car anogly is a horrible one. Recently I traded my paid off Nissan Titan Back to get an Nissan Altima Coupe at a Nissan dealership. Nissan can resell my Titan to someone else. So thier anology doesnt nessarily apply. Computer games dont wear out and can re written to play on new system like the site Good old games. Cars, Comps, phones, tv's mechanics wear out over time. Games nesssarily dont.  the word greed is thrown around like candy. Last time I checked people are allowed to make money (imo).

 

The car analogy is indeed flawed, but your reasoning doesn't do much to illustrate that. By this, I mean, I am not compelled to sell my car back to the dealership. I  can sell myself, to an independant used car lot (Car Stop?), or the dealership. Perhaps a solution would be for the game publishers to offer their own resale outlets. That'd be an interesting approach.

That said, a more direct comparison would be to the resale of movies and music which is also allowed. The movie and music industry are certainly allowed to make money off their product when they sell it. After that, the DVD/CD is mine to sell or keep. Now, if I got into copying, then sure, the industry has every right to go after that if it is not permitted. The same rules apply to the game industry.

 

Outstanding ty! 

Originally posted by RavingRabbid

Originally posted by Lamarak

All this would be mute if the re-sellers like gamestop would throw a bone in sharing the resell profits a bit. They eventually will regret this and could start to be a company like blockbuster. Technology is growing everyday and the need for stores are dwindling and they will only have themselves to blame when the game companies wont need them any more.

 

Ive never bought the used car analogy because alot of the times its the same car company thats reselling the car, and they do wear out, where a game if taken care of can last a long time. But Im not arguing that people dont have a right a sell their games, but just dont whine when the game companies bypass stores and dvds so they can make a better profit off their work and not amazon or best buy re-sellers.

 

 I didnt state my case enough earlier very well at all and the used car anogly is a horrible one. Recently I traded my paid off Nissan Titan Back to get an Nissan Altima Coupe at a Nissan dealership. Nissan can resell my Titan to someone else. So thier anology doesnt nessarily apply. Computer games dont wear out and can re written to play on new system like the site Good old games. Cars, Comps, phones, tv's mechanics wear out over time. Games nesssarily dont.  the word greed is thrown around like candy. Last time I checked people are allowed to make money (imo).

And last time i checked the company that created the games are allowed to pursue any avenue to try to make money of their hard work. and even read the thread? I wasnt arguing that people cant sell games, just that eventually because of the current system set up, it is encouraging the technology to be created in order for games to be sold so that they can make better profit, they are not obliged to make it easy for people to resell the product where they see no profit.

Originally posted by mklinic

Originally posted by RavingRabbid

 

 I didnt state my case enough earlier very well at all and the used car anogly is a horrible one. Recently I traded my paid off Nissan Titan Back to get an Nissan Altima Coupe at a Nissan dealership. Nissan can resell my Titan to someone else. So thier anology doesnt nessarily apply. Computer games dont wear out and can re written to play on new system like the site Good old games. Cars, Comps, phones, tv's mechanics wear out over time. Games nesssarily dont.  the word greed is thrown around like candy. Last time I checked people are allowed to make money (imo).

 

The car analogy is indeed flawed, but your reasoning doesn't do much to illustrate that. By this, I mean, I am not compelled to sell my car back to the dealership. I  can sell myself, to an independant used car lot (Car Stop?), or the dealership. Perhaps a solution would be for the game publishers to offer their own resale outlets. That'd be an interesting approach.

That said, a more direct comparison would be to the resale of movies and music which is also allowed. The movie and music industry are certainly allowed to make money off their product when they sell it. After that, the DVD/CD is mine to sell or keep. Now, if I got into copying, then sure, the industry has every right to go after that if it is not permitted. The same rules apply to the game industry.

 

This is one of the best points I've read on the subject and I think it's what we all need to keep site of, if I am buying games and pirating them (finding a way to sell multiple copies of the game) then it is an issue if I sell the three hundred video games I bought and paid for then I don't see an issue here wether the companies feel they have a right to come after me for doing so or not.