Video Game Companies Still Bitching About Used Game Sales
from the give-it-up dept
This has been discussed before, but apparently one of the big topics at E3 last week was video game publishers again being upset about the fact that they don't get a cut of used game sales. What they never seem to mention, however, is that there's simply no reason for them to get a cut of those sales. When you sell your house, do you get a cut of every sale after that? When you sell a book do you get a cut of every sale after that? Of course not. And for a very good reason. Studies have shown that an active used goods market increases the value of a product. This makes sense. If I know I can resell this widget for $10, I'm more willing to pay $20 for it in the first place. But rather than focus on ways to make it worthwhile for people to buy new video games, the execs want to sit around, complain and scheme for ways to wipe out the used video game market... or at least get a cut of any sale. Once again, we're seeing companies with a sense of entitlement to something they have no rights over.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: markets, sales, used games, video games
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
That's it exactly. I call it the Microsoft mentality. Microsoft sees someone making a ton of money. E.g., Google monetizing search. Instead of concentrating on Microsoft's own profits on Office and Windows, it has to try and either beat Google or destroy the market so no one makes money.
I swear this mentality must be taught in MBA programs, because it's a relatively new mental condition/impairment.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
What Microsoft does is simply competition when they try to beat Google. It's what any company should be doing - increasing their own market share, or they will die. Competition is a good thing.
There is always a way to do it right too, without using monopoly power, as they were scolded for in the past - in regards to Netscape.
I don't see Microsoft charging when people sell their PCs with Windows installed on it, do you?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
What Microsoft does is simply competition when they try to beat Google. It's what any company should be doing - increasing their own market share, or they will die. Competition is a good thing.
Microsoft is a SOFTWARE company. They should concentrate on writing, and fixing their software rather than trying to corner the market on everything computer related.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Their response
But we MADE the game. Well...not we, but our employees. Well...not our employees, since we're just the publisher, but the developers we partner with. Well, actually, they sub-contracted out some of the animation and development, but still....FEED ME!!!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Their response
All those people sign off their rights to the product most likely! Wooooooooooooooops.
It's still wrong though.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Their response
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
but...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This one shows the bankruptcy of their position.
This isn't war against "pirates", it is a war against the decent paying customer just looking for value and some salvage if the game doesn't work out.
I joined the "Spore" download spite fest as a result of these type of actions.
I know point out to everyone that they have choice to say right back at you to these but wipes.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Tough t*tties
GD greedy scumbags.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Tough t*tties
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Tough t*tties
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Shooting themselves in the foot. Again
However, I boycott all games with activation requirements, SecuROM or any similar DRM shit.
All my games are now on Steam, because it's account-based, which gives me great freedom to backup and install the game anywhere I want.
Of course, the big downside is that it removes your right to re-sell the game - and I've got some duffers I'd like to get rid of. Yet despite this, the Steam platform is very successful and still no-one seems to have mounted a legal challenge to this unreasonable restriction. I believe it should be illegal.
This flies in the face of Mike's argument that second hand sales help to stimulate original sales and I'd like to see him address this point.
Can you?
Therefore, it looks like if the greedy game company execs could actually prevent second-hand sales, that they really could have their cake and eat it.
For those that are unfamiliar with Steam, here's the website: www.steampowered.com
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Shooting themselves in the foot. Again
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Shooting themselves in the foot. Again
Until such time as Valve goes out of business or gets bought by a larger company who decide that they no longer want to support all the older games that are Steam-Crippled. At which time you're SOL.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Shooting themselves in the foot. Again
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Shooting themselves in the foot. Again
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Shooting themselves in the foot. Again
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Shooting themselves in the foot. Again
Yes you do. Do you even use it? You need the Steam client running when you run steambackup.exe
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I don't think the video game companies have a right to ask for part of the resale, unless of course the original owner has cloned himself a copy first.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Time for a 3rd party keyserver
We need a 3rd party to come into being thats a keyserver business, A host, broker, trusted seller etc for CD keys so that you can sell your game when your done with it. To make it even better make a deal with people like Blizzard so that when a key is sold, the old one is deactivated and a new one is issued.
Now here is something the big players might like so thay can get a cut of the used market and best of all it wont violate first sale doctern as you can aways directly sell your existing key.
Idealy the key is your "licence" to the software now a days, the plastic disk the game comes on is more or less worthless. This solution should even work with online only stuff like Stardock.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The problem is with companies like Gamestop who have developed a sort of parasitic relationship with publishers. Gamestop wants to order enough new copies of a game to satisfy preorders and then exclusively push used games. And why not? It's pure profit, they pay relatively nothing for trade ins. It's not just big mean executives who are upset too, the people who work on the games don't like it either.
The same thing could happen with DVDs and music (not cars and houses though, that's kind of a stupid analogy) but there are other factors that prevent it. Lower cost is probably a big one. It's a lot more appealing to just keep a DVD you've seen a few times on the chance you might watch it again then to trade it in when you'd probably get like 5 dollars. Music is something you tend to keep listening to for longer too. Both are a lot easier to rip before returning them too which is a potential legal mess that most retailers would probably rather avoid.
The industry, I think, is more interested in exploring solutions that aren't as hamfisted as demanding money from resales though. Digital distribution, content updates, subscription models, etc.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
COMPETE!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The real problem
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The real problem - #24
"Publishers need to know how many units are sold..."
Shouldn't they be keeping track of those figures? You know, just in case they want to make good business decisions?
"If all of the sales are used..."
Doens't this push the concept into the chicken-or-egg-first category? If all the sales are from re-sold titles, where did the titles being re-sold come from?
Or did you mean that game publishers aren't able to discern the difference between new sales and re-sales of a 3-4 month old release?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
And BTW, mention to those same execs that they can get money on your used game sale but they have to give residuals to the devs and you'll instantly kill all this idiocy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
supposition on top of supposition. House of theoretical cards.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The reason for this has already been explained, and more than once. Additionally, the first linked article isn't on Techdirt, so you're not even being accurate in your complaint.
Come up with something else to whine about.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No surprising, as this is not actually a technology or business issue.
Each day people seem to have a more and more pronounced sense that the universe owes them just for being alive. and it just keeps getting worse.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Missing the Point...
So, in the first 1-4 months of a game's release, it is highly important for us, not necessarily the execs...
You cannot use the same argument about used cars, houses, etc... These are all things that you own over a longer period of time... Devs make their money on sales and having Gamestop reselling games during their release time hurts us, and thats it....
I'm all for the second hand reselling of older games, but with the newer titles, it hurts the dev company first...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Missing the Point...
If the Dev Company can't think of ways to keep their consumer interested for more than 3 or 4 months, then maybe the Dev Company is only doing a mediocre job in the first place?
Resorting to actions that are anti-consumer (limiting re-sells) I am afraid will garner you no sympathy. The foundation of capitalism relies on the principal of items having a value, and that value being able to be cashed in by the owner of the item.
The dumb thing the game companies did was not realizing the resell market themselves and swooping in to gobble it up before GameStop set up their own business model first.
Sour grapes, baby.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Missing the Point...
Also, if you drop the price faster you will get more sales.
Want to know how to get more first sales and remove the used sales easier, just drop the price to what the used ones are going for. (I know that results in a price war, but that is competition)
Price is a huge point for more people than you guys ever seem willing to admit.
I don't think I bought a single PS2 game for over 20$ except GTA Vice City. The rest I just waited. At least there the prices dropped decently fast. Compare that to the 360 where the prices take forever to drop down to 20.
Faced between the older games new at 20 or used at 10, I always just go new, because I like new (just not for high prices).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Missing the Point...
Don't misunderstand - we (everyone else) would like good dev companies to be successful so they can continue to "dev", but it is your job to figure out how to make the "dev" process work, not ours. Make a good product that people want to buy, and we (everyone else) will buy it. If nobody is buying your product, I guarantee that the availability of used games is not the reason.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Missing the Point...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sorry, but that last reminded me of a parallel argument I've heard somewhere.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You wanna fix this problem? Convince your Congressman to forgo all that Lobbying Campaign Cash and criminalize such shrink-wrap software licensing schemes. Good luck!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
solution to the problem
Most games have limited replayability and just simply get old. By adding content as "releases" and "add-ons' the companies can enjoy a longer product life cycle while retaining customers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Used goods are valuable to whom?
Ah. The statement quoted above seems to be missing an important element - the subject and recipient of the value of the product. An active used goods market increases the value for who? Understand this and you understand the source of the dispute.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Used goods are valuable to whom?
The end customer. Making it more likely that they will buy the initial product at the demanded retail price in the first place.
You seem to imply that making a product more attractive to a customer is bad for the people selling it. You seem to have missed the point on this one.
Perhaps you're implying that the game company will sell more $50 games if no $20 used copies are likely to be available. If so, please understand the stupidity of what you and the game companies are trying to say. It's actually more likely that less $50 games will be sold, as there's no way for a customer to recoup some of that cost by selling on to a person who could not afford full price.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
give the video game companies a break
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: give the video game companies a break
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: give the video game companies a break
You don't honestly believe wear and tear are the only factors in determining the value of a house or a book, do you?
As long as the game works it has almost the exact same value of a new version of the game, therefore it is semi legit for the video game companies to get a share of the used game sale.
Your statement is incorrect on two levels. First, the value of a game changes over time, just like other products. New games typically run around $60, and will be reduced in price over the shelf life of the game as time passes.
Secondly, you haven't actually bothered to state why the video game companies deserve a cut of used sales. Even if your statements were accurate, it doesn't justify cutting them into a portion of the used sales. If the video game companies want to discourage used game sales, they should provide a reason for consumers to do so.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: give the video game companies a break
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: give the video game companies a break
They did...when the first customer bought. They sold one copy and were paid for it. The first customer chose to transfer ownership of that copy to someone else and recoup (some) of the cost. The new owner now has the copy, and the original owner does not. If the original owner decides in say, a year or so, that he wants to play the game again, he has to buy it. So, one new product sale = one copy in circulation, for which the developer has been paid. If they are not adding any additional copies to the marketplace, why the hell should they get paid again?
"If a used video game has the same conusmer benefit as a that same game newley sealed then the video game companies should recieve some revenue for that used game because both customers (new and used) recieve virtually the same benefit."
So, I buy a broken camera, refurbish it with brand-new parts to brand-new condition, and sell it with a warranty equal to the original manufacturers. Or, maybe I have a table that I use every day, but I take good care of it, maintain the finish, etc, so that it looks like new when I decide to sell it. Now, should I have to pay royalties to the original manufacturer just because the buyer gets (nearly) the same experience that I did?
"...video games cannot be compared to other used items such as a house or a book. Those items are worth less used because of physical wear and tear."
Funny you should choose a book for comparison, because a book's value is not at all determined by wear and tear. After all, it is the content and/or collector value, not the paper, that people are paying for. Heck, a dog-eared first printing is worth much more than a mass-market edition in perfect condition. And what if I treat the book carefully and resell it in like-new condition? Should I then have to pay royalties, but not if I beat it up? A house built by Frank Lloyd Wright will be worth a fortune, even if it is neglected and falling down. At least try to have a friggin' clue what you're talking about.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: give the video game companies a break
Again, you're not presenting any logic or evidence that the video game companies deserve a cut of the secondary market. I understand what you're saying, but it doesn't support the point you're trying to make.
You say that the consumer of a used game receives the same benefit that a consumer that bought the game brand new receives (which isn't necessarily true). What you don't provide is any logical reason why that should translate into the video game companies getting a cut of the resale. The game was purchased; after the initial sale, the video game company has no right to that copy anymore, and thus no valid claim to a stake of the resale.
Many companies, including Gamestop, try to increase the sales of new games via pre-ordering incentives, thus increasing the value of the new game for some consumers. Another aspect of value that you're missing is time - there are plenty of people out there that don't want to wait for the secondary market. Being the one the first people to play a game is an additional value to those consumers. So the benefit of a used game vs. a new game is not necessarily the same.
In any case, whether the used game provides the same value/benefit as a new game is irrelevant. The video game companies have already been compensated for the copies entering the secondary market. Since they've already been paid, they have no standing to demand money from transactions they have no part in.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
GM could lear a lesson
Don't sell cars.. lease them! All of them. All the time. Never let anyone own the car. Lock your customers into long term leases, force them to service the car with monthly service fees on top of the lease. Require each driver to be biometrically recored with the car and force customers to pay if they also want to drive that car.
I see a totally new economy: a license economy. No one will own anything anymore.
Where do I sign up?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Trying to push the same idiotic legalese on console games would create a much bigger backlash, and would most likely result in quite a few class action lawsuits against the companies.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I buy a physical copy I can then sell it or give it away or put it through a shredder WITH IMPUGNITY as stated in US copyright law. Producer got paid, he should be happy with that. I'm not about to pay him over and over for the same code or license if I don't have it in my possession anymore because I flung it out a window after purchase and someone picked it up off the sidewalk, sorry.
Like the music industry and iTunes, Gamestop has swiped a lucrative 2nd hand market out from under game publishers because pubs chose not to offer that service to customers. Although Stardock is making a play for it:
http://www.wired.com/gamelife/2009/03/stardock-unveil/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
"I buy a physical copy I can then sell it or give it away or put it through a shredder WITH IMPUGNITY as stated in US copyright law."
Yes you can. They can also change the game remotely at any time, shut off access if they think it's been installed on too many PCs and refuse online play or updates as per their EULAs, which you agree to when you install the game.
"I'm not about to pay him over and over for the same code or license if I don't have it in my possession anymore because I flung it out a window after purchase and someone picked it up off the sidewalk, sorry."
Try asking a publisher for the licence code or a new CD for free so that you can install it again after you've done that. Don't hold your breath, especially if someone else has possession of your old code and are playing online.
"Producer got paid, he should be happy with that."
Yes, they SHOULD. The entire point of these complaints is that they aren't, and they're trying to restrict your rights over complaints of "piracy".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Try reading one BEFORE you buy the thing, you mean? When's the last time you were able to do that w/digital content on physical media? Have they a giant tome of EULAe for all the software for sale at Gamestop or Walmart available to purchasers? A computer terminal for looking up such things prior to purchase? Are 10 year olds going to intently pore over the EULA for their copy of Barbie Loves Horses?
Is an agreement valid if one party has to pay to read it? C'mon.
"They can also change the game remotely at any time, shut off access if they think it's been installed on too many PCs and refuse online play or updates as per their EULAs, which you agree to when you install the game."
If I paid, I get to use it, EULA not withstanding. EULAe are not licenses to remotely steal a product back from a consumer who has paid the asked price for use of the thing, especially when the terms in such an agreement are not made clear prior to purchase, nor are the methods of remotely monitoring someone's private property for adherence to that agreement. And some wonder why people seek out cracked executable files to run their purchased software, sheesh.
"Try asking a publisher for the licence code or a new CD for free so that you can install it again after you've done that. Don't hold your breath, especially if someone else has possession of your old code and are playing online."
I've thrown it out a window, why would I do that? I obviously didn't care for the product. You seem to be presuming something here, like I would feel entitled to another code for something I don't have anymore.
Just because I take issue with how games are represented when sold, publishers wanting to get paid repeatedly for the same single product, and the questionable validity of EULAe only presented after purchase doesn't mean I expect to be able to use the software after I've flung it away.
I flung it away because I DON'T want to use it. We're not all 'pirates', yanno. As someone who always buys, I very much resent that attitude from anyone or any company. I don't buy anything from sellers with attitudes like that. I give my cash to those more worthy and customer friendly, who are happy they sold me one copy/license for the price they wanted.
"Yes, they SHOULD [be happy with one time sales]. The entire point of these complaints is that they aren't, and they're trying to restrict your rights over complaints of "piracy"."
So now we agree? Okey doke.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
..and so because it 'hurts' your wallet it should be illegal??
Grow up, the world owes you nothing. The world is full of people who are hurt by others in their industry finding a way to make money too. Someone invented the car and made lots of stable maintainers find other ways to make themselves valuable. Someone invented the backhoe and made lots of men with shovels find other ways to make themselves valuable. Someone invented the calculator and made accountants find other ways to make themselves valuable.
Someone invented the used car lot, and new car manufacturers and retailers had to come up with ways to make their vehicles not only more desirable than a used one, but also hold their value longer so less of them ended up as used right away.
And despite your claim it is not just the cost or length of time you would use a product. As the same holds true for movie sales, music sales, etc.
Go find a way to make your product worth enough that consumers do not want to go off and re-sell the product "during their release time". Don't blame the consumers because your game is only desirable for a short time and thus so easy to want to get rid of right away.
You can see this works if you watch the used sales. It was much harder to find a used copy of Dead Rising or GTA4 for quite a while after the release time due to those games having both long original play value and decent replay value.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
By this logic, if any pre-owned item ever sells for a price near that of the original price the original manufacturer should get a cut of the sale.
So when I sell my all original but used 67 Dodge Charger for more than the original sale price Dodge should get a cut? When my Dad sells one of his used 50 yr old stamps should the USPS get a cut of the sale? When I sell one of my still new in the box original Sheridan PGP paintball guns for Way more then original cost, should sheridan get a cut? Maybe these companies should get even more of a % of the sale price since the items would sell for Way more than the original price.
Completely absurd idea. The resale cost of the item is in no way a reasonable excuse to give money from a re-sale to a company.
They are selling a retail product, just like a car, a phone, a book, a music CD, a shirt, or anything else. They sell the product and that is it, from there they are, and should be, out of the equation completely. The fact that their chosen line of products to manufacture has a lower final total profit margin is their choice.
Just because the guy selling handmade birdhouses down the street makes more of a profit % per item than the guy down the street making handmade chairs does not mean the chair guy is entitled to a cut when I re-sell my chair. He chose his product and thus the benefits and hardships that come with it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What I don't understand is why Steam doesn't permit resale of content through their system since it's just a matter of transferring OptimusPrime69's license key to "Bald Space Marine Movie Tie-In Game May 2007" to TehReelNeyo. They could even offer a PayPal-type payment setup where they take a cut of whatever it sells for. Gamers aren't stuck with old games; people get deals; Steam gets a taste; everyone wins and is happy.
Which is exactly why it'll never happen.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Very Simple
The simple solution is for the game companies to open up their own chains and allow customers to resell games to them. These publisher-owned chains would even cut out the middle man and so could easily undercut Gamestop and the other video game sellers. They could easily make money off resales just as Gamestop does.
Hey, wow, that was actually a pretty good idea... There's gotta be a reason they've not thought of this yet. Brand-name penetration?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
How about game developers / publishers stop releasing shithouse games
If you look through the second hand games at any retailer the majority of the stock is the same crappy ten games. Very rarely is actually a good game that you'd want to pay money for in there.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It is just like having a rebate or something- which gives the customer the free capital to buy again keeping the ever consuming world spinning.
If the video game makers want a cut of used game profits they should stop distribution through retail by selling it directly to the customers online or invest a large amount of capital selling it themselves. Better yet buy enough stocks in the companies that retail it and deal in used. Bam theres you cut ass wipes.
Although why are you bitching your distributors are BOUND to you the maker so you tell them to drop the used games dealing or lose their supply/ rate hike and they must comply to your greedy ego. But in doing so you will only be helping ebay and hurting them.
Don't give a damn honestly fair is fair and these types of pricks always think they deserve a bigger slice of pie.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Used Video Game Market
I know that I am new to the site...Yippee!!!!!
But, I am not new to gaming and I am definitely not new to capitalizing on selling my games for a profit. I think the thing that gets me about this entire gaming industry is the amount of money that is made off of all of us when we purchase, and even more when we sell our used games...they hike the prices up even more...EB is notorious for doing this.
I have found a few sites online, away from ebay, that allow you to sell your used video games or even new video games online and they seem cool because you can actually make money for your games that you don't want anymore. Now that is a better way for me to get something more back from the games that I have loved to play. I get more than a smile and the enjoyment when playing the game, I get a few bucks in my pocket!!!
If any of you have any other sites that I can check out, please let me know!!! A couple sites that I have found is naxdax.com and another is dawdle. Looking for more and will update you when I get them!!
Until... I will be LyvingLyfe_Gaming!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]