Report: New Sony Patent Blocks Second Hand Games

[Banecat]

Jan 4, 2013 15:49:21 GMT -5 King Ghidorah said:

Maybe I have my keyboard set to Spanish. I'm not arguing the legality of it all, I'm not arguing if this is a good idea or not. What I'm saying is, by buying a used game, developers get the same amount of money they would have received if you would have downloaded it for free. The only difference is, you paid someone for it.

You do know that developers get paid mostly by salary. They get very little in royalties (just like in the music industry). Those developers have already been paid for their services. It's the publishers who stand to gain the most and they push their development studios to tow the company line.

Oh and KG, you should be embarrassed that you posted that extremely poor analogy, unless you just posted that to troll then you get a 7/10.

If the publishers are so bothered with second hand games, why don't they offer to buy back our games so they can get into the resell game.

[King Ghidorah]

Jan 5, 2013 9:44:44 GMT -5 Banecat said:

Jan 4, 2013 15:49:21 GMT -5 King Ghidorah said:

Maybe I have my keyboard set to Spanish. I'm not arguing the legality of it all, I'm not arguing if this is a good idea or not. What I'm saying is, by buying a used game, developers get the same amount of money they would have received if you would have downloaded it for free. The only difference is, you paid someone for it.

You do know that developers get paid mostly by salary. They get very little in royalties (just like in the music industry). Those developers have already been paid for their services. It's the publishers who stand to gain the most and they push their development studios to tow the company line.

Oh and KG, you should be embarrassed that you posted that extremely poor analogy, unless you just posted that to troll then you get a 7/10.

Do you have something against my tasty ass sandwiches.

[Banecat]

Jan 5, 2013 9:55:11 GMT -5 King Ghidorah said:

Oh and KG, you should be embarrassed that you posted that extremely poor analogy, unless you just posted that to troll then you get a 7/10.

Do you have something against my tasty ass sandwiches.

You basically described the publisher/retailer relationship in your analogy and it didn't at all relate to second hand sales. A better analogy would have been 'the first 250 customers eat the sandwich and then regurgitate them for the next 250.'

[Beast Army Ass]

I agree this is more patenting for the sake of patenting, because NO ONE is that stupid to implement such a thing. In general, any DRM that forces the user to maintain a constant internet connection is absurd, because if anyone had a network that dependable that service provider would have the market on complete lockdown. I don't mind Comcast so much (the prices are getting a little high though), but my internet will cut out for no reason every so often. It's not 100% reliable. With DRM like that, that'd be the end of my gaming session right there, regardless of what I was playing.

I also agree on the fact that because of this, the migration to all digital all the time is absurd to me as well. I vastly prefer buying the actual copy of the game as opposed to paying for a download (I still do it every once in a while for network-only tiny games though). People seem to get sucked into it because it's a convenience, I guess. To me, it just seems like that model is always going to be just one "oopsie" (example: leap year PSN bug) away from completely screwing over millions of customers.

In regards to the new/used debate in general, I vastly prefer new, but I also usually wait until things go down in price before I get it. I feel as though the desperate clinging to try and get as much money out of a given user as possible is only going to hurt things in the end via alienating customers until only the hardest core fans are left (like, at this rate I would not be surprised to see some sort of big-time crash). To me it just seems that why are they so hell-bent on eradicating the used market unless they were already on thin ice profit-wise?

[Koda, Master Crunchyroller]

Jan 5, 2013 9:44:44 GMT -5 Banecat said:

Jan 4, 2013 15:49:21 GMT -5 King Ghidorah said:

Maybe I have my keyboard set to Spanish. I'm not arguing the legality of it all, I'm not arguing if this is a good idea or not. What I'm saying is, by buying a used game, developers get the same amount of money they would have received if you would have downloaded it for free. The only difference is, you paid someone for it.

You do know that developers get paid mostly by salary. They get very little in royalties (just like in the music industry). Those developers have already been paid for their services. It's the publishers who stand to gain the most and they push their development studios to tow the company line.

Oh and KG, you should be embarrassed that you posted that extremely poor analogy, unless you just posted that to troll then you get a 7/10.

If the publishers are so bothered with second hand games, why don't they offer to buy back our games so they can get into the resell game.

Actually, developers are also paid HUGE bonuses depending on how well a game sells(and how good its Metacritic score is.......seriously). Even the highest ranking jobs at most developers only make a few hundred thousand a year in salary. They make their real bucks from the bonuses.

Remember one of the keystone parts of the lawsuit between the former head honchos at Infinity Ward and Activision was Activision was withholding the $32 million that the two of them were owed in bonuses for MW2.

[Mr PONYMANIA Mr Jenzie]

welp, there goes a quarter of your fanbase then

DO THEY REALLY WANT TO KILL THE INDUSTRY???

and didn't they LEARN the damn first time the did this???

[nate5054]

Jan 5, 2013 7:00:37 GMT -5 King Ghidorah said:

Let's try again
Someone Pirates a game, developer will receive $0
Someone buys a used game, developer will receive $0

Someone squats in a house, developer will receive $0
Someone buys a used house, the developer will receive $0.

Is your whole point is that you're against people selling used property, or only a specific type of used property?

[King Ghidorah]

Jan 6, 2013 0:31:32 GMT -5 nate5054 said:

Jan 5, 2013 7:00:37 GMT -5 King Ghidorah said:

Let's try again
Someone Pirates a game, developer will receive $0
Someone buys a used game, developer will receive $0

Someone squats in a house, developer will receive $0
Someone buys a used house, the developer will receive $0.

Is your whole point is that you're against people selling used property, or only a specific type of used property?

Are you comparing a New game to a New house.

[xCompackx]

It's weird because you don't see movies having these issues and it's just as costly to make movies as it is video games. I mean, you can buy any VHS, DVD, Blu-Ray used and you never hear anyone say "You're stealing from the filmmakers!" I mean, is it really that big of an issue for video games when used movies and music are just as bad and survive?

[AFN: Judge Shred]

Movies at least have that first run in theaters, and they stay on shelves longer and have more opportunity to make back their money. Plus most people who buy new movies aren't thinking they are going to sell it in a week. The got it day one because they loved it, or expected to, otherwise they rent it some how. And game rentals are a joke now days.

[Reflecto]

Movies at least have that first run in theaters, and they stay on shelves longer and have more opportunity to make back their money. Plus most people who buy new movies aren't thinking they are going to sell it in a week. The got it day one because they loved it, or expected to, otherwise they rent it some how. And game rentals are a joke now days.

But if you're going to say that for movies, that's the entire point as well.

At the movie theater, they overcharge for refreshments. We know the reason they overcharge for them is because the movie companies have incredibly high charges in the ticket [up to 90% for a opening week ticket, which goes down about 10% per week it's in theaters- and most movies will be in theaters for about a month before being taken out, long before the theater will actually get a good portion of the ticket prices.]

It's the same way with used game companies- the video game company makes a large portion of the profit from new releases, to the point where in order to stay afloat, used games occur and allow the store to make the real money for them.

[The Man They Call Asher]

Jan 4, 2013 16:47:34 GMT -5 King Ghidorah said:

Jan 4, 2013 16:38:18 GMT -5 xCompackx said:

I never really understand when the concept of buying pre-owned games is made to look like a despicable act. Not even counting that it's a flawed argument when you consider that selling a game to a friend or giving a game to someone would be considered a "lost sale", but video games in general have such a short shelf-life that pre-owned really is a necessity in some cases. Plus, DLC is still a great way of supporting developers if you buy used.

Kinda like streaming a WWE PPV and then buying a CM Punk shirt.

How did you know?!

[Throwback]

So what if my system breaks and I have to replace it? I wont be able to play my games on the new system?

[Legion]

Jan 6, 2013 1:07:57 GMT -5 King Ghidorah said:

Jan 6, 2013 0:31:32 GMT -5 nate5054 said:

Someone squats in a house, developer will receive $0
Someone buys a used house, the developer will receive $0.

Is your whole point is that you're against people selling used property, or only a specific type of used property?

Are you comparing a New game to a New house.

It works as an analogy.

Company design and build a house. House is passed to an agency who sell houses. It is sold to a family who live in it and enjoy it. The developer gets the lions share of the money, less an agency fee. Later the family have to move. They put it on the market with an agent and sell it. The agent takes a cut, the family get the money and the original company who built the house get nothing because they got paid the first time round. The agents then sell the family a new house, giving the money over to whomever was selling that house, minus their own cut to keep their company alive.

With games, company design and build a game. It is sent to a shop, acting as the agent to sell the game, with the lions share going to the developer, less a fee for the shop selling. Game is sold to someone who plays it and enjoys it. They then trade it in and it is sold on to someone else. If the person traded for cash, they get the lions share of the profit, the shop taking their fee for acting as the agent. If traded in, the shop makes more on the sale of the game second hand, but still have to pay the developer for the new game that they gave to the customer in exchange.

The developer gets money from the first time round sale, much like a housing company would from the first time sale, but cannot turn up to ask for money every time that house is sold, and the games companies shouldnt be either. They sold it, it isnt their's any more, it is the property of the person who bought it to do with as they see fit, including selling on.

[King Ghidorah]

The analogy makes absolutely no sense because you can't make an infinite number of houses like a video game, you can't download a house. Contractors are usually hired to build one house, and expect to sell that one house. Gamestop does not pay the developer at all for used game sales, I dont know where that idea came from.

[kolani]

The house analogy is poor. Look at it like this. Gamestop buys games from the distributor for probably around $40-$45 per unit on a new release, assuming that they operate on a standard 20%-25% profit margin like most retail businesses. After the game is traded back in, they put it back out for $50-$55. That $50-$55 goes completely to GameStop, they're making basically 100% profit the first time it's flipped, assuming they generously allowed $25 on the tradein. Essentially, Gamestop is generating an infinite number of copies for sale without purchasing them from the distributor. I'd wager that Gamestop is a large part of the reason that publishers like THQ are struggling.

[Legion]

Jan 6, 2013 8:07:41 GMT -5 King Ghidorah said:

The analogy makes absolutely no sense because you can't make an infinite number of houses like a video game, you can't download a house. Contractors are usually hired to build one house, and expect to sell that one house. Gamestop does not pay the developer at all for used game sales, I dont know where that idea came from.

You can make as many houses as you are hired to make/have the space to make. Once you make them and sale them, you have no say over what the owner does. Why should a games developer, or any other person, have the right to stop someone selling on goods they legally purchased?

Once you have bought something, you own it. A car manufacturer wouldnt come and expect a cut when you sell on your used car. Clothes designers dont expect a cut when charity shops sell on clothes. If I go to ebay and buy a Marvel comic from 1965, Marvel cant go asking me to pay them.

Gamestop wont pay a developer for selling the used game, no more than anyone else selling something second hand, but they will pay the developer for any new game being traded in against because that would count as them selling a new unit, regardless of the fact they except goods over money as payment.

Jan 6, 2013 11:15:33 GMT -5 kolani said:

The house analogy is poor. Look at it like this. Gamestop buys games from the distributor for probably around $40-$45 per unit on a new release, assuming that they operate on a standard 20%-25% profit margin like most retail businesses. After the game is traded back in, they put it back out for $50-$55. That $50-$55 goes completely to GameStop, they're making basically 100% profit the first time it's flipped, assuming they generously allowed $25 on the tradein. Essentially, Gamestop is generating an infinite number of copies for sale without purchasing them from the distributor. I'd wager that Gamestop is a large part of the reason that publishers like THQ are struggling.

Except that they would have purchased them at some point in order for them to have been sold, and if not Gamestop, than another retailer. Similarly if the person trades for another game, that game will still have been 'sold' as far as the developer is concerned because the shop would still give them the money as if they had actually sold that copy. At no point are the developer missing out on any sales, as the person buying second hand is unlikely to have bought at full price.

THQ's current issues have nothing to do with issues like that and more to do with people simply not having the money to but their games and them having unrealistic targets of what they would sell.

[Red Impact]

Jan 6, 2013 11:15:33 GMT -5 kolani said:

The house analogy is poor. Look at it like this. Gamestop buys games from the distributor for probably around $40-$45 per unit on a new release, assuming that they operate on a standard 20%-25% profit margin like most retail businesses. After the game is traded back in, they put it back out for $50-$55. That $50-$55 goes completely to GameStop, they're making basically 100% profit the first time it's flipped, assuming they generously allowed $25 on the tradein. Essentially, Gamestop is generating an infinite number of copies for sale without purchasing them from the distributor. I'd wager that Gamestop is a large part of the reason that publishers like THQ are struggling.

How is it a poor analogy when it's pretty much the same thing you described? If a developer builds and sells a house, they get the profit from it. If the person who buys it sells it 10 years later, the developer doesn't get any profits. A real estate agent might, or it may be completely the owners if they are listing it themselves. The owners might even be fortunate enough to sell it for more than they bought it for, but it's still no business of the developers.

A person looking for a house could try to go through the developer or contractor and have them build them a new house, or they could go buy one from someone else.

Same thing happens when you get a new car from someone other than a company owned dealership, or you get something from a garage sale. The price of the item being sold irrelevant, that's just supply and demand, the act of the resale is what's important. If people are criticizing Gamestop for selling used games, they should also be criticizing anyone who has a garage sale or sells something on eBay, because they're offering an alternative to buying a new product directly from a manufacturer as well.

Why should video games be any different from any other consumer good out there?

[Kevin Hamilton]

Jan 4, 2013 15:56:58 GMT -5 Vice honcho room temperature said:

Jan 4, 2013 15:49:21 GMT -5 King Ghidorah said:

Maybe I have my keyboard set to Spanish. I'm not arguing the legality of it all, I'm not arguing if this is a good idea or not. What I'm saying is, by buying a used game, developers get the same amount of money they would have received if you would have downloaded it for free. The only difference is, you paid someone for it.

And when corporations try to limit the rights of the consumer I don't understand why one would support them.

Trade ins differ the price of buying new games, help keep the legacy of older games so people would want to buy the sequel or future works from that developer, and same with borrowed games which this would kill. Also used games is a limited quantity unlike pirating where if I can get as many copies as I want but there's only so many to buy used.

Right, and hell, beyond selling the game; say I've played it, completed it, whatever, then just want to give it to a buddy or my niece or something. With this potentially ( as was said nothing will probably come it, but in a hypothetical world), I couldn't do that because it wouldn't work on their systems.

In that case, it's " f*** you Sony, I bought the thing, it's mine to do with what I wish at that point."