Support NeoGAF

[markot]

Change the laws. Only way.

 

[C.Dark.DN]

If ms thinks it was the future, as they did yesterday, they should allow it for their digital games by default. That and discs with no drm can coexist.

Steams combats it with cheap games.

 

[Acorn]

The courts and lawmakers. The first is possible in some places the second is impossible because lobbies rule every Western country.

 

[Bovadose]

I don't understand the idea of reselling digital products. A digital product isn't going to decay like a physical one. So, that used game is the same as a new one for digital, but for a physical product that's never the case. So, although a person might not be able to resell a digital product, there are a number of advantages such as a lower price point (cut out some middle men and also the costs are lower thus a lower price point). There is also the advantage of your item never decaying or being lost/destroyed/stolen.

So, the only reason to buy a new copy is if you can't find a used copy or if you want to be nice and support a developer (charity).

I also think that if resale of digital happens, then digital prices will increase in order to make up for lost future sales. So, what is the point? I suppose if people can resell, then that forces devs to try their best to ensure people don't want to resell.

Actually, I can understand one possible situation where allowing resale would work. Allow the user to DL the item only once and also allow them to be able to transfer ownership (new owner can then DL the item). That way the digital item can be destroyed. Currently digital has many advantages over physical because I can just get a new copy if I lose the one I downloaded earlier. I can also then save that copy to a disk and store it away.. if I lose that disk, then I just DL another copy and make anew disk. This is a huge advantage over physical and not only that I also get a lower price point. Why should you get that advantage if you can resell the product considering that you have an unlimited number of said product at your disposal at a lower price point? (basically you didn't buy a single copy like you would for a disk.. you bought the right to have as many copies as you want for your own use)

When someone sells a disk, they sell the disk and not the data on the disk.. so when you sell a digital item... what is sold? I would say a license.

 

[Fatghost]

I'm fine with not having a used market for digital. Used for physical makes sense and should absolutely exist.

 

[Oersted]

Hope the lawsuits in Europe will be successful. Yeah, companies like Valve will fight it to death but man, you can hope.

 

[C.Dark.DN]

I don't understand the idea of reselling digital products. A digital product isn't going to decay like a physical one. So, that used game is the same as a new one for digital, but for a physical product that's never the case. So, although a person might not be able to resell a digital product, there are a number of advantages such as a lower price point (cut out some middle men and also the costs are lower thus a lower price point). There is also the advantage of your item never decaying or being lost/destroyed/stolen.

Digital items with DRM can very easily decay, as in servers being shutdown for whatever reason.

 

[Dark Rider]

Legally, I thought the vast majority of software purchases were purely licensing something rather than giving you any ownership of something, physical or otherwise. I also thought it had been that way for quite some time.

Would it be nice to have actual ownership of some piece of software? Maybe, but I think that is ultra unlikely to fly legally. Have any independent developers even tried making legal language in that vein?

what do you think of Europe laws? or are you strictly talking about USA laws?

EDIT:

The courts and lawmakers. The first is possible in some places the second is impossible because lobbies rule every Western country.

I don't want to turn this into a political debate but lawmakers are a product of election in all the western countries so it IS still in the hands of the people to stop electing those who would take their right's away in favor of any lobby money.

 

[Of All Trades]

I'd love to know what the people who are advocating a no-holds-barred used system think the video game industry would look like within a few months after this becoming law.

Here, I'll start: Nintendo will be going out of business. They will not be able to adapt to a digital Gamefly dragging handheld 95% of software prices down to near-zero.

 

[Yagharek]

I think we need it. Sell it back to the publisher for half price. Or gift it to a friend who can pay you a mutually agreed price in real cash. Keep it simple.

Handy option to keep people on the service and more likely to take more risks on obscure games.

 

[Oersted]

Digital items with DRM can very easily decay, as in servers being shutdown for whatever reason.

Good point. I would add there is no need for decay. You own it, you can sell it. End of story. They don´t have to be used in a traditional sense.

 

[hey_it's_that_dog]

I think we need it. Sell it back to the publisher for half price. Or gift it to a friend who can pay you a mutually agreed price in real cash. Keep it simple.

Handy option to keep people on the service and more likely to take more risks on obscure games.

It's completely valueless to the publisher. You not having the game anymore is not worth money to anyone, especially them. You're basically asking for half a refund for no actual reason.

 

[Of All Trades]

Digital items with DRM can very easily decay, as in servers being shutdown for whatever reason.

A DRM server dying isn't decay, it's destruction.

 

[Yagharek]

It's completely valueless to the publisher. You not having the game anymore is not worth money to anyone, especially them. You're basically asking for half a refund for no actual reason.

So? If it's a great game they won't get many returns. Also adds an impetus not to release buggy downloadable games like Fez that never get fixed.

edit: Perhaps a concession might be to put a cap on the number of used licenses that can be bought back.

Alternatively, if that is economically unfeasible, there is still no good reason not to allow license transfers between individuals. A simple private sale option should be available if nothing else.

 

[ElectricBlue187]

It's a non starter. The idea of reselling something that isn't scarce is too ridiculous. How about some sane pricing instead.

 

[Bovadose]

Digital items with DRM can very easily decay, as in servers being shutdown for whatever reason.

If it's decided that people can resell their games, then I assume DRM like that would no longer be legally allowed. It would infringe on a persons right to sell their item.

Edit: Actually it might still be ok for drm like that.. i'm not really sure. I just can't think of any items I own that can be rendered useless by the company that built it. .. other than the situation that you described.

 

[Trogdor1123]

Personally, I only buy digital games when they are really really cheap. I am fine giving up resale to get these games as cheap as they are.

 

[hey_it's_that_dog]

So? If it's a great game they won't get many returns. Also adds an impetus not to release buggy downloadable games like Fez that never get fixed.

So you can't expect money for something that is valueless. There's no amount of argumentation that will bring them around on that point. It doesn't matter how many returns they get, even 1 is them spending money on nothing.

I suppose you could argue that there's some value for the consumer in knowing they can return a digital game they don't like and recoup some of the losses. If that resulted in way more purchases, outweighing the losses incurred by unrestricted returns, then maybe a publisher would do it. That said, there are very few games in existence that a person will never get tired of, and without a physical shelf displaying a physical collection, I think most people will opt to recoup some money. They can always buy the game again at low cost down the line, since digital goods eliminate scarcity.

And isn't your proposal basically the same proposition as just selling every new game at $25 or $30 instead of $50 or $60? There is presumably a good reason why games start at that price - to capitalize on the people who are most excited or the least price sensitive. Then the price is gradually lowered and more consumers buy it when it matches their subjective valuation of the game.

 

[Kintaro]

Well, allowing the sale of used digital games would be one reason for publishers to drop PC versions of their games like a rock. So, no.

 

[devotedgmr17]

Digital items with DRM can very easily decay, as in servers being shutdown for whatever reason.

By those standards, it would be ridiculous to ask for more than 5-10 bucks for lets say Burnout Paradise, whose servers are completely shut down, not allowing anyone who purchases it "new" now to even access all of its expanded content.

 

[goldenpp72]

I really don't believe digital titles should be able to be resold, since they can not become used and thus, inferior to the new product in any way, as well as the ease of doing it, it literally could destroy markets. I would however not be opposed to maybe some kind of small buyback system by companies. Only play that XBLA game for 30 minutes? Sell it back to MS and get a few bucks back, it keeps the consumer feeling in power to resell somewhat, while not being able to destroy the marketplace.

 

[Trogdor1123]

I think we need it. Sell it back to the publisher for half price. Or gift it to a friend who can pay you a mutually agreed price in real cash. Keep it simple.

Handy option to keep people on the service and more likely to take more risks on obscure games.

There is no "it" though. Its simply a digital good. There is no physical product. This would cause a huge string of people wanting to charge back tonnes of digital goods like DLC, in game purchases, etc. Thats not good for anyone.

 

[Slavik81]

We need activation-free software so it can continue to work long after the companies who developed it have stopped supporting it, or have gone out of business.

Digital resale is at most a secondary concern for me.

 

[devotedgmr17]

There is no "it" though. Its simply a digital good. There is no physical product. This would cause a huge string of people wanting to charge back tonnes of digital goods like DLC, in game purchases, etc. Thats not good for anyone.

Absolutely. The thing is, it sounds good in theory, but in practice, this would completely fall apart I feel like. There's a reason digital purchases come with a "no refund" caveat. It just wouldn't make sense.

 

[Bovadose]

We need activation-free software so it can continue to work long after the companies who developed it have stopped supporting it, or have gone out of business.

This is what I want and why I support GOG as much as I can. I hate the idea of losing games/software/whatever else to history because of drm.

 

[WAR recon zero]

Steam sales will cease to exist, since publishers dont want this.

Unless they get a cut

 

[Dark Rider]

Well, allowing the sale of used digital games would be one reason for publishers to drop PC versions of their games like a rock. So, no.

we want this across the board on all platforms (PC, consoles and handheld)
this should be for any game sold on any platform

We need activation-free software so it can continue to work long after the companies who developed it have stopped supporting it, or have gone out of business.

I support this.

 

[A Black Falcon]

I really don't believe digital titles should be able to be resold, since they can not become used and thus, inferior to the new product in any way, as well as the ease of doing it, it literally could destroy markets. I would however not be opposed to maybe some kind of small buyback system by companies. Only play that XBLA game for 30 minutes? Sell it back to MS and get a few bucks back, it keeps the consumer feeling in power to resell somewhat, while not being able to destroy the marketplace.

Anything which does not allow me to buy, legally, games such as Donkey Kong Country (1-3) for Wii Virtual Console, TMNT: Turtles in Time Re-Shelled (PS3/360 DD stores), etc. is absolutely unacceptable. Anyone who cares about gaming should be outraged about the idea of permanently removing games from legal sale, with no recourse other than piracy. Used markets solve that problem. Markets where you need licenses from the original companies? Those almost certainly die with the end of the license. That cannot be allowed.

Seriously, once you buy something, you own it and can sell it. This is vitally important both for consumer rights and for the future of gaming (ie actually being able to play the games in the future).

 

[AppleMIX]

No thanks. Selling digital used games will basically kill steam-like sales.

 

[Seance]

You don't. This will never ever ever happen. Ever.

 

[Oersted]

I really don't believe digital titles should be able to be resold, since they can not become used and thus, inferior to the new product in any way, as well as the ease of doing it, it literally could destroy markets. I would however not be opposed to maybe some kind of small buyback system by companies. Only play that XBLA game for 30 minutes? Sell it back to MS and get a few bucks back, it keeps the consumer feeling in power to resell somewhat, while not being able to destroy the marketplace.

You buy them, you own them. Is that concept so hard to understand?

 

[Clockwork5]

I really dont think most of you know what you are actually "purchasing" when you buy a game.

Change the laws. Only way.

It is not the "laws". It is what you agree to purchase when you hand over your money.

 

[Teknoman]

Valve was supposed to be working on something to allow Steam game trades I think.

 

[Yagharek]

There is no "it" though. Its simply a digital good. There is no physical product. This would cause a huge string of people wanting to charge back tonnes of digital goods like DLC, in game purchases, etc. Thats not good for anyone.

There is an "it" and "it" is a license. Sell the license to a friend (forget the return to vendor scenario for now). Sell "it" to a friend. Friend has "it" (game), you no longer do.

Quite simple really.

 

[patapuf]

There is no way to allow the sale of digital licenses without DRM. This would kill GOG instantly for example.

I prefer no DRM.

No thanks. Selling digital used games will basically kill steam-like sales.

Maybe not but BS like online passes, even more microtransaction and similar stuff will find their way to PC, especially for the smaller games. It'll speed up the transition to "games as services" as well. No thanks.

 

[Almighty]

It's possible, but I doubt it will ever happen unless governments force it to happen. As I don't see any benefits from publishers in giving up that control.

In my perfect world though it would be quite simple. Takes Steam for example. You deactivate the license on your account, then transfer it to another account, and that person activates it on theirs. You lose the game of course and they get it. Simple. More importantly there is no set price you or they have to pay. If I want to give my friend my copy of Shogun 2 then I could do that or I could sell it for $20 bucks or what ever. My game to do with as I want.

Of course I imagine there would be unintended consequences from publisher trying to have new games hold more value then used games. Something like online pass.

 

[harlekin]

My thread - which had the catchier title btw.. - asking in essence the same question just was closed, because it was deemed a a dupe of this one. So let me repost - this is what I had to say on this topic:
-


The final spin. Why can't downloadable games be resold?

Or shared? Let me propose the following.

Set up a licensed retailers structure (fe. eBay and XBL). Demand people to go online A SECOND TIME, if they decide to resell. Temporarily block their downloaded games from being redownloaded on other consoles or being played offline, once they indicate, they wan't to resell.

Remove the downlaoded game from their library once the licensed retailer has indicated a resell.


This system works and is non abusable as long as the security system we see in consoles today is not broken. If it is broken - we are talking piracy anyhow. And ecosystem owner still can ban abusers by account ID, console ID, credit card number, ...

So please tell me. Why can digital games still not be resold. Please do. As it is a legal requirement in europe, if you deem them "software", not "licenses".

Which they don't.

And now for the final spin? Why can't the same model cover the 10 person lending scheme? Just force owners to indicate which games they want to share, by coming online "a second time"? 24 hours online checks never were a real dependency. For any of those models. Killing the used disc games market isn't either.
-


(
Prerequisites for "taking with you": Expire on "non home console" after 1-3 hours, if owner account is not online.
Prerequisites for "lending": Expire after a fixed amount of time - fe. two weeks, or earlier if indicated online. See Kindle lending model. As a best practice, allow one Game to be lent out multiple times to the same person.
)

 

[FlyingSaucer]

As much as I'm usually a proponent of consummers' rights, I can't help thinking the...

This. I don't see how digital content can be considered "used". There is no degradation in quality or content.

... defense makes sense in this context.

But I believe the question of a second-hand market for digital games is, partially, superficial. The real question for me is why a Bioshock Infinite, which took me 10+ hours to be bored with, should have the same initial market value as a Mario Galaxy which I'm still playing years after release, or, worse, a Monster Hunter game (we are looking in the 100+ hours, here).

There is no way to allow the sale of digital licenses without DRM. This would kill GOG instantly for example.

I would be perfectly fine with a minimalist DRM - such as a digital watermark hidden away in the code and/or the assets, and which would allow to trace back the first purchaser for any install package found on a torrent site, for example. It would imply the use of some kind of mandatory database to trace the history of selling and purchase for any digital game, though (maybe we could make it to be decentralized, on the bitcoin model ?). There is probably no perfect solution.

 

[AppleMIX]

Maybe not but BS like online passes, even more microtransaction and similar stuff will find their way to PC, especially for the smaller games. It'll speed up the transition to "games as services" as well. No thanks.

This doesn't even make any sense. PC has always had a online "pass" in the form of a CD key and we have developed a entire payment model (f2p) around micro transactions.

 

[RooMHM]

It's completely valueless to the publisher. You not having the game anymore is not worth money to anyone, especially them. You're basically asking for half a refund for no actual reason.

Very good point.

Digital games would be considered used if you actually remove something from it like some discount or some present on the developpers' website. It's basically the cd-key system only that it's completely opaque.

 

[harlekin]

The "not used enough" argument is easily circumvented with "first owner DLC" or "first owner achivements". In essence we have the model in effect today to force preorders.

 

[doublenagger]

Is a digital game ever used?

never

the idea of reselling digital games is silly, but the idea to be able to get a refund on them is more realistic

say i buy a digital games, and only play it 15 minutes

i realize the game is shit

i should be able to get a refund

 

[Felix Lighter]

The "not used enough" argument is easily circumvented with "first owner DLC" or "first owner achivements". In essence we have the model in effect today to force preorders.

First owner DLC doesn't work if all digital goods are transferable. The only real way to combat the issue would be to tie the games to services, be it streaming only or always online but early digital incentives would run into the same problem.

 

[harlekin]

It's completely valueless to the publisher. You not having the game anymore is not worth money to anyone, especially them. You're basically asking for half a refund for no actual reason.

But it is immensely valuable for consumers and real price discovery. You might even want to prevent aditional resales as in the initial Xbox One model. Let a game only be resold once. Or twice.

Or you could design a new kind of depreciation via "first owner DLC or "first owner achivements".

No real problem.

 

[doublenagger]

Digital games can't be "used". Until we have mechanisms that makes a digital game lose its core values if transfer of ownership occurs, it shouldn't happen.

It would be the day where DRM got worse than the 2004 - 2007 PC drm schemes

basically people want to put some sort of DRM on copies of games that would tell which copy is "used" and which one is not

it's horrible, the better way is allowing someone to get a refund on a digital game

get refund -> game is pulled out of your library

of course you won't get a refund if you actually played the entire game for hours, what would be the point?

 

[Fantasmo]

Trade in depreciation, just like the free market.

 

[harlekin]

First owner DLC doesn't work if all digital goods are transferable. The only real way to combat the issue would be to tie the games to services, be it streaming only or always online but early digital incentives would run into the same problem.

First owner DLC wouldn't be transferable. Maybe buyable for second owner (profit goes to publisher of the game). Problem solved.

Your idea for solving the problem is Microsofts "NUKE EM ALL, its the only solution". Streaming is loosing all "ownership like" rights.

MS was essentially proposing this "NUKE EM ALL" model for the current generation. Thank god it wasn't well received.

It would have been the "Disneylandification" of media. Entryfees are 90 USD for an adult and 78 for a child, you can expirience anything you are able to, but don't expect anything further.

MS would have become the "only media library for games". Its the Dineyland model. The cable TV model, the...

Netflix or Spotyfy might be ok, if you can still "own media" if you are willing to pay. And as long as the price dor "owning media" is still developed by a free market mechanism. As sole models for culture development they become monstrous. Only culture would be Puslisher culture, or label culture, or XBL Cloud culture.

Gaikai is ok, as long as there were still physical media and previous consoles without "forced online dependencies".

 

[GrandHarrier]

I should be allowed to sell my "license" to someone else. The quality of the product doesn't matter. I can buy something new, never open or use it, and resell it as new. This is no different.

 

[commish]

I should be allowed to sell my "license" to someone else. The quality of the product doesn't matter. I can buy something new, never open or use it, and resell it as new. This is no different.

In a vacuum, that's fine, but in practice, that would disrupt many other industries and would require a pretty big shift in the law.

 

[Oersted]

I should be allowed to sell my "license" to someone else. The quality of the product doesn't matter. I can buy something new, never open or use it, and resell it as new. This is no different.

Yep. The traditional definition of used surely derailed this thread.