Support NeoGAF

[Halph n Halph]

If people sell used, they should make them upload the 50GB's themselves to the buyer.

I'm all for the ability to sell my digital games but what you are saying is very fair. If I claim ownership of digital media it's up to me to deliver a second hand product in the same way as a physical object that I've taken money in exchange for.

 

[neto]

How big portion going to publisher would be fair?

Theoretical example:

game costs 60€ "new" or 48€ used.

New copy nets publisher around 42€. (70% pub - 30% retailer share).

If user gets 70% of 48€ sale it would mean around 10€ / 4€ for publisher and retailer.

So profit per copy would drop to 1/4th. Do you think it would be sustainable?
Also if publisher ever lowers price, it would mean even less.

Real world example:

GMG has trade-in digital games, but it's more of gimmick and typically you just get 10 - 50 cents back by trading-in. As side effect, very intrusive DRM.

Would gamers think something like this is an acceptable solution?

Maybe the user gets less? 40% user, 40% publisher, 20% retailer? And no, it is not sustainable if most of the sales are from used, but for a used license to exist a game has to be sold new first, only valve can create more, and if the game is good so people wants to keep it then there will be less used licenses, or maybe add a limit number of times a license can be sold, or when bought the game you can't sell it until 6 months have passed

 

[madjoki]

Maybe the user gets less? 40% user, 40% publisher, 20% retailer? And no, it is not sustainable if most of the sales are from used, but for a used license to exist a game has to be sold new first, only valve can create more, and if the game is good so people wants to keep it then there will be less used licenses, or maybe add a limit number of times a license can be sold, or when bought the game you can't sell it until 6 months have passed

How many would want to keep single player game they bought when they can sell it with single-click and not rebuy for slightly less before/after DLC is out?

Yeah limits can make it less bad for publishers, but it still would hit small indie games.
Then again unless laws requires otherwise they might as well make as restricted as possible.

I'd still expect big publishers to use it as reason to increase prices [and/or decrease sales], which would worse than not being able to sell your games.

And don't get me wrong, I would be very happy to sell games I have completed and use it to get new ones.

 

[Joni]

What makes this a knee slapper is that consumers actually think they own software. Are consumers that oblivious to licensing? You don't own a game.

Or they live in communist states like The Europe.

 

[Tizoc]

Same.

I've got some nonsense impulse purchases that I just don't want anymore lol

But how much would one be able to sell the games they don't want >_>;

 

[Syriel]

Excellent news. Keep pushing for consumer rights. Next, let's address why companies can take advantage of a global marketplace but consumers are region limited.

Consumers are region limited in no small part due to the different laws and regulations applied by each country.

It would be cheaper and more efficient for Steam to just host a US storefront (since it's based in the US) and sell to all from there.

But European countries aren't happy with their citizens just buying from a US storefront en masse. Games sold in those countries need to follow local regulations, which adds additional costs. There can be compliance issues (like language requirements, support requirements, data retention, local tax, etc.) that raise costs, all of which have to be incorporated into the local price since those costs are above and beyond the actual cost of the item.

Even getting Europe to a single set of unified laws would be a massive step towards getting rid of regional blocks.

So long as individual countries all want their say, you're always going to see regional blocks.

I'm all for the ability to sell my digital games but what you are saying is very fair. If I claim ownership of digital media it's up to me to deliver a second hand product in the same way as a physical object that I've taken money in exchange for.

This is something that consumers don't want to deal with.

If you sell a disc, you have to provide the disc. If you sell a digital game, should you then be responsible for providing the digital bits?