Activision Battling Pre-Owned Games In Its Own Way

NoSmokingBandit
Friday, August 06, 2010 @ 11:04:15 AM
Reply

I will not buy one game with this bullsh** involved. If they want to sell more new games then make them worth buying, dont gimp the used sales. They are just being dicks because they cant make a game thats worth spending $60 on.

Last edited by Ben Dutka PSXE on 8/6/2010 12:04:21 PM

29 up, 1 down

Underdog15
Friday, August 06, 2010 @ 11:08:47 AM

You can always wait and buy a new game once it gets reduced in price. If a particular game isn't worth $60 to you, then it shouldn't be worth getting it at release then either.

7 up, 0 down

Killa Tequilla
Friday, August 06, 2010 @ 11:30:26 AM

***** WARNING *****
*STRONG LANGUAGE*

Activision fu**s us with overpriced DLC for Mw2. Now there fu**ing us with this Bullsh**.
Doesn't affect me cause I like my games New & always buy em' at Best Buy or Walmart. But still... there complete a**holes...

13 up, 2 down

Ben Dutka PSXE [Administrator]
Friday, August 06, 2010 @ 12:05:13 PM

You know, at this rate, you guys won't buy any games from any major publishers. They're all doing something - or will be doing something - to combat used game sales.

12 up, 10 down

Highlander
Friday, August 06, 2010 @ 12:23:19 PM

Ben,

I think the problem is that it's extremely unfashionable, but true, to say that second hand games are unlicensed software.

5 up, 11 down

NoSmokingBandit
Friday, August 06, 2010 @ 1:16:15 PM

Fine with me, Ben. Random House doesnt try to rip me off when i buy a used book. Ford doesnt try to make money when i buy a used car from a private party. There are thousands of used good being exchanged every day and the original manufacturer doesnt make a penny off of it.

If this is the way the industry wants to go then i am more than happy to stop playing games. If enough people do the same then maybe the publishers will pull their heads out of their asses and realize that you cant go around trying to squeeze money out of the customers every chance you get.

@Highlander.
I dont know a whole lot about used software seeing as i dont deal with a bunch of it, but i know that Adobe allows you to transfer the license of CS<whatever> to another user and they dont try to charge you anything for it. I would have to assume most other computer software works the same, though i'm not certain.
So why cant game publishers figure it out? I'm certainly not retaining a license of UC2 if i sell the game, simply transferring it else where.

Last edited by NoSmokingBandit on 8/6/2010 1:20:49 PM

18 up, 1 down

Underdog15
Friday, August 06, 2010 @ 1:24:09 PM

NoSmokingBandit, I don't think you grasp the idea of copyright. Used cars and books are not the same as media or virtual goods. There is a HUGE HUGE HUGE difference between physical goods and data.

You do not own a license on books or cars. So transfer of property is very different. In fact, it's perfectly legal for you to own the disk, box, and manual second hand! What's illegal, is when you use it without license. The reason you don't get in trouble for it, is because it would be a civil suit. Police aren't involved. The game developer would have to sue you themselves in a small claims court. And they would win. But you would only be forced to fork over 60$ or so. It would cost them more to sue you than it would to make the case.

So, instead of trying to sue every single person that owns a second hand copy and trying to prove that they use it which would lose them money, dev's are trying to be creative in their own form of prevention.

It's actually a perfectly straightforward concept.

3 up, 12 down

NoSmokingBandit
Friday, August 06, 2010 @ 2:38:23 PM

I understand the concept just fine, and its bullsh*t.

I am not making a copy of anything. I am not allowing anything to run in two places at once.
I am simply selling my license to someone else. Like i said earlier, i can sell my license of CS4 to someone else and adobe doesnt give a crap either way. I paid for the license and Adobe respects my right as a consumer to sell it to another consumer.

Next we will see publishers trying to tie down each disc to your console so you cant even let a friend borrow it, or rent a copy from gamefly or whatever, gimped version or not.

If publishers arent going to care about the consumer then its time the consumer stops caring about the publishers. The beautiful thing about capitalism is that i can vote with my wallet, and my wallet is telling them to go shove it.

17 up, 0 down

Zorigo
Friday, August 06, 2010 @ 2:56:28 PM

It's true what NoSmoking is saying. Mirror's Edge was definitely not worth full price, but it was a very good game. i didn't mind paying half price off ebay. If they cant make a game worth full price, dont be worried when people wont pay that.

3 up, 0 down

Jawknee
Friday, August 06, 2010 @ 3:04:43 PM

I agree with Cpt. Qwark. I think these devs want to make a bigger deal out of this licensing issue then it is. With their logic we can't even loan a game to a friend. Seems they want to control our purchases after the fact much like Apple.

14 up, 0 down

Underdog15
Friday, August 06, 2010 @ 3:58:50 PM

Ok, so fine. You understand the concept. But whether or not you think it's BS is irrelevant. It's the way it is.

I personally don't think you get the concept or the impact second hand sales has on the industry. But that's just an opinion I suppose.

FYI- There isn't a license in the world that is transferable. That's why it's a license, so that it is tied to one person.

See, you only understand the CONCEPT of the law. You don't get the importance of media licensing nor do you understand how negatively media sharing impacts the industry. It's not like a car, and it's not like a book. The data is in the exact same condition, so it can't be compared to physical goods. It doesn't matter if only one copy of what you have is circulating around. That is not the only concept of copyright. It's an elementary definition you might use to explain copyright to a kid.

Copyright as a whole for media exists to ensure that each new person that OWNS a piece of media is contributing to the efforts of the artist. Do you know how many billions of dollars artists and developers lose to mega corporations like GameStop every year? Enough that they don't have the funding to make anything other than crap DLC!!

Anyways, the concept is truly lost on you, and my blood pressure is rising out of pure rubbish. Perhaps you'll never know since you've never known first hand how media sharing can affect an artist. I promise you it has a negative impact. GameStop does not put money back into the industry. They use it to grow and profit.

2 up, 10 down

NoSmokingBandit
Friday, August 06, 2010 @ 4:38:26 PM

"But whether or not you think it's BS is irrelevant"

I didnt read past this (just because i dont have time to read your whole post, not because i'm being a jerk ,lol).

What i think is relevant. Thats capitalism for you. They pull this crap and its one less sale to me. One less sale to anyone else who gives a crap about the industry. That might be 5% (thats a generous estimate), but its enough to get the ball rolling. As consumers we dont need to deal with this crap.

You might want to read a little about the "first sale doctrine." Its something the govt did right regarding copyright issues, imo. Heres a quick snip from wikipedia:

The first-sale doctrine is a limitation on copyright that was recognized by the Supreme Court of the United States in 1908 [...] The doctrine allows the purchaser to transfer (i.e., sell or give away) a particular lawfully made copy of the copyrighted work without permission once it has been obtained. This means that the copyright holder's rights to control the change of ownership of a particular copy ends once that copy is sold, as long as no additional copies are made.

In other words, i am legally allowed to sell anything i own, software or not. EULAs can get messy, but an EULA doesnt imply a legal contract until it has been tested in court, unlike the first-sale deal which is already part of the law here in the US.

First-sale doesnt mean Activision cant be dicks about it, but it protects my right as a consumer to sell *any* good i own.

14 up, 0 down

Jawknee
Friday, August 06, 2010 @ 4:56:43 PM

Cpt. Qwark is correct. Also a suite was just settled with Apple that's kind of like this. Once an iPhone is sold, that piece of hardware belongs to the customer and they can do what ever they want with it(as long as they don't break the copy right laws)including jail breaking it and Apple has no legal right to interfere any longer. Whether you agree or not, that is the law. I don't see how this is any different.

9 up, 1 down

rogers71
Friday, August 06, 2010 @ 5:11:09 PM

@Underdog,
Your argument has holes in it in my opinion. The way you are stating this, if I have a used copy, technically, it is illegal for me to play it.
By using that argument, wouldn't it also be illegal for gamestop to have sold me the used copy in the first place? There are just way too many semantics that we can get into with this issue.

Bottom line, either you purchase used games and fork over the money to play online or you buy games new. Personally, I have very little use for online so this issue will not affect me anyway. All my time is spent playing SP.

7 up, 0 down

Alienange
Friday, August 06, 2010 @ 5:52:14 PM

@ NoSmokingBandit - "then i am more than happy to stop playing games"

You have clearly gone mad sir.

5 up, 1 down

jaybiv
Friday, August 06, 2010 @ 10:02:55 PM

@highlander...not so fast. Second hand games are licensed software. Not to be technical, but the EULA typically says the license is non-transferrable. Well that would make the purchaser of the product the licensee. So if they bought the game as a gift, the buyer couldn't transfer the license to the gift receiver. Doesn't make much sense.

Actually, the EULA generally says the holder of the disc can play the game so as long as they adhere to the other parts of the agreement. It's not like they can prove that someone didn't buy the game new.

Now what companies are trying to do is unbundle the online from the offline game in an attempt to extort money out of folks who buy in the used game market. Pretty $hitty if you ask me.

Providing a rich online experience is the cost of doing business in the industry nowadays. The cost to operate those servers should be born from profits gained through payments from retailers and distributors. This is the revenue model they built 30 years ago, and continue to employ today.

With unlicensed software, the owner never receives a cut because it is stolen or hacked. Current PS3 publishers get their cut when the game if first bought. Their license does not mean that they get paid every time the game changes hands. Sorry, even for capitalism, these clowns sound a bit greedy.

4 up, 0 down

manofchao5
Friday, August 06, 2010 @ 10:40:56 PM

and im doing my part to combat new game sales
if the title is an incomplete piece of sh** (MW2)
then i wont buy it new or at all

4 up, 0 down

bridgera
Monday, August 09, 2010 @ 2:48:46 PM

The whole idea that you shouldn't buy anything used is a load of crap.

Video game publishers backing that idea is crap.

Video game publishers putting into a EULA that only the original purchaser of the software may play their game legally..... is also a load of crap.

Dear Activision: Make a game worth keeping, that'll fix your sales problems.

2 up, 0 down

Underdog15
Friday, August 06, 2010 @ 11:07:49 AM
Reply

Since I do believe devs should make money off the re-sale of their re-sales, I have no issue with companies finding ways of making money off re-sales as long as it doesn't hinder people who buy a brand new one.

If I have a guarantee that I'm getting everything the game comes with when I buy it new, I have no issues with charges for certain features on used games.

Last edited by Underdog15 on 8/6/2010 11:09:03 AM

5 up, 9 down

Jawknee
Friday, August 06, 2010 @ 11:12:15 AM

I still don't get how they're not making their money. Any game that is sold used was purchased at some point new so....they just want more money then they are already getting. No different then if I gave the copy away to a friend or I bought a used record from my local used music shop.

14 up, 1 down

Highlander
Friday, August 06, 2010 @ 11:28:18 AM

Come on Jawknee you know better than that.

A copy of a game is sold new, the publisher, developer and console maker all receive some revenue from that sale.

3 weeks late, the gamer is bored and trades it in for a pittance.

Days later, a second gamer is browsing the store looking for the same game, and finds the new one at $60 and the used one at $55. Oh, a $5 saving this second gamer thinks and takes the used copy to the register. Ka-ching!

OK, who gets the $55 from that sale? Guess what, it's not the publisher, developer or console maker. Nope, it's the used game broker. No one else. The second gamer is happy because he/she saved $5. Now that's two purchases of a game, but as far as the publisher, developer and console maker are concerned, only one copy has been sold. Two customers, but only one paid the game's makers. It sure seems that with that second purchase, these companies are not getting their money.

5 up, 5 down

Jawknee
Friday, August 06, 2010 @ 12:42:37 PM

Ok, I agree with that. $60 new vs $55 used, I will always go for the new copy but that's why i don't buy games from gamestop much it at all. There's a great mom and pop shop that actually gives you reasonable deals on used games. They do well because they under cut places like gamestop. I would hate to see them punished.

I just think fighting used sales is a lost cause. I failed in music and movies, it will likely fail in games and will only piss off a great deal of consumers.

13 up, 1 down

THEVERDIN
Friday, August 06, 2010 @ 2:45:10 PM

This is what's going to happen to the games. $60 = 6 hours of play. DLC#1 $9.99=3 new MP maps. DLC#2=3 new MP maps. And so on and so on. Games are getting shorter as it is, so now certain Devs can make the game shorter less time and money involved and charge for their shi@#y a&^ DLC.

9 up, 0 down

MyWorstNightmar
Friday, August 06, 2010 @ 3:52:54 PM

Isn't this line of thinking going to fill up my hard drive? That is dlc's dirty hidden little secret. Is activision going to buy me a bigger hard drive to hold all of this dlc? Please just give me the full game on Bluray. None of this dlc mumbo jumbo.

7 up, 0 down

Jawknee
Friday, August 06, 2010 @ 4:14:17 PM

I might sympathize more if it was a publisher who is actually struggling to keep their doors open. This coming from Craptivision just makes me laugh.

8 up, 0 down

sha4dowknight05
Friday, August 06, 2010 @ 6:05:56 PM

Here's my question are you the artist that is doing all the painting? If not then why do you give such a big crap about it? Offering used games is a good thing. I mean, I can understand that you should be well-paid for what you offer but this is something you can't really stop unless you need a code to even start up the game. Example: If I buy a game and play it for 3 months and sell it to my friend for half of what I originally paid, everybody wins. 1. The developers got paid when I first bought that game, so no question there. 2. I sell a game to get back some of the profit I lost to put that towards a new game. 3. My bud gets it half off retail. If you look at it that way everybody gets something, everybody wins. Now if we tried it your way. 1. I pay developer I get the game. 2. I beat the game I sell that game to my friend. 3. My friend has to pay the price for that game and the activation code to play the game. Now only 2 people win in that and 1 loss. Big developers shouldn't be trying to target little problems like this, but rather more dlc to keep the game going to get people to keep the games they have. I see no reason for you to really waste time arguing about this small matter, unless you are the artist that you claim is losing money.

5 up, 0 down

Jawknee
Friday, August 06, 2010 @ 11:09:31 AM
Reply

Funny how it's these bigger, greedy and less talented studios who are the most adamant about closing this used sales gap. Like Cpt. Qwark said, make games worth $60 and people will buy them. Make garbage and people will look for deals.

18 up, 3 down

Underdog15
Friday, August 06, 2010 @ 11:11:31 AM

That, too is a good point for the argument.

I still support the idea, although I don't pretend to know the best method. As long as it doesn't hurt what I get when I -DO- buy it new, I'm ok.

In my opinion, if a game isn't worth $60, I wouldn't want to get it at release anyways. So it should reduce itself in price regardless, by the time I decide I do want it.

4 up, 0 down

Jawknee
Friday, August 06, 2010 @ 11:14:45 AM

Yea waiting for new deals like the ones amazon always has is good but then there's the question of wanting to support a dev. Like Capcom for example. They still make a few games i want but they have been such shiesters this gen I prefer to buy their games used.

Last edited by Jawknee on 8/6/2010 11:18:35 AM

5 up, 0 down

LegendaryWolfeh
Friday, August 06, 2010 @ 11:39:49 AM

Gotta disagree, EA going with the finding out new ways to get more money, but I've actually been satisfied with more than half of their games this gen surprisingly.

2 up, 0 down

Highlander
Friday, August 06, 2010 @ 12:26:18 PM

If a game isn't worth $60, it won't sell, and eventually it will drop in price to where it will sell. That's how it's always worked. People's opinions on whether a game is worth the full price will always vary.

5 up, 0 down

Jawknee
Friday, August 06, 2010 @ 12:47:02 PM

Ok I agree with that point wolf. EA has been doing some good stuff this gen.

2 up, 0 down

jaybiv
Friday, August 06, 2010 @ 10:13:03 PM

The issue is not the retail price. It's the used market under-cutting the retail market. The publisher gets their coin way before the game is on the shelf, so if a game drops in price, it's the retailer who takes it in the shorts.

The gamestops of the world are playing both sides of the fence, and that sucks too. But without a used market, sales would see a dramatic drop because people would be hesitant to buy riskier games that they are unsure about.

The nickel and diming of America, the corporate rape over is on full display in the video game industry. One day they will kill their golden goose and we may have a repeat of the infamous crash of 1983.

2 up, 0 down

bOnEs
Friday, August 06, 2010 @ 11:11:45 AM
Reply

this is why in the future i might stay away from online gaming, i barely use it to begin with... if i am going to have to pay money to play online, on top of already paying for the game, on top of paying for an internet service then, the hell with online gaming...

this is one of the biggest problems i have with gaming these days... being nickeled and dimed for EVERYTHING!! i'm gonna stick to single player experiences from here on out if this trend continues...

Last edited by bOnEs on 8/6/2010 11:13:12 AM

7 up, 0 down

Nickjcal
Friday, August 06, 2010 @ 12:44:46 PM

thats practically what im doing now. I use my xbox 360 just for singleplayer and splitscreen. Ps3 i sometimes play online but not all that much. The only thing is that there are a lot more splitscreen games for xbox than ps3

1 up, 0 down

gangan19
Friday, August 06, 2010 @ 11:13:07 AM
Reply

OMG! the greed never ends with you ACTIVISION.

4 up, 0 down

sha4dowknight05
Friday, August 06, 2010 @ 6:15:42 PM

Okay,

whos that guy form the developer there to watch you every moment alive with that game? He or She will be wasting their life trying to stop you from sharing 1 game. Wow so many lives thrown away these days? If things are going with activision than video game days are numbered.

0 up, 0 down

Qubex
Friday, August 06, 2010 @ 8:45:27 PM

Eventhough I don't like Activision... they have to pander to their shareholders.

Let me ask you guys this, if you were all to buy Activision shares, would you not be happy to get an increased dividend pay out year on year...

Q!

"play.experience.enjoy"

0 up, 0 down

jaybiv
Friday, August 06, 2010 @ 10:27:13 PM

@Qubex...they can do their shareholder more good by making good games and smartly using DLC to ensure a higher penetration from buying customers. Today's business practices are all about the coin and not the customer. WWJD if he were a CEO??? Jussayin'.

1 up, 0 down

Ultimadesires
Friday, August 06, 2010 @ 11:16:21 AM
Reply

Won't someone think of the students!

In all seriousness though. I think it's unfair for them to act in this way, you dont see movie companies or record labels pulling of these stunts. Games cost alot of money brand new.

In all honesty i usually wait for the prices to lower unless its something i have been antcipating for. i tend to buy up to 4 games brand new max. this year i have only bought 2 and i doubt it will be getting anymore new games this year, but when i get my student loan i intend to get a few games pre-owned because the price is like 1/4 of what a new game costs.

The bussiness is between me and the shop i purchase the game from. As it is pre-owned it means it has already been bought once, meaning that the developers have already got their perecentage from that copy. So there should be no problem.

6 up, 2 down

Jawknee
Friday, August 06, 2010 @ 11:20:48 AM

Oh the music industry tried and they lost that battle. But I'm the same way with music and movies. Let the market work. If you make quality stuff people will buy. Make garbage and well....

7 up, 1 down

Underdog15
Friday, August 06, 2010 @ 11:22:07 AM

Wait for it... Highlander will be here soon to (again) explain licensing issues. (He's right, actually)

@Jawk
Think of it this way. Think of a game like Final Fantasy VII or VIII when it was first released. How do you feel about the shares Nobuo Uematsu or Nomura have on the title, but not getting paid for the experience obtained by those who bought it used? Or similarly, Kojima in the MGS series? Those games have artistic values that should be recognized and receive credit for every experience had by it.

I always think of my favorite games when referring to this topic. I strongly feel some of these games should be seeing some payoff from re-sales. Afterall, it's not the data we own, it's the physical copy.

Last edited by Underdog15 on 8/6/2010 11:25:04 AM

3 up, 3 down

Ultimadesires
Friday, August 06, 2010 @ 11:26:21 AM

Well the music industy needs changing in a BIG way, now everyone just downloads music, i have to say it's easy to see why, why pay on itunes when you can get the same thing for free on a torrent. But in all honesty i have not been interested in the music indusrty for years even all my favourite bands produce poor music or are split up so i don't really pay much attention to it.

As for the film industry, luckily Cinemas are still necessary so it is now suffering so much, though this 3D gimmick is getting rather tedious. I saw Toy Story 3 in 2D and it was just as enjoyable.

2 up, 2 down

Highlander
Friday, August 06, 2010 @ 12:09:17 PM

OK software licensing. (long post)

When you buy a game, you buy the game disc, box and (if they've bothered, the manual). You buy a license that allows YOU to use that game. The license is not technically transferable. You can sell the disc, box and manual but you are not able to issue a new license. The only person who can issue a license on the game is the copyright holder or licensor.

Before someone says that the terms are not enforceable, yes, they are. This is different to many of the other terms in a typical software license. For example, Microsoft's restriction on your use of your Windows license that prevents you from upgrading your PC without buying another copy of windows is pretty much unenforceable because you ate the licensee, not your PC.

Buying a game, or piece of software and then selling it to someone else is different because of the implicit transfer of the license. You're not entitled to issue a license, your license is non-transferable. So technically the buyer you sell to is an unlicensed user. The issuance of a license is governed by copyright and other laws that are very much enforceable.

Second hand games are unlicensed software.

With any copyrighted material, the license you are granted to use the work is non-transferable. When you buy a book, a CD, a DVD, Blu-ray, newspaper, sheet music, pictures, etc..., you are granted a single non-transferable license by the copyright holder. YOU are granted the license, no one else. That is how copyright works. It's just that it has been practically impossible to enforce the law in the past. Copyright law is civil law. When someone breaks copyright, it's a civil offense. No police involvement. The large numbers of cases, all of which are individual small claims, are virtually impossible to prosecute because the costs would vastly outweigh the benefit.

You do see copyright cases occasionally when - for example - a musician might be sued because they copied another artists material. In general though, the law has been more of a social contract between the people creating copyrighted works and those using them. In other words, consumers were trusted to act responsibly - and pay for what they use. Unfortunately that social contract has utterly failed because of the behavior of some consumers.

Now though, something interesting is happening. Technology is allowing copyright holders to assert *their* rights with respect to some kinds of copyrighted works. That is what is happening here.

Used games are unlicensed copies. It doesn't seem that way to the purchaser because they're completely unaware of the legalities behind it all, they just see the game purchase. However that unlicensed user is just as unlicensed whether they intended to break the copyright or not. In fact, that used game buyer is just as unlicensed as a person downloading a pirated copy of the same game. It would be pretty difficult and socially unacceptable to do as the RIAA did and take people to court. So instead game makers are using the technology at their disposal to protect their work.

5 up, 4 down

Highlander
Friday, August 06, 2010 @ 12:24:40 PM

@ultimadream

Why pay when you can steal? Is that what you're saying? Because that IS what you are saying.

5 up, 3 down

Ultimadesires
Friday, August 06, 2010 @ 12:41:33 PM

I'm not saying i approve of it, but it is so accessible nowadays, you can literaly find a download link just by type in the name of the product in google images. It's just become to easy. I personaly like to have physical media like DVDs and game discs and music CD's but when it comes to something like itunes where you don't get the benefits of physical media. people won't bother.

"Second hand games are unlicensed software."

I don't see how that applies, The game has originally been purchased by someone, so the license would already be taken into affect as far as a companies concerned. It's not like the person who buys the pre-owned game is not buying an unofficial item.

Last edited by Ultimadesires on 8/6/2010 12:45:52 PM

4 up, 0 down

Jawknee
Friday, August 06, 2010 @ 12:55:29 PM

Lol! Underdog i never bought my copy of FFVII. it was given to me by a friend. But I do see your point.

0 up, 0 down

Bigtuna1
Friday, August 06, 2010 @ 1:14:11 PM

@highlander
You do make a very strong case but your logic is flawed(or the law for that matter) because according to that logic than when I buy a game than I am the only one allowed to use it. So my buddy comes over and legally should not be playing the game with me because he didn't get permission from the licence distributor. Now that sounds pretty stupid doesn't but that is essentially what we are talking about. The rights that we have as a consumer to do what we want with the merchendise we buy. I realize this is nothing new. The government figured a way to do this along time ago. I buy a new car i pay the taxes. I sell the car the new buyer pays the taxes and so on until the car is too old for them to care about. The copyright laws where implemented to keep people from duplicating the software to make a profit, allowing them to sell the software while maintaining the original. In the case of used games we are not duplicating anything, we are selling the original. We are not making any profit on the sell of the game at all which is why they haven't gone after gamestop and others, because if it was illegal believe you me they would.

Apologies for the long paragraph.

FYC

6 up, 0 down

Underdog15
Friday, August 06, 2010 @ 2:34:40 PM

@Bigtuna

Actually, it isn't flawed. It's actually yours to use. Your friends can use it at your place too. In fact, anyone would be allowed to play it on your system for as long as the system remained your property!

In fact, it's perfectly legal for a small town video game store to have a gaming room and rent out time slots for anyone to come in and play it's games! The same applys to those game's in gamestop's store displays. Anyone can play it on their system at their property! Once someone else buys it used, and transfers it to another location with GameStop having transfered the property of the physical disk, then it becomes illegal for the use of the data...

But the law is flawed... there are so many loopholes that benefit big companies like GameStop but make consumers the illegal actors. It's just not flawed about the same thing you say it's flawed about. But still, you're more insightful about it than many!

1 up, 0 down

Highlander
Friday, August 06, 2010 @ 2:39:30 PM

BigTuna

With respect, I'm not wrong. Copyright and software licensing are clear concepts in law.

At the end of the day what this all boils down to is that people who write books, make music, make movies and write games deserve to be paid for their efforts.

One of the things I can't stand is the way in which many people here are basically saying either it's OK because someone else already paid for this license, or (especially regarding music/movie download) it's free and easy and everyone does it, so why not?

If we want to continue to have great music, great books, great movies and great games then the people making these things have to have a reason and incentive to do it. If people don't pay for the products, there will be no more products. It's like some believe it's OK to freeload because someone else will pay, and besides it's a big evil corporation - down with the Man!

Bull. Pay for what you use. The car analogy doesn't work, hardware and software are not the same at all, people frequently confuse the two in these discussions, but that doesn't make it so.

Last edited by Highlander on 8/6/2010 2:42:06 PM

3 up, 2 down

Bigtuna1
Friday, August 06, 2010 @ 3:17:34 PM

So it is the key to use the software that they are selling me? Is that what I'm understanding. Because if so my point stays the same. I bought the key to use that software than I should still be able to pass it on if I wish. Once again as long as I'm not using the key for my self and letting someone else use it too there is no duplication. The product is still in tact. It still comes down to personal property rights imo. I do agree with the online aspect of this though because the consumer does not own the servers, intertnet etc. so by all means charge the $10 for used copies to play online. The key to the main software on the disk is still the consumers to trade off or sell as the wish. If I buy a cd and give it to my friend than it is his to use. I paid the price for the cd and the artist got the money. They still only sold the one cd and only one person is using that cd at any given point. They want to make money off something that they didn't even create, being the disc, distribution,etc. The cost to the producer aren't there. They made a product, certain consumers bought it done deal. Now the benifits of trading or selling that cd is free advertisement. Most people are not fools and will not allow themselves to be nickle and dimed. The choice was made.

Sorry for not being as clear as I'd like but I've got a sinus infection and it sucks. Anyways it has been a pleasure discussing this somewhat controversial issue with you gentlemen today. Normally I don't have time to comment back and forth on here because of time. Normally I just read the comments and get back to work but it was a slow friday. I will check back later if you want to reply though.

Thanks again and Happy Friday!!!

2 up, 0 down

Bigtuna1
Friday, August 06, 2010 @ 3:22:16 PM

BTW the main reason for me arguing this point is not to defend gamestop etc. but more for the common man. I want to be able to sell my games or dvds etc. to my friends and fellow colleagues without fear of prosecution of any kind. All gamestop is, is a middle man, nothing more.

0 up, 0 down

Underdog15
Friday, August 06, 2010 @ 3:44:01 PM

@BigTuna

Hope that infection clears up! I'm pretty sure my sinuses hate me, so I understand how you feel!

You're logic is actually pretty good, and much better elaborated than many have attempted. It does make sense that if only one person ever has access, then it should be transferable. That's the way it is with physical goods... why not virtual?

The only problem is that that is not the way it is, and the law does not view virtual goods either. The law acts with the idea in mind that media is an experience meant to be enjoyed by many. I admit, that it is a little strange, but the thought is that, if an artist makes a work of music (or game in our case of point), then they ought to receive the full benefit of the people that enjoyed their work of art. These art form might disappear if the artists are not fully compensated for their work.

In order to protect them, we have licensing laws. The reason they use a license as opposed to something like vehicle registration is because licenses are not transferable. You can't transfer drivers licenses, liquor licenses, or media licenses. The thought being that each license holder is to be an -ORIGINAL- holder of that license.

The good thing about licenses, is that it protects people from piracy and copyright breach. The police do not get involved, but within a civil court, people may take someone to court who they feel have violated the license rights of what belongs to them.

Legally, only developers of media have the rights to distribute licensing rights to individuals. And developers (and musicians) only want people who have contributed to their cause to enjoy their media. It makes perfect sense from their standpoint, but from the second hand buyers, they just know they paid for it. Most people pay for something because they want it, and rarely care about where the money goes as long as they get what they pay for. No wonder people don't think about this much! Can you blame them? Not really!

Basically, your logic makes sense from the consumer perspective. From the creator of the media's perspective, whether it's a movie, game, or music, just knows that somehow, a large group of people are enjoying their work while the creators don't see a single penny.

It's a tricky topic, because everyone has some truth in their logic. No one is 100% in the wrong. But the way the law stands, the distributors are actually the only ones in the right at all. I have a hard time sympathizing with a multi billion dollar agency like Activision, but I do sympathize with musicians like my brother in law's band (who got nominated for a Juno, by the way) who don't make much money and KNOW for a fact they lose a lot to people that make copies and/or redistribute.

So really... whether big or small... the creators really should get something from those who share in the experience. It's not so much you selling it to someone and never touching it... it's about the millions of others who do the same thing as a whole. The second hand industry definitely limits the gaming industry. And that's a bit of an issue to worry about, imo.

0 up, 1 down

Underdog15
Friday, August 06, 2010 @ 3:47:18 PM

@BigTuna

I don't think you need to fear prosecution. No dev is going to file a $60 small claim against you. It's not like you face prison or huge fees. That's only for people who make -copies- and sell those. They face criminal charges. For a re-sale, (civil suit) the most you could get sued for is the price of the game... so big deal... a big major corporation goes after you for $60... They'd win... but... that's not gonna happen. lol. And they'd sue the people you resold to. Not you. The seller did nothing wrong. That's how GameStop wins too. lol

0 up, 0 down

Highlander
Friday, August 06, 2010 @ 11:20:58 AM
Reply

Yet more evidence for how unhealthy used game sales are for the Industry.

I have a feeling that we are headed towards a future in which connectivity is mandatory because games will be sold with one time activation codes that allow the purchaser to activate their game (and thus download an activation key to their console). Used game purchasers would then be left with no option but to buy an activation key from the publisher.

This was kind of inevitable once used games and piracy (on other platforms) became such an issue for publishers.

It's not going to be received positively by most gamers because they will fear it's impact. But to be honest, I try not to purchase a game 'used'. The only time I do is when it's no longer available new. Sometimes it's meant waiting to buy a game, once the money was available, sometimes it's meant skipping a game until it's price drops. But at least I know that when I buy the game, the guys that developed it benefit from the sale.

Incidentally, you know who else doesn't benefit from used game sales? The console makers. The business model of console games is that the consoles are generally sold at a loss - initially, and the console maker makes up for that on the back end partly with the royalties from games. If games are sold second hand, there is no payment to the publisher, developer and no royalty for the console maker. Is it any wonder that Developers, publishers and console makers dislike the used game sales at places like GameStop?

5 up, 2 down

RadioHeader
Friday, August 06, 2010 @ 12:17:11 PM

For sure, we all dislike the fact that Gamestop & Co make so much off pre-owned games for doing virtually nothing. Therefor, they are the ones who need to pay the developers. Not us.

It's Gamestop & Co's greed which has lead to the developers' jealousy so they must work it out between themselves, rather than us gamers lining up to be shafted.

Oops I see you guys have already addressed this issue during my coffee break. Down With Gamestop!!!

Last edited by RadioHeader on 8/6/2010 12:18:47 PM

5 up, 0 down

DeejayDeez
Friday, August 06, 2010 @ 12:34:22 PM

So what happens to people then who rent games to play and beat? These companies will lose all the money that say Blockbuster or Gamefly spend to have these titles for rent. Their going to shoot themselves in the foot.

Last edited by DeejayDeez on 8/6/2010 12:35:16 PM

6 up, 0 down

Underdog15
Friday, August 06, 2010 @ 12:40:54 PM

Actually, GameStop never has any trouble to wash their hands of. The reason is, they buy the physical disc, manual, box, etc. But they -NEVER USE THE LICENSED PRODUCT-, which is the illegal part. The moment they pop in a used copy in a system for promotional purposes in one of their displays, then it becomes illegal.

So it's actually the second buyer that commits the foul act when they pop it in and play it. (There's a reason GameStop doesn't test the games!!)

So, GameStop can always wash it's hands of anything. Sure, they're kind of promoting illegal activity, but they aren't actually apart of any of it!

2 up, 0 down

Underdog15
Friday, August 06, 2010 @ 12:41:33 PM

Well rental companies (major ones anyways...) obtain rental licenses.

1 up, 0 down

DeejayDeez
Friday, August 06, 2010 @ 12:46:52 PM

so then what about this one time use code? and if they change it for a rental license so that it works why wouldn't you just go rent the game, download the content and then just go buy the used one? seems like an easy work-around for us consumers to still win.

3 up, 0 down

Nickjcal
Friday, August 06, 2010 @ 2:12:18 PM

kinda like computer games now with cd keys. I bet thats whats going to eventually happen

0 up, 0 down

Underdog15
Friday, August 06, 2010 @ 2:12:58 PM

You'd only be legally allowed to possess and play the data for as long as you're renting (unless you went on PSN and bought whatever $15 access code you need). The second it's returned you have no right to own that data. And it becomes no different than illegally downloaded and distributed music. But again, it'd be a civil suit, so they wouldn't go after every consumer. It'd be the same as any illegal music you own.

As for renting, you can access as much data as the rental allows. And hey, if you pay the $15 online to access everything, that will likely be a hidden license acknowledging that you have paid the dev. so technically, you could keep the data on it.

0 up, 0 down

Underdog15
Friday, August 06, 2010 @ 2:14:06 PM

@Shadow
yeah, that's the basic idea. You can buy used PC games, but you usually gotta spend $10 or so for another activation code. This concept has been around for a while for PC.

0 up, 0 down

Ergi
Friday, August 06, 2010 @ 11:48:15 AM
Reply

Can't they battle the used game brokers (too)? I mean I understand the problem of not gettin money from the used game sales, but if they would handle the problem with the brokers as to getting a part of the money from those sales or some other creative solution.

1 up, 0 down

WolfCrimson
Friday, August 06, 2010 @ 11:56:07 AM

This is what I think should be ultimately done. That way, everyone's happy, and the consumer doesn't have to suffer for what is, basically, how a market works.

Last edited by WolfCrimson on 8/6/2010 11:56:19 AM

1 up, 0 down

Highlander
Friday, August 06, 2010 @ 12:11:33 PM

Personally, I'd like to see Sony, Microsoft, Nintendo, EA, Activision, and all the other publisher/developers take GameStop (and the other used game brokers) to court over the issue.

What needs to happen is that the game and console makers need to agree with retailers like GameStop on a new framework that allows GameStop to issue licenses in return for paying the publishers a royalty fee for each copy sold. This will never happen because used game sales are too lucrative for GameStop and others to willingly give up. It will require legal action to force an agreement, and I don't see that happening, it would be very messy and destructive for the industry while in court. Plus, most consumers would not understand the issue and would see the console makers and game publishers as bullies. Exactly as you will see in this comment section.

3 up, 1 down

Jawknee
Friday, August 06, 2010 @ 12:51:39 PM

That seems like a reasonable I idea High. I would agree that GameStop should fork over some cash to the publisher. That way the publisher wouldn't feel the need to punish to consumer for merely taking advantage of the options in he market.

2 up, 0 down

Orvisman
Friday, August 06, 2010 @ 12:54:43 PM

Highlander,

It was illegal to sell used games in Japan years ago until the Japanese Supreme Court, or such, ruled that it shouldn't be illegal and that games, like books, movies, and CDs, could be legally resold.

Don't you think if Sony (music, videos, and games), Doubleday, BMG, M$ft, EA, and any other book publisher, video game maker, movie company, or music company thought what these second-hand vendors were doing was illegal they wouldn't have sued years ago?

Of course they would have! This is America, and we have a litgious society.

There is no doubt in my mind that these companies do not sue chains like GameStop, Toys R Us, Best Buy etc and sites like Amazon and eBay for selling second-hand goods is because they know they cannot win such a case. If they thought they could win, they would sue in a heartbeat... guaranteed.

Furthermore, companies like GameStop, like them or not; Best Buy; Wal-Mart; Toys R Us; Amazon; eBay, etc... are huge chains and employ many, many lawyers who, I'm sure, have looked into the legality of selling second-hand goods like video games.

Get over it.

That said, I fear you might be right about codes being included in the cases to unlock new games or a more feverish push for download-only games. But, by the time this happens, I'll probably retire my thumbs and controller because I'll be too busy tending house and raising my kids (don't have 'em yet, but the wife and I want them).

3 up, 0 down

Underdog15
Friday, August 06, 2010 @ 2:06:18 PM

Orvisman...

GameStop and other distributors have done nothing wrong though. They're allowed to possess and distribute used games so long as they never access the data. Since GameStop is only selling disk, case, and manual, they manage to slip through a loophole that puts the onus on the second hand buyer. And there's no way those big companies are gonna sue every last one of us that owns a second hand copy. Small claims worth $60 max a pop? I don't think so. That would cost more than they get.

No... they'd rather just come up with original ideas like this to ensure they get paid. I mean.. it's not like they're scared of losing the business of second-hand buyers who aren't giving them anything anyways... right? Makes perfect business sense. New buyers aren't losing a thing.

(I feel rather repetitive today...)

0 up, 0 down

Highlander
Friday, August 06, 2010 @ 2:47:54 PM

@Orvisman

I don't know the particulars of the court decision in Japan, nor is it particularly relevant outside of Japan. the US and most other western nations have quite strong laws on copyright and contracts and licensing. the laws are pretty clear and enforceable. Underdog has done an excellent job of explaining why it's difficult to go after GameStop.

But you know what, all the legal argument in the world doesn't alter the moral one.

0 up, 0 down

Milonakis
Friday, August 06, 2010 @ 12:06:30 PM
Reply

I don't really see a problem with keeping your interest so you don't trade the game in in the first place. Just so long as they don't trim the game down so they have more dlc to sell.

0 up, 1 down

A2K78
Friday, August 06, 2010 @ 12:33:49 PM
Reply

"Second hand games are unlicensed software"

So wait, if I decided to sell my copy of a game to friend, by your flawed logic I'm dealing in unlicensed software? What I find really distrubing is your unbridled support for the intellectual property regime e.g. those who work against consumers.

Last edited by A2K78 on 8/6/2010 12:35:03 PM

4 up, 0 down

Underdog15
Friday, August 06, 2010 @ 12:43:38 PM

You are not at fault for selling it. Your friend is at fault for PLAYING it. lol And it isn't flawed. It's the way it is. But civil suits won't work. It's illegal, but police aren't involved because it's a civil suit. So game companies would have to file millions of small claims court suits. Which would cost more than they would get back. That's why it's never punished.

It's not a difficult concept, dude... but one thing it isn't is flawed.

0 up, 5 down

Orvisman
Friday, August 06, 2010 @ 1:03:24 PM

If its such a slam dunk, clear-cut issue, why don't they sue GameStop, Best Buy, Toys R Us, Wal-Mart, Amazon, eBay, and any other stores/sites that sell used games, movies, or CDs?

They wouldn't have to file millions of civil suits against individuals but just a few against large faceless corporations, corporation against corporation.

Because it isn't as clear cut as you think. If it were, you can be sure Activision would be suing over this issue.

If the MPAA and RIA could file suits against those who illegally pirated their goods, both companies and individuals, why wouldn't they go after BlockBuster and any other second-hand movie and CD store? Because they know they wouldn't win the case against the legal sale of second-hand goods.

3 up, 0 down

just2skillf00l
Friday, August 06, 2010 @ 1:56:48 PM

Come on! We all know that once you purchase some merchandise, legally, that physical merchandise is yours to use, abuse, or purposefully lose. Despite whether your game ends up in another household and someone decides to use it, how will they stop this person from doing so? It's like someone losing a twenty dollar bill, if it falls out your wallet, tumbles with the wind and out of your reach, it becomes fair game.

Epiphany! So that's the reason behind developers wanting digital media. They want to make it so that Gamestoop or stop will have no reason to exist! If all gaming media is digitized then developers won't have to worry about used games.

But...if gaming becomes all digital I think they would lose a lot of their consumers. This cookie is a tough one to crumble.

1 up, 0 down

Underdog15
Friday, August 06, 2010 @ 2:02:23 PM

@Orvisman

For the last damn time man (lol ;p ), as others have already said...

GameStop and other distributors have done nothing wrong as long as it's just selling the disk, manual, and case. It's only illegal when GameStop USES the data. Since all they do is distribute the physical stuff, the onus is on the person who accesses the licensed data. But as Highlander has said, that becomes a civil suit these companies would have to take themselves against the gamer. GameStop's hands are washed clean (nice loophole for them, actually). They could sue us for our second hand copies if they can prove we used them. But that's what... billions of small claims worth a maximum of $60??

It would cost so much more to sue than they'd get back. So, they get creative with stuff like what's mentioned in this article. I mean... it's not like they're scared of losing customers that aren't making money from anyways.

0 up, 2 down

Highlander
Friday, August 06, 2010 @ 2:49:26 PM

@just2skillf00l
the game disc, case, and booklet are physical merchandise that you purchase, the game is software that you purchase a license for.

0 up, 2 down

just2skillf00l
Friday, August 06, 2010 @ 3:55:11 PM

@ Highlander

I understand the argument you guys are trying to make. It's just that the way things are now, it's impossible to regulate the selling and passing down of used games. I understand that you own the physical bundle of the game, the booklet, and the casing. Those are your items. However, the data on the actual disc still belongs to the developer. By purchasing the game the consumer is entering an agreement with the developer promising to comply with the rules of the agreement.

It's like bringing along food to the movie theaters. The theater prevents this because it hinders their business in dealing overpriced nachos and reheated pretzels. Now every time you sneak a-little-snack-n-a-pack you're violating terms of agreement and effecting their revenue intake.

I'm just saying that while I don't agree with a-little-snack-n-a-pack, with the way things are in the gaming industry and Gamestop's worth to game developers, it will be very difficult to alter the current issue without causing more. The only future solution I see is the complete digitizing of gaming media. That way, one can't simply give a game to a friend or return it to a game store.

But then even with the complete digitizing of media, consumers without internet connections will be shooed away from gaming entirely. So in the end I guess what I'm trying to figure out is, is there any other alternative solution to soothe the crisis developers are facing without losing something in return?

Last edited by just2skillf00l on 8/6/2010 4:01:04 PM

0 up, 0 down

Culoslap
Friday, August 06, 2010 @ 12:35:56 PM
Reply

The only used games I ever bought were for previous gens especially for the SNES and PS1. This was never even a thought at that time.

I agree with some of the comments above about waiting for the game to drop in price. Do I want to play the game? Yes but there's really no difference to me between a game that costs 60+ dollars new and 55+ dollars used. Those games are usually multi-platform anyways. The only game I'm buying new (or buying at all) this summer is Kane & Lynch 2. Sony exclusives are usually the ones I can't wait for to drop in price.

As aforementioned, if these companies keep cranking out mediocre games, they're the ones hurting themselves.

Last edited by Culoslap on 8/6/2010 12:36:46 PM

0 up, 0 down

DeejayDeez
Friday, August 06, 2010 @ 12:43:31 PM
Reply

I do find it funny that all this licensing stuff always comes up with electronic media (music, movies and games). I think these industries made it up to suit their needs. I look at it in a more simple manner. If I buy a sofa (say from Ashley's Furniture), use it for 1 year and then sell it to my friend at half the price, couldn't the sofa manufacturer then say that they lost a sale because your friend should have come and bought a new sofa from them? See, sounds pretty dumb right? So why is there all these different rules for electronic media that don't apply to anything else in real life? The whole thing is a big techie conspiracy to say you own everything but the data on the disc. I say bs, possession is 9/10ths the law and i have the disc, so f off!

4 up, 0 down

Orvisman
Friday, August 06, 2010 @ 1:05:34 PM

Yep, the same thing with used car sales. GM could make a claim that the selling of used cars undercuts its new sales. It doesn't though.

5 up, 0 down

Underdog15
Friday, August 06, 2010 @ 1:30:35 PM

It's not the same. There's a difference between media and physical goods.

You can sell and trade the disk, manual, and box. But you can't use the licensed data. There's a VERY good reason data has a license. Because anyone can pirate and copy data. Not everyone can build physical goods. It's actually kind of funny that people think virtual and physical goods are the same.

The ONLY way you could compare this to GM for vehicles is if when the car is sold, it somehow reset it's mileage. The information on a disk doesn't age and deteriorate. It's data. That's why selling the disk, manual, and box is ok. It will never be in absolute original condition once it's unwrapped. So you can sell and trade that second hand.

Physical goods deteriorate and lose value. Virtual goods remain eternal for as long as the data is not lost or deleted.

It's really a very elementary concept. I don't quite know how you guys can't grasp this.

0 up, 1 down

Underdog15
Friday, August 06, 2010 @ 1:33:12 PM

@DeejayDeez

Are you really that daft that you think it's a conspiracy?????

That couch is a year old and will never be worth full-price. And you aren't claiming you designed it either. There is no copyright issue at all. If you somehow bought the couch and own'd the name "Ashley's", then sold the couch half price but kept the ownership of the title "Ashley's", THEN it would be comparable.

That's why you can sell the disk et al. It will deteriorate. The data will not. That's why data needs licensing. Otherwise, without a licensing act, I could buy a game, make copies, and distribute it to the rest of the world for free.

Would that be fair? Cause that's exactly the consequences of what you suggest. It's a basic concept. Accept it.

Last edited by Underdog15 on 8/6/2010 1:34:36 PM

0 up, 2 down

Highlander
Friday, August 06, 2010 @ 2:51:35 PM

All this license stuff has existed since the copyright law was written. It didn't spring into existence with media companies. If you don't understand the point of copyright, that's fine, but don't opine on the topic without understanding why we have copyright.

0 up, 0 down

DeejayDeez
Friday, August 06, 2010 @ 3:53:28 PM

@highlander

Why are you always on the nuts of BIG Business? Fight for the little guy....at least on occasion.

Oh and i love how you always low blow everyone with your comments like you know EVERYTHING...you know if I wanted to waste my time i could get a wikipedia education just like you and throw out all these nifty little facts about sh*t. here let me copy and paste from a website and act like i wrote the damn copyright law. Ding fries are done my friend!

1 up, 3 down

Jawknee
Friday, August 06, 2010 @ 4:04:27 PM

DeeJay i don't know how long you have been around here but Highlander nor anyone else taking the side of 'Big Business". They are merely arguing against the sale of used games as it can effect some publishers bottom line. I don't completely agree with all their points but some are reasonable. you can't say they're "on the nuts of big business."

Besides, big business don't rape peoples wallets unless you let them. Like Cpt. Qwark said above, the beauty of capitalism is the consumer(YOU) get to vote with their wallets. You feel like your getting ripped off? thats entirely on you as no one is forcing you to buy their product.

2 up, 0 down

Naztycuts
Friday, August 06, 2010 @ 4:13:57 PM

@ Underdog
"And you aren't claiming you designed it either"
I think someone forgot their sarcasm tags! <sarcasm> You know because every time I sell my friends a game they think I created it, programmed it, and designed it. <sarcasm>

2 up, 0 down

JackC8
Friday, August 06, 2010 @ 1:00:30 PM
Reply

So in the future Activision will sell games that are 5 - 6 hours in length, and then they'll charge you $15 for three new multiplayer maps and two old ones?

Um, I got news for you...

6 up, 0 down

MARNEY
Friday, August 06, 2010 @ 1:08:05 PM
Reply

i understand how used game sales hurt the industry, but what bothers me is that the devs/publishers/console manufacturers are in bed with the retailers that hurt them. usually preorder offers & game beta access are available to gamers, via the same stores that cut their profits via used games sales. gamestop & EB (canada), are the worst for this & other retailers are following suit. PSN+ should grant me access to every beta available on the PSN, however if i want in on the assassin's creed beta, i got to pre order the game @ gamestop. not quite what i expected of PSN+. this love/hate relationship between retailers & game makers is hypocrisy, when the devs/publishers/console manufacturers stop sleeping with the enemy, i'll be a bit more sympathetic to their cause...

4 up, 0 down

Underdog15
Friday, August 06, 2010 @ 1:40:32 PM

It isn't quite that easy. You see, while GameStop does hurt their sales, they are also a major distributor. Sure they could do that through Walmart (which would probably raise other human-rights issues, I'm sure), but they wouldn't do as well.

ALL MAJOR DISTRIBUTORS (exception perhaps Walmart, which engages in other questionable activities) ALSO DEAL IN USED GAMES.

Dev.'s are between a rock and a hard place, and GameStop et al. has them by the nuts. They need those major distributors, because they're the ones that make most of their original sales, but they're also the ones that promote the second-hand game player playing illegal to own information.

They can't just pull out. They have to compensate. So they come up with these ideas of extra costs to second-hand buyers.

I mean, can you blame them? What do they care? Do you think they're concerned about the happiness of the gamer who gave them nothing? NO! If they're not going to contribute to the game, then the dev. has no problem pissing them off with a fee. The other option is to make them happy for nothing.

0 up, 1 down

CharlesD
Friday, August 06, 2010 @ 1:31:13 PM
Reply

I just hope used games don't get banned and labeled as some obscure section of a file-sharing law. Which I doubt will happen but Activision is so $$blind that it seems they will do anything to make an extra buck.

3 up, 0 down

Hezzron
Friday, August 06, 2010 @ 1:40:35 PM
Reply

I guess it's a lot easier for these big publishers to put their hands into gamers pockets once again, as opposed to going after GameStop for a piece of their pie.

It looks like when we buy new games, we're going to have to enter a code to be able to play the final level.....and if that code has been used already due to buying a game secondhand, we'll have to pay $15 to get one.

I could swear I saw some "Men In Black" staking out a garage sale on my street that had a few video games for sale. Must of been some Activision muscle.

3 up, 0 down

Underdog15
Friday, August 06, 2010 @ 1:57:17 PM

They can't go after GameStop. GameStop has only committed a crime if they used the second hand data. Since they only distribute the physical disk, case, and manual, the onus is on the second-hand buyer. But dev's will never make billions of civil small claims suits, nor will they spend the resources to find those people. It would cost more than they get back.

They'd win... but they'd lose so much more than they make.

0 up, 1 down

Underdog15
Friday, August 06, 2010 @ 1:55:13 PM
Reply

/rant ensuing/

Do you guys really think these dev's care about the happiness of second hand buyers? WHY SHOULD THEY?!?!?!

The alternative to pissing off second hand buyers with a fee, is to keep them happy and get nothing for it! It's really the ONLY business option available to them! Lord KNOWS people aren't going to behave justly if there's no consequence. Not in our society.

What are they scared of? You all think they're scared of losing a customer who was never a customer? Of course not! People who buy new aren't losing a damn thing! THOSE are the people dev's care about. The PAYING customer.

I mean really... either the dev's try to keep everyone happy and get nothing for it, or they charge a licensing fee disguised as an activation key and risk nothing but losing a customer they never had anyways.

And no dev out there is going to try and find the millions of consumers who own second hand games and file a small claims suit worth $60 against each and every one of them individually. They could, and they would win... But they'd lose far more money than they'd make back. So... they come up with creative ways like this to limit their losses. Whether you like activision or not, they still own the right to license their games. You aren't somehow exempt from the law just because you disagree with their business practice.

It's simple business. It's simple licensing logic, and for gosh-darn's sake, physical goods are NOT the same as virtual goods. No matter how much you scream. If media licenses didn't exist, then I could buy a game, and make as many damn copies of the data as I want and distribute it to everyone for a $3 or free.

I CAN'T buy a truck and distribute 20 copies of it. Nor can I buy a truck, use it, and give it away in it's original state. The same goes for books and sofa's. Data does not change unless purposely altered. Sure the disk can scratch, but I can sell the disk and have no law issue. It's the DATA ON THE DISK that is protected.

Why do you think it's perfectly fine for me to buy a CD new, make a copy for my car and cd player in the house and keep the original in the collection stand? BECAUSE I OWN THE MEDIA, AND I'M THE ONLY ONE USING IT. The second I distribute it and some else uses it, it becomes illegal.

It's not a difficult concept to grasp. People just refuse to accept it because it means they have to take a second look at their moral standards.

Seriously folks... it's so elementary of a concept; it's painful.

/end rant/

1 up, 7 down

Highlander
Friday, August 06, 2010 @ 2:54:36 PM

Underdog,

It's really not worth the blood pressure. People will continue to believe what they want because it's convenient to them to do so. I honestly believe that the time has come to exit this discussion because as far as I can see, no amount of truth, common sense or logic will get the message through to people who are addicted to free music, movies and games.

2 up, 3 down

Jawknee
Friday, August 06, 2010 @ 4:48:27 PM

I think it should be Activisions or any other publisher's obligation to win these people over you think they should ignore. I know with owning my own business, there are times when i know the customer is wrong and should be shunned away but i don't because i want to continue getting their business(unless i see a pattern of abuse). I bite the bullet and admit wrong doing when 99% of the time there is no wrong doing on my part. Seem's "the customer is always right" motto thats worked so well is lost on these people. Its about Activision and Activision only in these circumstances. Same with Capcom and a lot of other big game companies this gen. I think the large spike in sales and popularity of the gaming industry has gotten to these peoples heads. If used games sales didn't put publishers out of business when the industry was struggling years ago its not going to do it now. Theres a whole lot more gamers, consoles, developers and great ideas then there was before.

Like i said, i might take this call a little more seriously if the industry really was struggling like it has in the past. This coming from Activision is a transparent attempt to gouge people.

@High, i don't think anyone is advocating for stealing. I agree with a lot of your guys points. They aren't unreasonable. just as a business owner myself, i can't see how i am allowed to tell some one who bought a rubber stamp(i own the image, they own the rubber) what to do with it as long as they are not breaking any copy right laws and are selling my images as their own. they can sell the rubber the image is printed on, but they cannot claim the image to be their own to make a profit. I think that's the best analogy i can think of at the moment.

3 up, 0 down

Highlander
Saturday, August 07, 2010 @ 2:19:50 AM

Ask Disney about rubber stamps and images. Disney will defend the Mouse with their last penny - and win every time doing it.

0 up, 0 down

sha4dowknight05
Saturday, August 07, 2010 @ 4:37:52 PM

THIS POST IS SO LOL!!

Why are we worrying about the whole idea of selling a game back to someone, we should be busy playing games not talking about the effects it puts on the market?

Why waste our lives helping a company when all you can do is pay for thier game? It's the only why to help them. Why go out and act like you are their salesman? Are they paying you or are you putting your little heart out to protect something that don't even give a damn about you?

Stop wasting your time arguing that developers should get paid, because they are getting paid already.

And seriously get with the freaking program it would be more conveinant having several copies around the house saves you a trip up the stairs and a chance from falling down the stair and hurting yourself. WHO the hell is watching your back and what you do with a piece of plastic? Example: You have LBP and you are going out of state to a close friend, and he just recently got a ps3. He has 2 games but wants to play lbp but has no money at the time. He asks you to bring that over when you visit so you can both play. But you decide no that would be illegal because he has no right to play a piece of the content because he didn't purchase it? WTF that's messed up! Is that th elogic you believe? Because I don't.

Stop wasting your time.

Last edited by sha4dowknight05 on 8/7/2010 4:45:29 PM

1 up, 1 down

MARNEY
Friday, August 06, 2010 @ 2:07:36 PM
Reply

@ underdog15,
yes the retailers selling used games are major distributors of new games, but it's a vicious circle. how many new releases are discounted with used game trade ins? as always it's the large corporations that have a flawed relationship & the consumer is cought in the middle, paying the price. gamers will find other retailers for new games, if the devs/publishers/console manufacturers cut out the retailers that hurt them most. they want to have their cake & eat it too. they've made their own bed, but ask gamers to sleep on the floor. (a cold damp floor @ that.)

1 up, 0 down

Underdog15
Friday, August 06, 2010 @ 2:23:23 PM

Yeah, you're absolutely right. And I agree 100%. I actually don't like the idea of having to pay extra fees and whatnot. I really don't. All I'm saying in all this, is that from a legal and business standpoint, it makes perfect sense.

The problem with the law, is that originally is was meant for limiting piracy and illegal distribution that took away rightful dollars to the creators of whatever media it is. At the time, (remember the NAPSTER era??) the biggest source of the issue were the users. The internet is a relatively new concept within the last century. And the law probably needs revision. It probably won't be revised, though, because too many large corporations benefit from the way it is now. (like GameStop and Amazon!)

Since the users were the main issue at the time, the law was written to allow no holes for the consumers to slip through. So, it's illegal for consumers to use media they have not paid for. Only in the last 10 years have used sales really noticeably hurt anyone. The issue now, is that since it was the virtual side of things the law was concerned about, that's all it applies to.

So because of that, it's perfectly legal to own the physical disks and cases and whatnot. It's the Data the law applies to, and when it's all said and done, whoever USES the data applies to the law.

So GameStop et al. now have loopholes. Big gaping ones. As long as they don't use the data (which is why they don't test them), they can do whatever they want with the physical copies. Unfortunately, while the big companies are free of fault, the consumers are now the LEGAL issue (even though GameStop causes it). This is why we see the consumers having more crap to swim through like fees for second hand games!

We can argue about whether or not it's right, but it's a harsh reality, and legally... we're all breaking civil law when we play second-hand games. Our reasoning might suggest we're in the right, but we aren't. Not at all. But GameStop certainly doesn't help the problem.

0 up, 0 down

Highlander
Friday, August 06, 2010 @ 2:55:52 PM

Underdog, it's also not been technologically feasible to track unlicensed use until recent years, that's one of the reasons that enforcement has historically been difficult.

0 up, 0 down

Nickjcal
Friday, August 06, 2010 @ 2:14:22 PM
Reply

i can see keys being used for games just like they use them on computers.

0 up, 0 down

frostface
Friday, August 06, 2010 @ 2:22:39 PM
Reply

Best solution for Activision, EA, Ubisoft, whoever...if you want to make money from your games and want to make purchasing new games more enticing than used games, don't sell your games at $60/euro...For the amount of people who will buy their game and all it's downloadable content after the initial sale, they're already making back their money many times over. There's no excuse. Talk as much as you like about licensing and it's legality regarding used games. Still doesn't excuse the greed us gamers have forced on us. I get that these companies are about making money, I speak from a gamers point of view, or at least thats my point of view anyway.

I get that alot of work goes into some games and in some cases we're talking big budget movie money, but big budget movies don't cost $60/euro when they release on DVD/Bluray unless they are special editions and offer more bang for your buck!

0 up, 0 down

Underdog15
Friday, August 06, 2010 @ 2:29:07 PM

Yeah, you're right. But if games only cost $20, GameStop would sell it for $15 used... and lots of people would still opt for the $15 one... I know a lot of Dutch family members that would!

0 up, 0 down

dante_zero
Friday, August 06, 2010 @ 2:40:23 PM
Reply

i have moral issues with activision anyway. An Activision games i buy 2nd hand or rent and my moral issues feel better knowing that activision is getting minimal amount of money from me.

0 up, 0 down

frostface
Friday, August 06, 2010 @ 2:46:14 PM

With all due respect dude, all that Activision moral stuff is crap. All these game companies are the same. Leave the in-house fighting in-house. Otherwise you'd never buy a game from anyone because there's none of them any different. If they create a good game, I do want to support that company. If they make a bad game I won't support that company. And yes I do think they should see some money coming back from all sales of a game, whether or not it's second hand or new. I just think they're all going about this BS the wrong way.

0 up, 2 down

frostface
Friday, August 06, 2010 @ 2:40:58 PM
Reply

@Underdog15
And that's around the time I'd start trying to come up with solutions to used games sales problems. As of yet, lowering the prices of games hasn't even been discussed as an option with these companies.
They'd rather leave everything at the same extortionist price and find a way to squeeze more out of anyone who lives for their online gaming.
Then what they'll have is gamers not playing online when they start getting charged for the privilege. But gamers will still be buying games second hand since they'll only be using them for single player games. So they're solving nothing like this.
If they knock down their prices to reasonable used game prices (I won't get greedy, lets say $30euro a game), and still have problems with places like gamestop selling their games second hand, then they can play the licensing card and sue the ass off the retailers like gamestop or whoever forcing them to stop the sales at the source. Surely that'd be cheaper for them than having to go after every gamer who uses a game and violates the licensing law.

Last edited by frostface on 8/6/2010 2:41:43 PM

0 up, 0 down

Underdog15
Friday, August 06, 2010 @ 3:21:18 PM

Yeah, it would be cheaper. Only problem with the porous law as it is now, is that they'll never be able to go after ppl like gamestop. Legally, they haven't done anything wrong due to the bullcrap about the physical parts being separate from the data it contains... (Even if morally, they have.)

I think this topic is so touchy because there isn't a single party involved that hasn't done something wrong. The dev.'s could do much more to prevent it like lowering costs or offering incentives for buying new as opposed to fees for buying used. I'm sure there's more they could do! The distributors are enabling the sale en mass of second hand games. If it was just a small amount, it might not be a big deal... More than half of those stores are filled with a majority of used rather than new. And third, we the consumers are at fault for enabling a market for used games and pretending like we aren't in violation of any copyright laws.

Anyways, in a perfect world, this issue would be solved in a very different way than how it's being solved now. Ideally, it would take a reform of the law to fix it so the consumer doesn't suffer. But there are too many GameStop, Amazon, etc. companies that are huge and would lose stock dramatically which would affect alot of people and cause a lash out at the government. So, because of the hold used sales divisions have on the entire media industry, that law will never change.

0 up, 0 down

dante_zero
Friday, August 06, 2010 @ 2:57:56 PM
Reply

maybe the publishers should work with retailers etc to give them more incentive to push new games all the time. Alternatively drop the price and cut out the retailer specific bullcrap pre-order bonu s that have somehow become the norm. Or Give the gamer more incentive to by new. i do like the releasing a standard version and then the special edition for the same price as long as any dlc they offer up in the dlc version is not released to others ie like a year later someone who buys pre-owned can get access to it

0 up, 0 down

Scarecrow
Friday, August 06, 2010 @ 3:10:51 PM
Reply

I actually support this

I don't get why so many are against it

1 up, 2 down

Jawknee
Friday, August 06, 2010 @ 4:07:35 PM

Because its opening more doors for publishers to gouge the consumer. They don't like Gamestop, they should find away to punish Gamestop, not the consumers who are taking advantage of the options given to them by the free market.

I don't like Gamestop either but by charging us more money for Gamestops misgivings isn't the right way to go about it. I find it hard to take a company like Activision seriously when they whine about not making enough money after charging $14.99 per map pack.

I'm torn, i see both sides of the arguments. My wife and I own our own business and i wouldn't want people duplicating our product(there are copy right laws for that) but i also don't want to tell them they can't resell the original if that's their desire. They bought it, they paid me the money, they don't own the image on the stamp, merely the rubber it's etched on. That said, i still can't tell them what to do with that rubber or image as long as they are not illegally duplicating it.

Copying a movie or game and then selling it is against the law. Selling the original copy to a friend or your local game store, music store etc is not.

Last edited by Jawknee on 8/6/2010 4:11:59 PM

3 up, 0 down

NoSmokingBandit
Friday, August 06, 2010 @ 4:45:27 PM

Because right now i can sell a game on ebay and get ~$35 depending on the game. If activision wants to charge $15 to "activate" a used copy then my selling price will most likey drop to $20. That means that my initial purchase is worth $15 less to me because it loses that much as soon as i use it on my console.

It makes the game worth less to the first owner because the resale value tanks. Some games i buy with the intention of selling them as soon as i get through the campaign. Like MW2. I could buy it for $60 on day 1, finish the campaign a few days later because its laughably short, then sell it on ebay for ~$45 probably. But when the 2nd buyer has to pay $15 to activate the game on his console he will likely only spend $30 on it. Meaning i'll play it for a week and spend $30 on the game instead of $15. MW's campaign isnt worth $30 to me, so i'll not bother with the game at all.

It gets really messy really quickly.

I do tend to be a bit old-school when it comes to this. I dont have any DLC at all because its worthless once i'm done with it. For example, i bought a disc copy of Ratchet: Q4B from Hong Kong (which is awesome with the chinese writing on the case). I paid $30 for it. I could have downloaded the game for $15. But if i lose my job a month from now i can sell my copy of Q4B for probably around $20 seeing as its not easy to get them over in the US. But if i had the DLC version i couldnt do anything with it. Granted, this way only amounts to $5 in my pocket, but on a larger scale it can make a huge difference.

Not that i'd ever sell my R&C collection. I'd eat ramen every day before i sell my favorite games ;)

2 up, 0 down

tes37
Friday, August 06, 2010 @ 4:51:00 PM
Reply

If I see a game I want, I just buy it when it releases or later at discounted prices off the internet, but always new and unopened.

I gave away 2 games to a friend of mine's kid. I didn't like the games, but he didn't have to accept them either. I'd rather do that than sell them to Gamestop.

Somebody has to buy these games new to support the developers or they'll disappear, ( maybe into thin air, who knows?...). That's reason enough for me to purchase all of mine new.

0 up, 1 down

tes37
Friday, August 06, 2010 @ 5:00:17 PM

Activision isn't getting any of my money anyway, so this won't affect me. I love being immune to sh**.

0 up, 0 down

ABUrabad
Friday, August 06, 2010 @ 5:30:26 PM
Reply

i have a answer for that
ill buy a moded xbox 360 and then ill buy cheap games for a single dolar or just download them from the internet and for who are asking in my country there is no law for copyrights of video games
in my country im a doctor and my salary is less than 500 dollars and they are asking me to buy a new game for 120 dollar over here
thats not going right for me
i can only offer used games
and what people buying games when they dont have any internet connection?will the free DLC still be available by then
in the other hand the used games market price for the used games will drop dramatically after downloading the free DLC the are talking about and then maybe we will be able to download that same DLC after BUYING it
but still this is an open market game makers with better offer (better content with less price)will still be seeling more

0 up, 0 down

Shadow_Striker
Friday, August 06, 2010 @ 5:34:32 PM
Reply

I mostly enjoy single player games so this does not bother me as much but i do have slight concerns with it.

1. Under this model will devs start cutting content and move it to dlc?

2a. Will companies look at the EA Sports method and start applying it to other games.
b. Will companies expand on this concept and require you to input a code for the single player experience.

I think that if they do go down this road pirating could come back in a big way. I know people might disagree with this since consoles have become more connected and secure (especially PS3) but people want the most bang for their buck and if they think they are getting hosed then they will look towards the hacking and modding community for a solution.

I'm personally surprised that game developers have not tried harder to work with places like Gamestop. In exchange for exclusive pre-order bonuses, beta keys,exclusive in-game content and things like that, developers get 5-10 percent of used game sales of their game for the first 1 or 2 years that the game has been out.

2 up, 0 down

Gordo
Friday, August 06, 2010 @ 5:35:58 PM
Reply

The publishers fail to realise that the used game market does actually help keep the new game market moving...

If I buy a new release game here in Australia it will cost $100. If I knew that this purchase was a one time cost with no possibility of getting anything back from a trade in, this would 1. limit the amount of new games I can purchase in a year and 2. Make me reticent to buy games at full price and make me wait a few months until they are $69 or less.

So buying Red Dead Redemption for $89 on day one and then trading it in a month later for $50 meant I could then buy Demon's Souls BP Edition for $65 on it's day one Australia release.

This cycle will continue between used and new games.

You can't trade in used PC games, so you know what? They are priced at $20 less than the console version of the same game.

Eliminate the used game market and the game publishers will need to drop their new game prices accordingly and I don't think they want to do that!

4 up, 0 down

Alienange
Friday, August 06, 2010 @ 5:57:53 PM
Reply

All Tippl is saying is that they're making dlc for their games which in turns encourages people to keep the game instead of selling it. Isn't that a good thing?

If you hate the game then sell it. But so many gamers buy games they like but then sell them to have money for the next hit. Tippl is hoping good dlc will prevent people from getting rid of their games.

It's certainly a better idea than what they came out with for StarCraft II.

1 up, 0 down

S8N_666
Friday, August 06, 2010 @ 6:55:04 PM
Reply

Won't affect game sharers

0 up, 0 down

DeadReaper
Friday, August 06, 2010 @ 7:13:06 PM
Reply

RANDOM THOUGHT: If it wasnt for pre owned games, I never would of played MW thus never buying MW2 as a day 1 purchase. When I bought MW last june, I found it for $30 when it was still (well over a year after its release) $60 in the stores. Maybe if they lowered there prices slightly people wouldnt buy used. Bioshock 2 was dropped half price at my local walmart (which is when I picked it up), since then they have been selling at a good rate.

Last edited by DeadReaper on 8/6/2010 7:13:50 PM

1 up, 0 down

556pineapple
Friday, August 06, 2010 @ 7:58:45 PM
Reply

Pay $60 for an incomplete game? No thanks...

...not that I'd be buying an Activision product new in this current time frame anyway.

Come to think of it, this is just simply encouraging pre-owned game sales. Those who buy it second-hand could be paying around $60 for the game and DLC all-in-all, but those who buy it new will be paying much more. Doesn't make sense to me.

Last edited by 556pineapple on 8/6/2010 8:00:56 PM

1 up, 0 down

Cuetes
Friday, August 06, 2010 @ 8:16:54 PM
Reply

I buy Activision games second hand and refuse to support companies who are really just finding ways to steal my money. Penny pinch me, I penny pinch you.

2 up, 0 down

Qubex
Friday, August 06, 2010 @ 8:57:29 PM
Reply

I don't care much about the Used Games argument... I will do what is right for my wallet... selfish I know, but it is a dog eat dog world...

Moving on... This idea that Activision is turning this whole CoD series into a commodious FPS factory line is amusing. These franchised CoD games may be good, and have fairly high production standards, however I will never buy into this continuous stream of CoD drivel being produced. It is the same re-hashed game content over and over again.

I would rather purchase my 2-4 games per year... the best titles I can own and that I will enjoy, rather than building up a collection of shovel ware...

I can see a lot of people "losing" a lot of money in the coming years as they get sucked into this mindless drivel!

Q!

"play.experience.enjoy"

Last edited by Qubex on 8/6/2010 8:58:32 PM

1 up, 0 down

RebelJD
Friday, August 06, 2010 @ 9:28:04 PM
Reply

This is what gamers get for supporting DLC so much, companies getting greedy on the dollar. In return, you'll this back fire in the long run for the companies when people start becoming stingy with the dollar.

1 up, 0 down

Jawknee
Friday, August 06, 2010 @ 10:08:46 PM

To be fair it's really only big publishers like Activision and suck ups like Capcom who are gouging us and taking advantage of DLC. A lot of the Uncharted 2 and LittleBigPlanet has been worth it. $14.99 for map packs and $5.99 for content that should have been in the game but wasn't because of the lack of space on the DVD is a joke.

2 up, 0 down

Naztycuts
Friday, August 06, 2010 @ 10:23:08 PM
Reply

I buy triple A titles and exclusives new (that I want) if it's a game im unsure of then I either wait for a price drop, or I might pick it up used. I blame the developers of the iffy titles for making low quality games, I know they cant all be triple A due to time and money restraints, but there's no reason to reward people for making crappy games. Remember the gimped ports we ate for full price when the PS3 launched? That wasn't fair to PS3 consumers to pay full price for games that were inferior compared to other versions. Take Bayonetta for example.

Let the lawyers and big shot corporate executives worry about the copyright issues and so forth, that is why they make all that money. I mean I agree with artist's being rewarded for their work, but it's not the consumers fault that the artist isn't getting money when a third party redistributes their product, that's the artist's fault, but instead of risking tarnishing the industrie's image by suing companies like Gamestop for royalties, they'd rather take it to the consumers. Why wouldnt they? They could sue a handful of companies and maybe get a new arrangement where they make a percentage off of each resell plus royalties, and risk crippling their image (Gamestop does a lot of advertising, plus it's where suburban moms take their kids to get ripped off on trade-ins) or they could sell something to a couple hundred thousand people for $10 per dlc item per game, where do you think they'll make more money?

Sorry for the long post I had a lot to say.

1 up, 0 down

Qubex
Friday, August 06, 2010 @ 10:57:55 PM

Naztycuts... length of posts are usually not an issue as long as they are written well and are interesting to read. Most people here, the community at large, write well and are informative... and bring new fresh information to the site. A lot of comments add value to the already excellent articles Ben and the team put up...

Whilst personal views differ, a community like this is vital to the industry at large... giving a shared, and hopefully, balanced view of the positives and negatives we have to deal with every time we part with our hard earned dollars...

No need to apologise I would say :) We all like to rant, we all have good days and bad days and need to get things off our chests... you are no different I am sure...

Q!

"play.experience.enjoy"

0 up, 0 down

Naztycuts
Friday, August 06, 2010 @ 11:27:14 PM

Thanks Qubex, I've been around a bit, just not as much lately. As soon as I posted I thought to myself "Why'd I put that I'm not a noob, and I feel like I contributed with most things I said" and just as luck would have it the edit button is out of order, I swear it only disappears when you need it. lol

0 up, 0 down

BikerSaint
Friday, August 06, 2010 @ 11:21:57 PM
Reply

Well, I understand it, but my dilemma's a lot different than most.....

I'm a gaming collector & I HAVE to buy most of my games used just to try keeping up with my collections.
Plus, even though I'll never play my strategy games, my RPG's, or my sports games, I still needed them in order to complete my never-ending collections. And to top it off, if they are multi-plat games, that means I also need multiple copies to satisfy each consoles format it's on too.

And there's just no way I could have bought my 1500 games ALL new.

Now with that said, I do also buy new games now & then if I really want to play that game, & if there's a good sale or price drop(Ace Combat 1 through Zero).
And I've heard so much great reaction about Fallout3, that I've been on the lookout for a good deal & just bought the PS3 FO-3 GOTY copy with all 5 expansion packs included, for only $39.99 last week ago at Gamestop
(Yes, I did said Gamestop & NEW in the same sentence).

But buying it even for that price scared me cause I've also heard it's an RPG(Isure hope it's just some slight RPG elements to it) Anyway, Once I finish inFamous, I'll pop it in & see if I either spent too much money on a game style I don't like, or it will wind up being an RPG lite, that I can finally sink my choppers into.

***FALLOUT3 SPOILER ALERT****
BTW, I did sample it for a short bit & got as far as to where I made my player as a female, had her birthday party, and had her kick that bully's a$$ in front of his friends in the corrider.
Right now I saved it at the part where she's ordered to go into the classroom to take the big test every citizen supposed to take.

But so far, I'm really not feeling the game too much & I sure hope it get's much better & isn't such a yawner as now.
If not, then I'll never finish it & will always regret not waiting a couple more years till a used copy drops to under $20

1 up, 0 down

BikerSaint
Friday, August 06, 2010 @ 11:55:29 PM
Reply

Now as for any company that does this, I only do single player mode so I don't think it will affect me, at least at the moment.

But.....if any develop/publisher starts doing this to the SP mode too, then the only thing that they've guaranteed themselves, is that they will NEVER, EVER get 1 dime from me & that I'll only buy it used(and I'll bet that lots of other gamers will start doing so too).

You know something, this is supposed to be the gen where it only get's better for the gamer,and in some ways it is.

But in too many ways its not! Instead, I'm starting to see a bad moon arising, with some company's trying to nickel & dime us with 1/2 finished games, or chopped content made into DLC for more profit.

And I BLAME MS using their immoral tactics for starting this rotten-to-the-core trend, that showed these conniving bastard companies just how they've been fleecing the world for the last couple gens.

And if this keeps up, someday I might just wind up ending my quest for any future games collections for good, & go back to concentrating on just retro-gaming.
I mean, there's still a ton of games I want and still need in my collections, from the most recent PS2/Xbox gen, and going all the way back to my old Atari 2600/Intellivision/Colecovision days

That's "Saint's" law!!!!

1 up, 0 down

Highlander
Saturday, August 07, 2010 @ 12:04:28 AM
Reply

Next time this topic comes up I think I shall stay away. I cannot believe that a group of people who appear to be well spoken and educated could hold intellectual property in such low regard and value it so little. Copyright is absolutely necessary in the information age, and with technology providing a convenient method for mass infringement of so much intellectual property finding ways to encourage consumers to pay instead of freeload is vital.

If copyright and Intellectual property rights are the domain only of lawyers and corporations, then we are doomed to a future with no new music, art, theater, movies, TV, books, games or any other intangible product that is considered intellectual property.

Good luck in that future kids, you won't like it very much.

And as for the person who thinks I am somehow backing big business, you're so far off base it's comical. Copyright at it's heart is designed to protect the rights of the creators of content. Corporations don't create these things, individuals do. By an large the majority of copyrights are held by individuals. They are the ones that need protection.

0 up, 2 down

Ben Dutka PSXE [Administrator]
Saturday, August 07, 2010 @ 12:48:15 AM

Well, you know as well as I that younger individuals are ALL anti-establishment, anti-corporation, etc, etc, etc. They have to be; look at the environment in which they're raised. It's part of their daily education, for crying out loud. Don't worry. They'll grow up. Pretty soon, they'll be as old as us...and they'll get it. ;)

All I have to say is that anybody who so wholeheartedly backs the "power to the people" ideology should read Ibsen's "An Enemy of the People."

The idea that everyone is qualified to do everything will kill us all.

Last edited by Ben Dutka PSXE on 8/7/2010 12:50:34 AM

0 up, 0 down

Naztycuts
Saturday, August 07, 2010 @ 1:16:43 AM

Would you agree that its up to the artist's to see that they are paid properly for their work? I mean if I buy a movie off of blockbuster's shelf, wouldn't the studio get a percentage of the money from the rental? They should have seen this coming last gen, and covered their hides before they decided to jack up games another twenty bucks this generation. At this rate PS4 games will be $80, that's outrageous.

2 up, 0 down

Highlander
Saturday, August 07, 2010 @ 2:17:33 AM

You're right Ben, and to be honest, this particular discussion today left me feeling as old as the hills. Ah well, back to my recliner, I'd best get my house shoes and pipe before I retire for my evening nap...

LOL!

0 up, 1 down

Ben Dutka PSXE [Administrator]
Saturday, August 07, 2010 @ 11:10:38 AM

Nazty: Outrageous? If you think so. I do the math for my entertainment.

Blu-Ray Movie- $20-$30 for 1.5 to 3 hours.

CD- $15-$20 for 45 minutes to 1.5 hours.

Book- $10-$30 for maybe up to 20 hours.

I'd give up my games before I'd give up my books, but that's beside the point.

Games- $60 for anywhere from 6 (absolute minimum) to 100+ hours. Average of about 20-30 per game for many people. Do the math. In terms of dollar amount per hour of entertainment. Then tell me what's "outrageous."

0 up, 0 down

Naztycuts
Saturday, August 07, 2010 @ 11:54:46 AM

Ben I was speaking on my opinion I should have said so I guess. I see what you're saying comparing it to other forms of media, but we had ps1 games that were 100+ hours for a fraction of what we pay now, I understand that the technology costs more, but they have to reach a limit right? Otherwise by the time PS8 comes out we'll be paying $180 a game, that's outrageous to me. :)

0 up, 0 down

Ben Dutka PSXE [Administrator]
Saturday, August 07, 2010 @ 12:43:39 PM

PS1 games weren't any longer at all. We only get that feeling because of the large number of RPGs, and none of those were 100+ hours, either. FFVII can be finished in about 25 hours but we forget that because we all played it longer.

In reality, games aren't much shorter now than they were then. I know where you're coming from, in that $60 is more than the entrance fee for other forms of entertainment. I understand that. But we have to try to be logical, I guess.

0 up, 0 down

Highlander
Saturday, August 07, 2010 @ 8:47:09 PM

@Naztycuts

The price of a PS1 game in 1995 was -IIRC - $35/$40 (US prices). If you apply inflation only to the price, you would end up today with a price between $50 and $60. Which is precisely where game prices are right now.

PlayStation 3 games no more in real terms than game did in 1995. Actually they cost less since they are the best quality games around and in 1995 Nintendo claimed a graphical advantage for the N64 and sold it's games at a monster tag of $75 which today would be more in the $110 range.

Considering that the cost to develop a game for the PS1 was a fraction of the cost to develop a game for the PS3, the $60 price tag for games now is a comparative bargain since development costs are higher in real terms and the cost of the game to the consumer is the same as it was in 1995.

Games are *not* more expensive now than in 1995. Inflation has to be considered when comparing a price from today with one from 15 years ago.

0 up, 1 down

___________
Saturday, August 07, 2010 @ 3:51:47 AM
Reply

i really can not understand companies logic and attitude lately!
why not just reduce the games by 20 bucks than maybe people wont buy them preowned?

my house is on fire, so im going to solve that by beating it with a 4x4 which is also on fire!
people are pirating our games, so to solve that were going to restrict content and charge them for it!
yea, that should get them to buy it!
*rolls eyes!*
as the saying goes, you catch more flies with honey than vinegar!

this is exactly why i say i can see this gen being my last of gaming.
not only has the quality of games declined the cost has gone through the roof!
ps2 games here use to be 70 AUD now most new releases are 120!
but thats till not enough, now i have to pay if i want to play online?
soon your going to have to pay to open the freaking disk tray!
o, im sorry i cant do that it requires a 2.99 weekly fee!
when will these selfish fat cats stop turning us upside down and shaking the cash out?
NEVER! ill tell you why, because no one has the balls to stand up and do something about it!
they do it, because they can!
why did the rabbit cross the road?
because it can!
why did man fly too the moon?
because we could!
why did man climb the worlds highest mountain?
because he could!
people are going to do whatever they can get away with, until people stand up and say no thats not acceptable its never going to stop!

2 up, 0 down

Qubex
Saturday, August 07, 2010 @ 7:41:39 AM

"----------------------", I have to admit that in Australia and New Zealand, your bottoms are being widened... the price of AU$120 is absolutely obscene. Have you thought of ordering the games from New Zealand. You would save 20% on the exchange rate... that may help somewhat.

Re-reading this comments thread, I must say, that the easiest way out would be to simply wait for price drops of the said original titles, then you can still buy original but maybe 6 months later, when you can get it at half price. That way you support the developers but wait to pay what you think the game is worth to you...

Q!

"play.experience.enjoy"

Last edited by Qubex on 8/7/2010 7:41:58 AM

0 up, 0 down

___________
Saturday, August 07, 2010 @ 9:05:04 AM

yeah, i only wish i had the Patience to wait 6 months that would save me thousands!
i dont want to import games either because ive had really bad luck with importing games, most ive bought never arrived and the ones that did took over a month to get here!
games seriously need a price drop here, if you buy a game a month than its nothing but i have to buy every game and that gets dam expensive!
dont ask why, i dunno why every game that releases i feel like i have to go play it no matter what!
its really annoying, i wish i could scrub that habit but i cant!
just in may alone i spent 1000 bucks on games!
tell ya what, you dont realize how much cash your blowing till you sit down and really think about it!

0 up, 1 down

Qubex
Saturday, August 07, 2010 @ 10:56:25 AM

Trust me, before getting into this hobby, I already did a financial risk analysis on it... I restrict myself to a couple of games from PSN, and 2 to 4 AAA titles per year... it is more like 4 per year is my going rate... and that stitches me up enough to keep me busy for the year.

I simply don't have the time to play games for hours on end, unlike many here. I am a traveling executive... I don't play on the PS3 most week day evenings, but only on the weekends for the most part... so it is tough for me...

Q!

"play.experience.enjoy"

Last edited by Qubex on 8/7/2010 10:56:55 AM

1 up, 0 down

LividFiction
Saturday, August 07, 2010 @ 9:19:48 PM
Reply

I can buy used books and use them without trouble. I can buy used DVDs/BDs and use them without trouble. I can buy used CDs, tapes, vinyl records, 8-tracks, SNES games, etc., and use all of them without trouble. Why is the doctrine of first sale suddenly not good enough for game makers? This is what is generally known as Grade-A Bullshit, folks.

4 up, 0 down

firesoul453
Monday, August 09, 2010 @ 11:06:20 AM
Reply

Damit Activision. I already won't ever buy an EA games game new again and I've been thinking about this for Activision too...

0 up, 0 down

Grand Theft Auto: Liberty City Stories cheats	PSP
Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas cheats	PS2
Mass Effect 2 cheats	PS3
Bloody Roar 2 cheats	PS1
MegaMan X6 cheats	PS1
Madden NFL 07 cheats	PSP
Soul Calibur 2 cheats	PS2
NHL 2006 cheats	PS2
Call of Duty 2: Big Red One cheats	PS2
Demon's Souls cheats	PS3

Playstation 3

Playstation 4

PSP

Playstation Vita

Playstation 2

Playstation

Other

PSX Extreme

Site Stats

Activision Battling Pre-Owned Games In Its Own Way

Comments (144 posts)

Leave a Comment

Latest Updates

Popular Cheats

Recent Reviews

Recent Previews

Popular Sections

Extras

Grid 2 review	PS3
The Last Of Us review	PS3
Remember Me review	PS3
Call of Juarez: Gunslinger review	PS3
Fuse review	PS3
Resident Evil: Revelations review	PS3
Metro: Last Light review	PS3
Zombie Tycoon II: Brainhov's Revenge review	PS3
Far Cry 3: Blood Dragon review	PS3
Star Trek: The Video Game review	PS3

South Park: The Stick of Truth preview	PS3
Murdered: Soul Suspect preview	PS3
The Bureau: XCOM Declassified preview	PS3
Time and Eternity preview	PS3
Ride to Hell: Retribution preview	PS3
Call of Juarez: Gunslinger preview	PS3
Far Cry 3: Blood Dragon preview	PS3
Spartacus Legends preview	PS3
Payday 2 preview	PS3
DUST 514 preview	PS3