Court ruling could kill used game business

[Lambonius]

As for new technocology making things better, I guess I find that hard to believe from someone that loves Sierra old games and makes games in VGA, and considers the old Indiana Jones movies some of the best movies ever made But of course, I kid with this.

Ha!  Fair enough. 

I think certain technological improvements definitely make games better.  But that doesn't necessarily mean I like the old ones less.  Some games feel timeless to me--others definitely not so much.    But on this issue it's just a matter of personal taste. 

[LadyTerra]

What about games that aren't available new?  Can you really tell someone they can't buy a game just because you don't get any money for it?

[Sir Perceval of Daventry]

The technology grows old. The game doesn't.

I'll grant you though, that whether or not a game is used doesn't affect the value of the experience

An used car can't beat a new one.

Depends on what cars we're talking about.

[snabbott]

Also, if Game Stop is selling the game for $55, what's to stop the publisher from selling it for $50 (other than reduced profit margin, of course)? If the game was really that great, people wouldn't be selling it, would they (unless they're keeping illegal copies, which is a whole other issue)? I do understand the point about the publisher not getting a cut, but if they don't want people to sell used copies of their games, maybe they need to give them more replay value.

I think some people would just not buy the game at all if they can't get it used. Anyway, this ruling wouldn't block selling of used games per se - it just gives the publisher the right to say whether or not the game may be resold. That would probably be a factor in whether or not people will buy games from a particular publisher in the first place. If not allowing reselling ends up hurting the publisher financially, they'll change their minds pretty quickly.

Also - as timeless as some games may seem, I wouldn't pay $50 for the original Sierra games today.

[wilco64256]

A Gamestop official did make an interesting point the other day when commenting on this ruling.  It's connected to the linked article but a basic summary is that they sell more brand new games as a direct result of people getting trade-in credit for games.  I can't speak for everybody, but that is accurate for me.  I wouldn't buy anywhere near as many brand new games if I didn't get trade-in credit on others.  I know I could probably get more money just selling the games myself, and I do that sometimes but other times I'll just take stuff in that I'm done with and trade it toward pre-orders.

[Baggins]

An used car can't beat a new one.

Commenting on the "used/new" idea and the claim that game software never "deteriorates" or changes. Not so, there are several factors to think about, there is CD/DVD Rot. Disks do not last forever, CD's in good condition might last for 70+ years. However, in some cases due to improper flaws in the design they may begin to break down. This is called "rot". It involves elements in the media breaking down. This can be actual media layer pealing and cracking, micro-fracturing, warping, under the protective plastic layer. This is a huge threat to DVD/Blue Ray collections, where it becomes hugely difficult to get replacement copies for out of print movies. The same would be for games.

Secondly there is user wear and tear. One user might not treat a game as well as the next. Thus when you buy a used copy you might be getting the smudges, abrasions and scratches from the previous user. Smudges may be cleanable, scratches are more difficult to repair. This can have an effect on how the media is read in the machine. Again this is something that affects used DVD/Blue Ray sells as well. The scratches may cause the game to crash, or run improperly. This is has in part to do with the quality of the machine reading the media as well. A newer machine might be able to read the media better than an older machine. As machines become outdated, and no longer in production, it becomes more difficult to find reliable working ones (thus the need for reliable backwards compatibility or emulation).

Collector's editions? Well those are limited print run anyways, so finding a used copy may be someone's only possibility if they want the digital bonuses. Some companies have made digital bonuses tied to a player's account, so there is no way to resell the bonuses, thus making the sell of used collector's edition pointless. This is one reason I really hate modern collector's editions, and think that these in-game bonuses should be at least sold, or given as DLC at some point, to give people a chance to experience them if they so well choose.

As for Gamestop and used game sells. One thing that has apparently plagued Gamestop relates to cartridge based games such as DS, in that they have occasionally gotten ahold of boot leg DS cards, without even knowing it. The Bootlegs may seem to work at first, but not be completely functional far into the game, or have backup battery issues. This became a problem for some stores that the owners had to educate there employees how to spot the fakes.

It's actually DS and Gameboy games that I had previously relied on Gamestop and others to find used copies, due to difficulty in finding new copies in any local stores. Amazon was helpful for finding some of the more obscure games, but they don't always carry new copies, due to the limited print run of many games. Ebay and Amazon Affiliate Sellers are often plagued with bootlegs. I've been having a hard time finding a copy of Yoshi's Island for the DS for example, and have twice gotten bootlegs through one of the sellers on Amazon's "Shops". Luckily they have helped return the money in both instances. These were reported to be "new copies" not used, and the sellers were selling them for more than the original release price. We can certainly guerentee that Nintendo wasn't or hadn't ever received any money on their sells. At least with a legit used game, the developers did receive initial sells on the game, and as its been said, money that is returned to those who sell there games, goes back into the market to buy New Games usually somewhere in the chain.

[snabbott]

Yeah. And I'm pretty sure none of my games on floppy disks work anymore (even if I did have a floppy drive). I came across the Infocom Collection the other day - on 10 5 1/4" floppies.

[Cez]

Also, if Game Stop is selling the game for $55, what's to stop the publisher from selling it for $50

If you put it at 50, Gamestop will reduce it to 45, and still make a load of money, because they'll buy it back at 15 or so. 

[Cez]

What about games that aren't available new?  Can you really tell someone they can't buy a game just because you don't get any money for it?

I said in one of my earlier emails that I don't mind this practice (and actually quite support it) if a game isn't supported by a developer anymore (or if the game is no longer in print).

[Cez]

The technology grows old. The game doesn't.

I'll grant you though, that whether or not a game is used doesn't affect the value of the experience

An used car can't beat a new one.

Depends on what cars we're talking about.

Yeah. I should have made a note "generally speaking".

[Baggins]

Yeah. And I'm pretty sure none of my games on floppy disks work anymore (even if I did have a floppy drive).  I came across the Infocom Collection the other day - on 10 5 1/4" floppies.

Some of these games on floppy/cd, etc, people are forced to pirate and emulate under the term "Abandonware", because the original games are hard to find, not sold anymore. It might be given a different name, but its legally still a form of piracy. Even if original developers give there blessings in some cases. The developers do not necessarily own the rights to the game or series (see many of Sierra games such as Conquest series or Peppar's Adventures in Time), but owned by a company they are no longer affiliated with (see Activision).

Secondly, game developers have claimed that it is illegal for owners to make backup copies for their games, software and movies. Claiming it is a form of bootlegging and piracy. Although attempts to challenge these cases have resulted in mixed results, somtimes the company wins the suit, and other cases the user wins. So in most cases developers ignore the backups, or work on DRM in attempts to thwart backups and piracy.

I lucked out and bought a cd copy of the Infocom Master Collection, it has a few games missing from the floppy version. I hope that the disks remains in good condition... I have it in a protective multi-cd case, and for most part the games appear to be in good condition, but you can never tell if Rot will set in.

[Cez]

An used car can't beat a new one.

Commenting on the "used/new" idea and the claim that game software never "deteriorates" or changes. Not so, there are several factors to think about, there is CD/DVD Rot.

This is all true, but I've never bought an used game that crapped out of me, and we are talking about OLD, out of print games -which is what I normally buy used. I also did use to buy used games in the past, before I started analyzing this whole thing, and I never had a game crap out on me. So, while it's something to consider, it's not a BIG deal. Like I said, if you aren't like us, and actually care for the package (I cringe when I see somebody buy a CD, get the disc and booklet out and throw away the case, for example), then the game is the same thing.

and for Rot, maybe in 60-70 years, but I'll probably be dead by then

[wilco64256]

I say let the publishers do this if they want as long as they offer consumers the same deal - trade in credit.  If I send a used game back to the publisher so they can re-sell it used, I ought to get something out of the deal.  If a publisher decides they no longer want to handle that game used then the retailers can.

[Cez]

A Gamestop official did make an interesting point the other day when commenting on this ruling.  It's connected to the linked article but a basic summary is that they sell more brand new games as a direct result of people getting trade-in credit for games.  I can't speak for everybody, but that is accurate for me.  I wouldn't buy anywhere near as many brand new games if I didn't get trade-in credit on others.  I know I could probably get more money just selling the games myself, and I do that sometimes but other times I'll just take stuff in that I'm done with and trade it toward pre-orders.

This is the one thing that Gamestop claims, and I would guess that for some people it's true. However, if you like to buy used games, you'd probably sell a game and buy a used game, or buy 2 used games and get 1 free, or use any of the promotions that sell you used games. I'm not saying it doesn't happen, but my wild guess is that most people that buy used games, will sell them and get more used games. (and like I said, I'm sure gamestop displays used games from release day by buying some copies themselves, so that they can instigate this practice in people's minds).

[Cez]

I say let the publishers do this if they want as long as they offer consumers the same deal - trade in credit.  If I send a used game back to the publisher so they can re-sell it used, I ought to get something out of the deal.  If a publisher decides they no longer want to handle that game used then the retailers can.

I'd guess this is a good idea in practice, but then you have to think about shipping and handling, what happens if they are digital copies, can they also " return them", etc. But it is overall a good idea, because you would get people to buy more of the developer's own products by using the trade-in credits.

And btw, yes, I'm a marketer at heart and I love to sell Which is part of the reason why TSL has the sort of following it does.

[Baggins]

This is all true, but I've never bought an used game that crapped out of me, and we are talking about OLD, out of print games -which is what I normally buy used. I also did use to buy used games in the past, before I started analyzing this whole thing, and I never had a game crap out on me. So, while it's something to consider, it's not a BIG deal. Like I said, if you aren't like us, and actually care for the package (I cringe when I see somebody buy a CD, get the disc and booklet out and throw away the case, for example), then the game is the same thing

Good for you, however, I have had brand new DVDs in collections no less suffer from DVD rot (on one or more disks), making the disk mostly unuseable. I could buy 'new' to replace the disk but I would have to buy the entire collection. This is entirely uncool. I've lucked out and only had one or two game cds suffer from rot. Rotting is horrible, and because most companies may not offer an official way to get individual replacement disks you are left feeling like you were cheated by the company.

Most of the time, I've had more problems with little scratches and abrasions on disks. This is the reason why I personally avoid 'used' if I have a choice.

Also, I often do get rid of my cd-cases and move games into a more protective padded case. Those cd/dvd cases can actually scratch cds, since cds are often somewhat loose, and can spin in the case, when the case is moved. There are much better options out there to protect cds. Beyond that its being careful when moving and using the disks.

90% of the scratches I've gotten on disks actually occur because of the CD drive spin (nasty circular scratches). So its best to remove a cd/dvd when you aren't using it. and/or are moving the computer, system, etc around.

But in some more obscure games (that aren't offered in stores or main online stores), sometimes used is the only method of obtaining a copy, since the cost of buying a new copy, coupled with shipping costs would cost far more than the price of the original game. Plus when you are ordering from a distance you can't be sure if you are getting an official copy or a poor bootleg that looks like the original.

Also unlike you, I haven't always had the best of luck with my system reading disks (used) all the time. Although I do attempt to keep the drive cleaned of dust as best as possible. They do have a better chance of reading the disks I bought new, as I'm extremely careful with them.

I say let the publishers do this if they want as long as they offer consumers the same deal - trade in credit.  If I send a used game back to the publisher so they can re-sell it used, I ought to get something out of the deal.  If a publisher decides they no longer want to handle that game used then the retailers can.

If this option existed I would probably go through the company. They would probably be more likely to quality control, and make sure the disk is reasonable condition before selling it. Of course one of the reasons I rarely order used from a distance, is you can't be too sure of what you are going to receive, nor how well it will work on your particular system. But in this case you will avoid running into bootlegs.

Honestly, I'd prefer digital downloads instead though. Avoid any technical issues, and get right into the game.

I also should mention there were situations where I bought a game used, because the deal was good. I liked the game, and chose to buy later games in the series brand new. So they got some of my money down the line.

[snabbott]

I say let the publishers do this if they want as long as they offer consumers the same deal - trade in credit.  If I send a used game back to the publisher so they can re-sell it used, I ought to get something out of the deal.  If a publisher decides they no longer want to handle that game used then the retailers can.

This is a nice idea, but I don't see either publishers or consumers going for it.

I think this could be a good compromise:
Publisher disallow selling used copies for a limited time - say 6-12 months, when the biggest part of their sales would occur. After that, selling used copies would be fine. I think this would be difficult to enforce for individuals (selling through online auctions, etc.) but it could work with places like GameStop.

[Cez]

You can always try making a digital copy of the CD/DVD. That way, you only have the CDs/DVDs for collection purposes.

And by the way, I guess what makes me cringe is not that they are throwing away the case, but the fact they are throwing away the piece of the artwork that contains the tracklist at the end side of a CD.

I also should mention there were situations where I bought a game used, because the deal was good. I liked the game, and chose to buy later games in the series brand new. So they got some of my money down the line.

This is a very, very, very good point. It would be great if people were all like this. I do it too and I do it with music actually. I download a whole CD to see if I like an artist. If I don't like it, I will never listen to that CD ever again. If I do, I try my best to support the artist by attending concerts, and buying stuff from them.

[wilco64256]

I say let the publishers do this if they want as long as they offer consumers the same deal - trade in credit.  If I send a used game back to the publisher so they can re-sell it used, I ought to get something out of the deal.  If a publisher decides they no longer want to handle that game used then the retailers can.

This is a nice idea, but I don't see either publishers or consumers going for it.

I think this could be a good compromise:
Publisher disallow selling used copies for a limited time - say 6-12 months, when the biggest part of their sales would occur. After that, selling used copies would be fine. I think this would be difficult to enforce for individuals (selling through online auctions, etc.) but it could work with places like GameStop.

I can't imagine the initial ruling would apply to individuals selling used games in the first place - nobody can stop me from selling something I currently own at a yard sale.  That would just be ridiculous to try and enforce.  But I do think you make an excellent compromise suggestion, a specific timeframe under which retailers can't sell used copies of a particular game.

[Cez]

I say let the publishers do this if they want as long as they offer consumers the same deal - trade in credit.  If I send a used game back to the publisher so they can re-sell it used, I ought to get something out of the deal.  If a publisher decides they no longer want to handle that game used then the retailers can.

This is a nice idea, but I don't see either publishers or consumers going for it.

I think this could be a good compromise:
Publisher disallow selling used copies for a limited time - say 6-12 months, when the biggest part of their sales would occur. After that, selling used copies would be fine. I think this would be difficult to enforce for individuals (selling through online auctions, etc.) but it could work with places like GameStop.

I can't imagine the initial ruling would apply to individuals selling used games in the first place - nobody can stop me from selling something I currently own at a yard sale.  That would just be ridiculous to try and enforce.  But I do think you make an excellent compromise suggestion, a specific timeframe under which retailers can't sell used copies of a particular game.

I think that the whole thing they are trying to implement is that they are selling you a license to use the product. And by selling you a license, they determine the terms of use, and could probably set it to non-transferable. Just like you get a service for internet and cannot sell it, or a plane ticket. It's tricky because they probably can't say or do anything about the case or the DVD itself, but they have say about the actual software, if that makes any sense.

Of course, they don't care about your yard sale,and no one is going to come after you even if your sale is not "legal" or " valid". They care and want to stop companies like Gamestop. But laws are hardly ever partial, and they need to be absolute so that Gamestop doesn't find any loopholes to take advantage of