Discussion in 'Article Discussion' started by Tim S, 26 Sep 2005.
You know, this thread might get more talk if it was actually linked from the article (As the like there just goes to the forums homepage).
Anyways, to talk on-topic here:
I think this "Resale" business is nonsense. XFX, for example, are offering a Double-Lifetime warranty on select cards, so that not only the original owner, but the person the card is sold to second-hand gets a full warranty.
Here's how I think CD (And Software) sales should work.
I buy a CD. As part of the "Media", I get a license agreement with the original content provider that I have the right to play and listen to the contents of said CD on any equpiment I own for as much and as long as I wish. If I sell that CD, I also sell the license, so I no longer have the legal right to play and listen to that CD, and that "Right" (Along with that license) passes on to the person to whom I sold the CD.
I buy a Game. As part of that Game's Physical media, I get a license with the maker of the game that I have the right to install and play that game (On one machine at a time (So I could install on both my laptop and my desktop, as long as I only play the game on one of those machines simultaneously)) as much or as little as I want. Before I can sell that game, I have a legal obligation to remove any and/or all copies of the game that are on any systems I may have. Then I can sell both the game's physical media, and the license granted to me *AT THE SAME TIME* to the next person who wishes to buy it, at which point they come the de facto owner of said media and license.
IIRC, it is within your EULA that you can do this, as it has to be there by law (Those pesky "Fair Use" rights).
IANAL, but this is how I see it working (And how it should work), IMHO.
Thing is - the retailers make very little money from first sale releases and get more money from reselling. Also, it provides a service for customers who dont want the games they have played. It does cause a problem when the CD key has been registered online by the previous person who owned it, and im not sure how to get around that, but Epic's sentiments are those similar to: If you lend someone a book to read, the publisher should get money from you, or if you lend someone a CD to listen to, the producers should get money, or if you read a newspaper over someone's shoulder you should pay the newspaper company..
oops, thanks, fixed!
I don't think that downloading 30GB is unfeasable especially as broadband speeds are slowly going up. Sure it would take a few days but with pre-loading of content and such if you can't play it anyway because it is not out on retail yet then the downloading is just part of the waiting process. Granted, I wouldn't want to have to back-up that much content and a I have a feeling the bandwidth costs of that much content would start limiting the number of times you can re-download the game.
It's funny that Unreal Engine 4 is in development and it is only being developed by 1 person at the moment. Guess that is the best way to do the framework for the engine, 1 super-coder instead of a team of mortals.
I still enjoy UT2004, I can't wait for 2007
I realize you meant the last part of your statement to turn against this, but I thought it was a valid point to respond to, as I've seen it elsewhere:
So the publisher/dev want a bigger cut of the resale profit, huh? Then maybe they should reduce their initial profit like the resellers do...and then they can make a higher one on the second sale. If I were them, I'd keep my mouth shut and take my money up front, thankful that at least MY profits aren't dependent on the game having a lasting enough appeal that more than one person buys each copy.
I think MR's point is that the games stores are pushing people to buying second hand games rather than new games. If it was an end user reselling the game it'd be a little different.
Actually, Bindi, the way I read it, it meant:
I buy a game. Part of that money goes to Epic. I grow bored of the game and sell it. I then have to pay part of the money I got from re-selling the game back to Epic.
In other words, Epic want two bites of the apple. Not even the taxman gets that!
Or it's like:
I buy a book. I read it, and sell it to a second-hand bookstore. Now when they sell it they have to pay the publisher (Again).
But then, if the *AA had their way, you'd pay $30 to buy a CD, and another $5 every time you wanted to listen to it. Y'know, like the royalties they get from Radio Stations and TV...
Hey, that's fine. It's a transfer of license, the developer already got paid for that copy when the first user bought it, and then the user surrendered their fair use of the product.
That's like saying that GM or Chrysler should get a cut when a Car Lot sells my trade-in. I'm not driving the car anymore, it's my right then to sell it. Just because the car lot offers new cars doesn't mean everyone is going to buy them new, and GM is not entitled to future profits in transactions that they had nothing to do with. They got paid for their car when *I* bought it.
It's more of the phantom profit BS. There are a lot of games I won't pay full price for, but I'll try them out for the used cost. The publisher didn't lose money, because I wasn't going to pay $50 for it no matter what...so either they can let me play it for paying $25 and hope I like it enough to buy their next title at retail, or they can go without either my money or my loyalty. It's back to the idea that we're leasing the title to the game instead of buying the game...that when we give up our right to play, it goes back to the publisher who then resells the license to someone else. It's more of stripping away the fair use acts, and that idea that we as consumers don't own anything.
If 'resale' is cutting such a dent in their industry, then they should reduce the prices of the games on primary sale, and ask for a little royalty every time it's resold. As it stands right now, the person who buys it new pays for the rights up front, and they have no right to complain about it.
I can sort of see their point though - retailers are making far more profit on second hand games, so they push those instead of the new copies. I hate seeing second-hand games selling for £20 instead of £30 when I can only get £10 on trade-in value if I'm lucky - doesnt quite seem right to me...
To make profit on second hand games you have to sell New games the argument is ill thought out and deeply flawed. The man needs to think before speaking.
If you are trying to sell me a 30gb game, you better be making 3tb hard drives and be packing them with the game. It's not feasable for someone to take up 1/4 of their hard drive for one game. And there has to be a way around it, look at gears of war, it will be on DVD9, and you don't see Cliffy B. blowing a gasket about it.
50$ for a game in 30Gig Custom HDD in "HardEdition" =) would be acceptable for me.
Yah, but if the hard drive was at max it would run and load slower......
I don't think that ppl want to wait for these things just so they can use their broadband. We all want everything instantly now, I wouldn't want to wait a week tying up my bandwidth for a game when I could just go to the shop and be back and have it loaded on my puter in an hour. And I wouldn't have to back it up in case my HDD goes belly up. Not to mention that going download only would cut out a lot of users who are not on the fastest speed of internet.
Interesting article, but he's way off base. Its a shops responsibility to make a profit. They have staff and bills to pay. If that means selling 2nd hand games ahead of brand new ones to make the difference then that sounds fair by me.
If Epic are worried about their profit, then they should up their prices to retail, or follow Valves method.
The second hand car analogy above is spot on. If I sell my 1yr old car which has a 3 yr warranty & servicing, the warranty is also transfered. You don't here Ford or GM moaning.
If the guy is worried about offering updates etc on their servers, then perhaps a steam login account is not too bad. An account would have an attached email address and therefore updates could only be gained by verifying through email. Same sort of way as registering with bit-tech, you get a confirmation email where you click the link but this would start the download.
To be honest, I'm not sure why a senior company guy would make these comments to his end users. This is a conversation for him and EB. Its his problem not ours. I think its quite disgraceful to blame us for buying 2nd hand games. Its not as you saw dozens of HL2 games in the 2nd hand bucket a week after launch. Maybe if Epic had made a decent game out of Doom 3 rather than sticking with the same formula from the original Doom, they would'nt have had so many copies in the bargain bin.
Also how much profit did they lose by doing deals with graphics card companies to offer Doom3 with new cards. I doubt people like XFX paid full whack.
Well, I'm happy with their thoughts on pricing. I don't mind steam at all, and would prefer a distribution method similar to that. ESPECIALLY on games that are based around the same engine, that way you don't have to install the engine four times and take up all that extra space.
Personally I never buy games secondhand so I don't care about their thoughts on the matter too much, but agree that it should be "well, you've made your money, and if the person who resold it made a bit back, HE's not going to be using your tech support anymore, will he?". And how many people use tech support for games? I did a single time in the past five years that I can remember, which took all of five minutes. Bandwidth is really a non-issue because most FPS games have a DIY-server rather than some huge central things, so it doesn't cost the parent company much at all (really just enough to ping the servers and stick them on a list)
Separate names with a comma.