You do know that a game isn't really a good. It is a license. If it is bundled to a physical medium it's somewhat akin to a good, but still nothing like chair or table e.g. .

I've made my points clear at the beginning. That guy is an idiot and insensitive. The "used games market" surely isn't "the enemy" that needs to be destroyed. However, as technological progress is beeing made, the end of a "physical medium" to sell games is inevetable. We reached the point with PC games now and consoles within the next ten years. Is that inherently bad? In my opinion it isn't. Again, I take GOG as an example. Something like this site couldn't exist 10 years ago.

We aren't losing rights, they are shifting. E.g. now I have the right to access my GOG games how often I want and from whereever I want as long as I have internet. This isn't only an added service, this is my right derived from my contact with GOG. As a tradeoff, I can't sell my GOGs. A tradeoff I'm willing to take.

Lawmakers are already responding to this, and I guess another 5 years max and we've got some pretty solid consumer rights in the EU. Contrary to popular believe, the consumer ist one of the "holy cows" in the (at least european) legal and law system. Because strong consumer rights encourage consumption and therefore are important for a steady economic development. All this nonesense about "the man" taking away our rights is just the usual "angst" that comes with development. So to say it is the other side of the "OMG piracy will destroy us"coin. Publishers have their fears, consumers have their own. Because they are used to a certain way of living/gaming and don't want to see that change. Not even taking the chance that things might become better.

I was a die hard enemy of Steam until '09. But once I've bitten the bullet I really started to appreciate the service for all it had to offer. I couldn't care less about the used games market dying, because I don't use it as a consumer. And I don't see this as a loss of my rights. And buying used games for "collectors reasons" won't change, because there will be nothing left to collect if they only put a disc in a box.

Additionally you have to remember, in many countries the used games market is simply based on the fact that publisher are not enforcing their rights. Legally speaking, their was at a time actually a very, very thin line between ebay and pirate bay. They changed it around 2000, but the fact remains that in many countries EULA are explicitly denying resell rights. And those EULAs are (on that point) perfectly legal and binding.

Only because they couldn't enforce their rights until DRMs came along, doesn't mean they "lost" them, or we gained them.

Yet, all I've said mostly goes for the PC gaming market. Consoles are somewhat different. They are "easier" and "simpler". Or at lest they once were. You pop it open, put in the disc, and play. If they continue this on consoles, then why even bother making them any more. Maybe this is the beginning of the end of consoles. At least as we know it.

Oh, and downrepping jepsen1977 for voicing his opinion, real classy move, community.

I like Steam and GOG just fine. While I have my ideals I am also a realist. In a perfect world (in my own view) I'd be able to lend any game I own to family or friends with the fair restriction that while they have it for use I do not. I'd also be able to sell or give away any game I've purchased and have it thusly removed from my account. In other words, have things work pretty much like they always have for physical media. I don't see that really happening though and I have better things to do than embark on a personal crusade to change the world over this. Life's too short.

There's a lot to like about Steam and GOG in my opinion and there are also some things I don't like. At the end of the day I am pretty happy though and consider myself fortunate to have so much entertainment available to me at prices I can afford.

What really put me off about Durall is the way he comes off as such an arrogant prick. For as long as consoles still use discs, I don't see what the big problem with used games sales is, except for these greedy bastards feeling they are entitled to even more money than they already make.

But is decay really relevant? To me the relevant factor is the depreciation in value.
A 5 year old car will not sell for the original value. A 5 year old game will not sell for the original value. 2nd hand or not.

Likewise, a car that's been used for a week will not sell for the original value. Its value depreciates the most after the first resale, but less on every sale after that. Same with games. The greatest depreciation of value is after the first resale, after that the game will always be '2nd hand'.

So you can compare physical and digital goods provided that the digital good is on a physical medium, as it is in the context of the discussion here.

Agreed. I've tried "up-repping" the post back up, but to no avail.

However in response to the rest of your post one could make a strong argument that we never should have stood for EULAs to begin with and allow the companies to believe they could now enforce their believed distinction between us owning a license and a good. That should never have been allowed to come to pass. And court cases in the US have gone back and forth over whether or not it is even an accurate depiction over what the software companies are selling.

Also what FraterPerdurabo said - although I'd go even further and say it applies to purely digital products as well - but that it especially applies to digital products tied to physical media. :)

The minimum specs on most games are fulfilled by 600 USD budget PCs, the same price as a launch console, and a graphics card swap or RAM swap to keep said PC up to date is 100-150 and 50 respectively. In addition there's ample other reasons to own a PC in one's home, besides gaming, so many folks already would be spending 400-600 on a PC anyway, an extra 100 for a souped up graphic's card and a bit of extra RAM is not much of a stretch.

Most PC gamers are definitely not of the "I bought a 2000 USD PC" variety. As well, even at 2000 USD that's 10% of the yearly income of even low income households, a Ferrari, on the other hand, costs 10 times their yearly income. Your example doesn't hold under scrutiny, you're trying to defend something that has little to no evidence behind it other than "it makes sense" to you.

It's nice for you that you're trying to be long suffering to help publishers, but you probably shouldn't be making that decision for everybody. There is absolutely nothing at all special about the video game industry other than that you happen to like them. There's not a single argument that's been put forth at any time as to why they should actually be treated as a special class. They are already treated as a special class once by being granted copyright for their works. Now you're arguing for even more special treatment.

Finally, killing used game sales will fuck the industry over, mark my words.
There is nothing at all behind it. If you pull back the curtain you'll simply find the "pro" industry arguments in this case boil down to really liking video games along with a healthy dose of hero worship. And really, that's all this is, it's akin to a NFL fan defending the asinine decisions of the NFL because they really like football and wish deeply to participate in any way possible.

Software companies haven't ever let a EULA get challenged in an appellate court for this very reason. In lower courts the rulings have been unpredictable, but at a higher level a ruling against their business model could have huge implications. So they've usually settled the claims instead. Intellectual property law is pretty crazy though, and software is still a little fuzzy legally.

Because the marginal costs on physical goods are a lot lower than people think. Printing and distributing that hard bound book maybe costs 10% of the production. There's not all that much to be saved by selling digital, though the people defending poor pricing on digital sales neglect to mention the costs of setting up the tool chain altogether and only focus on the per unit extra cost.
I think the Autodesk decision was appealed and lost, and Autodesk did win. However this case is a terrible example as it contained (as I understand it) a whole lot of presuppositions based on the fact that the buyer was a professional, buying professional software, and the court treated the EULA much more like a contract in said case based on that.

This is exactly right, but in my opinion should not cause a differentiation between whether or not a consumer has a right resale which is what we're really discussing.
Yeah I could see making a distinction for commercial software for commercial purposes (maybe, barely) but yeah I don't think it applies to consumer software or common digital goods.

But the depreciation of value is vastly different. No other good will be resold 2nd hand for 90% of it's original price. And from then on games depricate vastly different than cars.

And the car example is not relevant because of the huge difference in usage, original price and purpose. Not everyone can afford a "new" car. Even I couldn't afford a new car. Private consumers usually get a "year old car" which is a preowned car that was used by a company/state for one year (depends massively on the type of car, of course).

Lastly and most importantly, games are an entertainment product. Nothing mandatory of even helpful in your day to day chores.

This was also factored in an important different between software and hardware is the "no return" policy. Those mandatory 2 weeks you can return any good bought on the net does not cover opened software. And "opened" software (also musics and movies) were never returnable in retail to begin with (Apart from technical flaws, like Steam ;-)). Because once you opened it, you "used it's value". The value of a digital entertainment product is not the product itself, but what is "within" the product.

Imo, the "resale" of software, arguably maybe also digital music and DVDs was never a "consumer right". It was a taken habit.

Imo, the closest comparable "proper goods" would be toys. Or, as "chimera goods/licences" movies or music. But the latter don't really count eather, as they are normally to cheap to warrant a resale.

On a side note, the point with going "all digital" is also that you make it more easy for pirates. The PS1 needed a physical "hack" to play burned CDs. If your games are all digital, it can be faked and hacked with software. I'm predicting a massive spike in piracy on the new generation of consoles if they keep going that direction.


Edit: I want a "freeze" button for threads while I type :-P

No, decay is not an issue, some high end consumer goods will never decay in any real way. You can buy a pair of shoes that will easily last 10 years, you can buy a Cross pen that you can use your whole life and will to your child, some kinds of knives will never wear out in any real sense (maybe once every 40 years you might need a new handle). Books printed on non acidic paper, likewise, will never wear out if treated well. Many kinds of properly treated artwork never wears out, which is perhaps one of the more relevant examples as both games and artwork involve copyright. There's a whole ranged of products, especially if you buy nice stuff, that do not wear out and consumers' rights to resale and transfer do not change based on this.

The lack of depreciation - especially of purely digital media - is a good thing for the industry. It means secondhand sale *can't* cause prices to drop like a stone as the industry worries about! I have to disagree with you about digital music and movies - just based on the argument that one should have to prove we shouldn't have the right to resale, not that we should have the right to resale. They have to prove to us if they want to kill the used game market that they can't survive with it. Personally I think if they bothered to study it closely they'd find it helps them more than hurts them.

I'm not sure about the relevance of your last argument is to used sales though? Used sales are about legal transference of the original physical or digital media. Nothing to do with piracy - also given your other posts on the subject of piracy it seems like an odd argument for you to make. I think I may have misunderstood ... repeat please. :)
I hear ya!!

Why do people misunderstand that this is supply and demand at play. Used video games retain such a high value because there's very few of them compared to demand, even the ones with scuffs on the case and dog eared manuals.

Used video games don't resell for 5 dollars below new because they are digital (otherwise used CDs would be 25 cents less than retail, new, and DVDs would be a buck off) the reason they do so is due to high demand. The fact that they retain such a high value says there's probably very few of them (at least compared to demand) and therefor the scale of the "secondhand problem" is probably way overstated.

I was talking about Modern Warfare 3 in GameStop. Hardly something were demand outstripped supply.

That's not correct about opened software not being returnable at least in the past at retail. The Egghead Software Chain in the USA accepted open software for returns for any reason. If the customer was not happy with it, they could return it no questions asked. I know, I used to manage one of their stores back in the day.

I think a lot less places will do that now other than in cases of defects since some people abused the system in the past.

If you were referring to the example I made of a car, it was just a random choice of some property I'd purchased and immediately below I made clear the example could apply to any purchase I might make. So I'd say that was pretty relevant. People would go nuts if things like cars, books, appliances, etc. all came with EULAs that among other things forbade the sale or transfer of these things at a later time. That point stands as being pretty valid too. What makes purchased software different from any other item one might purchase that I should not be allowed to do the same things I can do with any other purchase I make?

It's not a matter of what you can or cannot afford, it's simply an analysis of a series of factors.

When you're reselling a car, you look at:
Original price
Age of car
Condition
Mileage

When you're reselling a game, you look at:
Original price
Age of game
Condition (of packaging)
For a game you can add in the multiplayer element. Is there still an active multiplayer community? Does the publisher / developer still maintain servers? Do they update anti-cheats? Is the game being patched?

And for the vast urban majority, cars are not mandatory.