Demand of used copies far outstripped the supply of used copies, this is why the used copies cost nearly as much as new, not because it was a largely digital good.

Due to the demand outstripping the supply, I suspect very much that there's not that many used copies to be had, really.

The point I was trying to make there, is that publisher are actually hurting themselves with that tactic. It's making piracy easier. And, another side note, before "proper" (very, very big quotations here) piracy laws were in effect. Piracy was purely determined on a breach of the license. When they tryed to make this a crime, they luckily realised what consequendes they would have.

To clarify this again. I'm not for the end of the "used games market" and I'm certainly not for that idiot James Durall. I'm just saying that the used games market becomes mostly irrelevant with the introduction of digital goods. I do thing that this is a bad idea for consoles. Not because I'm afraid the consumer gets hurt, because this will draw a huge number of gamers to the PC because we have competing digital stores and no SonyStore or XBoxlive monopoly. The current used sales market on consoles mirrors the "Steam discount market"on the PC. You get not so new games for less than the original price. Already, the PC is vastly superior in that aspect. If they now kill the used market and don't supstitute it with something like Steam/GG. They are done.

PC are getting cheaper with each year. I bought my PC 2009 for 600€ and I get grahpics that rival or even surpass the Xbox 360 and PS3 in most aspects (at least it feels that way, maybe I'm missing a shader, who cares). This, combined with the massive savings thanks the GG/Steam/Amazon makes consoles less and less apealing. Some "exclusive titles" remain of course, but apart from that there is no longer the draw consoles like the PS2 had.

The problem with me in this discussion is that my last console was a Genesis, so I can't really draw any experience on the console "used games market". But from my time in Ireland I know that GameStop is pure BS and ripoff when it comes to recently released games. And I'm somewhat opposed to the "used games PC market" because I rather have people spending their money on GOGs or new games and simply go "Abandonware" if the game is no longer available first hand. Collectors excluded.

And finally, what I really can't stand, and what drawed me into to this discussion is the general "bitchiness" PC gamers are currently showing. Where I look, everywhere people are bitching and complaining about the stupidest things. The graphics are to bad, the specs are to high, it's no rpg, that unreleased game is shit, that bundle sucks, Steam can take my games away from me without reason, my GOG download doesn't work on the first try, I want a refund, that game is shit, it has to many DLC, oh my good we are all doomed PC gaming is done for !!!

Things have changed, but not for the worse. Just look at Double Fine for fucks sake! If they really go this way with consoles on the next gen and don't reduce prices, than it's there problem more than ours.
Because in the end, it is entertainment. It is a gloryfied carnival ticket. (Well, software as in games, not your accounting software). You "use up your value" in that product. A car will always be helpful to you as long as it drives. A game has lost all apeal to you once you are done with it. But this "loss in appeal" doesn't go over to the next person in form of decay of deprication of value. For him it's "as good as new" literally.

Might be different for MMORPG but those usually paid monthly.

I take it you've never gotten a game from Gamefly or the corner store that looked like a dog had chewed on it or the kids had used for a frisbee.

Games do decay. While the data on the disc may remain the same (provided it isn't a magnetic medium), the platform upon which that game is delivered does lose value and does decay. Eventually, that game disc will be worth nothing. Go look at Amazon and see the price difference between an Acceptable used copy and a Like New. Rarely cost more than $50 new? Have you not looked at games since before the xbox? $60 is the norm and PC games are now trending at that (Starcraft II, boxed copy of Star Wars: The Old Republic MMO). And that's not even considering the proliferation of $100+ "collector's editions" every game seems to put out. Depends upon what toys you are buying. Try finding a MIB G1 Optimus Prime or Megatron. Or even some of the shortpacked newer toys that collectors like. Nope. I bought a game. Just like I bought a book or a movie or a bed. You may think you've rented a license. I do not believe the fiction that I bought a "license". And how many of those countries had explicit First Sale Doctrines in place prior?

So, you play with the box?

I'm not even start to list examples. Type www.steampowered.com into your browser and just check what you can see there under "new releases". I said "rarely" not never.

Those aren't toys. Those are collectables. They aren't bought to be played with.

You probably also don't believe in the fiction like "property" or "loans" or "pensions" or "contracts"

I thought you didn't believe in that fiction? And first sale doctrines are refutable via EULAs, because *surprise* they aren't goods.

Why am I actually bothering ... Oh, and if I sound like a dick, sorry, that was intentional.

Edit: fixed the quoting

Nice dodge. Try answering the actual question. I was unaware that you could buy Xbox 360 games on Steam. Try again. 2/3rds of the console market has the $60 price point as the beginner. That's a far cry from "rarely". Tell that to any child. I distinctly remember playing with my Optimus when I was a kid. I also take my 25th Anniversary GI Joes out of the box to pose and have fun with. Not to the same extent as when I was a kid, but they do more than just sit there. Tangible goods, just like a game disc. Also, strawman argument. EULAs' enforceability has never been properly tested in a court of law. Just because you say something is true, doesn't mean it is. Much like the warnings on DVDs do not accurately reflect your rights as a consumer.

While I agree that people can be bitchy over minutiae - that's the internet and hardy limited only to PC gaming. :) This topic however is truly important. Entertainment may just be entertainment (cue orcish's arguments over culture disagreeing with this sentiment) but it also represents huge business. Whether or not a consumer owns their product or a license that the company controls is extremely crucial to how businesses operate and what protections consumers have against corporate malfeasance. This, in contrast to the other items of common complaint mentioned, really is important to how the market functions.

Apologies, I'm still unclear about the relevance about digital piracy being easier with the discussion we are having. If you are trying to say that the ease of the digital marketplace makes everything easier for companies, consumers, and pirates, I completely agree. I also agree that if people don't feel like they need a used games market then that's fine too. For instance, I don't feel like I need used games and have never bought games used. You've also said, multiple times that you agree that companies shouldn't deliberately kill the used games market. So I think we agree on these points. I think though where maybe we still disagree is whether or not the consumer has the right to have a used games market, so perhaps we'll keep only arguments pertaining to that? Unless I've misunderstood?

EULA's are an excellent example of why the game industry is trying to have its cake and eat it too with respect to the products they sell. Games are advertised that you are buying the game - not buying a license, but after you buy the game, only then do you have to agree to a EULA. In other words after I've spent my money, then either downloaded or opened the box and put in my disk, then I agree that I've bought a license and not a game. People didn't use to care because the EULA was almost meaningless and impossible to enforce. Now people care because EULAs can be technologically enforced. Add to that if you technologically enforce the EULA, you can't return an opened box or downloaded game if you don't agree to the EULA! And you can't negotiate the terms of a EULA before or after you've bought it. So before I buy, I am buying the game. But after I buy, I am only buying a license. I don't agree to a EULA before I buy the game and I can't negotiate the terms. I only have the Hobson's choice of accept or reject.

I would turn your earlier argument around that the only reason people accept the presence of EULAs saying they've bought a license instead of a copy of the game that they have rights over is due to tradition of how companies sold software inlcuding games before such things were really possible to enforce in any kind of scale.

Vigorous debate is one thing, but let's not make things personal. :) People can get irritable during debates (naturally I, as perfection incarnate who can always take the moral high ground, never do, but that's because I'm so awesome - just ignore the man behind the curtain ... oh and my post several pages back :P), but let's all keep things civil. We can all be - on both sides - a little dismissive of each other's opinions and arguments, but it's best soldier on anyway! This is an interesting discussion on an important topic.

Yes, that's excactly what I meant.

I think one of the fundamental differences between us two in regard to this discussion is, that I come from a legal background and look at the things differently. I don't see "rights" as in the "right to party" but as clear legal definitions. That is also what I mean there is no "right" to the used games market. It was basically a legal novum. People made it up in the go before lawmakers or judges could get the law hammered in. Now, as lawmakers slowly come to grips with it, the law sometime doesn't fit with the conception people have. The problem is that games aren't simply games. They are licenses, but they are not the only licenses that are around Premature laws that are ment to entitle the consumer might have some very dire consequences in the long run in other sectors. Law making is very difficult. If you try to take a shortcut, you get something like SOPA (we had similar mistakes in Germany). For the time being, this is how it is handled and we have to work with it. We can't just ignore it and hope for the best (which was, btw, pretty much the business strategy of ebay in many things). This is in essence the whole "there is no right to the used games market".

And we have also a difference in perspective. Europe vs. US lobby groups aren't nearly as powerful here as they are in the US. And our judges are more independent because they aren't elected (yes, I am aware of the irony in that sentence). Therefore my outlook to all this might be better than yours. Neither the law makers nor the judgehave really understood what is going on with all this "virtual entertainment thingy". And, let's be honest, there are currently more important things on the agenda. But from what I can see, prospects aren't that bad. Yes, the used game market might be lost, but I wouldn't be surprised if Sony and Microsoft would have to open their "console networks" to other companies. Because monopolies are illegal. And once this is the only way to actually buy games, this might become something lawmakers might take interest in. And you know why? Not because law makers suddently start gaming. Because some slightly overweight guy from Seattle might suddently think that a digital distribution network on consoles might be a profitable idea. Free market can be a real bitch. Given, this is still thinking way ahead. But this is just an example why there is no fear that "the man" can simply push us around as much as he wants.

Your viewpoints on this issue aren't "wrong" and I do agree with them in princible, but I'm somewhat bound by "what is" not "what should be". We can only hope that those points will be brought before the important decision makers. I know some judges who were gamers, so not all hope is lost.

I don't want to open to many debate areas, but one thing were consumer rights are going in our direction (probably, from what I can see) is Steam. We "buy" games, therefore we "own" games. The "own" basically translates into an unlimited usage. Steam is simply not allowed to restrict you access to legally bought games (without a refund). This is simply the arguement you made turned practical. "We bought 'em like goods". Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't. People using their rights however is a whole different issue. But I really don't want to get into that venue of the discussion, I just wanted to make an example that "we" aren't all out losing.

And I say PC gamers are the bitchiest ;-P!

Sorry but that answer doesn't cut it, not at all. Entertainment products ranging from DVD movies to CD music recordings to Xbox, PS3 or PC games are all entertainment products. They are not temporary carnival tickets nor are they consumed like popcorn which is literally gone once you eat it. Many of us enjoy revisiting and replaying games or watching movies or listening to the same music multiple times during the time we own them. Maybe a game is all used up for you after one play through but that is not the case for everyone. Some games have quite a great deal of replayability built into them by design as you must be aware.

You use a car as an example of a consumable product and yet ignore the fact that most cars have a limited useful life like so many other products. Somehow it seems that in your view the limited useful life of an entertainment product makes it different than another product like a car and yet that also has a limited useful life. So again, how are they different really in terms of this discussion? They are both purchased products. Sure, they are very different kinds of products but they share in common the fact they are both consumer products.

That's a nice try at inventing some new worthless category for consumer entertainment products but it ain't gonna fly with most people, including me.

I notice the tone of this thread is starting to head downhill when people start bitching about the "bitchiness of others." That said maybe we ought to let this rest and just agree to disagree. I don't think we gain anything from fighting with each other about this and getting upset over it. After all, we're just talking about our gaming hobby, you know?

Considering the gravity of the real problems in our world today this stuff doesn't even come close despite it having some importance to us. I'm not up for fighting about it.

Actually, funny enough, I'm the one working with existing legal definition (well, as good as it gets, because this is somewhat terra nova) while most others just refer to their "rights as a customer" or their "that's how we always did it" views.

Anyway "entertainment" is a very important legal aspect that factors into many services or products. Especially when it comes to damages. And as I pointed out before, as long as the lawmaker won't make a game a good, it will simply won't be. If that is right or wrong on a philosophical level is a whole different debate. But people are thinking they are entitled to something they simply aren't to. And that is dangerous, to say the least.

As long as you want to discuss the moral fine print of this, then I won't stop you. But I get a very nasty itch whenever people starting assumptions don't really have any legal firm ground. And using cars, especically cars, isn't really taking that discussion in the right direction.

Use books! Actually, use DVDs, anything, but not cars.

I do agree that rights should have clear legal definition but my disagreement stems from the order things occurred in. This is how I argue it: laws concerning consumer rights in regards to products were in place first. The tack that computer software companies take is actually the legal novum here. Claiming that they sell licenses not products and creating EULAs is their attempt to shortcut the legal process before laws get hammered out in regards to what they were selling and the legality of a non-negotiable contract agreed to only after the license or product was sold. The legal shortcut has been on the end of software companies essentially creating an exception for themselves from standard practice in every other consumer and entertainment industry.

And if you think PC gamers are the bitchiest, you should head over to the comments section of a news site - CNN for instance. :) Your eyes will bleed and any faith you once had in human nature will be destroyed by the brutal stupidity and ignorance so proudly on display. Truly the comments sections on news sites are amongst worst places on the internet I have ever seen. I mean yeah we all take the piss about 4chan and the like, but that still has the nerdy/bitchy internet vibe when people are being shits. This is just so ... bitchy doesn't even begin to cover it ... because one suspects they aren't true denizens of the internet ... many of them actually aren't trolling even though you hope to god they are! ... But I can't look away ... it's just too awful ... I guess that's more than just bitchy. :)

Like I said, I'm done with this. Life's too short.

Well, I still care about PC gamers, at least the ones here on this forum. Others I can more easily ingore ;-). But I try to avoid politics on the internet altogether. There are some many things I would like to ask about the election, but I think this might get problematic very fast.

And screw CNN. This is all you ever need.

On the topic:

I don't know how it is in the US, but over here games were never goods. They were treated as goods in many aspects and still are. But they were always licensed works of other people. So I can't really concede there.

And I think the EULAs have always been there, but simply ignored because they couldn't be enforced. Let me see if I can get the Half Life 2 judgement translated and in your direction(well, the core meanings of cours). Don't wait for it though, it's tough enough in german.

We still have strong consumer rights. And we will get more and better, that I am sure. But this battle is simply over. It was over before it began actually. It might be time for a whole new legal definition of what we have here, because license doesn't cut it at all. But neither does goods. But this isn't even a topic for a thesis, this is something for a grand habilitation.

Thank you for your support about the rep-thing but I think I can survive a few minus reps since I really don't care for the system anyway. But thx. It is a complicated subject and is important so it's nice with a debate as long as people can do so in a calm and rational way. Glad to see you you can do that and contribute to the debate.
Thank you for your support about the rep-thing but I'll live. I pretty much agree with you about how gamers tend to complain about every little thing out there and have this entitlement-complex about "my rights" no matter what else goes on. Good to see a voice of reason here.

Look everyone I don't even agree with this Durall-guy who is probably a dickhead nor do I think that the second-hand marked should die or that we should give up all our rights as consumers just to support publishers that probably don't give a shit about us anyway. What I do care about are practical matters and not what should be or could be but what IS. It's no good to stand up for your rights if that means everybody looses in the process. What I care about is to see if we could find a fair and balanced system where no link in the foodchain is exploided and a system that benefits all.
I too was anti-Steam for the longest time but then tested it and found it worked nicely. I don't play console games so I don't know much about them other than what I have read and heard. But when people who have worked in a game store talks about how they are required to offer all customers a used game even if they arrive at the counter with a new one then I see a problem when it happens on Day1 or within the first 6 months or so. it's not about what happens after 5 or 10 years just like the fight against piracy is not about stopping you from DL'ing an old copy of System Shock 2 or something.
It angers me a little bit that some people make it sound like I'm defending only publishers or that I don't care about our rights. What I really don't care for is winning a debate here on a forum. So can we please discuss this as rational adults without down-repping etc.?

Thing is, the current system does benefit all. One of the advantages to game companies from the used market are that it serves as an entry point to their games for many people. Yet they fail to recognize that. The game companies are the ones crying about how they're not getting enough, but sales numbers for the industry just don't support that claim. I still don't see why this matters. As has been pointed out time and again, in order for there to even be a used copy for them to offer, a new copy must have been sold. I look at this as the same practice as offering the extra insurance that these places try to peddle as well. It's easy enough to decline.

And I know this is anecdotal, but I personally have been offered used games time and again when I've shopped at EB Games and I've always said 'no'. Why? Because the used game is only 5 bucks less than new, and that's not enough of a discount for me to opt for a possibly scratched disc and/or missing manual. I'm pretty certain I'm not alone in that regard. The down-repping is pretty childish, IMO. I see no sense in down repping someone just because you don't like their point of view, and I do wish people wouldn't engage in it since you're obviously trying to engage in civil discussion. I personally save the down reps for spammers.