No you don't get to duplicate ownership under resale, just transfer it once - under resale if a company sells 1000 copies of the game there are only ever at one time 1000 owners of that game. Gersen is right, the fact that over time there are more owners is truly unimportant - the company was paid for 1000 copies and 1000 copies are all that is in circulation. They don't have the *right* to get more when a player decides they no longer want to play the game and give it to someone else (who also doesn't even have to sell it, they can just give it to someone). The company *can* monetize the transaction by offering a convenient platform to exchange the games peer-to-peer or sell back and thus take a slice of the resale pie, but apparently they'd rather just complain instead of compete. Healthy resale markets are good, not bad for developers and publishers. Porting the second-hand market over to the digital only realm effectively will make some developer/publisher a lot of money just as Steam did for Valve.

Unfortunately that is easier said than done - when there is only the Hobson's choice of accept or reject, the customer's vote with the wallet is a lot harder to interpret. For instance, a lot of people may be willing to accept a high degree of DRM protection if the game is spectacularly good, but be less willing to do so if the game is bad. To complement, a mediocre game may sell better without or light DRM, but should its sales be compared to a good game with DRM or other games without DRM? How much DRM should be controlled for when making these comparisons?

Essentially the lack of ability of the customer to negotiate the presence/absence of DRM and haggle price accordingly results in a large power differential between customer and seller/producer. This actually makes it much harder for the industry to evaluate what's best for itself and its customers except in extreme scenarios which cause customers organize and boycott en masse ... But in general, voting with a wallet is rather imprecise if all one has is Hobson's choice. Note that I am not advocating a bargaining economy, but rather simply pointed out in high-dimensional, complex spaces, binary choices are often inadequate as the sole determiner of quality for any particular variable. Perhaps, eventually, the market will get there on its own, completely by itself, but I doubt it and doubt that will happen in any reasonable time frame. It will either take an individual with a lot of vision (and clout) ... or something dramatic ... or a reimplementation in the digital era of consumer protection laws that we used to have for physical goods and with which everyone got along just fine.

I never said anything about duplication, I meant to imply with an exaggerated example, that resale of a certain item over and over takes away income from the people that actually made it, and that just because the copy was 'paid for' does not mean it doesn't take away future business by reselling it to what otherwise would've been potential customers.

The point here is not 'There's only a 1000 copies, why should they get paid for more than a 1000?', the point is that those 1000 copies could end up being used by 1000's of consumers, when, if that option for resale hadn't been there, the money from those extra sales would have gone to the publisher/developer.



This is what I already said I don't agree with. When you mention that, that people have some ... inherent right to sell their game after they bought it ... that's when I think of 'special rights'... and I think it can be done without. It doesn't take one iota away from my gaming experience if I can't do that, and it only stands to benefit me if developers/publishers end up getting more of the money people actually spend on their product.

But you don't answer the question of entitlement. I bought that licence, and it is mine to do as I will with it. Asking what would have happened if the option of resale hadn't been there is a moot point. The fact is that we as a capitalist society have the right to sell what we buy. That has been an established point of commerce ever since medieval times.

As soon as I am explicitly forbidden by statute and agreement from the resale or long-term ownership of any product, it becomes a rental.

I'm driving a secondhand 1996 Renault Mégane that according to the Fahrzeugbrief has been handed down no less than five times. Sure, it's been used enough times, and sure I've bought spare parts for it, but very few (if any, in fact) of them have been original Renault parts. Just like a game still plays fine in spite of scratches and manual tarnish, a secondhand car will get me from A to B just as well as a new one will in spite of paint damage, miles on the clock and whatever else.

Now, if I hadn't bought that secondhand car, Renault "might" have had a sale from me. Of course, that doesn't make them entitled to it, and even if they were, the inability to buy a secondhand car would not necessarily have led me to buy a new one. It might have encouraged me to use public transport or use my bike more often.

Similarly, if I want to buy a game, and I have no secondhand alternatives, it doesn't necessarily mean that I'll buy that game new. Some might, but a lot of people will instead buy a DVD, or go out for a beer, or do something else to occupy their time.

But as I say, all this is really a moot point because, as I say, we still have the right to sell what we buy. This isn't a legal right, but a moral one upon which the foundations of capitalism have been established. As soon as you start forbidding the sale or resale of something to benefit other market participants, you start distorting the market.

If companies wish to openly forbid us from selling our products, then we as a society have the right at the very least to forbid them from using the word "buy" in their sales materials, as so many publishers do.

Of course, if people were openly aware that they weren't "buying" their games but "licensing" or "renting" them, there wouldn't be so much interest in paying €60 for them, would there?

And why would it be? For every license you buy I'm pretty sure there's some clause equal to: "You agree not to distribute, lease, license, sell, rent or otherwise transfer or assign the Software, or any copies of the Software, without the express prior written consent of Licensor or as set forth in this Agreement;" on there.

That's what you bought. Nowhere will it state that whatever you buy is now your property to do with whatever you please. In fact, you never actually become the owner of a game you buy *at all*. The only actual owner is the developer who owns that IP/Game. And they are letting you use that by giving you a license to use it. And licenses are subject to terms. What you probably will own is the media it comes on, or the box it came with, feel free to sell those.

And even then, this is going past my point. I'm saying "Why should we have the right to resell our games?", What's the logic behind this? Why not just buy a copy for yourself (or whoever you buy it for), and that's it? Why do you feel like you should have some inherent right to resell it? Because that's what you're used to? Because that's what it's been like? So what? Things change. And I personally don't see why this particular 'want' is an important one.

Maybe because this is how each and every type of physical good has been used and re-used for thousands of years? What makes video games so special?

It never "takes away" income from the people who developed the product - they got paid for that copy at a price point they set. I think I've argued this I'm pretty sure with you before, so I'll skip to the end. This is exactly the same kind of myopic thinking that is getting the industry into trouble on multiple fronts.

First, one used sale does not equate to a lost new sale at that same price point - because there is no new sale at that price point at that time, it's an else/when for first-sale. Second, revenue and savings generated by used sales for the customers go back into the economy, fueling growth of new sales in this and other markets - even going into savings is good for the long-term health of an economy. This positive effect on the market and the economy as a whole is greater than say ... oh I don't know buying something at 75% off ... just for the sake of the argument ... :) Thirdly, loss of this means a further loss of power by the customer towards the developers/publishers/merchants which gives the customer less ability to regulate the market - an important foundation of a market-based economy. This leads to less healthy markets.

That's what jamyskis is trying to impart - this is an important facet of a healthy capitalistic system. Take it away completely and consumers loose further power in regulating the market. Should changes be made in how the market operates or operates on with respect to changes in technology and society? Of course, but simply doing away with it completely leads to less customer power and a worse market both for both companies and consumers. Companies think they want this because it may maximize short-term profits - even there I would disagree - but maximizing short-term profits at the expense of long-term gains and stability is what has gotten our capitalist system into trouble. In the end, having well-regulated markets where consumers have power is actually beneficial for companies as well as for us. Everyone wins.

Indeed, video games more than any other industry has the ability to regulate how fast consumers resell their product beyond just the quality of the initial product. They can use for-pay-DLC, free content drops, and full expansion packs all of which require customers to keep the base copy of their game to get. This not only retains customers but also allows them to make money off of those who have bought the game used. Books, movies, and music do not have this ability. Further, with digital distribution, producers have the ability to monetize peer-to-peer resale transactions like never before. Ah well. Eventually someone will do it and show them it can be done ...

I do worry that if the media groups get their way with this, the use of registration means to prevent the resale of products will spread. This will be the start of a very slippery slope whereby it spreads to other markets.

How about that car that is registered to your biometrics in the guise of "security" and then has to be taken to back to the manufacturer to be reregistered at a cost of several thousand euros? How about that TV that, once bought, is bound to your GPS location and refuses to run at any other location unless locked by the manufacturer for several hundred euros?

It only goes completely into Gamestop's hands because Gamestop has no competition - again instead of competing the publishers choose to complain. Then their methods hurts the consumer, not Gamestop. Even if the money is going to Gamespot, that money is still going back into the market! The overall economy is still benefiting from the used sale. Now if Gamestop had some real competition, then it would be better - of course! But again, complaining about the existence of used sales doesn't get you there. If the producers bothered to compete even just an iota, they could wipe the floor with Gamestop. Hell even Amazon and Ebay allow used sales of games, and do quite nicely off the agency model of resale! So it isn't "just Gamestop" already, and it *could* be so much more! Right now this is the same as the music and movie companies dragging their heals going digital, they can't see the forest for the trees.

These argument apply *better* for used sales than for piracy because indeed these are products that are being sold to actual customers, but there has to be a copy available to buy. This supply and demand regulates the price of used games, which in turn regulates the price of first-sale games. Again, it's actually beneficial for the companies to have this in the long run - and as I mentioned to Arkose the video game companies have more ability to regulate the used-sale market by offering DLC, expacs, and content drops. No other media has this ability.

Finally, I noticed you didn't quote my arguments about customers regulating the markets.

Each developer and publisher are not a market unto themselves. There is the market and that's that. They already got paid for their product at a price point they chose to set. The some guy cashing in his game is you and me (I don't buy/sell used) - he's a consumer and he's regulating the market and participating in the economy - hell maybe he's increasing his savings - something more consumers aught to do. Again this short-sighted, myopic thinking isn't healthy for the companies in question! This is what is getting us as a market-driven society into trouble. Actions like eliminating the used market is in the end bad for the economy and bad for the companies in question because it leads to less healthy markets. This short-sighted quest for short-term profits leads to greater instability in the markets, not more stability for the companies in question. You are actually harming what you are trying to help. Used sales can exist in the digital marketplace. If anything arguing against their existence is the throwback - that simply because we've never had a digital used market place that it must not work or be good for the companies in my market. That's now the throwback, because you can't see it working and because the effects are indirect rather than direct, you assume they're not there or important. The application of the used market to the digital realm will be the next great innovation and the company that gets it right first will make a killing again as Valve did with Steam or Apple did with iTunes when they proved against the common wisdom of the publishers at the time that you could make money off of digital sales in the first place.
Well ... as with all slippery slopes I imagine one should really wait to see what happens first :) - such a thing might not come to pass and the digital companies only get their way with this by virtue of their products being just different enough as not to fall under previous laws (or so the media companies claim anyway). The other companies do more clearly fall under previous law so it would be a little harder for them to claim otherwise.

And this fight isn't over yet. :)

Speaking of Ubisoft, when are we going to get the rest of the Myst games on GoG, also what about Sub Culture for Pete's sake, it was like the first PC game ever to use hardware acceleration, not to mention the best submarine simulation game ever.

And again, how is this different from a used car or a used piece of furniture? I could have bought that spanking new VW Golf, but the used 2007 model beat me to it.

Yes, and yet I hear no bellyaching from the publishers about how their new games are being bought from the proceeds of the sale of other items. It's a cycle. Sure, not all proceeds from game sales are guaranteed to go back into games, but then I might sell my car and buy a game from it.

Whether they like it or not, video game publishers are part of a larger economy. The world does not revolve around them.

(And yes, that is an overblown example, but closer to the truth than you may think. I'm moving to an area in two weeks that has excellent public transport links. It makes my car superfluous as I have a bike and work from home, so I'll be selling the car, and you can guarantee that at least some of that money will be going on games)

Capitalism relies on tangible assets. It requires assets to be finite and physical. As soon as there is an infinite supply of a good. it becomes worthless.

You criticise capitalism (in principle so do I, and this situation shows how weak a system it is), but at the end of the day the fact that we pay for games and that a price tag is placed on creativity is solely thanks to the capitalist ideology.

The idea that gaming is "purely digital" is where a lot of arguments begin to fall apart, as it reveals its proponent's inability to think outside the virtual world and see how it is connected to the physical. The fact of the matter is that games are physical objects (or, if you insist on clinging to the digital view, meta-physical objects) that have to be subject to the same capitalist forces as any other good for them to be worth anything.

Wrong. Look at the various copies of extremely rare games on eBay and Amazon and tell me with a straight face that people are paying hundreds of dollars for just what is on that storage media. Then tell me with a straight face that people would pay this money if it were just a box and a disc with nothing on them.

The box, storage medium and game are a "value unit" that has an inherent value because they are finite. As soon as you strip away all of the physical aspects, the game becomes inherently infinite and therefore worth nothing. The only reason that we pay for digital games is because the law tells us that downloading them for free is illegal.

You're right, though I do find it odd that customers would use the presence of DRM as a deciding factor on bad games. Isn't the bad game itself the factor? But nobody ever said that PC games buyers, as a group, make a whole lot of sense. For mediocre titles, I can see DRM and price being things that keep someone from buying. As I'll point out below, the price, however, is not fixed and this further muddies the matter.

Well, it must come from the marketplace of buyers, publishers, developers, and retailers. Somewhere in that mix is a solution, and it might turn out to be a few different solutions; the anti-DRM crowd has GOG, the 'don't care because I just want games' sector will put up with most any DRM just to get the latest-and-greatest, and there are those in-between who will put up with mild DRM like one-time online activation, installation keys, etc. It'll shake itself out; one could argue that it already has, with this thread and others like it being anecdotal evidence of that. Even Ubi will figure out what works for them, between protecting what's theirs while still maintaining the customer base they've built-up over the years. And if they don't then Ubi will go bye-bye and the talent will create new start-ups with new projects. Some of them will realize what killed off the company, assuming DRM is a primary factor, and will work to change that.

I'd argue also that there are more than the two choices of buy or buy not. We also have the "buy when it's cheaper" option. But this is where it gets fuzzy, where it ties in to what you said, and where the wallet choice makes the DRM impact tougher to interpret: how much DRM will I put up with in order to buy that excellent AAA title at an 80% discount four months after release? Or is it a case of, "I'm just being frugal and don't care about the DRM so long as I spend a whole lot less?"

Still, GOG's (and CDPR's) approach is working thus far and it may end up being a significant factor in improving the whole matter for all involved. The good news is that the marketplace is large enough for multiple approaches without killing off the catalog of games released each year. My own backlog of DRM-free games is so big right now that if all titles were DRM-free, I'd STILL never get to play most of those I would like to play. : D

I'm ignoring this because I already think a used market is outdated, at least in the physical kind. I also, don't see anywhere in there how a used market is a benefit, when it comes to gaming and gaming development.

You claim that money goes back into the market (huge grand generalization apparently since it could go to burrito's for all we know), yet for that game developer who's game was sold, he may see no return whatsoever on that used market, yet that used market is continuously undercutting their own game sales. And for what? So us 'pitiful' consumers at least are able to resell our games? Why? Buy the game for yourself and leave it at that. Let the company who actually made it get the sales of people who want to buy at a lower pricepoint. Why have a system in place that forcibly limits the amount of copies sold, so the consumers can play around with the copies there are remaining, to make back a few bucks, and for the resellers to capitalize on?

If, as we see with multi games now, games are linked, to a non transferrable ID, then people can, and still will buy the game. All they have to do, is wait slightly longer, till the sale comes, or the price reduction comes where they are finally at that sweetspot for them, and then the money goes towards the developer/publisher of that game. (The publishing being a good thing can be argued).

What is so wrong with that? And why is there a need for there to be a consumer controlled secondary market for this? Don't these multi games right now do just fine without this? Doesn't the market survive and live on without this? Because the market is still there. It's still supply and demand, people still won't buy at a price point they don't like, or if it includes DRM they don't want. The only difference is that the middleman leeching off the sales for their own profit is cut out.



As I already mentioned above. That stuff is outdated. Game sales as a whole are going more digital every day, PC *and* Console, and if that option had been there from the start they would have been there to begin with, since games are a digital product. Which they have always been, but the only means to get them to the consumer so far has been through physical media. The reason those particular games are worth a lot, is because they are limited physical products, which is an outdated premise with the new digital market.

And no, it is not worth nothing because it suddenly goes 'infinite'. That's ridiculous. There's just as much 'value' to owning the game digitally as there is to owning the game on CD, unless you derived the majority of your value from the box and the CD. Would you pay $40 for a copy of the box and CD of say a $50 game, just because the game wasn't on it? No. The value is in having access to the game itself. Whether that be physical or digital is not relevant. The game has always been able to be copied infinitely, it just hasn't.
(I do concede some people would pay more for a game with a box and a DVD obviously, but not the majority of it's value)