Best Buy vs. The Game Makers

An anonymous reader writes "CNN's excellent Game Over column brings word that Best Buy has begun selling used games in select locations as part of a test program. If successful, all of the store's 700 stores could begin doing so in the not-too-distant future. Not so happy about this are developers, including Epic's Mark Rein, who resurrects his 'no used game sales' argument, saying 'To have them resell the games, with developers having no participation, that's just wrong. That's just fleecing us.'"

Comments

Transhumanism should render this moot

[Fen14]

It's just "intellectual property". When we have everything we could ever need or want as engineered machines, we don't need to worry about people copying our creative works.

Re:Transhumanism should render this moot

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow, you must be REALLY high.

Re:Transhumanism should render this moot

[vertinox]

Although, it appears wacky, I'm glad others know what transhumanism is.

The only doubt I have of it is that the singularity may or may not happen in our lifetime and even then we may not have control of even if happens or not.

However, the singularity is inevitable if society continues on its present course. When technology can produce anything for the price of nothing then we start to see the affects of the problems of brick and mortar fighting the changes in the business methods. This will eventually lead to all items that we now still pay money for weather it be food, shelter, and entertainment. There will be a sector of society which will resist this to the bitter end, but as the parent says Transhumanism will render this a moot point. Although I don't know what that has to do with selling used games, but then again... The same principal applies when there is nothing that can be manufactures for free than what do you pay people for their ideas and time in creation of software entertainment or various other things that involve "intellectual property".

Re:Transhumanism should render this moot

[Kirsha]

I'll see you in the field, Core scum.

-Arm Commander

Maybe some competition finally

[sycomonkey]

The used game market is way overvalued, margins are huge. Maybe this will make things a bit more reasonable. And the developers have nothing to complain about, reselling something you bought is very clearly defined as fair use in every copyright law ever.

Re:Maybe some competition finally

[Unordained]

First sale doctrine as an exception to copyright law

Re:Maybe some competition finally

[Pxtl]

Well, to be fair, Epic provides a lot of free support for their games after initial release. This includes additional content, server browsers, modding contests (with large prizes provided by epic) that lead to more value added to the game, etc. When a game has a large online component, you're buying more than just the game. Yes, they don't run the actual game servers - but they do provide other things.

I'm betting because of things like that more companies will be moving over to the MMO subscription model - even for non-MMO games. This would mean that selling the box would only be the first step, you'd still have to pay your subscription to access the masterserver.

Re:Maybe some competition finally

[Holi]

So the copy they originally sold is out there, does it matter to them who is playing it.

Re:Maybe some competition finally

[AuMatar]

THis is a strawman. They would still be providing the same support to the original user if he kept the game. Thus it costs them no additional money.

I'm not worried about them moving to a subscription- it won't work. People won't pay a recurring fee to play their games. MMOs make money, but they're a tiny segment of the overall gaming population. Xbox live is the closest to that idea for normal games, and only a small percentage (far less that 25%) of Xbox owners subscribe to it. Going subscription would kill their profits. Hell, not even MS has managed to make software as subscription work yet, gaming won't either.

Re:Maybe some competition finally

[EvlG]

That's not really true.

Customers play a game for a limited amount of time. Then they either put the game on the shelf (unlikely to touch it again) or they sell/give it to someone else.

Those that sell/give it to someone else keeps the support commitment for that CD key alive longer than the typical customer that stops playing the game and puts it away,

Re:Maybe some competition finally

[AuMatar]

Phone support is a tiny portion of support to begin with- most support money is spend on the game servers. On top fo that, a small portion of the rebuyers will actually make support calls. So the effect is negligible. If they have a problem with that, they should charge per call- its not my job to fix their buisness model. If they did that and cut 5 bucks off the price of the game I'd be estatic. I don't think I've ever called tech support on a game. Or known anyone who has, for that matter.

Re:Maybe some competition finally

[(A)*(B)!0_-]

Effectively yes - but when they sell the game, they don't say that they'll only give support for the average use cycle for one consumer of a game so your point is moot.

Re:Maybe some competition finally

[sycomonkey]

I just want to point out that I hate being wrong.

Re:Maybe some competition finally

[Guspaz]

Phone support. Email support. Website support. Bandwidth for master servers, patch servers, websites, forums, other servers, etc.

This adds up to a tangible amount per person. If 25% of users are playing resold copies, that IS a large extra expense that wouldn't normally be there.

Think about this; the stores pay 10% for a used game, and resell it for 90% of retail cost. They're pocketing 80% of the retail value of the game, way more than they do with a retail game. Because the stores make so much more money off these used copies, they promote selling them BEFORE retail copies. This COSTS SALES of new games. They could give game companies 10 or 20 percent and still be making WAY more than they do at retail.

Keep in mind nobody is talking about charging Billy when he sells HyperDeathMatch to Jimmy at school. This is about stores like EB reselling games for close to retail cost. Not every company is an Epic or a Valve and can afford to pay higher costs to support each game, and suffer lower sales because people are buying used rather than new. The stores are getting an unfair percentage of the profit considering THEY DID NOT MAKE THE GAME. The developers put their sweat into that game, shouldn't they get something for it?

Re:Maybe some competition finally

[KillShill]

what does "fair use" have to do with commerce and the right to sell your property?

yeah, you own the discs and other media.

i didn't know mark rein was such a corporate whore.

only a complete prick would complain about people selling their own property.

you want a cut of other people's sales?

why don't you "F*** O**", miserable piece of garbage.

"intellectual property" indeed.

Re:Maybe some competition finally

[AuMatar]

No, they shouldn't. The video game makers got their money when they sold the game. Thats it, they're done. The contractor who built my house doesn't get money when I sell it. Ford doesn't get cash when I sell my mustang. Wizards of the coast doesn't get money when I sold my old magic card collection. The publisher doesn't get money when I sell my old books to a used book store. Video games are no different. If they don't like the used game market, lower prices or sell used versions themselves.

Re:Maybe some competition finally

[Guspaz]

You've used bad examples. It doesn't cost the contractor anything when you sell your house. It does't cost Ford anything when you sell your mustang. It doesn't cost WoC anything when you sell your old cards (Indeed whoever buys them probably will buy more). It doesn't cost the publisher anything when you sell your books used.

It does cost developers something when you sell your old videogames.

Here's an analogy: Imagine if Barnes & Noble, Chapters, or tried to sell every customer a used book before they sold them a new book. They would make more money, but the lost sales to publishers would sink many of them.

Do you have a right to sell your old books? Yes. Should megastores be pushing to sell used copies to people before retail because they make more money? No.

I don't know about you, but when buying a PC game I'd rather have my money go to the developer so they can make more games than to a greedy store that won't sell their used stock at a price that is expected for used goods.

Oh sit down in your corner.

[garcia]

To have them resell the games, with developers having no participation, that's just wrong. That's just fleecing us.

You already made money on the sale the first time. Regardless of your personal feelings about the issue you have absolutely no rights to money made on subsequent sales. I'm sure your opinion would change drastically if you were charged extra, on top of the sale price, for a used car.

Granted, you probably aren't buying used cars but you get the idea.

Re:Oh sit down in your corner.

[elcid73]

How about his arguement of having extra support calls come in. Granted- they probably tell them to effectively shove it, but they probably do have to answer a few extra calls which may cut into productivity. I would guess this is a small "nit-pick" but I guess he has a (small) point

Re:Oh sit down in your corner.

[HarpyG]

The game still belongs to only one person to whom wich they owe service, I doubt the person who bought the game retail and got rid of it will call the help desk anymore. Granted the examples described in TFA (cd-key not working) wouldn't happen if it was a 1st buy, its still a legit call.

Re:Oh sit down in your corner.

[Grand]

I dont understand this argument. How would they have 'extra' phone calls? They are not going to get any phone calls from the original owner. If its a defect issue, they would get that phone call from the original owner anyway. If its a problem with the customer not understanding something about the product, they would get that phone call if the person would have bought the product new. Now I can see problems with non-console games that have product keys for activation, or registration. But im assuming BB isnt selling used PC games.

Re:Oh sit down in your corner.

[elcid73]

I agree with this (and the other statement) arguement- and it's correct. But realistically, you will get more calls. If the orginal caller has a problem getting it to install, makes a call, then has a problem with a patch or something- makes another call- then never calls again. Then multiply that times two for the next caller (or if the company tells them to get lost- at least that call on). I realize they need to support that software license... and that the orginal owner could have called in every day if he wanted to.. but the reality is that they don't. They call a few times to get up and running and for upgrades/patches/troubleshooting and such- then it's off the air. I would imagine the customer support folks are doing some evaluation/metrics on this and hire/staff appropriately based on actual calls/support needed, not the amount of licenses out there. They should you say? Well then be prepared to pay for it on the orginal purchase.

Re:Oh sit down in your corner.

[elcid73]

See above. Realistically, the original owner was not going to call anyway. How often do you call for support once you're all set up and configured? At the very least- as you call into support, in theory you are building off the support and knowledge they provided in previous calls. Then they have to start over every time with a new owner ("I thought we already gave this owner information on upgrading/installing the patch?"). You are correct- the orginal owner should be able to call as much as the service support allows. But realistically, I would imagine some metrics/data exists that reveal patterns as to how customers get support. And I'm certain they would hire support staff based on that information, not on the number of licenses out there. Wrong? Maybe- but probably cheaper in the overall price of the product.

Re:Oh sit down in your corner.

[DeadScreenSky]

Did you RTFA?

"We pay to be in Best Buy's flyers," he said. "We pay market development funds. Publishers drive gaming traffic to these stores. To have them resell the games, with developers having no participation, that's just wrong. That's just fleecing us."

Taking Epic's advertising money but then selling a similar product (the used game) that they make no profit on is ripping them off.

Re:Oh sit down in your corner.

[Anonymous Coward]

Bullshit.

Used games/music/movies comes from greedy corporate shills. Either drop development costs or die.

Dont expect me to pay more for your mistakes.

Re:Oh sit down in your corner.

[KDR_11k]

The original owner could have reinstalled the game and the calls would have been made again. Support REALLY isn't an argument, Rein is just being greedy at RIAA levels.

Re:Oh sit down in your corner.

[KDR_11k]

The same can be said for any advertised good out there. US law says that doesn't matter, when you sell it it's out of your hand.

Re:Oh sit down in your corner.

[justins]

Taking Epic's advertising money but then selling a similar product (the used game) that they make no profit on is ripping them off.

The short answer is "don't buy advertising if you aren't happy with what you are getting". And you'll know exactly what you're getting, down to a third-party-audited study of how many people typically walk past your ad in a given spot in a given store. End caps and shelf placement are a competitive market, and if Epic doesn't want to pay for them, someone else certainly will. Sucks to be them, but they ought to quit whining.

Doesn't this happen a lot anyway?

[Kazzahdrane]

What about selling used cars or selling houses? Should the original manufacturer/builder get a percentage of the sale? Of course not. Of course those License Agreements we accept might have some small print stuff in them... Over here in the UK GAME and Gamestation stores have been selling used console games for years. My understanding was that used PC Games were much more legally ambiguous/completely illegal which is why GAME doesn't sell them. However, the Gamestation in my city does which would be pretty good except their whole PC range is about 1/12 of their stock.

Re:Doesn't this happen a lot anyway?

[MORTAR_COMBAT!]

currently, copying a house or car costs about the same amount of money as building the original house or car. houses and cars are not digital media. neither are the vast majority of books currently sold.

that said, perhaps the game companies have some "business model" work to do, such as licensing vs. selling the games, implementing even more draconian copy restrictions, etc, etc. the reason that booksellers generally aren't getting "fleeced" by used book sales is because there isn't vast book piracy going on at this time. there is vast video game piracy going on, everyone knows it, everyone even acknowledges it.

Re:Doesn't this happen a lot anyway?

[radish]

The main problem with reselling PC games is that many of them use CD keys which register with some server and cause the subsequent purchaser all sorts of problems. That in turn causes the store problems, so they stop carrying them (the sales are pretty low compared to consoles anyway). There's no legal issue, provided it's a genuine copy (and you've uninstalled it) you're fully entitled to resell it.

Re:Doesn't this happen a lot anyway?

[Anonymous Coward]

I bought a used car once and I bought a few used games, I can assure you it not the same thing at all. An old car needs a lot of repairs compared to a new one and has quite a few downsides to it. Being a digital product, the used game is -from my point of view- exactly the same as a new one. Someone reselling a car will have to make it look good (some clean up and/or repairs involved), to resell an old game, you just put an empty case on the rack. No wonder retailers are looking at it.
Now if you ask me, this is just pointing out the fact that retail is not really the way to go and that online distribution makes more sense. And with fewer parties involved, we might see the price of games go down.
Or so I hope.

Re:Doesn't this happen a lot anyway?

[way2trivial]

talk to an architecht sometime, whose home design has been 'reused' without his permission.. they get kinda pissed off...

Oh, how horrible

[kawika]

'To have them resell the games, with developers having no participation, that's just wrong. That's just fleecing us.'"

Yes, the only fleecing that should be done is first-generation fleecing, where the game developers and distributors get a good chunk of the money before the buyer realizes the game is boring and unplayable.

So why would someone be selling a game? Perhaps because it is no longer interesting to them? Maybe because it became boring to play after a few weeks? Whose fault is that? If the buyer can't even resell the thing without some sort of permission from the game company it sounds like there is less incentive for them to make a "keeper".

Re:Oh, how horrible

[daVinci1980]

If you don't know how the game industry works, shut your goran mouth.

A developer develops the game. A publisher funds the development of that game. The publisher contracts a manufacturer to make the disks, box and materials for a game (the box costs for a PC title are generally $1-2 per box, for a console game they are generally $10-15 per box). The publisher then sells boxes of a game to a distributor, at ~$38 per box. The distributor marks the title up 15%, and resells it to BB, CompUSA or some other store. They mark it up another 15%, and sell it to you.

On titles that are risky, the publisher will have to promise "sell-through" or "buy-back" for a title to ensure that the retailer won't be left twisting in the wind. For example, EA might promise that 80% of boxes purchased will be sold through to consumers, or else it will buy back the boxes up the promised sell through.

In general, any money that a developer gets per box is royalties, and amounts to a few dollars or cents per box. The publisher takes the lion's share of the money, but then (theoretically) they take the lion's share of the risk as well.

The reason that developers are against reselling used titles is not because they lose a few dollars per box. The issue is that the publisher loses money per box, which can cause future titles from that developer to look less attractive when they are vying for the scarce development dollars available from the publishers.

Generally, what a hit game gets developers is street cred with publishers, and a much longer leash for future development.

Re:Oh, how horrible

[Anonymous Custard]

"(the box costs for a PC title are generally $1-2 per box, for a console game they are generally $10-15 per box)"

I don't believe console packaging costs $10-$15 per box. DVD packaging is basically the same, and new DVDs cost as little as $15-20.

Where'd you get those numbers from?

Re:Oh, how horrible

[daVinci1980]

There's more to box costs than a simple bill of materials. It's definitely true that the cost of DVD production is not significantly different from CD costs. (In fact, in games with multiple CDs, it's generally cheaper to ship DVDs rather than CDs).

The box costs for console development also include the licensing fee charged by the console manufacturer. Specifically, Microsoft, Sony and/or Nintendo. They charge a license fee that amounts to a hefty royalty fee per box. That's how they get away with selling the hardware at a loss to you, they make it up on the backend from developers/publishers. That's actually where the bulk of their money comes from. For every copy of a game sold on their platform, they get ~$10-15 (depending on which console you're selling on, and how many copies the console manufacturer expects you to sell).

I got the numbers during my tenure at EA.

Re:Oh, how horrible

[Anonymous Custard]

Oh, I read that more literally, as in "the packaging (paper and plastic) for a console game costs $10-$15"; not taking into account the console makers royalties.

Is selling a used car wrong too?

[prezkennedy.org]

Sure, developers aren't making any money the second time around, but neither is a car maker when a used car is sold.

Mark Rein has a point about reselling Microsoft Office and how the MS legal department would attack voraciously, while reselling Halo is just fine.

Personally, I like finding older games I missed the first time around. The used game market simply isn't the same market as the new game market, and developers just need to get over it.

Re:Is selling a used car wrong too?

[duffbeer703]

Buying used cars is unethical as well. How are autoworkers expected to feed their families if you're out there buying cars that were manufactured years ago?

I propose a levy for every car sale, so that the rightful creators of automobiles get their just reward.

Re:Is selling a used car wrong too?

[PoderOmega]

First off I feel that reselling games 100% applies to the first sale doctrine. Having said that want to address the comments comparing this to used cars. A car will experience "wear". Assuming the game media stays is good shape the game will have contast quality. For example it will not crash more often and the visuals will not degrade over time like a used car will break down more often and the paint will fade. (Used care propents please insert your personal stories of having the greatest used car ever and your specific model is better than a new car below. Also please post comments about your 3DFX Glide and DOS games not working in WinXP below.)

Re:Is selling a used car wrong too?

[Anonymous Coward]

I propose a levy for every car sale

Here is California we already pay sales tax on used vehicles. Every time a used vehicle is sold, the DMV charges sales tax, so on my car I pay sales tax when I buy it new. In 4 years I sell it, the new buyer again pays sales tax. Then if they sell it again, yet another person gets to pay sales tax again.

Re:Is selling a used car wrong too?

[Detritus]

Some countries have policies designed to force older cars off the road and encourage the purchase of new cars. They can increase taxes on older cars and require stringent "safety" inspections.

Re:Is selling a used car wrong too?

[duffbeer703]

I'm not talking about sales tax, I'm talking about a levy to benefit workers affected by people not buying new cars.

I know a guy who works for Ford... he's only working 12 hours of overtime a week. He deserves better compensation.

Everytime some scumbag buys a 2000 Explorer, 5% of the purchase price should be given to Ford so they can pay their workers fair royalties for the work that they do.

Re:Is selling a used car wrong too?

[Fat Cow]

Good idea, but I don't think you go far enough. After all, the nuts, bolts, tires, glass, bauxite etc that went into the car were probably made by a supplier to the auto company - surely they're entitled to their cut from subsequent sales as well? ;)

Re:Is selling a used car wrong too?

[KDR_11k]

Some car dealerships take new cars, transfer ownership of the car to some employee, drive around the block and transfer it back to the store. The reason for this is to circumvent pricing contracts. The car is still as good as new but they can sell it for a lower price. So there's your "used car" that's pretty much the same as a new one.

Re:Is selling a used car wrong too?

[Jacius]

I hope you are being sarcastic. If not (or for the benefit of those who thought you were being sincere) . . .

Why should autoworkers (or the auto company) be paid for doing no work?

They worked to build the new car. They are paid for their work on the new car. The new car is sold so the company can pay the workers for building the new car.

With a used car, the used car salesman paid to buy the used car from the first customer. He paid for the land on which he stores the used car until a second customer can be found. He (if he is an honest used car salesman, and not a crook) worked to inspect the car and make sure it is in acceptable condition, or paid somebody else to perform that work. If there is a second customer, the salesman is paid to compensate for his work and investment.

Exactly what work did the autoworkers (or the auto company) perform in the process of buying, storing, inspecting, and selling a used car? They have already been paid for their work building the car when it was new.

Do you think the lemonade-powder company should make a percentage of every sale from every child's street-side lemonade stand? Of course not — the lemonade-powder company has already been paid for the work they did in providing the lemonade powder. They have no right to dictate, or make a profit from, any further work done by other individuals or companies.

What you are proposing, when you suggest that autoworkers be compensated for performing no work, is Communism. And, if you haven't heard the news, Communism will never be viable, because it rewards the lazy and punishes the productive.

If any of you are confused, and think that it is moral to give money to people who have not done any work to earn that money, I suggest you read some of the works of Ayn Rand. Atlas Shrugged , in particular, shows what would happen if we lived by your creed. And I'll give you a hint: it isn't pretty.

Re:Is selling a used car wrong too?

[justins]

Sure, developers aren't making any money the second time around, but neither is a car maker when a used car is sold.

Actually, the manufacturer has some ways of making money off a used car. Service and parts.

Here, we begin to see what the problem with Mark Rein's business model is. It's a small problem, really: the people supporting his software (the publisher supports it, not his company, his whining not withstanding) might have to support it for each person who buys the software, which in some universe could be construed as unfair to the publisher (or in Mark Rein's bizarro world, unfair to his company). The average person wouldn't consider this unfair, since a call into support generally means that the developer fucked something up, but still.

There is a simple solution. For any given serial number, the first person who registers the software gets 30 days of support for the thing, at which point additional support must be purchased. Boom, you're extracting revenue from those evil people who bought your game used, just like an auto manufacturer extracts some revenue from those older cars on the road.

I thought that's how a lot of publishers operated anyhow, so it's really hard to see how Rein's bitching is legitimate.

Re:Is selling a used car wrong too?

[Glonoinha]

Just so you know - sarcasm doesn't do well on Slashdot.
You are going to have to spell it out, or give it up - because you have managed to convince someone in the past that you make credible contributions and now they are going to believe what you say (or at least believe that you believe it.)

Re:Is selling a used car wrong too?

[xero314]

Allow me to provide a somewhat exreem example (which is only fair since you brought up Ayn Rand) that illustrates what can go wrong with alowing resale of non-depriciating products such as digital media (yes they are monetarily depriciated do too demand, not due to actual usability).

Lets take for example a video game (which is after all the topic of discussion) that requires 2 years and 40 employees (and this does not include people such as building maintance and janitorial services that are need by the employees) to produce, (this number includes developer, and publisher) which works out to be about 160,000 man hours (give or take, just accept it for the example, you might get the point). That same game retails new for $60, of which the publisher/developer make a fair share of say $30 (which is probably high). Lets say NO other gamer is willing to pay the full price for the game, knowing that after the 10-20 hours of game play the person get out of it the will sell it back to be resold at a lower price. Now we will say that the reseller only makes $2 a sale on the resale of used games (we ALL know it's way higher than that). In the end a million people play the game but only one new copy is ever purchased. The developer/publisher has now made exactly 30 dollars (or approximately .02 cents per hour) which is not nearly enough to feed all the people involved in the project. The reseller on the other hand has made 2,000,000 dollars (approximately 24 dollars per hour if each restock and sale takes 5 minutes total).

Yes it is an extreem case and probably will not happen, but it clearly illustrates what the problem is. I susspect that because of this problem ALL games will either be licensed in a way that does not allow resale (as car manufactures/dealers are starting to do with leases) or they will all require an on going service fee (such as is done with online games, which happen to be ones that are not resold as much). I don't know about you but I personally don't what to pay 5 cents per minute to play a video game, but it will happen. Already modern computer software hase End User Licenses that state very clearly that your are licensed to use the product but do not actually own it.

Your example of lemonade is absolutly useless and does not apply. Lemonade can only be used once, so the price is based on a single use. Cars can be used for an extended period of time but do depriciate in quality and have an effective life span. Digital media, binary data, has no limit to it's usefullnes, this has been prove through the use of emulation, so even long after the hardware and the physical media is gone the digital media has value.

As for the obvious anti-communist stance I would like to see if you can find me an example of a non-Stalinistic Communism that has be attempted let alone one that failed. I can show you at least a few examples of successful socialized societies. But hey if you like living a world where the rich (You want to talk about people getting paid to do nothing) get richer and the poor (those this country can not do with out, like ditch diggers and sanitation workers, whom I am sure bust their ass more than you do) get poorer, then so be it. If only you know how badly you are shit on, unless you happen to be in the top 5% of wealth holders. There are 300 million people in the US (which may not be where you are from and I appologize for the assumption) do you have 1/300 millionth of the wealth, I seriously doubt it.

Re:Is selling a used car wrong too?

[llefler]

Actually, the manufacturer has some ways of making money off a used car. Service and parts.

Possibly, but not necessarily. Do you take your car to the dealership for service after the warranty expires? Even then, the manufacturer isn't getting money because you chose their dealership. The simply get dealerships with more resources for supporting their warranties.

And again, unless you are going to a dealership you probably are not buying parts from the manufacturer. You're buying from the OE supplier.

Re:Is selling a used car wrong too?

[justins]

Well, yes. We can take analogies a bit too far. :)

Possibly, but not necessarily. Do you take your car to the dealership for service after the warranty expires?

Depends on a lot of factors. I tend not to, but a lot of people do.

Even then, the manufacturer isn't getting money because you chose their dealership. The simply get dealerships with more resources for supporting their warranties.

Actually, it's a bit more complicated than that, though I think you've got it right. There's the bizarre price-fixing relationship between the dealership and the manufacturer. Anyone who takes their car into a dealership for a non-warranty repair is paying a premium above the cost of the repair which would ordinarily be covered by the manufacturer in a warranty repair, as you know. Suffice it to say, the manufacturer is very happy if you choose to take your car in for dealer maintenance. The jist of what you're saying is absolutely right: the manufacturer likes this because it keeps their dealerships healthy. This in turn keeps them healthy.

I'm not necessarily endorsing the dealer/manufacturer relationship. It's got its own problems, but at least in that case the manufacturer realizes that its product will be resold, and offers services accordingly. When compared to software companies they're so much more evolved as far as addressing customer's needs is concerned, it's not even funny. Part of that is because they've been around a long time, part is that everyone in our society takes the business very seriously. If auto manufacturers or their dealers try to get away with too much, society lashes back.

(Interesting to consider whether society will ever lash back against software makers. You could sort of consider the anti-trust case against Microsoft in that light, but I don't think that is correct. The vast majority of people couldn't care less, and I think a poll of the public would reveal that very few people both understood the issues of the anti-trust case and supported the government in its action. Very different than lemon-laws, safety or emissions standards, or some of the other stuff which has confronted auto manufacturers.)

And again, unless you are going to a dealership you probably are not buying parts from the manufacturer. You're buying from the OE supplier.

Who will generally have their own relationship with the auto manufacturer. Getting true aftermarket parts where the auto manufacturer or their loyal henchmen did not get any kind of cut is awfully difficult. My understanding is that everyone concerned kind of plays ball and lets the money trickle down, and when they don't, there tend to be legal consequences. You might know an awful lot more about the business than I do, but I've read about random (foreign?) aftermarket parts manufacturers being sued out of existence, and I always assumed this was why. As if in principle they weren't doing anything different than "performance" aftermarket parts manufacturers, but they were grabbing for a slice of the pie that wasn't theirs.

Mark Rein's call for some kind of recompense from Best Buy isn't totally off the wall, but the way he's going about it amounts to public whining. He's either going to have to switch to something like Steam, or make cooperation worthwhile for a retailer like Best Buy, or live with the status quo of retailers having their way with him. I tend to think it's going to end up being something like Steam: he just doesn't have much leverage at this point. After setting up an online alternative maybe he will.

(using "he" in the above paragraph is probably giving him way too much credit, since we are probably talking about the publisher)

Re:Is selling a used car wrong too?

[llefler]

Who will generally have their own relationship with the auto manufacturer. Getting true aftermarket parts where the auto manufacturer or their loyal henchmen did not get any kind of cut is awfully difficult. My understanding is that everyone concerned kind of plays ball and lets the money trickle down, and when they don't, there tend to be legal consequences.

Nice conspiracy theory. I'll give it 4 stars. It would be 5, but you didn't have any links to nefarious activities by auto makers.

You might know an awful lot more about the business than I do,

Actually, I do. Here's how it works in the real world; a part manufacturer has two markets; OE and aftermarket. Suppliers want to sell to the big auto makers because a, it means they can produce large quantities, thereby using volume efficiencies to reduce their costs. And b, there is an advantage to having customers walk into your friendly NAPA jobber and hear "these parts are from the supplier who made the original parts on your car." A large percentage of people will put Goodyear tires on their car if that's what was on it when they bought it.

The auto manufacturer does NOT get a cut of aftermarket sales. I doubt they even care about them. What they do care about is their purchase price and vendor performance. They require deeper discounts due to volume and they have very specific delivery schedules and packaging requirements.

It's much easier to cut costs up front to increase your profit margin than it is to try and maintain a bunch of back room deals.

Re:Is selling a used car wrong too?

[justins]

It would be 5, but you didn't have any links to nefarious activities by auto makers.

I take it all back, auto makers would never do anything nefarious.

You've never read about the various "counterfeit parts" cases? I don't pretend to understand all the issues, but the "fraud" asserted in a lot of those cases seems to be nothing more than "they tried to enter a market we happily control."

It's much easier to cut costs up front to increase your profit margin than it is to try and maintain a bunch of back room deals.

Odd that you would imply there is some kind of dichotomy there, when a successful company like Toyota works really hard at both.

Re:Is selling a used car wrong too?

[Jacius]

You weren't kidding, your example is extreme. Downright ludicrous, in fact.

If 1 million people played a game for 10 to 20 hours before reselling it, even ignoring the time it takes to find the next customer, it would take 10 to 20 million hours (or 1140 to 2280 years) for all of them to play it.

If our game is on a standard compact disc, the original disc will long since have degraded (even if all 1 million customers were very careful, and got no scratches, and didn't accidently break it).

Even if we assume, for the sake of argument, that the CD is periodically copied to a new CD, so that it remains readable, it is highly unlikely that we will be using CDs even 10 years from now, let alone 1000.

Even if the original console and a television set to play it on, and an electric generator and circuit to power the console and television were all preserved and sold along with the CD (and I hope you won't try to claim that consoles, televisions, generators, and wires do not deprecate), do you think anyone in the year 3505 A.D. would give a rat's ass about a game from 2005? I don't even care about games from 1995!

I find your example to be preposterous, and will propose one slightly more consistent with reality:

A game developer spends 160,000 man-hours to make a game. They sell rights to the game to a publisher for, say, $7 million (this comes out to an average of $43.75 per man-hour for the game developer; the president of the company will of course be paid more than an intern will, because this is a capitalist economy). The publisher makes 250,000 units, at $5 per unit (including disc, box and manual). These units are sold to retail outlets across the U.S. for $40 per unit (a profit of $8.75 million for the sale, and a net profit of $1.75 million for the publisher). The retail outlets sell each unit for $50 per unit, a profit of $2.5 million for the retailer.

80% of the units, or 200,000 units, end up stuffed in the closet or thrown out after the first owner gets done with it. A few months later, the remaining 50,000 units have been sold to a used games retailer at $10 per unit (a loss of $30 for the first customer, or a cost of $2-3 per hour of fun he had). The used games retailer sells it again for $25 (the manuals are all ratty and the disc has some small scratches on it by now), making $15 per unit in the process.

A few months later, 10,000 units have been sold back to the used games retailer at $5 a pop, and sold to a third customer for $20 (the used games retailer has now made $30 per game over a period of 4-6 months). A few months later, 2,000 units are sold back for $3 a piece; 1,500 of them sit on the shelf for 4 months before being thrown out, because the sequel has come out and no one wants to buy them anymore.

(By the way, the sequel makes another $50 per man-hour for the game developer, a net profit of $3 million for the publisher, etc. etc. before the third game in the series comes out 2 years later, repeat ad nauseum.)

I'm sure my figures are a little bit off from the reality, but certainly more accurate than your example.

Your example of lemonade is absolutly useless and does not apply.

Well, you seem to be the expert on absolutely useless examples, so I'll have to take your word for it. For some reason, I thought that a can of lemonade powder (which costs $2 and lasts 3 days of normal use before it is empty, or $0.67 per day of use), could be compared to an automobile (which costs perhaps $15,000 and lasts 10 years of normal use, or $4 per day of use). For some reason, the idea got into my head that selling a used car was similar to selling a half-empty can of lemonade powder.

Thanks for setting me straight.

As for the obvious anti-communist stance I would like to see if you can find me an example of a non-Stalinistic Communism that has be attempted let alone one that failed. I can show you at least a few examples of successful socialized societies.

Are you

Re:Is selling a used car wrong too?

[llefler]

You've never read about the various "counterfeit parts" cases?

Counterfeit parts and non-OEM sanctioned parts are two different things. For instance, if you made a bunch of head lights and labeled them 'Genuine GM', you would be quite likely get sued. OTOH, if you made them to spec and marketed them as Justins' Miracle Headlights, they would have no reason to. Assuming there were no patent issues.

The company I work for has done extensive R&D on ABS systems. Currently they are doing an educational program so that dealers and jobbers can recognize parts that are being passed off as ours. Not only have we invested a ton of $$$ developing the systems, but sub-standard parts with our name on it could harm our reputation. If we catch someone using our patents and brand should we prosecute? Absolutely. Would our OEM customers? That would depend on whether they were at risk. For instance, label something Genuine GM, and GM will be unhappy. But if it had our brand, their concern would only be related to their dealer network. (assuming GM used our ABS, I don't believe they do)

I'm not sure how we got here though, other than a bad analogy....

Re:Is selling a used car wrong too?

[xero314]

You are a disgusting waste of life. It is people like you that allow me to continue to beleive there is no such thing as a benevolent higher power. My only hope is that someday you end up destitute due to no act of your own, and that you may walk even a mile in the shoes of the hard working humans that you obviouslly shit upon day in and day out. Your so called "brain" is obviouslly getting very little use if you can continue to spew such rediculous claims that you are some how more imporant than anyone else. I only wonder if you wipe your own ass or if you pay someone an illegally low amount to do your dirty work for you.

Continue to rape your fellow man, by taking what they worked so hard for, and not returning even a thank you if you must, but please let me be there the day you have to come crying to someone "with two legs and two arms" to pull your ass out of the fire.

Heck you are probably one of those people that think it's right to download and share music, movies and other digital media.

Re:Is selling a used car wrong too?

[aeoo]

LOL. Of course the profits from this, if it were done, would NEVER go to the autoworkers. They'd be split between the CxOs, VPs, and the shareholders. F*ck the workers, but yea...when and if the levy like that is lobbied for, surely the "poor workers" would be used as an excuse for the change in policy.

It's kinda like RIAA and MPAA saying "poor artists", when really it's someone else who wants to get the money, and artists have been forever and ever ripped off.

Re:Is selling a used car wrong too?

[Jacius]

I apologize for wasting your time and my own with my last reply. It should have been obvious to me from reading your first post that you were not interested in rational debate or the pursuit of truth, but only in dragging other people down to your level. In the future, on the small chance that I should choose to reply to one of your posts, I will try to speak a language you are more comfortable with, namely childish insults and accusatory non sequiturs.

Good day to you, sir.

Re:Is selling a used car wrong too?

[xero314]

You may not believe it but only one other time was I pushed to the need for name calling (that was when some one was trying to say that parents are not responsible for thier children and the government should be). I love opposing points of view, but there are a few things I just don't put up with. The idea that a person is somehow more important that any other or have some skill others could not achive disgusts me. I feel people like you are only out for themselves (I know this because I have been there) and don't care one bit for the rest of humanity. And it gets even worse when your attituted actually makes me want to lose faith in humanity. I knew I would get a flamebait rating, for that previous post (and maybe for this one) but seriously you make me want to vomit. Hopefully next time you will remember my screen name and ignore the thread so I can spend a little time talking with intelligent, compasionate human beings.

Re:Is selling a used car wrong too?

[YomikoReadman]

From reading this thread, it appears to me that you're looking less for conversation with 'intelligent, compassionate human beings'[1] and more for individuals who are in agreement with you that you should be able to ride the back of those who, through their own intelligence, perseverance and hard work, were able to establish themselves in society, and acheive a level of comfort and happiness, which I might remind you, is one of the basic human liberties accorded the residents of the US.

So, in the future, I'd like to beseech you to avoid going to baseless insults when someone presents an arguement that you can find no intelligent reply to.

[1] In light of the fact that I have dedicated myself to the defense of my country, her ideals, and ensuring that my fellow countrymen and women can pursue a life in accordance with those ideals, I find myself in a position where I am able to make this statement.

Re:Is selling a used car wrong too?

[xero314]

I don't mind an opposing point of view, which I think stated pretty clearly and have had long coversations with people who disagree with me. On the topic used product sales I love opposing points of view, even if I disagree. I would really like it if someone could show me that buying used does not hurt the original creator/artist, because I too would like to benifit from the lower costs of used products. And just so you don't appear as a hypocrit, I will make it perfectly clear that I only buy used products when there is no other way of getting the product. I also go out of my way to purchase directly from an artist when ever possible (which I know hurts distributors and I'm willing to discuss that as well). I have even taken to sending money directly to an artist, if I can find them, when I do purchase used products.

The only reason I stooped to "baseless insults" (though I do find a fair amount of base for those particular insults) was do to comments that are simply "I'm better then you are" comments addressed towards people that chose to work with their hands rather than their heads. This does not personally attack me, being a software engineer, but I think that it is important that those that do hard physical labor are appriciated by atleast a few of us that do not.

To put it simply, just because someone picks up what I throw away does not make them any less a person than myself, and anyone that thinks otherwise is a vile and disgusting waste of life, regardless of what they think about the purchasing of used products.

Re:Is selling a used car wrong too?

[a8o]

A used car costs more to maintain presumably. Parts will still be needed periodically.

Are they selling used PC games? Or just console?

[JimTheta]

"Are they going to sell used copies of Microsoft Office and if not why not?," asked Rein. "Why is that Microsoft (Research) has no objections to you reselling a copy of 'Halo,' but if you try it with Office, they'll come down on you like a ton on bricks?"

That is one of the coolest things I've ever heard. And not really novel; why haven't I heard or thought of this argument before?

Though I'm not sure if it applies to this case. Is Best Buy selling used PC games also? The article is not clear.

Options galore

[yotto]

Great! Now I can choose between pay $10 off the price of a new game for a scratched CD, ripped or missing manual, and no box from EBGames, OR paying $10 off the price of a new game for a scratched CD, ripped or missing manual, and no box from Best Buy!

Re:Options galore

[captaincucumber]

Fortunately, Best Buy will pressure you into buying the 'extended guarantee' (or some such) for your used game for only $15 so that you can bring it back for replacement if the CD is scratched too badly or important pages are missing from the manual. This of course ads up to more than the game would cost new, but isn't peace of mind worth it?

----
theTshirtClub.com - You've got problems, we've got t-shirts

No used game sales?

[chman]

That's just fleecing us
And annual rehashes of pre-existing content at full retail price isn't fleecing the consumers? Oh dear. I suppose you'd rather we consider ourselves as not taking ownership of the CD/DVD when we buy it from the store? Would you rather we saw your game not as an item we purchase, but as an experience that one can indulge in for a nominal fee just like those found on darkened street corners? After all, once we're finished with your underwhelming offerings, we would be stuck with something we can't get rid of.

Re:No used game sales?

[antifoidulus]

You are telling me there is no aftermarket for herpes?! Man, I REALLY got fleeced!

Secondary Markets make the Market Stronger

[Jhyrryl]

'To have them resell the games, with developers having no participation, that's just wrong. That's just fleecing us.' When products start getting resold, it forces product makers to be more efficient and to make a better product. This lets better product makers who can do those things rise to the top of the heap, which is good for consumers as well as those product makers. And if game developers don't like that, they should get into making persistent world games and start fleecing the customers a little more by charging monthly subscriptions. ;)

Re:Best Buy should not be doing this.

[Vodak]

Note: I stopped buying used video games when I was a teenager. I want to support the developer of a good title with my hard earned money for creating a title I want.

Support the Developers!

I won't buy a used game anyway...

[ajservo]

I know from experience at Gamestop, whenever I buy a used game, despite them having oodles of cases around, they'll never give you one. Even if that's the last one they have in stock, all I ever get is the DVD. I insisted on getting full cases when I bought DDR, seeing as how I was paying $5 under full retail on a no longer made product.

Seriously. This isn't like the NES or SNES days. Who trades in games with JUST a disc?
What happened to the case? Where did it go? There should at least be that. The PS2/Xbox cases should be the most generic freakin cases in the world.

I'll take a beat up case, that's fine, but I'm not paying $5 under retail just because you have a disc. That's what chipped systems are for. Anyone can do that, and go play reburnable ISO's all day long as they get scratched. If I'm buying THE actual game, I expect a case at the very least. New cases are 50 cents a piece (or cheaper in bulk) for chrissake.

Re:I won't buy a used game anyway...

[exick]

Just so you know, the Best Buy near where I live is one of the ones selling (and buying) used games and they aren't just current generation used games. I've bought several NES, SNES, DC, and PS games as well as seen Genesis, Gameboy, GBA, Saturn, and Atari games on the shelves. The cartridge games almost always come without the box or manual. The disc games always have at least a case (sometimes even the original huge PS cases) and usually have the manual with it. The current generation used games they sell are usually in their original packaging with manual intact.

Re:I won't buy a used game anyway...

[KillShill]

here's something you may not know.

gamestop/EB/generic gamestores sell used games as new.

they use shrinkwrap machines to package up used/returned games as new.

it's better not to shop those stores and buy it online, like amazon (even though amazon is evil they're big enough not to screw with their customers).

Re:I won't buy a used game anyway...

[BenjyD]

I've seen this in Game stores in the UK as well - I've bought GBA games which turned out to have saved game data on them already. Very underhand - these days I just go to Gamestation and buy games that I now are second hand.

Re:I won't buy a used game anyway...

[Prophet of Nixon]

I've seen Gamestop re-shrinkwrap the old display games (the copies of a new release that they put up on the wall without cds, the cds are in sleeves at the counter) after they come off display, but I've yet to see them re-shrinkwrap an actual used game. The shrinkwrap they use is nothing like the real stuff, and pretty easy to spot though.

Re:Best Buy should not be doing this.

[karnal]

Hell yea!

Developers developers developers developers developers....

Developers developers developers developers developers developers developers developers developers developers!!!

YEEAAAAAARRRGGGGHHHHHH!!!

(little bit of Howard Dean thrown in there for flavor...)

Re:Are they selling used PC games? Or just console

[OneFix at Work]

Of course the reason for this is that for a number of PC Games, you don't NEED the CD/DVD to play the game (or can be cracked with software) and most require a serial number of some sort that is checked against blacklisted serials, players currently playing online (in the case of online games), and in the case of MMORPGs used to activate the users account...so you would end up with a lot of users installing the game only to find that their serial had been blacklisted, the former owner was still playing it, or finding that to reenable their account they had to pay a huge fee that had been racked up by the previous owner.

For this to happen with a console someone has to mod their machine and make a working copy of the game...which is probably seen as being more trouble than not buying the game in the first place and simply downloading it.

It's pretty much the same reason that you can rent console games at blockbuster, but not PC Games.

Counter-arguments

[alphaseven]

The New York Times ran an article about Amazon selling used books (Reading Beteween the Lines) arguing True, consumers probably save a few dollars while authors and publishers may lose some sales from a used book market. Yet the evidence suggests that the costs to publishers are not large, and also suggests that the overall gains from such secondhand markets outweigh any losses.

This is the paper cited, it's about used books but I wonder if the same arguments could be applied to used video games.

Death of the Game Store

[Saeed al-Sahaf]

Of course Mark Rein's comments are self-serving greed. But the importnat thing is that when the Big Boxes start selling used games, small local game stores are dead (if they arnt already).

Re:Death of the Game Store

[Pendersempai]

So what? If, as revealed by consumers' own choices, the big stores can better serve consumers than the small stores, why do the small stores deserve to stay in business?

Re:Death of the Game Store

[Saeed al-Sahaf]

To support the economy and local employment? If you're fine with a world where there are no small employers or retail businesses, where each town has 3 or 4 huge Big Boxes run buy huge faceless corporations like Wal-Mart (paying Wal-Mart wages), good for you. But most people have other ideas about quality of life and such.

Re:Death of the Game Store

[Pendersempai]

"To support the economy and local employment"

I don't think this holds up to actual economic analysis.

The Big Boxes will hire locally -- you don't think they fly in cashiers from Bangladesh, do you? -- and the economy is supported by having cheaper goods. With elastic demand curves, cheaper widgets mean people buy more widgets which boosts the economy. With inelastic demand curves, cheaper widgets means a decreased cost of living in the area, which is roughly equivalent to giving everyone in town a raise. They can then spend their excess cash elsewhere or invest it, which also boosts the economy.

The only contention left is that Big Boxes won't be willing to pay as much as a smaller shop. But why is this the case? A worker will work wherever the compensation is highest. If the Big Boxes are paying him less than his market value, someone else can open up shop, offer to pay more, and steal him away. The Big Box would lose in that case. Since that isn't happening, I don't think Big Boxes under-compensate their workers.

Same analysis goes for working conditions. Poor working conditions are economically equivalent to lower wages.

Perhaps you feel that Big Boxes aren't as aesthetically appealing as mom and pop shops, or that they detract from the bourgeois feel of a town. I suppose that's fair, but it's a very different argument.

Re:Death of the Game Store

[justins]

If they can't compete, let them die. I'm a little less sympathetic than I would be to the shops and small stores displaced by a Wal-Mart arriving in a small town or something. Those little game shops tend to be dirty, stupid little places where people who don't know about ebay and amazon.com get ripped off by losers who do.

OH MY GOD, SAVE THEM! THINK OF THE CHILDREN!

Re:Death of the Game Store

[Saeed al-Sahaf]

No, I object to Big Boxes paying people shit wages...

Re:Death of the Game Store

[Pendersempai]

maybe if they were worth more, the Big Boxes would pay them more. Apparently you either didn't read or didn't understand my post.

Re:Death of the Game Store

[Zhe Mappel]

maybe if they were worth more, the Big Boxes would pay them more.

Heh. That outburst sounds like it's straight out of A Christmas Carol. Guess which character?

Depressing wages, destroying local business, weaseling tax incentives out of local government, and then funneling political contributions to the Bush GOP machine, boxes like Wal-Mart and Best Buy represent capitalism at its most deranged.

If Americans want to reverse the decline of their quality of life, they will wean themselves from these corporate pigsties.
And they had best hurry. As our middle class jobs are exported, the boxes are already our largest employers. Not a very bright future for the nation in that.

mmm hmmm

[NanoGator]

"including Epic's Mark Rein, who resurrects his 'no used game sales' argument, saying 'To have them resell the games, with developers having no participation, that's just wrong. That's just fleecing us.'"

Uh huh. I can play this game, too: "By preventing the sale of used games and forcing customers to only be able to buy new games, Epic is fleecing everybody."

I'm growing concerned that a business with the expressed purpose of entertaining people is fussing over entitlements they think they have. It's bad enough that the RIAA and MPAA do it. "Those people with boom boxes are costing us money because other people who haven't paid for the music can ear it."

Online game purchases

[Dachannien]

The CNN article alludes to an interesting question.

A substantial rise in used game sales may lead to the expansion of digital distribution - in other words, downloading games rather than buying a disc.

At first glance, one would think that solves the problem. But even if we buy software online, downloading it rather than receiving physical media, aren't we still allowed to make a backup copy of that software onto removable media? Why wouldn't the first sale doctrine apply to software paid for, downloaded, and then moved to a CD, as long as the seller doesn't keep a copy of the software for himself?

Re:Online game purchases

[KillShill]

the difference is very simple.

they will use technical means to prevent your lawful rights.

do you have 50k and several years of time to go before the courts and argue for your rights?

that's the dirty secret of 'DIGITAL DISTRIBUTION".

it is complete and utter control of what you buy, including but not limited to the right to sell your property (STEAM), monitoring and logging everything you do (STEAM) and being able to cut you off from your purchase on a whim (STEAM again).

for the slight convenience of not having to go to the store or having to buy it from mail order, you are giving away the control of your computer and software to the publisher/developer.

i'll first stop playing games before ever letting myself be ruled by them.

Re:Online game purchases

[marlinj]

If you download the game as a first purchase, why bother to put it on a CD to resell it as used? Just sell the "used" software in its original form.

No fleecing here

[Jtheletter]

It's the doctrine of first sale. Once you sold it, it's out of your hands. Does that mean you have to like it? No. But there's nothing that says you should get another slice of the pie.

Ok, having said that, I can see hwo this is potentially a huge blow to the already struggling games industry, at least as far as smaller develoeprs go. Right now there seems to be this boom or bust tendency with games, and if you don't hit one out of the park on the first try there's little chance of getting another shot. In addition huge development and advertising costs can be hard to recoup for smaller companies, and having such a major outlet as BestBuy resell used games makes it even harder for them to make those all-important first-sales.

As a consumer this also worries me, given the used games policy of GamesStop and EB (before it was bought out) we can probably expect BestBuy to buy abysmally low and sell insultingly high. I'm sorry, but when I know a business is making outrageous margins of upwards of 80% (I did RTFA but my personal experience has been that their margins are much better than the 40% quoted) on these used games it sickens me. Basically the consumer is getting shorted on both ends. Will BestBuy reverse this and actually keep used games margins more reasonable? Probably not. Although even a $5 difference in price between them and GameStop would be a blwo to GS's used game income, and I don't doubt BB has the clout and Money to start a price war, however I do doubt that they could overcome the greed of the high margins to truly start one.

In summary to a lot of rambling, I think this could possibly be slightly good for the used games consumer, bad for the games industry, but totally inline with supply/demand economics and doctrines of first sale. I want the games publishers to do well, but if their only recourse is to legislate against reselling of used games (or reselling w/o a cut to them) I have to draw the line, once I own it I can do what I liek with it, including getting ripped off reselling it to BestBuy.

Re:No fleecing here

[Kiashien]

This shouldn't hurt small game makers. It only really hurts large game makers.

This sounds silly, but large game makers get hurt because they make madden 99, 00, 01, 02, 03, 04, and 05. So then their "fanbase" buys 05. And sells 04. So someone who's a year behind and doesn't actually care, buys 04, and skips 05, because they can save 10-20 bucks. Beyond that, the margins are different. EA sells say, an 8 billion dollar profit game that cost them oh, 500 mil to make.. Little company #4 sells a 2 million dollar profit game, that cost them, say, half a mil. Let's say, just for example's sake, that 30% is lost to used games. The profit loss on the larger company is much, much larger- besides the fact that since there are more copies, it is much more likely that the people that buy used games will actually find a copy of the damnable things.

Just some thoughts. Give or take them.

Re:No fleecing here

[ShawnDoc]

That's a good question. Which company is the best one for selling/buying used games? If EB/Game Stop are no good, who is more reasonable?

Re:No fleecing here

[Surt]

The struggling games industry?

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?story Id=4172753

I'm sure they cry themselves to sleep on their mattresses made of money every night.

Re:No fleecing here

[Jtheletter]

That's a good question. Which company is the best one for selling/buying used games? If EB/Game Stop are no good, who is more reasonable?

I admit that in recent years I buy less games than I used to, mostly having to do with graduating from college and starting a fulltime career in those years. However, before they were bought out by GameStop a few years ago there was a chain called Funcoland in the New England states (not sure if they existed outside of this region). Funcoland was much more in-tune with the supply/demand of used games and systems and actually altered prices weekly (or was it monthly?) to take this into account. They also offered better buyback prices than either GS or EB at the time and usually sold for about $5 to $10 cheaper than those two chains depending on demand for the used item.

I never found another store that was as reasonable, although I don't doubt there are likely other independent stores out there that are, but certainly haven't found another chain store.

So, I guess I have no answer for you, although I wish I or someone else did, as there seems to be no wide-scale competitor who consistently prices used games more reasonably than GameStop.

Re:No fleecing here

[j-joshers]

I worked at a game store and was amazed by the margins made on used games... and it has gotten worse, way worse over the years. When I started (in 1999) used versions of recent titles would be $5-$10 cheaper than the new and we would give about 60-70% of the value. For example, new game X comes out at $50, we give $30-$35 for it, and charge $40. When the new price dipped to $40, the used price would go to $30-$35. By the time I left, new game X would come out at $50, we would give $17 (or, with the very big games, no more than $25), and sell it at $44.99. And the used game prices would be only 10% less... so when that game dipped to $40, the used would be $37, and when it dropped to $20, the used game would be $18. And the value of the trade-in was dropping even more severely - $10 for a $40 game, $7 for a $30, and $3-$5 for a $20. That is to say nothing of the quality of the disc - when I started we didnt even take incomplete or too-scratched games, when I left it was whatever. And then we started giving out cash for games, albeit with a 20% hit in value. EB and GameStop have twisted the used game market into garbage, we need some quality competition in there. I used to trade in my games all the time, now Id rather just give them away to my friends.

Okay Idea, Bad Execution

[robbway]

The used games are higher than EB or Gamestop. They don't have the pulse on the market and sell used titles higher than the competition sells them new. They also don't make any attempt at sorting the titles, except by system. This could work if they tweaked it a lot!

No.

[vertinox]

"Are they going to sell used copies of Microsoft Office and if not why not?,"

I already tried. The reason they gave me was they couldn't resell a CD-R with just a printout of astalavista.box.sk

Stop with the flawed car analogies!!

[meanfriend]

Can you make a copy of a car, download a 'car crack', then sell the car while still retaining the full use of said car? No? Then stop comparing this with selling a used car. A slightly closer analogy would be buying Harry Potter, then scanning / photocopying it before reselling it. And even that's a poor comparison because it takes a lot of effort to scan a huge novel and the resulting copy is less convienent to use than the original.

That said, I dont think publishers should have any say in what happens to a copy of a brand new game that somone bought. Nor do they deserve any of the revenue generated by the resale. But if they think that profits are being seriously impacted by second hand sales, that's just going to make them move all the quicker to Steam type DRM. Where 'one custumer = one sale' and transferring ownership is nigh impossible.

It's not that far off. Look how gamers have eaten up HL2 and Steam in droves and are begging for more.

Re:Stop with the flawed car analogies!!

[radish]

Can you make a copy of a car, download a 'car crack', then sell the car while still retaining the full use of said car? No? Then stop comparing this with selling a used car. A slightly closer analogy would be buying Harry Potter, then scanning / photocopying it before reselling it. And even that's a poor comparison because it takes a lot of effort to scan a huge novel and the resulting copy is less convienent to use than the original.
Ok, lets look at something which is even easier to copy than games - music CDs. Do you think that used CD stores (like, I dunno, Amazon) should donate money to EMI? Or DVDs. Or whatever. First sale is an exceptionally important concept which really defines what it means to own something. If we lose that we're really screwed.

Re:Stop with the flawed car analogies!!

[Anonymous Coward]

OK, so the used car analogy is bad. How about music CDs. So I can't sell my old music CDs without the music companies getting a new cut? I "could" have ripped the CDs to MP3s and continued to enjoy them just like you suggested. Or maybe, just maybe my musical tastes changed, and I'd like to trade in music from bands I used to like for groups I like now?

Sorry but I "bought" the CD/Game/product (I paid "sales tax" on it, didn't I?) and so if I want to resell it, that's my right. Now don't go expanding the argument to other things we pay sales tax on that we probably shouldn't, just stick to CD/DVD based media.

Re:Stop with the flawed car analogies!!

[justins]

Then stop comparing this with selling a used car. A slightly closer analogy would be buying Harry Potter, then scanning / photocopying it before reselling it.

And a better analogy still would be buying Harry Potter, reading Harry Potter, and then selling Harry Potter. Which is perfectly legal, oddly enough.

I buy used, but not for practically-new price!

[Anonymous Coward]

I buy used (usually for quite old titles) but I do it from ebay, not from a store that wants to charge me just SLIGHTLY less than full price for a product that is possibly missing parts, dinged up, and they've already GOTTEN full price for once already.

Buying used from an individual is just like you having split the cost of buying the game with them in the first place. (Assuming that you pay less than what they paid to buy it new.)

Aren't we a little late...

[five40kix]

Geez...what about eBay, GameStop, EB-Games, etc....

My 2 cents and 2 points:

          1) I think this would give Gamestop/EB-Games mergers a little more competition
          2) Who the heck shops at Best-Buy anyway? (WAY OVER PRICED)

Question of longevity

[joystickgenie]

Well perhaps adding more availability to used games will expand the developer's outlook on creating games. Perhaps now there will be a little less value on opening week sales of a title and more on the long term sales of a title.

Developers will just have to start making games that people will want to keep for more then a few weeks. Something they would like to play more then once yah know. How about something you can't beet in 3 hours. Increase the quality and longevity of games and people will want to hold on to them.

I know I still have a lot of old games, because I'll go back and play them every now and then. The only games I trade in are the games that I didn't think were worth the original price I paid for them. Lots of games I already wait to buy used just because I know they aren't worth the opening price.

Of course I guess this could have the opposite effect too, more games put out with low budgets, fad inspired content, and flashy advertising just meant to grab the opening week sales and run laughing that they bought a bad game.

"Hey by the time they figure out the game sucks, we already have their money" -actual quote from someone I know in the industry

Supply and demand

[spamfiltre]

Don't worry so much.

Best Buy, and then other big-box stores, will start selling used games, giving this retail sector a much larger market penetration than it has previously received.

Smaller game companies will move to Steam-like online registration systems that won't recognize a second user for the same serial number, and eventually the second-hand market will dry up, because games will be tied to online accounts.

Privacy will disappear, but the game developers will keep their hands on all of the royalties.

Re:Supply and demand

[KillShill]

and people with more than a single working brain cell won't buy into the STEAM-like DRM / Insidious Computing systems.

there's much more to life than allowing greedy assholes to propser at customers' expense.

they don't want customers to have any control whatsoever over their purchases.

which is fine by me. i won't be making any more purchases from sobs like mark rein and company. and if all of them go STEAM, they can kiss my dull fleshy ass.

Re:Supply and demand

[spamfiltre]

Actually, that was sarcasm. You must have strong feelings about DRM, though, to bother wasting karma on a response to a post that's basically dead.

Who buys games from Best Buy?

[Anonymous Coward]

Seriously, who? They have a crappy selection, horrible sorting, and take another half a week then retail game stores (like EB) to even get them. I don't like to give Gamestop my business either, not after I was told that I would need to pre-pay for a game to be assured that it would even be there.

Unpopular Opinion

[clu76]

I know my opinion might strike many of you as unpopular, but I think retailers should be restricted from selling used games for 60 days after the release date of a title.

I also believe being able to buy used games is very important, as it enables consumers to buy legacy games that are out of print. But it is vital that developers make a profit, so that they are able to develop more games in the future.

Re:Unpopular Opinion

[dootbran]

Not a bad idea but I would just suggest that developers try to make games that hold a players attention for more than 60 days...

Re:Unpopular Opinion

[holySherm]

what if I get a game that I decide just plain sucks and want to return it the next day? Normally, stores won't take back an opened game but some will and give store credit, others will trade it in as a used game. I just see it as another option to move money around more in the gaming industry. I sell a game that I get tired of after a month for $20 or something and typically my guess would be that the money from that would then go back into buying more games (probably from a different developer) especially since gamestop and others offer more cash if you accept store credit instead of cash. My guess is that used games could potentially help the industry rather than hurting it especially with the way it is implemented currently with many stores giving credit to buy more games.

Missing the Point

[Anonymous Coward]

His main argument, and it is a vaild one, is that they continue to provide support for the game after release. That means if you buy it second hand they still provide support for it. Support costs money.

Re:Missing the Point

[Pofy]

>His main argument, and it is a vaild one, is that they continue to provide
>support for the game after release. That means if you buy it second hand
>they still provide support for it. Support costs money.

So? If they feel it cost them too much, they can stop. If my toaster maker suddenly started to have support for it after sold, would that mean I could no longer resell it?

Two things about your ramble

[solomonrex]

First: the 'struggling games industry' is surpassing Hollywood as we speak. If it's 'struggling' then exactly what adjective would you apply to people in the Gulf Coast, or other countries?

Second: Used games are priced competitively. Don't whine about the prices here, because they can't raise the prices higher than retail and you don't have to sell them any old games. So those are two things that keep prices reasonable. And there are currently 4 different mass market offerings competing for used game prices: Blockbuster, Gamestop, EB and Mediaplay, never mind the local place, the online version of these stores (which are not always consistent), Amazon and Ebay.

In honesty, I only buy used. As long as the disc isn't scratched (they almost never are and return policies are generally excellent) it's the same exact product.

Re:Two things about your ramble

[Bloomy]

The US game industry's revenues have been beating the US domestic box office, which is not all of Hollywood. While some of that money goes to the theaters and not Hollywood, the box office doesn't pull in as much as the DVD market (which also includes TV shows, but that's mostly Hollywood, too, right?). Plus, Hollywood gets money when the movie is shown on PPV, pay cable, basic cable and broadcast TV. The game industry probably isn't pulling in half of Hollywood's revenue. But it usually makes for an attention grabbing headline whenever the notion is tossed out there that the game industry's revenue is bigger than less than half of the movie industry's revenue.

Also, there's revenues vs. profits. I'm sure there's creative bookkeeping going on in the game industry just like everywhere else, but trying to counter a statement about the health of an industry just by judging revenues isn't a strong argument. Sure, EA's making money, but Microsoft's Xbox division apparently isn't, and we can also look at the parent's reference to smaller developers, which is how he clarified his use of "struggling".

Used games aren't priced competitively because the market has been pretty much a duopoly. Used games at EB sell at 90% of the new price. So, if someone gets 50% of the price for a game as new (and how often does that happen), the retailer is trying to get an 80% markup on the used game. If Best Buy gives more and/or charges less for used games, then we'll see some competition.

The name the developer game

[hackwrench]

I can't think of any developers I want to support. Care to mention the ones you like and for what achievements they should be supported for?
Note: John Carmack, Doom III will not cut it.
John Carmack, He did 1, 2, and 3 in Doom III is better. Also consider http://sourceforge.net/search/?type_of_search=soft &words=engine

Re:The name the developer game

[dsyu]

I can't think of any developers I want to support. Care to mention the ones you like and for what achievements they should be supported for?

Double Fine would be one. Tim Schafer's latest game company. From the man that brough you Grim Fandango and Day of the Tentacle, among others.

The Behemoth would be another one. An indy-game developer trying to make it in an increasingly competitive market. Alien Hominid rocks.

Note that both websites have shops where you can buy directly from the developer so that distributors and publishers don't get their cut. These are just two companies out of many I'd support (and have).

Note that you can order stuff directly from both com

You've got to be kidding me

[Anonymous Coward]

"'To have them resell the games, with developers having no participation, that's just wrong. That's just fleecing us.'"

You've got to be kidding me. Is this guy for real? I cannot fathom the level of sheer stupidity it would take to be able to say such a thing and mean it. This is a joke, right? Is October 1st the new April 1st?

I think I know the real source of his whining.

[solomonrex]

The games industry lost a lot of money from used PC games being sold, when they were simply copied and kept and shared among friends. But that's why consoles are popular, and that's why copy protection exists.

But the idea that software makers exert any kind of control over used marketplaces is ridiculous. Best Buy doesn't sell used appliances because they actually age. But my Warcraft disc will pretty much be the same 5 years from now. Same with the DVDs and CDs. Publishers have to understand that this is the nature of their business. If you make computer games you are exposed in ways that console games aren't. You basically need new versions of Windows to be incompatible with your old games, or people won't buy new copies. Or you stick with consoles. But there is a thriving used marketplace for a reason. Videogames have huge margins for profits - they are good investments for a reason.

The simple solution is to mark new games down to $20 - undercutting used games (or at least the large profit from used games) and live with reduced profits. Ha. I can't wait to see that.

Resale Value is Part of the Overall Value

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't know about you, but when I buy a new game at full price, I consider the fact that I can resell that game and recoup some of the initial expense a major factor in justifying my purchase. In short, that resale value is an important part of the overall value of the product. Therefore, if it were suddenly illegal for me to resell my used videogames, I would no longer be willing to pay as much for my brand-new games. Don't you see? The developer and publisher are already benefiting from the resale potential before it's even happened, so they shouldn't complain.

Re: What's going to happen is...

[TelevisioSledgicus]

Developers in the PC arena are going to shift over more and more to the ESD model (Steam, Direct2Drive, etc.) and cut the brick & mortars out of the profit loop entirely.

Nextgen consoles are all about the network connectivity. This generation may not have enough local storage, but I bet developers will begin pushing for large local storage for Nextgen+1 systems, so they can move to the ESD distribution there as well.

Publishers will probably have to opt for some sort of contractual negotiations with the brick and mortars forbidding used sales by policy in order to maintain a profit, and to get the rights from developers to produce box copies of software to sell through this channel.

Or it could go the other way.

Will they hound you to buy a warrantee?

[Colonel Blimp]

Hate Best Buy, their little robotic salesmen won't ever STFU about warrentees, I don't want one mate! That being said, used, hell yes!

Right of first sale, beotches!

[cpu_fusion]

The right of first sale is a pretty important consideration wrt personal property.

I don't know what gives software developers the idea that they are somehow special because they have this unenforceable thing called an EULA.

If you buy a book and there's a EULA inside the cover that says you can't sell it to anyone after you read it, or your car has that printed on the dash, or you girlfriend has it tatooed on her stomach ...

Re:Right of first sale, beotches!

[cpu_fusion]

From wikipedia...

"US copyright case law supports that consumers cannot make copies of computer programs contrary to a license, but may resell what they own. This however is conflicting with both section 117 and 109, and the case law itself is conflicting depending on which circuit the case was heard in."

Looks like Lawyer food! mmm

Re:Right of first sale, beotches!

[tomplunket]

Y'know, though, the thing Mark's on about (which isn't clear from the above) is that these stores are aggregators who are *actively* ripping off developers.

"I'd like a copy of Madden 2005, please."

Store clerk notices that there's a used copy available, so hands you that.

You're not even asked anymore, because the clerks are trained to give out used in preference to new. Trained not even to ask!

Using cars as an analogy is pretty weak, simply because buying a new car gives you real advantages over buying a used one. Warranty, for one. The fact that it's new and yours to drive without oil for another.

I don't think that game developers have any problem with people reselling their games. I think they have a problem with the people they want to distribute and sell their product actually preferring to sell a used version of that product.

Imagine if you went to the movie theatre and they offered to sell you a copy for less than the ticket price, but you just had to take the disc home to watch it? ...and you could sell back that disc after you were done with it, if you wanted.

I totally understand why independent game developers don't like resales of their games. As games get more and more expensive to make, I'm guessing the resale industry (as opposed to people selling on ebay or among acquaintances) is going to hasten the move to some DRM as a solution and that is something I surely don't want. Yes, I've been burned by many game purchases that sucked. Yes, I wish game developers could give us more content that was interesting and didn't make me "finish" it at any time, but the fact is, for the games *I* want to play, I want a compelling and interesting story that actually comes to an end. Best Buy, EB, and Gamestop selling as many used copies as new of a particular title means that it's that much less likely for a followup to that title.

Developer's best bet

[xenocide2]

Nintendo is probably the first of the large vocal companies who figured out how to deal with rentals and used games. For a long time, they were very upset with the american practice of game rentals. Apparently in their home country of Japan rentals and resale are illegal (without permission, presumably). A very nice priviledge, but it certainly draws much ire from the consumers who discover that they're being denied a second-hand market. Nintendo of Japan's wrath was such that they sued Blockbuster, denouncing the practice as unhealthy to the game market (technically, their legal recourse was only reguarding copying of instruction manuals). They've since made up and become good friends, much in the same way that movie companies now tolerate rental stores because they comprise a heavy section of demand for their product. A couple companies have even released rental only versions of their software! I can't recall whether Nintendo themselves has engaged in the practice, although I do recall a Clayfighters game getting such treatment.

Nintendo has come to the realization that the best strategy against the second hand market was to make games that people want to keep. Most single player games outlast any interest the owner has in the game. Eventually, you've collected all the shines, beaten the final boss and found all the secret endings. Nintendo tries to add multiplayer to every game, whether it makes sense (Metriod Prime) or not (Pikmin 2). The other tactic they've taken is their Player's Choice games. Once demand falls off for a game, lower the price to 20 dollars. This pretty much destroys the used game market margins for the games in the list. For all I know, Best Buy could be trying to get their suppliers (Nintendo, Sony, Microsoft) to extract more cheap titles by threatening to sell used games. The test run would then be a method of verifying their estimated profits on the endevor. The used game market becomes a form of blackmail whenever wholesale channels can't meet asking price.

So basically, Nintendo's strategy is to trot out Miyamato to talk about innovation and quality, while quietly fighting the second hand market with every available resource. Whether they succeed on either front is an individual opinion.

Re:Developer's best bet

[holySherm]

"Nintendo tries to add multiplayer to every game, whether it makes sense (Metriod Prime) or not (Pikmin 2)." When did prime have multiplayer? And when has nintendo been known for their multiplayer? Aside from mario party, super smash and mario kart, most of their games have been single player. In addition to that, they have scrapped online multiplayer from pretty much every game they have ever made and they are just now recovering and mending their ways with the DS and revolution. I'd just say that they try to add multiplayer into their games just as much as microsoft (halo) and sony (...) ok well msft. ha.

Re:Developer's best bet

[Zangief]

I think that your player's choice point is on the mark, but the rest it is not. Also, Nintendo doesn't put every title into player's choice after some months. Only first party titles and some third party titles make it into player's choice.

And Sony and Microsoft also have their own equivalent programs (platinum titles for the playstation, and I don't know what for the Xbox). And some games in player's choice aren't so cheap either, the main offender is the great game Super Smash Brothers Melee, which has been at $30 dollars as a player's choice game, when most of the games are $20 or $25.

In fact, Nintendo even promoted rental. Starfox Assault was released for blockbuster rental a week or so before it arrived to retail. This move backfired, because a lot of people rented it, and didn't liked the game (as it is not a very good game), and never buyed it. I don't know what NOA was thinking when they did this.

Re:Developer's best bet

[Captain Chaos]

Actually you do know the Xbox program as that is the one called Platinum Hits, Sony calls their program Greatest Hits. I believe I heard something about Super Smash Brothers Melee finally dropping in price though I don't notice any change yet, but price is one area Nintendo's Players Choice games could really use improvement. With Xbox and PS2 games I know any of the titles in the program I can pick up for $20 or even less during a sale, but not so with Nintendo's titles as different titles get different prices.

I agree with the parent about Nintendo's previous stance on the rental market as I remember those days, but since then they have embraced it as the handful of rental only N64 games and Starfox Assault's early release to rental demonstrated, even if that last plan failed. I wasn't planning on renting it, but I couldn't even find copies early at the rental stores here that were out early. I ended up seeing it in retail stores first, but that is probably the rental chains fault as the one shipped the wrong movie out with the UPC for Steamboy and still hasn't shipped the local store their copies of Steamboy even though it has been 2 months.

    I've got to disagree with the parent though about Nintendo embracing multiplayer as I feel they really dropped the ball on that. They've got their work cut out for them now catching up to Microsoft and Sony on the multiplayer side of things. I didn't think Live would do as well as it has since it required an extra fee, but it has done quite well and was probably helped quite a bit by the built in networking. When Sony first released their network adapter it was rather hard to find in the stores around me and the fact that it wasn't just built in from the start I'm sure has hurt.

Re:Developer's best bet

[Captain Chaos]

Maybe the parent meant to say Metroid Prime 2: Echoes? I know it's been a long time since I picked up my copy of MP and I never did play through the whole game yet, but I sure don't remember multiplayer in it either.

Re:Developer's best bet

[antifoidulus]

Apparently in their home country of Japan rentals and resale are illegal (without permission, presumably).
Nope, wrong on both counts. Even in the little town I stayed in(which had the highest prostitute to resident ratio of any place in the world I think, but I digress) there was a place where you could actually rent cds and a really awesome used/new video game store. You could buy used games on any system imaginable, they even had a (suprisingly) large collection of famicom games and a HUGE collection of Dreamcast games(almost bought a dreamcast just to try a few of them out). You could get used hentai PC games if that is what you really wanted.........

Re:Developer's best bet

[Anonymous Coward]

You really need to look at this issue with more background than 3-4 years.

Nintendo started doing their Player's Choice line back in the NES days. It was about 1993 or 1994, right when the redsigned NES launched, that Nintendo rereleased...both Legend of Zeldas, the original Metroid, and a handful of other games. I regret not buying the toploader when it was out, but I did have the foresight to pick up most of the games.

A couple years later, Nintendo did a similar thing with the SuperNES. I know for a fact that Mario Kart and Super Star Wars got reissued. Those games had the red system font replaced with gold and either a larger seal of approval or a gold ribbon along with "Only for Nintendo" somewhere on the box.

GameBoy got the same treatment, albeit on a much smaller scale. There were probably a handful of N64s, too, however I had bought most of those at launch and didn't have to pay much attention. Seriously, search around on Yahoo and you'll find a very long list that predates either Sony or Microsoft's efforts.

As an aside to today's history lesson, "Player's Choice" initially referred to Nintendo's relatively successful experiment of putting multiple NES titles into the same arcade cabinet. If we haven't figured it out yet...Nintendo is careful, not stupid.

Re:Developer's best bet

[kisrael]

It's kind of a tangent, but...I think "local" multiplayer is almost a whole 'nother animal than online.

For what little I've dabbled with it I find online irritating, full of highly skilled jerks and also cheaters and I can't always tell one from the other.

"Couch" gaming is my favorite, keeping it social, knowing who you're gaming against. It's like a making love in a committed relationship vs. anonymous sex in a restroom.

Re:Developer's best bet

[kisrael]

Well, the N64 was the first system to have 4 controller ports built in, and generally had a lot more 4 player support than the PSX and its multitap...besides Mario Party, Mario Kart and Smash Bros (which were tremendous triumphs of multiplayer gaming) there was Mario Tennis and Golf, a mode in Star Fox 64, Diddy Kong Racing, F-Zero X, and a bunch of third party support for it, like BattleTanx, many racers, weird stuff like Buck Bumble, etc. 'Til DC and later Xbox, Nintendo was pretty much the only "couch" gaming option in town.

Re:Developer's best bet

[tepples]

And when has nintendo been known for their multiplayer?

Goldeneye. (Period.)

Bah! The consumer has rights too!

[Aim Here]

I suppose this whinging money-crazed fucktard is the first to go whinging about copyright law when some warez kid sticks his games up on a Bittorrent site. Well guess what, dude, copyright law works both ways. It gives the developers some rights, and it gives the consumers some rights. In the case of USIAN consumers, 17 USC 109 grants anyone the statutory right to alienate themselves of any physical copy of a copyrighted work, by giving it away, reselling it, selling it on Ebay or whatever. That's the law, and it's there precisely in order to stop money-crazed fucktards like Mark Rein from demanding that people pay two or three or four times for a product that is only being used once. So THERE. It's our hard-won fought-for legal right, fucktard. Deal with it.

Sigh. And I actually thought Epic were quite cool, too...

Re:Bah! The consumer has rights too!

[space_jake]

I think Epic is mostly fighting this because they try not to be all lockdown with their copy protection and after their games have been out of a reasonable period of time they don't even force you to put the disk in the drive. Granted UT2004 has a cd-key for online play but thats about it. I respect that I don't have to provide a CD, uninstall Nero, a thumb-print, and provide a stool sample to play the damn game. Unfortunately if you resell a game like this 200 users could be running the same game for little to no profit to those that made the thing. I can front the extra $10 to buy the new version and do without getting back $1.50 for the game I paid $55 for. Honestly are you guys actually fighting for Best Buy this time around?

Re:Bah! The consumer has rights too!

[Aim Here]

You do realise the consequences of letting Epic win this one, don't you? No more second hand bookstores. No more second hand record stores. No more giving your used games, or books, or records/CDs or any used device with software in it onto a third party. Say you have an Ipod. If 17 USC 109 (or your local equivalent) goes, then, at Apple's whim, you could be committing a breach of the license for giving it away or reselling it (and therefore the software inside it). That's a scary world that I don't want to live in, and even if it means that Epic goes out of business and there's no more Epic software to kick around anymore, it's a price well worth paying. Of course, Epic won't go out of business anyways, so it's moot.

As for the 200 people pirating UT2k4, well it's pretty easy to pirate it now anyways, the hard part being the CD key check. If people are still using their CD key after they sell the game on to Best Buy, I'm sure BB will be more than happy to point the Unreal people in the direction of the seller (or go after them themselves). There will likely be a bunch of people pirating UT no matter what, the massive loss to the consumer here outweighs any small benefits to the game companies that might ensue...

Irrational

[Gamelore]

How about Irrational Games? If anyone does, they deserve your money.

This article should make you an Irrational fan for life: http://pc.ign.com/articles/586/586914p1.html.

One thing you often find with publisher funded sequels is the desire to grow the market share of the game. This usually takes the form of a marketing-driven attempt to make the game more "broadly appealing" or more "mass-market". Given the size and dedication of our fanbase, we knew that the last thing we wanted to do was a make a follow up to Freedom Force that tried to expand the market to casual gamers. To do so would have meant alienating our core fan base, something we refused to do. Freedom Force is always going to be a PC game for people who love strategy, RPG and heroes. It's not going to be for everybody.

Though, all of their games are "keepers" and are typically priced less, so they don't have to worry about much of a second-hand market anyway.

Steam=Hot Air

[Thedalek]

It's not that far off. Look how gamers have eaten up HL2 and Steam in droves and are begging for more.

Look at how gamers are downloading HL2 ISOs in droves and patching it to be Steam-free faster than you can say "Draconian DRM."

One-customer=One-sale is a marketing myth. It's not going to happen. Large crowds of people might accept it for one product, but larger crowds will find ways to circumvent any copy protection system. The more difficult it is to be a customer, the easier it is to be a pirate.

Piracy happens for one reason only: It's easier than buying. A lot of times, this is true even if you have the money. HL2 is an ideal case in point. The pirated versions actually work better than the original, and will continue to do so 20 or so years down the line when Valve no longer supports the product.

Re:Steam=Hot Air

[cyxxon]

Hm, I don't know, but I honestly have to say that Half-Life 2 is about the only game ever about which I can say that all my friends (with the exception of non-gamers and Linux freaks without a Cedega subscription) bought. Really bought, via Steam or retail, as opposed to downloading? No one donwloaded the cracked version, even though many of them download every other game released on this planet "because". From my personal experience (this is not universal truth, remember) I would just say the Steam experiment worked out quite well.

Well compete then

[bluGill]

I'm cheap. I admit that flat out. I have no interest in pay $40+ for a game, any game no matter how good. I have no interest in paying $20 for a junk game.

Go ahead, charge what you want for the popular games when they come out. Lower the prices when sales drop off. I'm in no hurry, I'd rather have a new game (on a disk that isn't scratched), than a used one, but not at your prices. If I knew the game was going to come down I'd wait, and you would at least get something from me.

Now maybe you don't want my money. Fine with me, I'll buy books instead, a paperback is a lot less than a game anyway. (Though in fact I'd pay more for books than games, but I'm weird that way)

When there is no option to get your products at a price I'm willing to pay, don't be surprised when I don't buy. This is basic economics, as price goes up, demand goes down. Apply the rules as you wish.

Well, allow me to say...

[Jakeypants]

I'd happily purchase new copies of games if they were still available. I'd love to walk into a store and get Bioforge or Realms of the Haunting or Earthbound or Twinsen's Odyssey, but I'm not going to find them. Nor are they typically available new online.

The reason I buy used is because I tend to play older games and they're not available otherwise. This isn't my fault, and if it's not published anymore, it's the publisher's fault. If you've stopped producing a game, why should I have to give you any money?

I Dissent. Ever see a used copy of Gamboy Tetris?

[LordZardoz]

While I am a game programmer, I think that the opinion that banning the sale of used games is foolhardy. Of course it will likey cost the game publishers, and in turn the developers, a non trivial amount of money. The game industry has a vested intrest in preventing this.

However, the sale of used games most directly impacts 2nd and 3rd tier titles. Or at least, it the effect is much reduced for first tier titles.

If a game is worth keeping, it will likely be held onto. Many gamers like to reply games that they liked. But of a game turns out to be a less then perfect play experience, why hold onto it?

Good games that are sold as used are not going to sit on a shelf in a store very long, but mediocre games will sit for quite some time, be sold back soon, and will have a large effect on the total raw sales of a game.

Its pretty much impossible to buy a used copy of Tetris for exactly this reason.

END COMMUNICATION

Does this philosophy hold for other things?

[fmaxwell]

Note: I stopped buying used video games when I was a teenager.

Oh, you're so virtuous! It's making us all damp.

I want to support the developer of a good title with my hard earned money for creating a title I want.

Support the Developers!

Does that philosophy extend to other things in your life? Do you also believe that no one should be selling used cars? Should we be supporting the people who work so hard to design and build cars by only buying new ones? When someone wants a new car, should they be forced (by the market) to either scrap their old car or store it, unused, for years and years?

Should we also buy and sell only new paintings and sculptures, boats, houses, and computers so that we support artists, boat designers, architects, and computer hardware engineers? Should the only option for disposing of older books be paper recycling bins?

Or is there something unique to software engineers that justifies us being held in such a lofty position relative to all other creators of art and intellectual property?

Re:Does this philosophy hold for other things?

[soconnor99]

If you want more of a good thing, give money to the people behind the good thing. Simple. I want more good games, so I pay the game maker, not the game seller. No used games for me. I'm a software developer, I support my peeps. I would hope they'd do the same for me.

Re:Does this philosophy hold for other things?

[fmaxwell]

If you want more of a good thing, give money to the people behind the good thing. Simple. I want more good games, so I pay the game maker, not the game seller. No used games for me.

You didn't answer the questions. Do you want more good cars, good books, good houses, good art, etc.? If so, do you also feel that it is morally wrong to buy used cars, books, houses, paintings, sculpture, etc.?

Is there something unique to software engineers that justifies us being held in such a lofty position relative to all other creators of art and intellectual property?

Re:Does this philosophy hold for other things?

[tepples]

Is there something unique to software engineers that justifies us being held in such a lofty position relative to all other creators of art and intellectual property?

Yes. The technology used to perceive a computer program involves making an ephemeral copy of a substantial portion of the work into a volatile memory.

Re:Does this philosophy hold for other things?

[fmaxwell]

Yes. The technology used to perceive a computer program involves making an ephemeral copy of a substantial portion of the work into a volatile memory.

That argument is a complete non-sequitor. It's like saying "painters deserve more respect and income than software engineers because painting involves the use of brushes." Or "used DVDs should not be sold because DVD decryption takes place in RAM."

One does not need technology to "perceive a computer program." For example, I am aware of the game City of Heroes. I saw it on store shelves and saw print ads for it. It did not need to be loaded into volatile memory for me to become aware of it.

Re:I Dissent. Ever see a used copy of Gamboy Tetri

[Anonymous Coward]

"Its pretty much impossible to buy a used copy of Tetris for exactly this reason."

Oh really?

Have your cake and eat it too!

[llevity]

1. Make a crappy game knowing all retailers refuse refunds on opened software. 2. Eliminate used game market, so consumers can't even sell at a loss a crappy game, thus sucker #2 has to buy it new, giving you the profit. 3. ??? 4. Profit!

This is just like what Google's going through...

[Errandboy of Doom]

Game developers and authors, all at once? It's like it was coordinated!

Compare these quotes:

"To have them resell the games, with developers having no participation, that's just wrong. That's just fleecing us." -TFA

"...Authors and publishers [complain] that amazon.com offers books for sale at different prices: list price, new books at lower prices, and used books. Authors, literary agents, and publishers are quoted as saying they think they are being deprived of royalties and they want their share!"
-BoingBoing

Total Annhiliation?

[Fen14]

Was there fan-fic done beyond the game and expansion? Nobody even remembered it for story as I recall. Pretty and fun, though.

Re:Total Annhiliation?

[Chmcginn]

It's not like the story was fleshed out, or even all that original, but I enjoyed it more than most video game backstories. And I enjoyed the game more than most video games. If only TA:Kingdoms had lived up to the expectations...

To answer your question, yes, but (at least the two I saw) were terrible. Probably worse writing than Terminator 3.

And by Google I meant Amazon. Doh! (EOM)

[Errandboy of Doom]

At least I got the body right.

Ok, really, EOM.

I'm confused.....

[rueger]

Let me understand this.... Best Buy, like pretty much every big retailer, refuses to allow returns or refunds on software. Usually they lay out that old canard about it being "because of copyright laws".

Now though they'll happily sell used game software.

Am I missing somthing?

It's beyond that

[Fen14]

I thought about the issues of automation before I pondered transhumanism. When you are a self-sufficient machine, the whole idea becomes moot. It's like arguing about horse rights for the military--completely moot.

By the way, I do know of transhumanism--and the movement is only going to grow. It's international, atheistic, and going to explode!

Re:It's beyond that

[Anonymous Coward]

atheistic

Transhumans become their own gods.

I don't know whose side to pick

[billcopc]

Epic does raise a curious point, unfortunately it's too little too late. Let's say I've been living in a bucket for a few years and I want to play me some Warcraft III. I go to the store, War3 is $50, but they have a used copy for only $25. I grab the used one and spend the rest on hookers and booze. I don't mind because I got the same product, unlike cars and appliances, used software is exactly as functional as brand-new software. To the distributor, they didn't make money when I bought the game, and even though I'm enjoying it just as much as if I'd paid full price, they feel cheated.

Car dealers don't give a damn, that car's gonna die someday and another will be sold. Software doesn't die of old age and high mileage. That's what the distributors have a hard time coping with. Theoretically, you could buy one copy of War3, play it through, then sell it a week later. Lather, rinse, repeat, and in a year the same product would be enjoyed by 52 people, but the company would see only one sale.

Tough.

Re:I don't know whose side to pick

[billcopc]

Might I add that just about every small video game shop has been peddling used games and hardware since the dawn of time. Methinks Epic are just hoping to wring some cash out of it, and now that the retail behemoth has jumped onto the used market, they have a big cash cow to milk. Think about it, suing every little Microplay or EB Games would be cumbersome and bring a bad rep to the company. Suing Best Buy, if you score, you make a shitload of money, and you get less flak for picking on the big guy.

It's FUD

[rsilvergun]

It's perfectly legal to sell your retail copy of office, and no Microsoft isn't going to sue you. It's grey area whether you can sell OEM (the license agreement may or may not prevent that). OTOH, there are lots of small businesses that can't sell Microsoft Products because Microsoft's legal team bullied them after catching them selling a few pirate copies.

Yes, ford, gmc,

[way2trivial]

and toyota never make a dime off of auto parts....

Might I suggest instead

[way2trivial]

skip the game, and double your budget for hookers and booze?

Re:Might I suggest instead

[billcopc]

But what do I do during the hangover/refractory period ? I need my RPG!

I used to manage for Best Buy

[CTD]

Until just earlier this summer.

This is a slick move that I didn't know was coming, it's the right move to make as BBY looks to penetrate the growing gaming market, and you can bet that more things like this will happen in that chain.

Fact: People buy used games. The smaller retail chains based on gaming earn most of their profit from the lure/sale of used merchandise. Need a second controller? Why not get it used? Want to try a game that you know is not great, but may hold your interest for a week? Why not get it used? Used sales happen. There is a market for them.

Fact: BBY is a publically traded company with a bottom line need to protect and grow shareholder value. So they are going to make moves that allow them to gain 40% more margin on product sales. That's good profits and good for the bottom line.

Fact: BBY is currently in a program that is targeting customers and adapting the stores to fit their needs. Doubt me? Do a bit of google on Best Buy and the Demon Customers that made headlines last year. The company is focusing on customers, meeting their needs, getting their loyalty, keeping their sales. Gamers spend money. Crazy video card upgrades, consoles, and games, games, games. Moving to a used games model makes sense. Sell the game, buy it back cheaper than you sold it, then sell it again for profit. Wash, rinse, repeat. It makes sense in the capitalistic world.

Fact: Traditional boxed sale publishers can gnash their teeth all they want, but they will not boycott Best Buy or another major retailer that has hundreds of outlets to push the 'new' boxes out in.

Bottom Line: It's good for pofits, will draw in more repeat customers who will buy used, new, and whatever else they see on the way through the store as they shop, and you have a winning prospect.

The largest hurdle I see here is getting the stores on a program that is adequate for showcasing the used games available, and getting the manuals and cases together when a purchase is intended.

It works easy at GameStop for them to keep the manuals, etc. at the counter, there are two of them tops in any given GameStop. At Best Buy you have a bank of registers so there is some convenience factor to work out... beyond that it is gravy.

Expect this to roll out, not to every Best Buy, but to a good number of them.

Re:I Dissent. Ever see a used copy of Gamboy Tetri

[Gothic_Walrus]

Its pretty much impossible to buy a used copy of Tetris for exactly this reason.

Actually...no, it's not. I don't know how long it's been since I've gone into an EB or GameStop and haven't been able to find a copy of the original Tetris for sale.

Admittedly, I live in an area with a lot of game stores and an (at times) oversaturated market. Still, it's definitely out there, and it's affordable to boot - EB had it for under $10, last I checked.

Seems legal

[dtfinch]

Fair use seems to allow it, if there are no usable backup copies. So if CD copy protection works as game publishers intend, I don't expect those same game publishers can successfully argue that Best Buy is willfully supporting copyright infringement.

Digital distribution is coming (or here, HL2 fans)

[patio11]

Of the price of a $40 game (new) the store makes, what, $25 and the publisher gets closer to $15. On a used game, the publisher gets $0, the store makes $30, and the customer-turned-supplier makes about $5 (or credit with a cash value of about $5). So its easy to see why stores love this system. But where does the value to the customer come from? Its either from the publisher, or from the customer-turned-supplier -- they had the game, and thats all the customer cares about. The store is just a convinient matchmaker for the transaction between has-the-game and wants-the-game. And they take a ginormous cut for that service. Which means that has-the-game has an enormous incentive to be the next Steam/Stardock Games/Wildtangent etc and put their product directly in the hands of the customer, bypassing the middleman and keeping his cut for themselves.

This is also why you see everyone and their mother trying to sell services, not products (WoW subscription = Blizzard collects 100% of $15 a month, War3 box sale = Blizzard collects 30% of boxed price, once, no matter how many times that box changes hands).

Best Buy SUCKS

[Physician]

I will never shop at that pos best buy again. They had a sale a couple weeks ago where games were as low as 99 cents but mostly $5 or $10. Well my stupid best buy claimed that they knew nothing about the sale. Cleverly, the only games that I found that were supposed to be on sale were hidden in out of place locations. Those bastards knew good and well there was a sale, they just weren't interested in participating and just in case someone got adamant, they hid all the sale items. I mean seriously, how is best buy not gonna have a copy of paper mario 2?

Re:Are they selling used PC games? Or just console

[KillShill]

how about microsoft fucks off and dies.

NO ONE HAS A RIGHT TO TELL YOU WHAT TO DO WITH YOUR PROPERTY.

anyone who does is an obvious god damn shill and greedy motherfucker.

the above post has been cleared by the Family Values Association and is recommended for readers 15 years and under.

respecting copyright laws is like respecting satan. it'll work for a while but eventually you get wise to what's going on.

Re: What's going to happen is...

[KillShill]

or we could stop playing games altogether.

every year the copy prevention and DRM technologies are getting worse and soon PCs will be just as crippled as consoles.

the lawful paying customers are treated like crap while infringers get to enjoy the games without hassles like inserting the disc in the drive when playing, having to install destructive and intrustive copy prevention drivers like starforce and safedisc or having to buy completely crippled products like consoles which we are denied full access to their own property.

seems like RMS is more right every day that passes.

it's becoming so there is no middle ground.

either it's completely in the favor of "content producers" or you don't get to use it your way.

fuck them all.

you don't want customers to pay for your shit? fine, we won't.

Why would you sell your game to Best Buy?

[Hamster Lover]

or to any other used game store for that matter? They give you pennies on the dollar for your game. It only took me one experience at the local game store trying to sell my used Dreamcast games to realize I was cheating myself. I was offered $5 - $10 for my games when I glanced at the showcase and noticed the same games for $40 - $50 dollars. If they can sell the games for that much why couldn't I do the same? A want add in the paper is all it took to sell my games at a reasonable price for both the buyer and seller.

Used games are such a scam. I try to buy as much from friends, through Ebay (which is not as great a place to buy games as it once was) or through the local Buy and Sell want adds.

Re:Why would you sell your game to Best Buy?

[bbrack]

If I'm not ever going to play the game again, why have it cluttering up my shelf?

I realize that I only got $3.50 for trading in a football game from last year, but I have the game from this year

When I beat FFX, I'd already completed just about all the goals, and knew the storyline - what's the point of the disc sitting on my shelf for 2-3 years

combine that with the fact that I always buy used games, and rarely pay more than $25 for one, as well as the fact that gamestop gives you a $10 credit if you trade in 3 games, trading in games when I buy new ones typically lowers my cost to stay entertained with older games (that I know don't suck) by 20%

Re:Best Buy should not be doing this.

[KillShill]

fuck the developers.

they have no right to tell you what you can or can't do with your purchase.

mark rein is a greedy asshole. and all greedy assholes can go to hell.

that's the economy. if you can't cut it, then go file for bankruptcy.

Data point

[metamatic]

I buy quite a few new video games. When I've played the game through, I sell it second hand, generally on eBay. Since I look after my stuff, the games are usually in "like new" condition, and I get 50-75% of the initial outlay back.

What happens to the money? Without exception, I use it to buy another game. When someone bought my copy of "Ratchet and Clank: Going Commando" for about $15, every penny immediately went to the game industry when I used the cash to purchase "Ratchet and Clank: Up Your Arsenal".

Suppose I couldn't sell games second hand. What would I do? Well, for starters I wouldn't pay $50 for a game, ever.

Hence, I find it very hard to see that my selling games when I'm done playing them is doing major harm to the industry.

Re:Are they selling used PC games? Or just console

[ElleyKitten]

>>every time a company holds your property hostage, god kills a lobbyist/shill.

Don't we wish.

so damn ghetto

[kisrael]

You know, we've grown used to used games and cds alongside the new stuff, around here at Gamestop, EB, and Newbury Comics...it was kind of a gradual process, but if you took someone to one of these stores in like the early 90s, could you imagine how damn ghetto it would seem, how skanky and strange to have this used crap you just don't know the history of alongside the shiny shrinkwrapped fresh new stuff?

Of course, sellers who sell new and used don't make the new feel new anymore, often just having the empty box on the shelf with the goodies behind the counter..."new in shrinkwrap" just ain't what it used to be even if you want to avoid used!

I don't know about the "used games increase the value of new games by adding resale possibilities" vs "used games screw over game developers". I'm pragmatic, heading for new when it's a new release and/or the cost differential is small, otherwise used.

Re:Are they selling used PC games? Or just console

[KillShill]

:-)

(lameness filter)

You aren't buying the disc when you buy a game.

[thundar2000]

You aren't buying the disc when you buy a game. You are buying a license to use the game?

Why wouldn't game guys just put in the license agreement, 'this license is non transferable', thus making it illegal for best buy to resell licensed code?

Re:You aren't buying the disc when you buy a game.

[Anonymous Coward]

So if my game gets scratched or whatever and won't play then I can return it and get another, as my license is still valid?

Euroland.

[Tilmitt]

I live in Euroland and if I walk into town there are loads of shops that sell used games. This is really confusing to hear developers complaining about this starting to happen, cause it's been like this for years here. ???

Typical short-sighted business

[BenjyD]

Apart from the obvious fact that first-sale trumps any complaints that the developers have, so that he really just has to live with this, Mark Rein's viewpoint is very short-sighted. The 'loss' is very easy to see: "they played our game but gave us no money!". The gain is harder to see:

- people buy games because they know they can trade them in later
- people buy game consoles because there see there are some cheaper games around and then buy Halo 3 or whatever new because they already have the console and don't want to wait a few months for a second hand copy
- marginal consumers (students, kids etc) trade in a few older games to help raise the cash for the latest big game
- without second hand sales, there would be fewer games stores to sell their games

That's the most beautiful thing I've ever seen....

[Chmcginn]

at least on slashdot, anyway.

Does that mean...

[Anonymous Coward]

I, as the last surviving Brethern of the Free Spirit, need to look down on the transhumanists even more than everyone else?

Re:Does that mean...

[Anonymous Coward]

Yup. Transhumanists worship their future potential, a questionable decision at best. Transhumans, on the other hand, won't worship themselves because everything transhumanists have been saying is stupid.

The new mod we really need...

[Chmcginn]

Forget (-1, Wrong), (+1, Right), (-1, Heretic), or whatever else new mods everyone think we need...

This guy proves what we really need is a (+i, Seriously Tweaked) mod.

Umm...

[Chmcginn]

For every copy of a game sold on their platform, they get ~$10-15 .... I got the numbers during my tenure at EA.

A.We're on the interet. You could be a homeless guy at a library for all we know. We don't want "Well, I used to work at location X". We want a link to a respectable web site that says what you just said.

B.) I'll certainly believe that Bungee gave Microsoft 15 for every copy of Halo 2 at its launch. But for a $20 game, like their "Platinum Hits" (or PS2's "Greatest Hits") 75% of the money going to the console maker... well, that just seems silly.

Wow, I really didn't mean this to look like a flame.

Oh, well.

Re:Umm...

[daVinci1980]

A) If I'm homeless, I've certainly been posting from the library for a long time (5 digit UID and all), and have been posting consistently about game development with said UID for "awhile." You're not going to find a link to a respectable website citing the information I've given. It's not publicly available information (although it's not covered under NDA either).

B) We're talking about games at the $50 initial price offering here. As it is a royalty fee, that cost goes down as the sale price of the title goes down. I thought this was obvious, but I should've realized that someone outside the industry wouldn't get it.

Anyways, you can believe me or not. I could really care less.

Honda Games Are Best?

[Bellum Aeternus]

Does this mean we should start buying games, like we buy cars? Based on resell value?

Re:Are they selling used PC games? Or just console

[Anonymous Coward]

Used PC products are much more easily reproducable, what with the majority of bargain PCs coming with CD or DVD burners these days. With a PC product, there is fear that a game or software product was either fully installed or copied so that it can still be used by the seller after the original item was sold. It's murky water at best. The contrast to console games is that with a console game it is generally safe to assume that once the item has been sold, the original owner gives up his/her ability to use said game.

Re:I Dissent. Ever see a used copy of Gamboy Tetri

[brkello]

Not really a fair comparison, though, is it? Tetris is a puzzle game that is something meant to be played over and over again. Compare this to say an rpg which is fairly linear. Once you know the story it is probably going to collect dust. You can try to put fun mini-games in it (like Chocobo racing) but most people are just going to sell it back. It can be the best game on the face of the planet, but you are going to sell it back anyways because there is no need/time to play it again. It's effect may be reduced for first tier titles of the puzzle genre...but not so much for other types of games.

CD key

[tepples]

unlike cars and appliances, used software is exactly as functional as brand-new software.

Not if the game's CD key is marked as being already in use.

The law is an ass.

[tepples]

That argument is a complete non-sequitor.

As is much of law. The part of patent law in many jurisdictions that allows a mathematical formula to be the subject matter of a patent is just as much a non-sequitur to many critics.

It's like saying ... "used DVDs should not be sold because DVD decryption takes place in RAM."

The difference is the amount and substantiality of what is copied. The amount of a DVD Video title that is copied into RAM at any one time is de minimis, unlike with a computer program. But with computer programs, the argument is that you're often able to make a copy of substantial amounts of the program from the running copy in RAM by niceing the program up to maximum (to freeze it) and then taking a snapshot of the program's memory state. There exists 17 USC 117, allowing the owner of a copy of a computer program to copy a program into RAM in order to run it, but MAI Systems v. Peak Computing has already rendered that section moot in substantially many cases.

One does not need technology to "perceive a computer program." For example, I am aware of the game City of Heroes. I saw it on store shelves and saw print ads for it.

Two different works. You're perceiving a box or a print ad, not the program itself. Works of authorship in the form of packaging and print ads are Pictorial, Graphic, Or Sculptural works under the law. Games themselves are Audiovisual works or Computer Program works.

The law is an ass, and I am not a donkey-wrangler. For legal advice, find an attorney.

Re:The law is an ass.

[fmaxwell]

As is much of law. The part of patent law in many jurisdictions that allows a mathematical formula to be the subject matter of a patent is just as much a non-sequitur to many critics.

I asked "Is there something unique to software engineers that justifies us being held in such a lofty position relative to all other creators of art and intellectual property?" You're talking about software and I'm talking about software engineers. You're talking about laws and I'm talking about ethics. What justifies software engineers enjoying greater protections than other creators of intellectual property? It may have been illegal for blacks to drink from a fountain for whites, but that didn't justify whites being held in such a lofty position relative to blacks.

Two different works. You're perceiving a box or a print ad, not the program itself.

No, I'm seeing the box or ad and that makes me aware of the program. The definition of "perceive" is to become aware of directly through any of the senses. You can hear a twig snap and perceive that you are being followed without ever seeing the follower.

Re:The law is an ass.

[tepples]

What justifies software engineers enjoying greater protections than other creators of intellectual property?

Their having been hired in an industry that has good legislative connections. Whether good legislative connections can be a justification is a matter for a discussion on campaign finance reform.

Besides, game developers aren't "software engineers"; they're "software artisans" at best. Software engineers are people who develop systems that can cause serious injury or death if the software fails.

Besides, software and other works of authorship are too different from inventions, designations of origin, and things that people have promised to keep secret to be lumped under "intellectual property".

I'm seeing the box or ad and that makes me aware of the program. The definition of "perceive" is to become aware of directly through any of the senses.

You're "perceiving" the existence of the program, not the program itself. Perceiving the program itself would involve witnessing its behavior first-hand.