Amazon.com To Accept Game Trade-Ins

revjtanton writes "Amid all the discussion and argument about Gamestop's two-billion-dollar trade-in industry it seems Amazon.com is getting in on the action. Like Gamestop, Amazon asks for the games to be in good condition, however they offer just a few more dollars for your discarded game (Gamestop listed Left 4 Dead for the 360 at $24 while Amazon had it at $26.50 trade-in value). Gamestop had already ruffled feathers in the developer and distribution communities with its practice of accepting used games; does Amazon joining the practice legitimize it?"

Comments

hmm?

[FredFredrickson]

Although Gamestop already "ruffled features" in the dev and distribution communities, I'd say what really legitimizes the practice of buying and selling used games is the First Sale Doctrine.

That's like saying freedom of speech is only legitimate if everybody agrees with what you say... It's really quite different. It's legalized legitimacy is in the face of the fact that people disagree.

Re:hmm?

[FredFredrickson]

*feathers. You get it.

Re:hmm?

[houstonbofh]

But they don't sell it to you, they "license" it. And if they keep saying it, it will be true. Just like me having a replica of something you also still have is "stealing" it from you when you still have it.

Re:hmm?

[hansamurai]

Whether you own it or not is one thing, but no publisher or developer has successfully argued that you do not have the right to resell a physical, original copy of a game.

Re:hmm?

[vux984]

Whether you own it or not is one thing, but no publisher or developer has successfully argued that you do not have the right to resell a physical, original copy of a game.

They don't need to make the argument if they can prevent me from doing it by technical means instead. Its the whole "What good is a phone call if you are unable to speak?" situation.

I bought both portal and lost planet, in a box, with a disc, at a store. Do I have the right to resell them? Sure, do, but who ever buys them can't use them. The activation key is already used up, tied to my steam account.

And I can't move a title out of my steam account. Either I hand over the password/login and all the games in it, or I don't. There is no way to separate out a title and say, here, this isn't mine anymore, and re-enable the activation key for someone else.

Hell, per the EULA I can't even give the entire steam account away. (Not that I'd want to because I still want -some- of the games.)

So, even if I do have the right to resell them, what good is it? I can't meaningfully exercise it.

Re:hmm?

[Firehed]

They can say whatever the fuck they want. A physical product is changing hands - only one person can use it at a time. Does this piss off publishers? Absolutely, but no more than my selling a used book pisses off book publishers. Will they try to stop it using technical means? Sure, and every other industry on the planet would love to do the same thing, it's just not feasible. Is it legal for them to do so? That's for the courts to decide when it's tested - I think probably not unless they also exclusively control the original distribution platform that requires you to agree to their terms before buying, at which point it really does become more of a service than a product.

Re:hmm?

[interkin3tic]

They don't need to make the argument if they can prevent me from doing it by technical means instead.

Thus far, they haven't done so with console games. Gamestop has only dealt in used console games for years, and a quick glance at amazon page shows they only appear to be reselling console games as well. TFS fails to mention this. Why do people constantly act as if PC gaming doesn't exist?

It would be a real shame if next gen, devs get their way and it moves all to digital downloads, specifically because then there's no way to buy a game used, and they will have effectively moved us to a leasing system.

Re:hmm?

[interkin3tic]

... I meant to say "moves all to digital downloads for consoles." Way to complain about speaking as if PC gaming doesn't exist and then apperantly do it myself in the same post...

Re:hmm?

[Anonymous Coward]

Does Amazon sell Battle Toads? Let's see, where did I put their number... 1-866-216-1072

Re:hmm?

[JohnBailey]

But they don't sell it to you, they "license" it. And if they keep saying it, it will be true. Just like me having a replica of something you also still have is "stealing" it from you when you still have it.

Then perhaps it is time to stop licensing and start selling. And a "friend" as big as Amazon might be just the thing to stop the nonsense. going further and further.

Re:hmm?

[von_rick]

Although Gamestop already "ruffled features" in the dev and distribution communities...

Forget about the ruffled feathers in the developers and distributors' community - Amazon folks should be more worried about the Furious Girlfriends Association who would hate to see their bf get cheaper versions of games they would play for the next 2 months.

Re:hmm?

[poena.dare]

Your concise summary is exactly why I refuse to use Steam or any service like it.

Re:hmm?

[murdocj]

Having a copy isn't a problem at all, as long as you purchased it.

Think about it... game developer spends $10 million creating a game, first person buys one copy for $50, uploads it, everyone else gets theirs for free, game company is out $9,999,950. You really think you aren't stealing when you just grab a copy w/o paying for it?

Re:hmm?

[sortius_nod]

Didn't you hear, the only people who play PC games are sad nerds...

Console gamers are buffed gods compared to us PC gamers.

Re:hmm?

[MozeeToby]

Well, if you've got a lot of time and/or money on your hands, sue them. Has this ever made it into the court system to have it determined what the law actually says on the subject? I would think that if the law says you are allowed to sell a copy of the game, it would be against that law to prevent the re-sale.

Re:hmm?

[digitalunity]

Moderators must be high today. While your first line is true, it's not strictly relevant.

There is no clear cut line for what constitutes a loan, license or sale. Guidelines from the 9th circuit(Wise, 550 F.2d 1189) seem to indicate resale of a copyrighted work by a vendee who has sole control of the work can do so without permission from the copyright holder. The title of the agreement under which the sale or license occurs is not deterministic in revealing if the transaction constitutes a sale.

This is unlikely to apply to games purchased through Steam, since the copyrighted work still remains under control of the vendor. At most, the vendee would be liable to the copyright holder for breach of contract but the copyright act is not invoked. Even if the first sale doctrine were applicable, it doesn't require Steam to issue activation keys to the new owner of the copy.

Re:hmm?

[Dare nMc]

if next gen, devs get their way and it moves all to digital downloads,

currently the cost of the new game is $60, used is $50. So first sale person costs $35 for the time they had the game, then it costs $25 for each additional cycle (through gamestop anyway)
if downloaded games are $15 then all could win, because of the reduced costs associated, and additional sales... (or charge say $25 and allow the transfer of downloaded games)

Re:hmm?

[vadim_t]

Will they try to stop it using technical means? Sure, and every other industry on the planet would love to do the same thing, it's just not feasible.

It's very feasible and very easy. First they will require you to create an account with them. Then they will require registering your serial number, which at that instant will fail to register at any other account.

To discourage the use of multiple accounts, they may make it difficult to create multiple ones (checking by credit card number for instance). They'll also make sure your account is also used for forums, rankings, contains your credit card info, and so on, making giving out the account a non-trivial matter. But just having the account there makes things harder, what guarantee does the buyer have that you're giving them the right login and password?

Then there are the EULA restrictions against selling your account or giving out the password, which means that even if you manage to sell it, the buyer might get banned, making buying a risky proposition.

Unlike DRM, none of this relies on installing invasive crap on your machine or doing anything particularly strange. It can be done very easily and it will provide a good amount of discouragement.

Re:hmm?

[interkin3tic]

currently the cost of the new game is $60, used is $50

Uh... not sure where you're getting those numbers, but that's innacurate. If you were to buy a game on release day for $60, open it, and then sell it right back, they'd put it on the shelf for $55. If you were to buy the game on release, wait two months, and then sell it back, they might put it at $50 if it was a good game that still had demand, $30 if it were an average game. A game that is 2 years old that is good, more like $20. If it's average (like madden,) it will be more like $5.

The quality of the game factors into its used price.

Re:hmm?

[cheftw]

Game company made a terrible business decision. Happens all the time.

Re:hmm?

[vux984]

I would think that if the law says you are allowed to sell a copy of the game, it would be against that law to prevent the re-sale.

That's the problem. They won't stop me from selling it to a new owner. They've just set it up, so that there is no point, because the new owner can't do anything with it. There is nothing 'illegal' about it, and so there is really nothing to challenge them on.

Essentially, they are selling you a 'consumable activation ticket' with your media and box. You can resell it all you want, but the activation ticket is only consumable once. And the media and box is basically pointless with out it.

Sort of like selling you Cellphones bundled with a prepaid card. If you use the cellphone and consume the card, you can resell the phone, but the card is all used up. And the new owner has to buy a new card. No problem so far... but with PC games, they don't sell the cards separately, so what good is a used cellphone?... and even if they did sell the cards separately, they'd just charge the full price of the game for it.

And of course, with a cellphone needing a pre-paid airtime card makes sense... with a video game its purely an artificial constraint for the sole purpose of preventing you from being able to transfer the game to someone else... of course they phrase it terms of the 'valuable steam account services like instant messaging and player matching' that they are providing you.

Re:hmm?

[houstonbofh]

But they don't sell it to you, they "license" it. And if they keep saying it, it will be true. Just like me having a replica of something you also still have is "stealing" it from you when you still have it.

Then perhaps it is time to stop licensing and start selling. And a "friend" as big as Amazon might be just the thing to stop the nonsense. going further and further.

I agree. That is why I don't "rent" software. It does, however, limit my choices considerably.

Re:hmm?

[houstonbofh]

Having a copy isn't a problem at all, as long as you purchased it.

Think about it... game developer spends $10 million creating a game, first person buys one copy for $50, uploads it, everyone else gets theirs for free, game company is out $9,999,950. You really think you aren't stealing when you just grab a copy w/o paying for it?

Yep. Just like you aren't stealing when you shoot someone in the head, or drive drunk, or piss in a policeman's hat. You are committing a crime, but it ain't stealing.

To continue your analogy, if game developer spends $10 million creating a game, first person buys one copy for $50, and writes a review saying it is utter crap, and has draconian DRM, so no one else buys it, and the company is out 9 mill, it still isn't stealing. And in this case, so far, it is still legal. But they are working on it.

Re:hmm?

[megamerican]

You willingly put those games into the same account with other games when you could have created a seperate steam account for each game or package you bought.

I had a steam account with the original Half-life and all of the mods. When Half-Life 2 came out I purchased the Silver Package (HL2 plus CS:S and DOD:S) and put it on a seperate account. I put Portal on a new account as well.

It sounds annoying but it is not much different from putting in a different disc or cartridge into your console.

It may be against the EULA but I've never encountered it being enforced (please feel free to prove me wrong here).

You seem to be more angry at your lack of foresight than at how steam works.

Re:hmm?

[e2d2]

And this is exactly why they are starting to move to a "activation" model where you are activated remotely. Mo money mo money mo money.

Re:hmm?

[exploder]

So what happens when Steam starts enforcing their EULA? Talk about foresight...

Re:hmm?

[vux984]

You willingly put those games into the same account with other games when you could have created a seperate steam account for each game or package you bought.

Actually I've been doing this for quite a while now. It is indeed the best solution I can find. But its a clumsy work around, not a proper solution.

It sounds annoying but it is not much different from putting in a different disc or cartridge into your console.

It becomes quite a bit more annoying if you try and use some of the online friend services etc. If a friend as 20 games and 20 accounts, I have to add him as a friend 20 times in order to see him when he's online, and vice versa.... which is, of course, stupid. So we keep in touch different ways, and forego those steam features.

You seem to be more angry at your lack of foresight than at how steam works.

I know exactly how how steam works, in gory detail. NOW. I am angry that I learned the details in the fine print after I had been, in my opinion, ripped off. And I would like to spare others the same fate. There are clearly lots of people out there who do NOT realize the implications of steams service.

Luckily I learned the reality, and determined the work around after only a few titles, and now avoid steam entirely when possible, and create additional accounts when not.

Re:hmm?

[murdocj]

So you're saying that any software company that doesn't charge the full development cost to the first customer made a terrible business decision?

I'm not ready to pay the entire production cost for a copy of software. Somehow I'd like to have the company split that cost among all the users, rather than having one customer pay $10,000,000 and the others leech off the first customer. If only there was a way to do that... say, to charge each customer a reasonable amount, like $50. What a crazy idea...

Re:hmm?

[murdocj]

Somehow, I don't think writing a bad review of a game is the same as taking a copy w/o paying for it, but Slashdot is notorious for bad analogies. Maybe you could work in car theft?

Re:hmm?

[moderatorrater]

Interesting. So what if I were to sell you the game, and instead of activating it on steam you were to instead crack it and play it to your heart's delight? What's the legality then?

Re:hmm?

[GaratNW]

Ultimate thread of pointless arguments. Unless the open source community wants to provide huge amounts of open source games that are high quality that will keep the insatiable hunger for new content in check by gamers, this sort of move by Amazon will be fought and countered by every one of us in the development and publishing industry every way we can. The prevailing argument seems to be that, since re-selling is legal, you should be able to do it completely unregulated, regardless of the damage it does to the industries that provide you that content. So, if 10,000 copies of a game sell, but they go through a million hands due to rampant resales that the publishers/developers never see a cent of, well, there goes another dev. And that publisher, just had the same thing happen to their top 10 titles, so no more publisher. Guess there are no more devs or publishers left who can operate profitable businesses to provide your content.

The old hacker creed of "information should be free" may be the prevailing attitude on /., but it's taken to unsustainable and asinine levels both here and among "content consumers" in general, as if you have have a constitutional right to the (millions of dollars and tens of thousands of people months spent developing titles) games you consume every year without paying a dime. Make it so, and you'll run out of content faster than you can blink, because we'll no longer have a viable business model to generate that content. Dunno about you, but I still need to pay my rent and feed my family, and I'm not gonna work at Costco and spent another 80 hours a week making games "just for the fun of it", and neither will many others, beyond college students and people who still live in their moms basement at age 36.

I'm sure there are all sorts of flaws in my own dissertation, but if someone can provide a REAL business model that doesn't involve making every game subscription based (MMO) or based on 90% multiplayer (COD4) to keep people from selling them over and over and over again, I'd love to hear it. Because so far, all this thread is doing is defending the right of gamers and retailers to make the games industry completely unsustainable as a business.

Re:hmm?

[mpeskett]

You could try making games that people want to hang on to, as opposed to the disposable "play through once, in a few hours, then never want to pick up again" variety.

Or make your money on game-related services rather than the games themselves. Granted that's easier for multiplayer games, but if you were to put out regular updates and improvements to a game (actual improvements, not just patches for bugs) then people would willingly pay for them.

Re:hmm?

[forceman130]

Your concise summary is exactly why I refuse to use Steam or any service like it.

Unfortunately, you are quickly losing the choice because even boxed retail games now use Steam for the DRM. So you can either play the game using Steam DRM, or you can not - you have no third legal option. If you don't buy the game in protest of the DRM the developer will decide that PC games have no market any longer, if you do buy the game you validate their DRM, and if you pirate the game you give them the excuse they needed for the DRM in the first place. They really have all the angles covered now.

Re:hmm?

[Cajun Hell]

If you don't buy the game in protest of the DRM the developer will decide that PC games have no market any longer

So? It's not my problem if they come to a stupid conclusion. There will always be someone who wants money, and is smart enough to avoid pulling defeat from the jaws of victory.

They really have all the angles covered now.

If they forgot the angle for obtaining revenue, then I wouldn't say they have all the angles just yet. They can't have my money unless they change. They are paying developers and office rent, and then not bothering to try to sell me the game. I can out-wait them.

Re:hmm?

[SpazmodeusG]

I bought Half-Life 1 as a multiplayer game that had little DRM except for its CD-Key. I didn't have a problem with that.
These days i've found you can't patch that game to that latest version to remove the bugs without using Steam.

So i bought a game that had a traditional licensing and distrubution system (a CD that you could resell under the first sale doctrine). I've now been told that the old license is no longer valid and that my copy of Half-Life 1 cannot be gifted or resold.

Re:hmm?

[Cajun Hell]

if someone can provide a REAL business model that doesn't involve making every game subscription based (MMO) or based on 90% multiplayer (COD4) to keep people from selling them over and over and over again, I'd love to hear it.

Ask any book author. They solved the problem centuries ago.

Re:hmm?

[spiffydudex]

One thing I find interesting is the fact that ISP's are now limiting your bandwidth per month. So even IF all game titles went to a digital download method, just think about it.

You eventually have to pay more for a "better service" With netflix taking up around 3-4 gigs for an HD movie, not to mention the typical day-day usage, game patches etc... It would put a larger "strain" on the ISP's that don't want to grow up in the digital world.

I myself have been speed throttled for "causing excessive traffic" while watching a netflix movie. I find this disturbing. Do other people also have this issue and or see the major problem occurring?

Re:hmm?

[vux984]

The prevailing argument seems to be that, since re-selling is legal, you should be able to do it completely unregulated, regardless of the damage it does to the industries that provide you that content.

If the industry is being that damaged by it, something is wrong with the industry.

Should used bicycle sales be outlawed because it too significantly reduces the number of new customers. The classifieds are chock full of used mountain bikes, road bikes...

Hey used cars too, for that matter, and dear god the auto industry could use a boost. We should pass regulations that prevent people from selling used cars... that'll boost the demand for new cars right?

So, if 10,000 copies of a game sell, but they go through a million hands due to rampant resales that the publishers/developers never see a cent of, well, there goes another dev. And that publisher, just had the same thing happen to their top 10 titles, so no more publisher. Guess there are no more devs or publishers left who can operate profitable businesses to provide your content.

Boo fucking hoo. If that's what is happening you business model is wrong. Assuming people are paying at least $15 for the used copy, and 'a million hands' bought it at that price; then you could have made $15 Million dollars selling it at that price, instead of $500K selling 10k copies for @$50 each.

Ah, but the 'resale market' would just price them at $5 and we'd be back where we started. No. We wouldn't. Because gamestop wouldn't get into the market of buying and selling used games if the price point was $5. They'd have to buying them from customers for 50 cents just to make $4.5 margin... that's not really worth it to them given the number scratched discs, and related costs that they'll have to absorb, and even if it was viable for them at that price, who is going to go to the trouble of selling their games back to gamestop etc if they only get a lousy 50 cents?

The old hacker creed of "information should be free" may be the prevailing attitude on /., but it's taken to unsustainable and asinine levels both here and among "content consumers" in general, as if you have have a constitutional right to the (millions of dollars and tens of thousands of people months spent developing titles) games you consume every year without paying a dime.

Look if that's truly unsustainable, then it should just stop!!

Either charge what you need to make the money back / set the pricing so that you recoup your costs, or stop making that sort of game. World of Goo made money hand over fist. Portal too.

If the movie industry tomorrow decided they wanted to make a 2Billion dollar movies, and then decided that the only way they could pay for it is if the government applies regulations and taxes to force everyone in the country to pay for it... then guess what DON'T MAKE THAT MOVIE.

I'm sure there are all sorts of flaws in my own dissertation, but if someone can provide a REAL business model that doesn't involve making every game subscription based (MMO) or based on 90% multiplayer (COD4) to keep people from selling them over and over and over again, I'd love to hear it.

How about like every other business model, set your game budget around the reality of the market, rather than demand regulations to distort the market in a way you'd like.

Or hey, how about this... let people who get your game used 'register it' for a small fee. Profit from those transfers rather than ban them outright.

Let people buy a used copy of Portal (a $20 title in a box at retail), and transfer the registration key on it to another steam user for $2. Sure its $18 less than if you'd sold a new copy... but how much do you REALLY make on a retail game sale anyway (after distribution and channel costs) which we've just bypassed? Not $20. Now at least if that box passes through a million hands you've just made another $2 million bucks.

Next up offer better deals to people with more games registered. I'm not go

Re:hmm?

[russotto]

this sort of move by Amazon will be fought and countered by every one of us in the development and publishing industry every way we can. The prevailing argument seems to be that, since re-selling is legal, you should be able to do it completely unregulated, regardless of the damage it does to the industries that provide you that content. So, if 10,000 copies of a game sell, but they go through a million hands due to rampant resales that the publishers/developers never see a cent of, well, there goes another dev.

Cry me a fucking river. What's so special about games that the developer should be compensated for each sale rather than just the first, as with every other item from cars to computers to houses? That sort of bitching didn't gain much sympathy for the RIAA and it sure as hell won't get any for you.

Re:hmm?

[Anonymous Coward]

The extent with which they can re-gouge consumers factors into its used price.

There, fixed that for you.

Re:hmm?

[Chosen Reject]

It's not the same as stealing (and neither is the same as copyright infringement), but both scenarios lead to the developers being $9,999,950 in the hole. Which is what houstonbofh was pointing out.

Re:hmm?

[Ihmhi]

If Steam did this I'd be enamored with the service. Right now I like it. This would make me love it.

The game's been paid for. If I want to give it away, shouldn't I be able to completely transfer it to someone else? They already have a system for gifting games, so why not one for transferring games?

There's the risk of someone doing a reseller thing... buying the Valve complete pack and selling the whole thing game by game, but honestly anyone can do that with anything nowadays. If you detect someone selling loads of games from one IP address or one Steam account then you have a talk with them.

Hell, they could even do it like a "store credit" thing. Example:

Dude1 tried TF2 for a few weeks and he wants to unload it. He offers to sell it to Dude2. He sends Dude2 a sale offer of $20. Dude2 buys TF2 from Dude1 for $20. Valve gets the cash, and Dude1 gets $20 in store credit for Steam.

Re:hmm?

[Grave]

GameStop's argument has also been that letting people trade in games means they have more money to spend on new games. There are plenty of consumers who can't afford to buy new games all the time, but being able to get something out of their old ones means they can, in fact, buy more new ones. Most developers stopped arguing against trades/used after seeing the amount of extra money that trade-ins are putting into the hands of gamers.

Re:hmm?

[Anonymous Coward]

uh... look at cod4, halo 3, (hell, halo 2) etc. really popular games don;t go down in price... ever. (at least not for a damn long time, longer than 1-2 years)

Re:hmm?

[digitalunity]

Questionable. I would venture to guess that depends greatly on where you live.

The question isn't whether it's legal or not, it's whether you would be interested in spending the money to defend yourself from such legal action. Unless you're planning on reselling software as a business(Vernor v. Autodesk, Inc., 555 F. Supp. 2d 1164 (W.D. Wash. 2008)), it's just not worth the risk to save $10. Although I suppose in Timothy Vernor's case, he was selling expensive software(AutoCAD R14) so maybe sometimes it is worth the risk.

Re:hmm?

[Gothic_Walrus]

If they forgot the angle for obtaining revenue, then I wouldn't say they have all the angles just yet.

They've got an angle. It's called "console gaming."

Re:hmm?

[houstonbofh]

Somehow, I don't think writing a bad review of a game is the same as taking a copy w/o paying for it, but Slashdot is notorious for bad analogies. Maybe you could work in car theft?

Sure... If I steal your car, do you still have a car? If I infringe on your cars copyright, do you still have a car?

Feel better now?

Re:hmm?

[mmaniaci]

Do what every other person does when they want to sell their subscription-based product: sell the account information. Yeah, its all or nothing sale, but you can.

In most games you don't actually own the account, you pay to access it (MMOs for example). To get around this, simply frame the transaction as a convenience fee for the time it took you to give the buyer the info. Kinda shoddy to do, but "they" are obviously trying to stop you from selling it which is even more shoddy. Consumers have more power than they think... even if you fail, you cost the producer time=money--a small success for their injustice!

Now there are also many games which outlaw any transfer of account information. Blizzard suspends and bans people for letting others just borrow their accounts. In that case you're fucked, and you're only option is to quit paying and playing... which you should have done long ago.

Re:hmm?

[WNight]

as if you have have a constitutional right to the [...] games you consume every year without paying a dime.

So the retail purchase price I pay doesn't count?

if 10,000 copies of a game sell, but they go through a million hands due to rampant resales that the publishers/developers never see a cent of, well, there goes another dev

I can buy a newspaper and lend it to ten people at the office? I can buy a novel, or DVD, and do the same? Why aren't all the good newspapers, book publishers, and movie producers out of business?

Why should we think game publishers would be any different?

a REAL business model that doesn't [...] make the games industry completely unsustainable as a business.

Sell the games for appropriate prices, and have enough content to justify the prices.

If a game keeps someone's attention for months they aren't going to be able to loan it out. A good example of this is how in GTA the driving around is the fun, so people can just load the game and enjoy the game mechanic long after completing the missions. If someone loans out a GTA-type game it's not going to be soon enough to cut into your initial sales boom.

Or, make something small that could probably be beaten in an hour or two, but charge far less than $60 so there's less barrier to casual purchases. (Why wait to borrow it when it's so cheap?) And there's no desire to compensate for an overly high price by sharing so many people might not bother.

But if you prevent sharing unreasonably (DRM), breaking what I see as your side of copyright law (making the work available, in trade for my tax-funded support of your copyright), I'll simply crack it and treat it as if it were public domain.

Offer customers a fair value instead of whining about your sense of entitlement.

Re:hmm?

[WNight]

Whooosh.

I don't think writing a bad review of a game is the same as taking a copy w/o paying for it

It is as much as copyright violation is stealing. Which is to say, not at all.

Yes, the company might be out a bunch of money, but stealing is a specific crime. Burning their offices down would be arson, not theft.

Maybe you could work in car theft?

No, car theft and software piracy really have very little in common. You do seem somewhat confused.

Re:hmm?

[Anonymous Coward]

After the debacle with Dawn of War II which I bought boxed but still had to wait for Valve to decide when I could and couldn't play the game the other week I'm avoiding Steam as well now including boxed games that have to be activated on Steam.

Most games I buy now are on the XBox 360 or the Wii anyway so it's not a massive loss, but I'm going to be honest unlike most here who pretend they have nothing to do with piracy whilst defending it and say that if something does come out on the PC that I really want to play (although PC games that I really want to play come once every 3 years now it seems) but I can't purchase it legitimately without being fucked over then yeah, I'm going to pirate it. When the industry grows up and starts selling a product without fucking the consumer they can start having my cash again. I refuse to spend money on something that goes as far as taking my right away to be able to sell it on, whilst covertly installing software such as SecuROM that fucks up my PC.

Of course, console games are DRM'd to the hilt too but at least I can sell them on and they don't install near impossible crap on the console that buggers it up. When I buy a console the level of DRM is acceptable to me because I do not feel the need to make "backups" of my console discs and the DRM doesn't get in the way of my experience as someone who buys games for it legitimately. This is the key difference with PC based DRM and activation it works in complete contrast to that of console DRM such that only when I'm a legitimate consumer I get fucked over by it whereas on a console it's only the pirates and cheaters that get fucked.

In all honesty most PC gaming is so utterly shite now I wouldn't miss if it dissapeared anyway. Most the "good" games are just poor ports of the console versions nowadays. There's very few good PC only games around. I find more fun, interesting games on the PC from indie/small developers than I do the big names nowadays, I just hope they avoid the idiocy that is DRM, although some already implement it citing piracy. Here's the thing though, those who pirate the game aren't anymore likely to buy it with DRM included, but people like me would have bought it if it didn't have DRM, in fact, I've even bought indie games that I recognise a lot of hard work has gone into even if I didn't personally enjoy the concept too much.

There's a lot of media out there now, music, movies, games and consumers want more and more but still only have a finite amount of money. Piracy is going to always be a problem then and the amount of media people buy will depend on the amount of money they have. I've yet to encounter anyone who pirates everything who does have money and just hoardes their money instead, only those who pirate everything because they don't have the money. The music, movie and gaming industry need to realise this and realise that it's the media that's easiest to acquire and use that's going to win the biggest share from that very finite pool of money. They're in competition with each other and not with piracy as they seem to believe yet they seem to continue on this self-destructive path where they push people with money away. People who can sell second hand games on can put money back in their pool and buy new media whilst those who buy second hand games would have been unlikely to justify taking additional money from their pool to buy a full price game.

Or to cut a long story short and sum up my post, I'm going to take the option where I don't get fucked. If the PC gaming industry wants to make sure that it's the legit option where consumers get fucked then that's their problem.

Re:hmm?

[jalefkowit]

"The Furious Girlfriends Association" would be a great name for a band.

Re:hmm?

[One Monkey]

Authors work alone.

If you self-publish, buy cover artwork and sell exclusively online you can have a book in production for less than $100

If you are part of a publishing house's stable (isn't that what pimps call the hookers who work for them collectively?) you have maybe two shots spread over three years, being paid an advance equivalent to a month and a half's mediocre white collar wages, to become the next Dan Brown. You fail, you become unpublishable, your agent will probably drop you, you'll never eat lunch in this town again.

Yeah, that business model works... for the consumer (except most newly published books are an alienatingly homogenous pile of shite), for the publisher (except for a business model that's like playing roulette on a wheel with no colours, no ball, no betting choices, no lights in the casino after someone's spiked your complimentary cola against a croupier who smiles all the time) but could never be said to work for the author.

Digital entertainment of the quality expected by the average gamer cannot be produced on the same basis as books.

Movies, though... DRM that prevents reselling for a period of time (the equivalent of the "cinematic release") after which the game may be circulated (the "DVD release")... who knows...

But you can't ask authors... that doesn't fly.

Re:hmm?

[Crumplecorn]

Assume all piracy/lending/used sales are removed from the world by magic.

Game developer spends $10M making a game, but only one person buys it, and no-one else plays it. Game developer is still out $9,999,950.

Making a crap game: -$9,999,950
Realising that not every download/copy is a lost sale: Priceless

Re:hmm?

[murdocj]

If you build a toll bridge and I managed to sneak across it w/o paying the toll, do you still have a bridge?

Re:hmm?

[hesaigo999ca]

So you mean that all those mona lisa replicas make everyone that has them criminals...
I don't think so....I believe if we live in a world where people can make replicas of art
for use in books to show off some art, or even as a fake painting sitting in someone's
den, I doubt the cops will be called out, especially if asked by someone and admitting , "yeah i bought a fake one, cuz I liked the way it looked".

I am a software developer, and when someone buys a copy of windows or office, they OWN it.
That said, when you buy a computer and it comes with a license for windows xp, you can
format the drive as many times as you want...you bought the license, therefor, you do not need to repurchase a copy each time you want to reinstall. You could even lose your cd, use someone elses cd, and when it came time to insert your key and it did not work (because of the OEMs), you could
call M$ and ask for a key, seeing as you have a legitimate license.

Now if I sell that computer, the license goes with it. A game is not quite the same, but
being that you bought it, you could give it to someone as a gift...even though you used your money
and left the store with it...this does not make it your copy, so if there was an exchange of money between 2 people behind closed doors...again it would belong to whoever has it in their hands at that time. Even if I have a Wow account, I can sell it online (ebay) and they would send me money, I would send them the password, they would change all the personal profile stuff, and voila
the game is "transfered".

Lets call a spade a spade shall we, pure and simple, they see this as A) a loss of income because they actually thought they would (like in the old M$ times) have so many copies sold because
everyone needed their own copy, and this represents an end to that (sort of).

B)They did not think of it themselves, recycle games, send them back to us with all the materials, and we will give you a credit for your next game purchase.

Re:hmm?

[Cajun Hell]

But you can't ask authors... that doesn't fly.

So I have to ask car manufacturers? Home builders? Those industries use the it's-ok-to-resell model, and they're thriv-- oh wait, never mind.

Most industries allow their products to be resold. None of them, compare to movies and games, because movies and games are a special case, totally different than the rest of the last few thousand years' economy?

Re:hmm?

[ukyoCE]

You're welcome to use a different account for each game, if you're ability to resell the games is more valuable to you than all the conveniences Steam provides (like friends list, online store, etc.)

=\

Steam isn't perfect, but like Google, get a lot of bonus points and leeway for not being Evil.

Re:hmm?

[Anonymous Coward]

Problem is that Gamestop then encourages you to use the credit to buy more used games. I believe they run deals that make it a better deal (as in you get more game then your credit is worth).

Re:hmm?

[Malkin]

It would be a real shame if next gen, devs get their way and it moves all to digital downloads, specifically because then there's no way to buy a game used, and they will have effectively moved us to a leasing system.

The more common used sales become, the more likely this future is, though. In the grand scheme of things, the devs have to eat, and they would understandably rather sell one new game to you than for you to use that same money to buy, say, two used games that some middle-man reaps the (substantial) profits for. It wouldn't be so bad if they weren't forced to compete with their own work being resold at a lower price, at no benefit to them. It's a little like releasing a movie, and having to sell all your tickets in the first three days, because after that, someone else makes all the money for your movie, and you're basically screwed. Releasing a game with fantastic word-of-mouth is of no use to you, if there are ample used copies on the shelves, by the time friends and friends-of-friends go out to buy them. As a publisher, you're better off funding shovelware with a big, glitzy license attached to it, than you are funding something great that will have reliable sales over months to come. In other words, the used market often rewards the wrong things.

Dare nMc does have a point in that, if the industry can limit used game sales (and also piracy), they can also afford to provide games at a lower price. However, there's a small hurdle to overcome in the whole "perceived value" issue. When people see a new game that sells for $25, they assume it's a "budget" title, and that they're not going to get a AAA experience out of it. This is changing, though, with the renaissance of exceptional indie games on the market, and a lot of high-quality smaller products (such as Portal). There is currently a lot more price experimentation and variability of prices in the downloadable segment -- even from the big publishers. So, I think you're going to see some new stable states in pricing emerge in the next couple of years, reflecting the different delivery models we're seeing.

Re:hmm?

[houstonbofh]

Yes, and so it is not theft. It is trespass. Still a crime, but not theft.

Competition is good

[Hatta]

I hope this encourages GameStop to try a little harder to not suck.

Re:Competition is good

[rob1980]

I doubt it, unless Amazon or some other company starts opening store fronts all over the US to compete with Gamestop on their turf.

Re:Competition is good

[BrettJB]

Yeah, I hate not being able to access amazon.com from anywhere in the world...

You know, what they need is some kind of distributed network, with nodes interconnected with one another, kind of like a web. Yeah, a world wide web, that's the ticket!

I kid, I kid... You may have a point with people being unwilling to put up with the delay and uncertainty of dropping their used games in the mail, but I doubt it'll dampen the enthusiasm for Amazon's offering much.

Re:Competition is good

[twistedsymphony]

The bigger problem is not being able to SEE the use product before your buy it...

If I'm looking for a game and I walk into Gamestop and see they have 2 used copies, 1 looks like it just came out of the shrink wrap and the other looks like a dog chewed up and pissed on the case before completely devouring the manual, they're the same price, guess which one I'm buying?

Amazon.com has the same 2 games for sale, except all I see is a stock image, guess which one I'm buying? ... who knows it's a crap shoot. oh yeah, AND I'm paying more AND I have to pay for shipping AND I have to wait for it to arrive. Guess what happens if the disc in the former chew toy doesn't work because it's scratched to crap... yup I've got to ship it back and wait even longer.

I hate gamestop, I hate their business practices, I hate how they trash they open new games for "security" which also conveniently devalues them when sitting next to the $5 cheaper "used" copy. and I hate how they constantly shove their "trade in" consensual rape program down your throat.

I still shop there though, because I like Collector's Edition games and they somehow managed to convince publisher to give them exclusive sale rights to most of them, that and they're the ONLY game store within 30 miles of me besides Walmart... and Walmart isn't much better for those looking for their merchandise with a side of morality. Beyond that I can shop online, but then we get back to the crap-shoot that is stock images.

I really hope Amazon does encourage GameStop to improve their practices... though I don't see it happening.

Re:Competition is good

[twistedsymphony]

I apologize for that mess, I'm tired and I should have proof-read before clicking submit... color me ashamed.

Re:Competition is good

[AK Marc]

Amazon.com has the same 2 games for sale, except all I see is a stock image, guess which one I'm buying? ... who knows it's a crap shoot. oh yeah, AND I'm paying more AND I have to pay for shipping AND I have to wait for it to arrive. Guess what happens if the disc in the former chew toy doesn't work because it's scratched to crap... yup I've got to ship it back and wait even longer.

It's the wait that kills you. Every game I've checked, Amazon had it cheaper, even after shipping. I don't mind waiting, and the only people I've seen complain are those that complain about the wait. That's usually the real issue, and the others are excuses to justify not wanting to wait.

Re:Competition is good

[Gizzmonic]

While it's a little unwieldy, Craigslist is a much better deal for both buyer and seller. I was able to get Street Fighter IV ($60 in store) brand new for $45 because someone bought it on impulse and then decided they didn't like. This happens with all games within the first couple of weeks of release-just keep an eye on your local Craigslist. Sure it might be a hassle to drive to a parking lot in the middle of nowhere and get felt up by greasy, wifebeater clad strangers, but it's worth it to save a buck.

Legitimising it?

[malkavian]

It's already legal (and always was). Only the stopping of people doing this is on the rather grey moral ground.

Re:Legitimising it?

[houstonbofh]

It's already legal (and always was). Only the stopping of people doing this is on the rather grey moral ground.

What? I would think forcing people to dispose of games as opposed to recycling would be the moral bad guy. Or is CarMax the devil? (Aside from the pricing practices)

Re:Legitimising it?

[malkavian]

Reselling games is recycling.. I usually just give 'em away to friends of mine who can't afford to get every game they want. They do the same to me sometimes. Just keeping the cycle going is a good thing. It's how the world's always worked, and humanity in general did ok out of it. The current trend to force obsolescence/disposal is more than morally grey; it's pretty morally black.

Re:Legitimising it?

[Firehed]

If reselling my used and unwanted games falls into a moral gray area, we had better start torching any library in sight - the evil communist hideouts! And add yet another reason to hate on used car dealers.

Re:Legitimising it?

[Beardo the Bearded]

Do you think that you'd be able to create a library today if they weren't already historically entrenched?

I've been buying and selling used games since 1990. It's never been illegal or morally gray. Some licences (which I no longer have to reference) said something along the lines of "you may only sell this game if you remove all copies".

The game publishers are only squawking about it because they, like the *AA, think that every used copy is a lost sale.

I buy used games because they charge too much for new games, and almost every new game is a crappy (albeit shinier) copy of a game that came out 10 years ago.

Re:Legitimising it?

[Ioldanach]

I buy used games because they charge too much for new games, and almost every new game is a crappy (albeit shinier) copy of a game that came out 10 years ago.

Plus that game that it's a remake of that came out even 5 years ago required the latest and greatest hardware. My latest modest PC makes those old games shine like new again.

Huh.

[Anonymous Coward]

"does Amazon joining the practice legitimize it?"

Since when has it been illegal in any way or sense to sell your own property?

Re:Huh.

[Syberz]

Since the makers of said "property" said that it's their property and not yours. Haven't you been paying attention? They say that when you buy a game, you're buying a non-transferable license which happens to come with physical media as a "bonus".

Good for Steam

[TonyZahn]

The more place that sell used games this way, the more developers will start moving to services like Steam to protect their revenue.

Re:Good for Steam

[GerardAtJob]

But... you can always sell your Steam account. Less than selling each game separatly, but it's still possible.

Re:Good for Steam

[Hordeking]

The more place that sell used games this way, the more developers will start moving to services like Steam to protect their revenue.

And then people will start selling their unlock keys.

Re:Good for Steam

[Hatta]

The more developers move to Steam, the less I'm going to buy their games.

Re:Good for Steam

[vux984]

But... you can always sell your Steam account. Less than selling each game separatly, but it's still possible.

1) selling (even sharing) your steam account is against the eula. If that becomes widespread enough that they think its costing them enough money to worry about, they'll just start banning people over it.

2) you have to sell all your steam linked games or none of them. For most people that's a deal breaker. In my case I want to give one of my games away to a freind I know would enjoy it (nevermind sell it), but with steam its all or none. (Yes, I could give him my account info, but again, that's against the eula, and more importantly: only one of us can be logged in at a time.

So if I go down that road, if I have 'lent' out a few games to friends, odds are I won't be able to use my own steam account, not even play games no one else is playing.

I already ran into that at home. I can't even play game A, while my wife plays game B(*). That's FUCKED.

(*Sure I can dick around with offline mode, but that's a hassle and doesn't always work, and in this case both the games are online so offline mode is moot.)

Re:Good for Steam

[Chyeld]

And the problem here is what exactly?

IMO Steam is a perfect alternative to selling/buying your games on physical media. While Steam does work against the used market, it provides sufficent 'pluses' to make up for loss.

You gain the ability to download the game to any computer and play it, as long as no other computers are logged in as you. You gain the ability to redownload the game as many times as you need. You gain access to things like ingame messenging, even if the game itself didn't have such a system.

The real problem will be, and it will be a short lived one I promise you, when companies decide to kill the physical media while simultaneously attempting to roll their own digitial distribution system rather than use one of the currently established platforms like Steam. Those games are going to be abandoned by customers and publishers faster than you can say Rumplestilskin.

Re:Good for Steam

[WankersRevenge]

Protect their revenue? They've already been payed. There's nothing to protect. Here's my little nugget ... if the just lowered the prices of their games, they might actually make more money in volume. Sixty bucks is a lot of money. Even before I was married and had a lot of disposable income, I still balked at that price point. It's way beyond an impulse purchase. Buying a new game is like an investment requiring a lot of research. So these days I wait until the game price that I want drop like a rock, and then I scoop them up without any thought. If I don't like the game, it doesn't matter ... after all what's twenty bucks?

Re:Good for Steam

[interkin3tic]

Protect their revenue? They've already been payed.

Exactly, let's not couch this in their semantics. This is not "hurting their revenue" any more than the used car industry "hurts" the new car industry. What the used game industry does hurt is their ability to sell as many mediocre games as they want, at the price they want. And only slightly.

Re:Good for Steam

[Renraku]

Steam actually violates the first sale doctrine. If it were challenged in court, it'd probably fail.

We'd end up seeing serial numbers that were un-registerable and re-usable.

Re:Good for Steam

[Endo13]

Time to start creating a new steam account for each game. Thank goodness for free webmail.

Re:Good for Steam

[Anonymous Coward]

You gain the ability to download the game to any computer and play it, as long as no other computers are logged in as you. You gain the ability to redownload the game as many times as you need.

I know nerds are supposed to be weak and all, but come on. Are CDs really that heavy?

Re:Good for Steam

[billcopc]

Time to stop buying DRM-encumbered products. Thank goodness for common sense.

Re:Good for Steam

[billcopc]

it provides sufficent 'pluses' to make up for loss

Show me how Steam makes up for my inability to sell, lend or give away old unloved games ? I'm pretty sure I won't be playing Half Life again anytime soon, but I know a certain kid who played the everloving crap out of it after I gave him the box and disc.

The problem with the Steam model is they make too many assumptions:

1. You're going to love the game, and love it until the world dies

2. You're rich, and so is everyone you know, so nobody ever lends, trades or gives anything away second-hand.

Wehell that's a very romanticized outlook of the gaming scene, but very far removed from reality.

Re:Good for Steam

[vadim_t]

And this is precisely why I rarely buy games these days.

All this crap about "protecting revenue" when I actually paid for the game drives me nuts, and is precisely the main thing that keeps me from buying them.

I grew up, got a job and earned enough money to buy games when I want. Piracy isn't worth it at this point, it's easier to pay for stuff.

Computers advanced far enough that most games will run on most systems that aren't the latest and greatest, RAM is cheap, and so is disk space, so system requirements are rarely a significant problem anymore.

Those were the two things that got in my way when buying games. But now I've got to deal with that a game will want to install crap on my system, and that when I want to play it 5 years later it won't work due to the hardware having changed, the auth server not existing anymore or some such reason.

Screw that, I'm not paying for it.

Re:Good for Steam

[PIBM]

Just use an email where dots are ignored. Gmail comes to mind.

Re:Good for Steam

[billcopc]

This argument has been beaten to death, and still the publishers refuse to listen.

When a game costs $60, and 8 times out of 10 it turns out to be absolute garbage, that is astoundingly poor value for money. So statistically, I have to blow $300 to find one game I actually like, and it might last me a few weeks, at best a month or two before I'm completely sick of it. If I could break that down into some sort of "fun-hours per dollar" metric, it would make cocaine and alcohol seem cheap by comparison.

Re:Good for Steam

[zach297]

That is the great thing about steam. If publishers insist on the fact that they are selling a license to a game at least they treat it like one with steam. You can always redownload games which to me is the only advantage to a license. It is not bound to a physical medium that can be lost, broken, or worn down over time.

Re:Good for Steam

[Chyeld]

Right now, I have six binders which hold ~200 CDs each sitting on the floor of my computer room these contain the CDs for every game and program I've bought since software was sold on CD.

I have four binders holding my DVD collection.

I have two binders holding my music collection.

I have two binders holding my console video game collection.

And I never, ever, plan on selling any of that to a used game company. Not because I have moral issues with it, but because for me, being able to go back and replay Dungeon Keeper 2 once every three years is worth the effort.

For me, Steam has no downside regarding the used game market. The upsides however, are immense. Every game I buy on Steam is that many less CDs and DVDs to store in those binders. It's one less item to OCD over trying to digitize because I'm worried that some day the original media will deteriorate and I won't be able to use it anymore.

Re:Good for Steam

[Anonymous Coward]

Regarding #2 - if you think a game is one that you might want to sell or get rid of at some point you can always create a new Steam account just for it.

Not entirely practical obviously, but I do know people who have their main Steam account where they buy games they know they will never get rid of, and then they create a new account for big new release games that they think they'll play once and never revisit.

Of course, it's also not very practical for the buyer since they constantly have to log into different accounts...but they might be the same way. They might want to just play through that game once and pass it on, in which case it's beneficial for them as well.

Re:Good for Steam

[moderatorrater]

IMO Steam is a perfect alternative to selling/buying your games on physical media

Just bought Empire: Total War, and the first thing they have you do is log into steam so that they can link it to your account. No steam, no game, and that was with a physical copy. I don't have a problem with buying things on steam and having those limitations, but I bought a physical copy of that game for a reason (lack of internet connectivity everywhere I play it, the sure knowledge that I'll never lose those dvds, etc). Steam is great for the games I play on it, but it has drawbacks that I would have preferred to avoid.

So, while I agree with you about it being a great method for digital distribution, I have a much larger problem with it becoming a method to restrict the physical distribution.

Re:Good for Steam

[forceman130]

You also can't resell a Steam game - so all your arguments about why Steam is the greatest thing ever play right into their goal of eliminating the used market.

Re:Good for Steam

[Chyeld]

"Hey Bob! The sky is blue!"

"What's so wrong about that Jim? Blue is a perfectly acceptable color for sky to be."

"Well, the sky, it's blue!"

Or see here.

Re:Good for Steam

[Animaether]

On the other hand... you don't worry that the vendor will simply *stop* offering their game through Steam? Or that steam itself goes belly-up? etc.

I'd much rather have both the physical media -and- the download service.

Re:Good for Steam

[Anonymous Coward]

I am a game "collector" as well. Or, rather, I keep the physical media of the games I buy around because, every now and then, some of them will be replayed for their remaining entertainment value.

Your claim that Steam has no downside is fallacious at best. What will happen to your games should Steam be phased out as a service?

I still play games which were made by companies that no longer exist. To assume that Valve (or whomever controls Steam, really) is immune to going poof at some point seems like wishful thinking.

In the meantime, I would like to see retainable value in the games I pay for. Which is why I skipped on Mass Effect (online authentication required to complete installation process), and am skipping on Empire: Total War (authentication through Steam, of all things), despite both games being tailored toward precisely the audience I can identify with. I used to spend a lot of money on games... nowadays, not so much, due to the combination of the above and downright mediocrity of majority of the releases. I guess that statistical loss of income will get blamed on pirates, too. *Snicker*

Any internet-based authentication system turns my purchase into a renting situation, and I find that inexcusable. Especially since that only inconveniences the actual paying customer, while doing little (do check torrent availability for a sample list of titles within a few days of their release) to combat piracy which is the claimed purpose.

And, frankly, I simply will not pay money to people that make it all to clearly known to me that they consider me a potential thief, at best. Sod you right back. I'll spend my money somewhere else.

Re:Good for Steam

[Anonymous Coward]

While Steam does work against the used market, it provides sufficent 'pluses' to make up for loss.

That is your opinion. Observe.

You gain the ability to download the game to any computer and play it, as long as no other computers are logged in as you. You gain the ability to redownload the game as many times as you need. You gain access to things like ingame messenging, even if the game itself didn't have such a system.

If a person wanted to make use of the used market, then ALL OF THOSE PLUSES ARE VOID BECAUSE THE PLAYER WANTS TO GET RID OF THE GAME. NOT PLAY IT, DOWNLOAD IT AGAIN, OR TALK TO SOMEONE ON THE GAME.

As a result these pluses do not negate any negatives deliberately heaved at the used game market.

Re:Good for Steam

[Anonymous Coward]

Rip the discs and store the ISOs on a hard drive for easy and instant access via Daemon Tools. If you have to constantly download the game each time you want to install it, you have to always have access to an internet connection and hours to waste waiting for gigs of data.

I much prefer the ISO method myself. All games occupying the physical space of a single external drive and they only take a few minutes from install to play.

Re:Good for Steam

[GuidedByVoices]

Valve has explicitly stated that if Steam/they were to tank, they would provide a means you could play your games without steam. Second, most developers don't do much support of their games via Steam, thats mostly left up to Valve.

Should a developer go down, you arn't going to loose the game or no longer have the ability to re-download it; people will simply be no longer to purchase it.

Re:Good for Steam

[Crumplecorn]

And I never, ever, plan on selling any of that to a used game company. Not because I have moral issues with it, but because for me, being able to go back and replay Dungeon Keeper 2 once every three years is worth the effort.

So, it's worth the effort of keeping physical media around in order to be able to replay them forever, but you are willing to give up the ability to replay them forever (by using steam) in order to avoid the effort.

Steam proponents are priceless.

Re:Good for Steam

[Crumplecorn]

You can always redownload

Everything lasts forever in Steam-land.

Ironically, assuming DD doesn't destroy the used market, when Steam kills all your old games, your only legal recourse will be to seek a used physical copy.

Re:Good for Steam

[reashlin]

Actually the price could drop well below $20. Looking recently at EA and Spore. EA claimed a 90% Piracy rate. The game sold for roughly $40. So of all the sales of the game, the equivalent of $4 made it "into the pot". They still made profit. So if they just sold the game for $4-$5 to begin with. I bet the piracy rate would have dropped a long way below 5%. And I'll bet the overall take-up rate of the game would have increased. The game would have made more money. But thats just me hedging a bet.

Re:Good for Steam

[Chyeld]

Steam allows you to backup your games to a physical medium. And there are sufficient cracks out there for defeating Steam that should they go under, even if they failed to keep their original promise of releasing a patch to remove the requirement for authentication, I'd still be able to play the games I've bought through them.

Re:Good for Steam

[Chyeld]

See here for my response. People who decide to toss ad hominem attacks into a conversation don't warrant the effort of an actual reply.

Re:Good for Steam

[Crumplecorn]

People who write self-contradictory posts deserve a mild ad hominem.

Steam allows you to backup your games to a physical medium. And there are sufficient cracks out there for defeating Steam that should they go under, even if they failed to keep their original promise of releasing a patch to remove the requirement for authentication, I'd still be able to play the games I've bought through them.

So Steam is awesome because it eliminates physical media, but PS, keep your games backed up on physical media if you don't want to lose access to them? As finely sensible a post as your last, good sir.

Sure, if you're willing to use illegal methods and rely on the pirates, you'll be able to play your Steam games years from now without Steam. But, if you are so willing, you can play them without Steam right now.

And I, on the other hand, won't have to break the law to play my games.

Re:Good for Steam

[Chyeld]

Like the typical self-righteous ass, you fail when it comes to reading comprehension, critical thinking, or actual fact checking.

Every game I've purchased on Steam is backed up. To a single hard drive. And should, some day, Valve look as if it were in dire straits, I'll be able take advantage of the fact that my backups are stand alone files which can simply be copied to preserve.

How about you? How are your games backed up? Do you have back ups, since you had your nose turned up high enough to drown when it rains over the idea of cracks, I'm guessing no.

You would prefer to pretend that in a decade you'll still be able to load those scratched CDs, that the scratches won't set off the SecureRom (or whatever DRM your game came with) disk check. That should YOUR six binders of games get stolen, the police will quickly and efficiently find the villain and return your property unharmed.

And you look down on Steam users for being naïve?

PS. Cracks aren't illegal. Using them to violate copyright is. If I own the game and Steam is dead, I'm not violating anything using a crack.

PSS. I lied, I do reply to idiots who use ad hominem attacks. I just preferred to give you the chance to pull your head of your ass and realize that your attitude had no place in the discussion. Too bad you are too ignorant to actually clue into things like that.

Re:Good for Steam

[Crumplecorn]

Every game I've purchased on Steam is backed up. To a single hard drive. And should, some day, Valve look as if it were in dire straits, I'll be able take advantage of the fact that my backups are stand alone files which can simply be copied to preserve.

And until then you can rest easy in the knowledge that you have negated Steam's biggest selling point, not having to keep games locally, while accepting all the downsides.

How about you? How are your games backed up? Do you have back ups, since you had your nose turned up high enough to drown when it rains over the idea of cracks, I'm guessing no.

My games are 'backed up' on the physical media I bought them on. A single point of failure, yes, but one with a far longer lifespan that your option. I've lost over a terabyte of data over the last few years to HDD failures. I've never had a damaged disk.
And I get this 'backup' simply by buying - I pay and get something I can keep forever, whereas you pay and then have to make arrangements for when your 'online backup' inevitably disappears.
As for cracks, I crack all my games to remove the CD check (I don't have a problem with such legally questionable things, and I get something the pirates can't supply when I buy), though my games will work as purchased with minor inconvenience even if I somehow lose the cracks - whereas yours will simply cease to function.

You would prefer to pretend that in a decade you'll still be able to load those scratched CDs, that the scratches won't set off the SecureRom (or whatever DRM your game came with) disk check. That should YOUR six binders of games get stolen, the police will quickly and efficiently find the villain and return your property unharmed.

In a decade's time my CDs will still be unscratched, as my current decade-old CDs are now - I know how to look after them.
Perhaps they will get stolen. Perhaps my house will burn down. Physical backups aren't perfectly safe, I never said they were. But at least in those situations, something bad actually happened, some extraordinary circumstance, an unfortunate fact of life. Rather that than some decision by a company somewhere to remote-kill my games, when they would have continued to work just fine otherwise.
To take my games from me you must actually take them, or destroy them. Yours ask for permission to even run, and the developer can simply refuse.

And this is just part of what is wrong with Steam.

I can understand the average Joe Random embracing Steam, they aren't going to be playing the same games next year, let alone in ten years, so none of this concerns them. But you actually want to keep your games permanently, and understand that Steam is directly opposed to this, and your response is to accept Steam and go to extra effort to mitigate its issues. Interesting.

Re:Good for Steam

[Chyeld]

Actually no, I don't accept that Steam is "opposed" to this. I simply think you are stuck in the world of pretending that having bought a game on CD is more secure than having the ability to download it whenever you want/need to.

Those six binders of games take up a full bookshelf in my computer room. The terabyte hard drive I could have stored them all on if they had been downloads, takes up less space than most of my hardbound books.

The hard drive is only necessary if I accept the premise that Steam is dead, as if Steam lives, then the hard drive is merely a convince factor for me when I don't want wait for Steam to download the game.

And if I accept your premise, then the only argument is whether my easily copied hard drive is a safer alternative to backing up my games than your vaunted "I know how to take care of my CDs" crap. Accidents happen, and hardware fails.

And, since my hard drive CAN be copied indefinitely, with multiple copies existing simultaneously, the answer to the question is: yes.

Yes. It's safer.
Yes. It takes up far less space.
Yes. It's easier.

But that's OK Mr. McGregor; I'll get off your lawn now. You stick to your tired old media, that's your choice. Just don't act like an ass and pretend that it's the only "right choice" for the rest of us out there.

We aren't all as hung up as you are, we don't all have the same priorities as you do. And as far as some of us are concerned, Steam is the preferable alternative.

Re:Good for Steam

[Crumplecorn]

Actually no, I don't accept that Steam is "opposed" to this.

A service which unnecessarily ties your games down to online authentication which will inevitably disappear doesn't conflict with the aim of keeping your games in working condition permanently?

Those six binders of games take up a full bookshelf in my computer room. The terabyte hard drive I could have stored them all on if they had been downloads, takes up less space than most of my hardbound books.

I image my disks and put the physicals in storage out of the way. All the benefits of what you do, with even more benefits, and the cost of ... some space in a cupboard?

The hard drive is only necessary if I accept the premise that Steam is dead, as if Steam lives, then the hard drive is merely a convince factor for me when I don't want wait for Steam to download the game.

If we assume that Steam will shut down in a well-announced and graceful way, yes. Do you assume that nothing will go wrong when planning ahead. Granted all I have mentioned is Steam's inevitable disappearance, but that isn't to say problems can't occur in the mean time.
And as I said - to lose my games, something has to physically happen to them. Yours? A bit accidentally gets flipped somewhere and whoops, all gone. Well, not really *gone*, they'll just give you the proverbial finger if you try to play them.

Accidents happen, and hardware fails.

Accidents are possible. Hardware failure is inevitable.

And, since my hard drive CAN be copied indefinitely, with multiple copies existing simultaneously

As can my disks, if I so wish. Steam doesn't let you do anything at the local end that you can't do anyway - it is solely restrictive.

You stick to your tired old media, that's your choice. Just don't act like an ass and pretend that it's the only "right choice" for the rest of us out there.

Well that's the thing isn't it. I know it is only the right choice for me because I value my games, and because I want to be able to play them in years to come. If this isn't the case, there is no argument against Steam.
But this all started because you claimed that you go to whatever effort necessary to maintain these same things, yet switched to Steam. You gave up some ease of maintaining your games for convenience now - which is fine, but contradictory to your stated goals.

Re:Good for Steam

[Anonymous Coward]

One thing that always bothers me about Steam is if you are a parent and only want to buy one copy of a game.

If I want to play CoD4 online and little Billy wants to play Team Fortress we can't since only one system can be logged in to the same account at a time. Seems like a huge limitation from my perspective.

Maybe there is a way around this and if so please let me know.

 

Re:Good for Steam

[Anonymous Coward]

and the more developers move to steam the more buyers will move to torrents.

How is this worth it?

[hansamurai]

On Amazon right now, there are 22 used copies of Left 4 Dead (Xbox 360) with the cheapest being $38.00. Why on earth would someone do this trade in when you could make at least ten more dollars just listing it on their own marketplace?

Re:How is this worth it?

[SupremoMan]

Laziness

Re:How is this worth it?

[Deag]

Is it ever worth it. I mean the only games that get a decent price are new ones which I would still be using.

Seems to be a lot of bother for $10.

Re:How is this worth it?

[AKAImBatman]

Because listing items is a serious PITA that's not worth the trouble? Between the options of:

A) Get money now for the thing you want to get rid of
B) Setup a web front, attract a buyer, work out delivery and payment details, package item properly, go to [UPS|FedEx|USPS] to send package, and then beg the buyer for feedback ...I know which one most people would choose. B only makes sense if you plan to do a significant volume.

Re:How is this worth it?

[Chyeld]

And how fast do you think those copies are moving?

Re:How is this worth it?

[Radish03]

In addition to the hassle of listing items and hoping for buyers that other posters mention, there is also the fact that Amazon takes a 15% commission, $0.99 per transaction fee, and $1.35 closing fee (source). That $38 sale price translates into $29.96 for the seller (plus a small amount to cover shipping). $3.46 for a sure thing sale doesn't sound quite so bad.

Re:How is this worth it?

[Jim Hall]

Why on earth would someone do this trade in when you could make at least ten more dollars just listing it on their own marketplace?

I'm a gamer, but I also have a life. Kind of bits to have to post something on eBay or some other marketplace just to get rid of a game. Remember, you also have to ship the game, deal with money transfer, etc. May not be much to you, but I probably work more than 40hrs a week, and my free time is important to me. It's very convenient for me to just bring in any games I've stopped playing, and use them for trade when I buy a new game. For example, I recently went through my PSP/PS2/PS3 games, decided I wasn't playing some of them, brought them in for trade. Got enough in trade that a new game was basically pocket change.

Took all of 10 minutes to drive to the nearest GameStop to make this happen.

Sure, I could have gotten more by selling them on eBay or something. My brother reminds me of this all the time. But bringing them in for trade (or now, to Amazon) is way more immediate.

Re:How is this worth it?

[glennpratt]

I guess you don't know what Amazon Marketplace is.

Your option B should read more like:

B) Set a price based on other sellers prices and desire to sell then list it on Amazon.

You don't need to work out delivery or payment details, you don't need to beg for feedback and you would have to package and ship the game regardless.

Re:How is this worth it?

[AKAImBatman]

I guess you don't know what Amazon Marketplace is.

Actually, I do.

You don't need to work out delivery or payment details

Presumably, you want Amazon to give you your money, right? Well, it doesn't magically appear in your hand. You need to setup payment details with Amazon or you won't get paid.

you don't need to beg for feedback

O RLY? Is that why my orders always come with a card that says, "Please leave us feedback for this transaction!" And why my orders page gives me an opportunity to leave feedback? And why users always confuse the comment system for the feedback system and leave reviews that read like: "Product arrived in great condition. Will do business again. A+"

Re:How is this worth it?

[D Ninja]

And how fast do you think those copies are moving?

Left 4 Dead? Probably moving faster than a Boomer and slower than that witch that you just spooked...

Re:How is this worth it?

[HistoricPrizm]

And, if you're in the market for a new game, that missing $3.46 can be easily made up by the 10% off a new game they're offering if you trade in a game in the next two weeks.

Re:How is this worth it?

[glennpratt]

Ok, you have to setup payment details once with Amazon, you make it sound like some impossible task. Bear in mind, that by performing this impossible task you get real money instead of a digital gift card.

As for feedback, you don't NEED to do that. You can if you like I suppose.

So you've half refuted one of my points. I'm not trying to be pedantic, but you made Amazon Marketplace sound identical to eBay when it's not.

Re:How is this worth it?

[AKAImBatman]

I'm not trying to make it sound insurmountable. Only a royal PITA. As I said, it's worth it if you have a lot of items to sell. It's not worth it if you want your money NOW or if you have very few items to sell.

Re:How is this worth it?

[Anonymous Coward]

Guaranteed sale? How long have those 22 used copies actually been languishing on the site?

If I wanted to buy the game, I'd not pay 38 bucks to a private person for... well, goodness knows what (an original? an illegal copy? a legal copy in bad condition?). Rather, I'd buy it new from amazon (or another place).

If amazon sold me the used game, I'd be reasonably confident I'd get a good copy and not a lemon. Even if I ended up paying a few more bucks that way due to paying the middle man, the potential hassles I'd not have to deal with would be worth it to me.

Re:How is this worth it?

[Anonymous Coward]

Not having to deal with the lowballers and flakes.

Re:How is this worth it?

[Javi0084]

Not to mention the commission you need to pay Amazon.

Re:How is this worth it?

[Anonymous Coward]

Selling on Amazon Mkt Place also opens-you-up to nastly little thieves who contend they never received your game and then file a complaint. Amazon will always side with the buyer and force a refund from your bank account. To help avoid this the seller can ship via expensive upgraded postage where the buyer signs on delivery - and that ooches your net-payoff closer to the price Amazon would give you for the trade. Unless of course Amazon's trade-in dept. claims they never got your game -now that would stank

Re:How is this worth it?

[jotaeleemeese]

Presumably, you want Amazon to give you your money, right? Well, it doesn't magically appear in your hand. You need to setup payment details with Amazon or you won't get paid.

Oh the pain! The little cry baby can't spend five minutes setting up the necessary details.

The bastards at Amazon! They have no heart.

Re:How is this worth it?

[TheMCP]

Why on earth would I pay $38 for a used copy directly from its owner, who I don't know and don't trust, when I can pay $26.50 (plus some reasonable markup) for a used copy direct from amazon, who I trust and have a free-shipping arrangement with?

Re:How is this worth it?

[WNight]

Sure, I could have gotten more by selling them on eBay

But then you'd have been using eBay... I hear you.

Re:How is this worth it?

[Anonymous Coward]

As a non-console person do you mean Xbox has a market place?

In my book if I have to spend time putting an AD up, waiting for a check to clear, or be mail if its paypal, and then send the item. I'd rather just post it like that.

You have to judge how valuable your own personal time is. I'd rather spend time with my wife and kid personally. Then again I'm not a console person.

D'oh

[vjmurphy]

"does Amazon joining the practice legitimize it?"

No, it was legitimate before Amazon joined in. I think you might mean "popularize" it, or something different.

Re:D'oh

[stephanruby]

does Amazon joining the practice legitimize it?

What were they thinking!! The next thing they'll do is try to sell used books or something.

It's a slippery slope I tell you. The next thing we'll have is stores trying to sell used books, used music CDs/tapes, used movies, etc. It's like the World is going to Hell in a hand basket! Don't they realize that this is going to mean the end of book authors, the end of musicians, and the end of film-makers!!!

It will be soooo bad, the only authors making money will have to put their books beyond a bullet proof glass pane window, the kind that's used to protect Obama (or the Mona Lisa), and there will be someone constantly looking over your shoulders making sure that you're not trying to memorize the book or try to take pictures of its content.

Re:D'oh

[Anonymous Coward]

Games to books isn't an equal comparison. Used books isn't a booming business. People generally hold on to books once they buy them. and before you go into the "well just make games people want to hold on to" argument. budgets on games are huge. the games are priced the way they are because of the cost to make them. Making games longer would increase the already bloated budgets. Could the budgets be dropped and price points be lowered? Sure, but that wont happen until consumers actually put their money where their mouths are and buys the smaller cheaper made titles at a comparable rate to the AAA titles.

Games to movies and cds is a bit more comparable. People buy them use them and sell them if they don't like them. Though there is a big difference here as well. Box offices. Music and movies make a ton of money on their product without selling cds or dvds at all.

And what about PC games?

[Taibhsear]

Is anyone going to accept those for trade in? Because I have quite a few games I never play anymore and/or got burned on (doesn't work, faulty discs that the company wouldn't replace, game sucks balls, etc.) that I'd love to swap for something decent. But since they are "easier to copy than console games" *cough*bullshit*cough* I never seem to be able to do so.

Re:And what about PC games?

[sstengler]

You should be able to sell them yourself, as long as the buyer would be able to run them. However, I would question the morality of selling someone a game that you knew was not working...

Re:And what about PC games?

[antdude]

Same here. EB (before GameStop took over) used to buy used games. :( I don't do eBay, Craig's List, and stuff.

Re:And what about PC games?

[dougmc]

I don't do eBay, Craig's List, and stuff.

Well, perhaps you should -- PC games are bought and sold there all the time.

An in general, CL and Ebay prices are significantly higher than what Gamestop pays for used games, and significantly lower than what they charge for used games. Cut out the middle man and you get more money for your games and get new ones for less.

Re:And what about PC games?

[antdude]

I don't trust online transactions with strangers. I want to do it in person.

Re:And what about PC games?

[Anonymous Coward]

So you have no problem selling faulty disk and at the same time criticise the lack of a second hand market for pc games.

You, and the people that keep the online codes are the reason nobody will pay for a second hand pc game.

Re:And what about PC games?

[dougmc]

Ok, then perhaps you could try ... Craiglist? It's mostly meant for local sales.

Or perhaps ... Ebay, but look for people in your city? It has a feature to look for stuff sold within X miles of a given zip code ...

mod parent up

[hdon]

houstonbofh + FredFredrickson need their posts modded up. Do it.

Re:mod parent up

[Anonymous Coward]

I'll get right on that Captain Obvious.

Now, how about trade-in's on DVD/Blu?

[Anonymous Coward]

that would be the final blow to the MPAA that's tried to say that used DVD's can't be resold without paying them again for royalties

Decrease or increase sells?

[olddotter]

If I can sell a used game to help of set the cost of a new one, then I might buy the new one where as before I would limit my buying much more.

This is already a moot point

[DragonTHC]

No one should be telling anyone else what they can and can't do with their own property.

If I want to sell a game I bought, I will. Just because the market for it may cut the industries profits makes no legitimate reason.

Used cars are sold all the time. It has no bearing on new car sales. If those people could afford a new car, they would buy one.

Same goes for games. Albeit, you're not getting a completely new car every time it changes hands.

Re:This is already a moot point

[lucas_picador]

Used cars are sold all the time. It has no bearing on new car sales. If those people could afford a new car, they would buy one.

I guess you think that those auto-plant workers should just starve to death, huh? If you buy a used car, you're taking bread out of the mouths of the children of every assembly-line worker in Detroit.

Remember: RESALE = THEFT.

Re:This is already a moot point

[n6kuy]

I'm in the habit of starving the children of glass installers by not throwing a brick through my living room window every couple of weeks.

Re:This is already a moot point

[Red Flayer]

I agree with you in spirit, but:

Used cars are sold all the time. It has no bearing on new car sales. If those people could afford a new car, they would buy one.

I can afford new cars... but I always buy used. This is because the transportation value of the car (in terms of miles left before dead) decreases much more slowly than the dollar value (due to insanely high 1st-yr depreciation). At any rate, I buy used cars because I'm a cheapskate, not because I can't afford new ones.

Availability of used cars *does* reduce new car sales... but the car industry isn't as stupid (clever?) as the game industry, who think they can overcome the 1st sale doctrine.

Re:This is already a moot point

[dougmc]

Used cars are sold all the time. It has no bearing on new car sales. If those people could afford a new car, they would buy one.

I don't know what you're smoking, but used cars sales have a huge bearing on new car sales. It's even been in the news lately.

I can afford a new car, but I usually buy used cars because it saves me lots of money I can spend on other things.

And I feel that this is right, moral, and the way things should be. If Detroit wants to sell me a car instead, they should make cars that I'd want to buy, at prices I'd want to pay for them. If they can't make cars that people will buy, then they need to go out of business to make room for somebody who will.

Ultimately, every used car was once a new car. The only problem I see here is that it encourages auto makers to `design in' obsolescence to their cars, but I don't have a solution to that.

Re:This is already a moot point

[Anonymous Coward]

No I'm not supporting assembly-line workers in Detroit because that involves buying a American made car.

Face the facts the resale of cars doesn't hurt the American auto industry, the fact they have been shitting out the shittiest cars money can buy for decades now. Now they want my tax money so they can shit out more shitty cars. Fuck them.

Re:This is already a moot point

[Anonymous Coward]

It takes a person years to turn around and resell a car. If people held on to their games for even a month before reselling it there wouldn't be an issue.

Re:This is already a moot point

[AK Marc]

I don't know what you're smoking, but used cars sales have a huge bearing on new car sales. It's even been in the news lately.

Impossible. XXX new cars are needed every year. These replace broken/smashed/retired ones and fill the needs of the new drivers. There will be XXX new car sales to match the XXX need. If demand XXX changes to demand YYY because of a bad economy, then the number of new car sales will be YYY. The article you linked to seems to be indicating that people are picking used over new, but that is a personal phenonomen, not a trend. It can't be a trend, because if everyone in the US decided to buy used, then the lots would run out of cars in a month and many people wanting cars would go without. That's not happening because new cars are being sold at the same rate as they are being made (with some lag in the timing as production adjusts to demand). That's just how it works, and picking a used car doesn't increase the number of cars on the road.

If there are fewer new cars being sold, it's because there are fewer people choosing to drive, not because of a move from new to used.

Re:This is already a moot point

[lucas_picador]

If we refuse to break our windows, then the terrorists have won.

Re:This is already a moot point

[dougmc]

Nice, but fundamentally flawed.

XXX is not a fixed figure. Cars don't wear out all at once. This breaks, that breaks, and in general the cost of maintaining the car goes up each year. At some point, it's more cost effective to replace the car than to keep fixing it.

However, most people replace the cars long before that point. They want a new car that's more reliable, don't want to put $2k into a car that's worth only $1500 (a sound economic decision, but it's still cheaper to buy another $1500 car that doesn't need $2k in repairs than a new $25k car.)

But if money becomes tight, there is a lot of room to put off buying a new car for several more years. $2000 now is a lot for car repairs, but it's less than that new car which will cost you $400/month.)

When the economy is down, people put off buying new cars. They make do with what they've got instead. When it's not cost effective to fix their car, they scrap it (or sell it to somebody who thinks they can fix it cheaper) and buy another used car. That's happening now.

People might be driving slightly less now, but new car sales are down a lot more than that.

Re:This is already a moot point

[AK Marc]

XXX is not a fixed figure. Cars don't wear out all at once.

That's true, but doesn't affect my statements. New cars must be sold at a rate that equals growth + attrition.

When the economy is down, people put off buying new cars. They make do with what they've got instead.

Yes. And that is why I had that the XXX could become YYY. I didn't get into all the details (used cars may last longer because people would be more willing to repair the blown engine rather than scrapping it), but in all cases, the number of use cars sold doesn't affect the number of new cars sold.

People might be driving slightly less now, but new car sales are down a lot more than that.

If people are buying additional cars at the same rate (new teen drivers, replacing scrapped cars) where are they coming from? You can't buy an infinite number of used cars. You can buy an (effectively) infinte number of new cars. I'm stating that used cars *can't* take share from new cars because there simply aren't enough used cars out there. People are going without additional cars instead. Whether having the kids share, go without, or making the clunker last another year, people are putting off adding cars, new or used. This impacts new car sales. Used car sales doesn't impact new car sales.

Re:This is already a moot point

[dougmc]

Used car sales doesn't impact new car sales.

Well, as I already pointed out, many seem to disagree with you. You're right, to a degree -- eventually all the used cars will wear out, and people will have to buy new ones. But when the economy is bad, people look to used cars more than they used to, at the detriment of new car sales. They also fix up what they have rather than selling it.

This does drive up used car prices, supply and demand, and some cars that were destined for the junk yard get fixed and sold instead.

Re:This is already a moot point

[AK Marc]

It's simple math. For every car replaced or added, that must be a new car sale. If a particular person isn't buying new, then someone else is. Yes, people are fixing old cars and holding off on purchases, but that doesn't change the math. For every car added, one new car must be sold. Thus, used sales don't hurt new car sales. I read the article. They don't get the math. It's simply impossible to "make" used cars to fit demand. The only thing that actually increases supplies is new cars, not used cars.

Re:This is already a moot point

[DragonTHC]

you're taking bread out of the mouths of the children of every assembly-line worker in Detroit.

you mean taking tortilla out of the bocas of el hijos of every assembly-line worker in mexico.

Re:This is already a moot point

[dougmc]

For every car replaced or added, that must be a new car sale.

... or a car repaired and put back into service.

That car that's been rusting in the back of your property for ten years? You might fix that up rather than buying a new car if money is tight. Or you just had an accident, doing $1500 worth of damage to your $2000 car? You might scrap it and buy a new one if money was better, but it's not, so you suck it up and fix it. Sure, you'd rather have a new car, but what if you lose your job tomorrow? (And if you did buy a new car, you'd sell your old one -- but it's unlikely anybody would spend $300 for it to then drop $1500 in it to maybe sell it for $2000. They'd salvage it for parts instead.)

Ultimately, every car on the road or in the junk yard was once new. But that doesn't mean that a bad economy can't make cars that would have been scrapped get fixed instead, and that effectively `creates' usable cars, reducing the demand for new cars. It can't continue forever, but it can happen for years. Deny it all you want, but I don't think that'll stop people from actually doing it, and I don't think your denial will make GM hurt any less.

And yet, while new car sales are down, used car sales are up. Deny that too, but the facts are there. Granted, people are driving somewhat less (gas sales tell us that) but that's not enough to account for the change in new car sales, not by itself.

Re:This is already a moot point

[AK Marc]

... or a car repaired and put back into service.

Impossible. For extremely tiny numbers that are completely inconsequential, yes. But have you ever actaully seen a scrapped car? In many cases, the cost of getting it like new can be up to 10x the cost of the same car new. The cost of getting it on the road and usable is well below buying the car used. Cars that are parked for over a year because of mechanical trouble don't make it back on the road in appreciable numbers, not in good times, and not in bad (in fact, probably more do in good times because people have spare money to tinker with their junkers).

That car that's been rusting in the back of your property for ten years? You might fix that up rather than buying a new car if money is tight.

Why? My brother-in-law has one of those. He's been working on it for almost 10 years. The total cost so far exceeds that of a new car. And no, it's not like he's restoring a classic, but just getting a Jeep with a lift kit back on the road after the engine blew.

Deny it all you want, but I don't think that'll stop people from actually doing it, and I don't think your denial will make GM hurt any less.

You can't tell me how many cars are being resurrected. I don't think the numbers are even tracked. So all we have is our opinions. Mine is that the number of cars that were previously junked that are now being fixed to steal new car sales is so small that it's irrelevant. The drop in new car sales is solely because of people not buying cars for their children or opting to not buy an extra car they were planning on, or keeping the old family car one more year.

And yet, while new car sales are down, used car sales are up. Deny that too, but the facts are there.

I never denied that. If used car sales are up, that means people are *trading* cars more. They get grumpy with their old one, and rather than buying a new one, they trade it with someone else's car. People trade in cars on used purchases. So it's a swap that doesn't increase the number of cars on the road, nor does it decrease it. They just feel like they got a "new" car because it's new to them. It's a psychological fix to the problem that they wanted a new car and couldn't afford it. So they swap used cars. That they are swapping more often doesn't affect the cars on the road. The only thing that affects the cars on the road is when something is junked or a new car is bought. Swapping increasing, which I never said wasn't happening, has absolutely no effect on that.

Right Pricing

[meerling]

There is a much larger market for a $20-$30 game than a $50-$60 one. Even Steam has come out and said this. So let's see, if packaging, shipping and promotion work out to about $5 per unit, and you sell 100,000 at $60 each for a total profit of $5.5 million. But if you only sold them for $25 each, and the lower price increased units sold to 300,000, (reasonable expectation based on personal expectations and the info from Steam) then your total profit would be $6 million. Maybe it's just me, but it seems that many people either didn't take, or else failed economics 101. (more like economics 30). If you don't know what I'm babbling about, Increasing price Reduces unit sold, Decreasing price Increases units sold. Of course there are some constraints on that system, available supply, market window, economy of scale, etc, but for the most part they really don't bung up the basic principle. You want to sell low enough to sell enough units sold so that the total profit, not the per unit profit, is maximized. Right now, the software industry is failing in that aspect completely.

Re:Right Pricing

[pdabbadabba]

"Right now, the software industry is failing in that aspect completely."

Well yeah, if we accept your back-of-the-napkin figures. But if the demand is less than 2x greater at $25, then they are right to leave it at $50. (Accepting, of course, your two-price idealization). All we're seeing is a disagreement between Valve and the rest of the PC games world over the true price elasticity of games.

The games industry is stupid in a lot of ways, but I think we have to trust that they do know how to manipulate us so as to extract the maximum profit.

Re:Right Pricing

[averner]

A lot of the expensive games require expensive systems (think Crysis when it was released). If your game requires an expensive system, the target audience is likely willing to pay more for your game as well.

Goozex is better

[LoverOfJoy]

I've found that for online game trading Goozex beats everything else by a mile. Buyers and sellers get the same price with only a $1 transaction fee to Goozex (plus you pay shipping if you're the seller--but free shippinig for buyers). Goozex then acts as an arbiter to resolve disputes (though I've yet to ever have one and from what I can tell by the forums, it seems pretty rare for everyone else too). If you try out a game and decide it's not your style (or if you simply beat it) you can get full money back minus the $1 fee and shipping as long as you didn't hold onto it so long that the value of the game has gone down.

To top it off, when you first start they give you a free $5 game (or $5 toward a more expensive game). Every other online site I've tried practically gives you peanuts for a game that they resell for much more.

Re:Goozex is better

[DCstewieG]

I use gametz.com. No transaction fee, just shipping. Two successful trades for me so far, great experience. As a noob, I send first, then they send. If both traders have good rep, they send at the same time. Beats the hell out of giving GameStop undeserved (IMO) money.

Re:Goozex is better

[LoverOfJoy]

That site looks good but one reservation I have is how long it takes to find people to swap with. As they don't use points (they advertise this as a plus) the person you "sell" to has to have something you want to "buy".

I imagine if you only buy and sell the newest games within a single genre it probably isn't hard to find a match. However, I have quite a few older games and I have eclectic tastes in games (how often are the people who want to buy my old FPS Dreamcast game also the same people wanting to sell the Wii puzzle game I'm looking for?). For this reason, I think Goozex is a better match for me, although I can see how Gametz might be better for some people. To each their own.

Shipping costs

[Pearson]

Although Amazon may pay $2.00 more per game, is that going to make up for the shipping costs to send them the disc and get the new one? I'd love to see some pressure on GameStop to pay more for used games, but I don't think $2.00 is going to be enough.

Re:Shipping costs

[Albanach]

Although Amazon may pay $2.00 more per game, is that going to make up for the shipping costs to send them the disc and get the new one?

Clicking the link in the summary tells me Amazon pay for shipping, and since most games cost more than $25 games you buy will be eligible for free super saver shipping (or if you're a Prime member, free 2 day shipping).

Re:Shipping costs

[Anonymous Coward]

Amazon pays for the return shipping, so it costs nothing to send in your games.

PS4/Xbox 720/WiiWii

[Xian97]

I bet that the next generation of consoles will have something to limit used game sales, and will push digital downloads much more than a physical media that can be easily traded.

What Amazon should do is publish the figures on how many of the used game sales were put right back in to new game sales and maybe it will convince the publishers that second hand sales is not necessarily as bad as they thought.

Re:PS4/Xbox 720/WiiWii

[interkin3tic]

I bet that the next generation of consoles will have something to limit used game sales, and will push digital downloads much more than a physical media that can be easily traded.

That is definitely a safe bet. I would also guess that older gamers are going to be more dissatisfied with that, are going to buy less games because we can't buy used, but kids are going to continue buying just as much, leading to a focus on kids games and mediocre games we're already seeing on the wii.

It was never non ligitimate

[thermian]

The issue is not whether to legitimise it, the issue is whether the industry trying to kill the second hand market will succeed in getting enough corporate mindshare to have it thought of as a bad thing.

Every major high street game pc/console game retailer I have seen has a secondhand section.
Amazon sell used books too, another practice that printed word distributers tried to kill off (a bizarre strategy in itself).

This limited activation DRM thing is part of the idea that secondhand game sales can be prevented, but it still doesn't work. All it means is those games become useless to someone in the habit of selling off their used games to buy new ones (I used to), so they tend not to purchase them new either.

Amazon is a day late

[joeflies]

The used game business is eventually going to go the way of the dinosaur eventually. As most gaming devices are net connected now, game developers figured out the smart thing to do is not to make the whole game deliverable on a CD, but go client-server where part of the game is on a server. Now you got companies making money on the service delivery, like xbox, or getting part of the game experience online, such as WOW. And GTAIV's episodic content is the first step from taking that franchise in the same direction.

The customers are demanding an online experience, primarily for the interactivity with other players. But slowly, the content is moving less from a packaged box to a gaming software as a service, and it won't matter how many times you actually sell the cd itself. Korea, for example, is nearly already there with the way that their PC games are distributed for free.

What's to legitamize?

[godless dave]

As long as the games weren't copied before being resold, there is no issue here. Any game companies that object will look as stupid as the record companies that objected to stores buying and selling used CDs.

"Gamestop" has ruffled feathers?

[Anonymous Coward]

They make it sound like gamestop pioneered the practice of selling used games. I was trading in my used games back in the days of the NES. I mean about any mall in a big city would have some video game store, and they ALL dealt used games. Video game magazines would even have adverts listing the prices you could get for your games.

Amazon might be missing the point

[techstar25]

People trade their games to Gamestop because they don't want the hassle of selling them online. For instance, maybe they are just a kid, and their parents won't help, or maybe they just don't trust the internet.
If you are going to go to the hassle of putting it online and then shipping it, why not just put it on ebay and make three times what Amazon would give you? I did a quick search of a few games, and Amazon's trade in value is still about a third of what you could get on ebay.
I think Amazon is missing the point.

Steam

[Thaelon]

I wish someone would bring some first sale doctrine to Steam.

I cannot sell my "used" steam games to anyone for any price. This is not to say that steam doesn't have its benefits. But losing the ability to sell old games is a tough one to swallow.

And they typically charge the same as if I'd gotten some tangible assets I could resell even though I can't.

The ruckus being caused among developers and publishers exactly the same being caused among the RIAA/MPAA. The business model of making something intangible and selling copies of it printed on plastic discs for a premium is faltering towards obsolescence.

Basically they had a money printing machine, and now they're whining that people have found ways to cut into their fat profit margins. Forgive me if I just consider that another aspect of the market instead of sympathizing.

Who cares?

[Anonymous Coward]

And nothing of value was lost.

Not New to Amazon

[Anonymous Coward]

You have been able to buy used games on Amazon for years. Instead of selling your used games/movies on Amazon, they now act as a middle-man, making more of a profit.

Used games are bad for the economy

[OrangeTide]

It takes money from game publishers every time you sell a used game. And forces them to charge even more for their games to make up the loss. It's about time we turn this problem around with an economic stimulus package for the game industry. How many billions, with a b, do we need to give for Duke Nukem Forever to be released and help stimulate the economy?

Re:Used games are bad for the economy

[interkin3tic]

It takes money from game publishers every time you sell a used game. And forces them to charge even more for their games to make up the loss. It's about time we turn this problem around with an economic stimulus package for the game industry.

It's a real testament to the lack of imagination or intelligence in detroit that they didn't think to use this argument, blaming used car sales, when they were asking for a bailout.

Re:Used games are bad for the economy

[Beanyhead]

If game developers produced a game that had high re playability value, this wouldn't be a problem.

Re:Used games are bad for the economy

[dougmc]

It takes money from game publishers every time you sell a used game.

To be more precise, it takes money from them every time they lose a sale, and if somebody buys your used game rather than buying a new one, they've lost a sale.

And what do I think about that? Boo hoo. They're selling a physical object that can be traded and sold. If they don't want this to happen, they should be selling something else -- a service of some sort perhaps? (And no, selling a game with a shrink wrapped license doesn't make it a service.)

Every time you buy a used car, you're costing the auto industry money in exactly the same way. A used book? Authors are starving! A used house? Carpenters need to eat too!

Garage sales? Think of all the damage they're doing to our economy?@!! Goodwill -- evil to the core!

Re:Used games are bad for the economy

[Crumplecorn]

Every download, uh, I mean, every resell is a lost sale. True story.

Electronic Distribution

[Karem Lore]

This then makes more sense to buy the boxed version of a game over an electronic distribution which flys in the face of the earlier discussions on physical copies of games: http://games.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/03/05/0655225

Why bother trading in?

[asv108]

When you can sell the game on amazon.com for much more money?

But is this really bad for publishers?

[Baldrake]

People like Bruce on Games rabbit on and on about how used game sales take money away from developers, leading to lower profits, and lower re-investment in new games.

I've never bought this argument. Surely people are more likely to buy new games if they believe they can get a few bucks back on resale. And people who want the game right now are going to prefer to pay the new game price over waiting to get it second hand.

Does anyone have real evidence that the used game industry really harms developers?

Re:But is this really bad for publishers?

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

Ultimately, that isn't really the point. If I buy something, it becomes my property, and I have the right to do anything I want with it, including resell(barring things that are illegal for other reasons, like murdering people with it). I don't have to prove that my doing so doesn't harm the original seller, it just isn't relevant.

You not giving me your money harms me; but that doesn't matter; because I don't have a right to your money. Used game sales might well harm developers; but that is irrelevant; because they don't have the right to stop them.

Re:But is this really bad for publishers?

[Carlosos]

Does anyone have real evidence that the used game industry really harms developers?

I don't have real evidence but common sense. Every used item "harms" the creator of it because the creator of the used item doesn't make money on the resell. The creator only cares about the amount of new items sold and reduced used items will cause more new items being sold (not the same amount as used copies sold before). Software also doesn't get bad over time so that you can get the same quality as the new item.
You could argue that prices will get lower for new items if no resell is possible but like with digital distribution it doesn't happen because most companies are not non-profit.

Re:But is this really bad for publishers?

[Crumplecorn]

Every used item "harms" the creator of it because the creator of the used item doesn't make money on the resell.

Most of the used games I purchase cannot be bought new any more. Where is the loss here?

Next Week: Not every download is a lost sale.

Re:But is this really bad for publishers?

[Carlosos]

You are right, if the item cannot be bought new any more than there is no loss for the publisher. In that case I believe that there shouldn't even be a copyright anymore on the software.

$2 billion industry?!

[jollyreaper]

Game publishers put on the pimp hat: "That's my money you're taking, muthafucka! We betta get on this here elecamatronic distribution thing, beyotch!"

This is not much of an exaggeration. The only real differences between pimps and game publishers are the choice of clothes and vernacular.

gamestop is dead here

[juenger1701]

they can't compete against a 5 store chain started in a dorm room (http://rock30games.com/) that buys higher and sells cheaper than GS last time i saw a copy of left for dead with them they were buying at $28 (i bought it before it even hit the shelf) here they even have managed to slow down game sales in the big box stores

amazon is meaningless anyone with a local B\S\T game shop will go there to avoid shipping problems, time delays, option to get cash instead of credit not to mention that at rock30 at least they guarantee the stuff is going to work or they take it back

moral of the story: if you're in or near a decent sized town (this place is 18k when the college is in session 15-16 normally) do some digging you're probably going to find a B\S\T somewhere and it'll smoke any national chain

Know how to work the system.

[RsJtSu]

A while back Blockbuster was accepting used games and were offering a promotion of "turn in ANY 2 used games and buy ANY used game for $10".
The only problem was that a smaller game store was selling old PS1 games for 50 cents each which meant I could spend $1, go to blockbuster buy the highest valued game in the store for $10 minus what the trade in games were worth (usually about a quarter).
Then, I would turn around and trade in the game I just bought for anywhere between $15 and $35 dollars. So, I spent $11, made $25 for a profit of $14 and proceeded to do this around 50 times until the store manager refused to accept PS1 games anymore because they had about 15 copies of Madden 98 and NHL 96. But other Blockbusters still would.
How's that for getting peanuts for your trade ins?

Ruffled feathers

[Zolodoco]

Trade-ins might ruffle developer feathers, but they should know that without getting some value back on my old games I could seldom afford to purchase new ones.

If they did it then it isn't illegal

[sgt scrub]

If they didn't sell the game then it is impossible for you to sell the game.

Examples:
If what you are doing is called "buying a license" then you are selling the license.

If they say you are borrowing it for your use for a fee, then you are loaning it for someone else's use for a fee.

No matter how they phrase it what they are doing is what you are doing. If the EULA specifies that by you doing what they did is illegal then they should be arrested/fined/sued for doing it first.

Re:If they did it then it isn't illegal

[91degrees]

You're transferring the licence without express permission of the copyright holder.

Re:If they did it then it isn't illegal

[hob42]

The way I see it (yeah, IANAL) even if I only have a license to use the program on the disc according to certain restrictions, I bought the disc, case, manual, and maybe even a cardboard box from the store when I gave them my credit card. I can re-sell these physical items regardless of whether the license can legally be transferred or not.

Traditionally it has been basically impossible to prevent the "transfer" of the license after a resale either. Except now that we have programs with activation systems linked to the individual computer it is being installed on, like Spore. With all the current consoles supporting native internet access, I assume it's only time before more games do this just to ruin the second-hand console game market.

Re:If they did it then it isn't illegal

[russotto]

The way I see it (yeah, IANAL) even if I only have a license to use the program on the disc according to certain restrictions, I bought the disc, case, manual, and maybe even a cardboard box from the store when I gave them my credit card. I can re-sell these physical items regardless of whether the license can legally be transferred or not.

There's a contradiction there. If you own the disc, you own a copy of the game. That disc IS, according to US copyright law, a copy of the game. That's part of why the whole "licensed and not sold" thing doesn't hold up to casual inspection.

Re:If they did it then it isn't illegal

[Anonymous Coward]

No. I'm transferring the license onward to the purchaser. I'm just delivering the software for a small fee.

Re:If they did it then it isn't illegal

[91degrees]

But there's still the difference of permission. The retailer had explicit permission. You don't have. Hence however you redefine it, there's a difference.

The Three R's

[SparhawkA]

Reduce, Reuse, Recycle! -Jack Johnson

You can sell your steam games individually

[dew4au]

So, even if I do have the right to resell them, what good is it? I can't meaningfully exercise it.

Yes you can.

It's called gifting. I bought Half Life 2 when it came out, but later bought the Orange Box. It notified me that I had one extra copy of HL2 and I was able to give it as a gift to one of my buddies.

You can gift any game that you've purchased. Just have someone send you paypal, then gift the game to their username.

You can sell your Steam games. By saying otherwise you're just spreading FUD.

Re:You can sell your steam games individually

[vux984]

You are sadly misinformed.

It's called gifting. I bought Half Life 2 when it came out, but later bought the Orange Box. It notified me that I had one extra copy of HL2 and I was able to give it as a gift to one of my buddies.

OrangeBox was a partial exception. A one time special deal for Orange Box buyers who already had other components of the game. It is not generally true. (And it only applied to duplicate components... you couldn't gift features you only had one of.)

You can gift any game that you've purchased. Just have someone send you paypal, then gift the game to their username.

Why don't you try just that? You are wrong. It **doesn't work**.

You can buy a game and gift it (but you have to buy it 'as a gift' and you absolutely can't play it yourself first), and who ever receives it can't gift it again.

Read all about it right from steam:

https://support.steampowered.com/kb_article.php?p_faqid=549

"A Steam gift purchase is a one-time transfer--after the recipient has activated and installed the game, it is a non-refundable game in his or her Steam games collection. Also note that you may only gift new purchases--you may not transfer games you already own. That'd be like wrapping up and presenting the toaster you've used every morning for the past year."

or further down:

"You can not gift games that were previously purchased on your Steam account to friends. Half-Life 2 and Half-Life 2: Episode One can be gifted when purchased as part of the Orange Box package. For more information about Orange Box gifting, please see..."

They couldn't be more clear that you can't transfer games you already own (OrangeBox duplicates being the ONLY exception.)

You can sell your Steam games. By saying otherwise you're just spreading FUD.

No you can't. Its you that is spreading misinformation. Sad thing is, I believe you genuinely believed you were right, which means their whole 'gifting' system marketing has completely deluded you into thinking it worked the way you thought it worked. But it doesn't, and you wouldn't have found out until you actually tried to gift one of you other used games and found you couldn't. At which point it is FAR to late to do anything about it.

I have spoken with support, argued with them live and via email over this on a number of occasions. I have actually TRIED to gift a in my account that isn't an orange box duplicate.

Don't trust me on this; do your own research. But unfortunately you WILL find that I am right.

Re:You can sell your steam games individually

[Fozzyuw]

Yes you can. It's called gifting. I bought Half Life 2 when it came out, but later bought the Orange Box. It notified me that I had one extra copy of HL2 and I was able to give it as a gift to one of my buddies. You can gift any game that you've purchased. Just have someone send you paypal, then gift the game to their username. You can sell your Steam games. By saying otherwise you're just spreading FUD.

"Gifting" is giving someone else a coupon to download a free game on Steam. That's all. When you bought the Orange Box, and already owned Half-Life 2, Valve credited your account with a free coupon for Half-Life 2. Nothing more. It is not selling a game. Once you activate a game on a Steam account, it cannot be transferred to another account. Activated games cannot be "gifts".

At least not yet. Though, it would be cool if it where true.

Re:You can sell your steam games individually

[forceman130]

"A Steam gift purchase is a one-time transfer--after the recipient has activated and installed the game, it is a non-refundable game in his or her Steam games collection. Also note that you may only gift new purchases--you may not transfer games you already own. That'd be like wrapping up and presenting the toaster you've used every morning for the past year."

Wow, that quote really steams me. Who are they to say that I can't gift a toaster I've used if I so choose. Seriously, the attitude that developers have about the "specialness" of software incenses me - why is software so special that it can only be rented (sorry, licensed), not owned? I wish I had the coin to sue them over the First Sale Doctrine.

Re:You can sell your steam games individually

[Chosen Reject]

While I'm a happy Steam user (because I only buy games after much deliberation and have not yet come across one I've wanted to sell off) I agree with you; that is just stupid. Not only is it stupid, it's especially so since software doesn't degrade like a used toaster would. My copy of Half-Life 2 is just as spiffy as it was the day I bought it, whereas my toaster is not.

Re:You can sell your steam games individually

[vux984]

While I'm a happy Steam user (because I only buy games after much deliberation and have not yet come across one I've wanted to sell off)

Assuming your are both fairly young and that you put all your steam games in one account you'll get burned when you discover that you can't go and play Half Life 5 at the same time your 10 year old daughter is playing your copy of Bejeweled 3 multiplayer. (assuming you let her play your copy of bejeweled... sharing account info is against the eula... you should probably just buy a separate copy of every game for each member of your entire family, right?)

So even if you love all your games, you are only allowed to use one at a time. Steam is like having a bookshelf full of CDs, and then finding out that if your wife is listening to one of them in her car, you not only can't listen to that one, but you can't listen to any other CDs you own either.

Such is the 'excellent' steam model.

(Yes there is an 'offline mode' that sort of works some of the time for some games... but its hardly a solution, especially long term as more and more games have 'online' features.)

Re:You can sell your steam games individually

[Chosen Reject]

I certainly don't doubt that it might sometime in the future possibly bite me. However, I have no problem with it now. I like that it keeps track of all my games and allows me to install and play without any physical media. As of now, all of my games are Valve games (except for a trial version of Peggle) so offline mode has worked without any hitches (for me, anyway). I realize there are problems, I can also see potential future problems. However, I am happy. I'm not claiming it is perfect, but it's reasonable for the time being.

Also, my daughter is 2, so it's nice to know that Half-Life 3, 4, and 5 with all their attendant episodes will be out in the next 8 years.

Re:You can sell your steam games individually

[AK Marc]

Can you open a new steam account for each and every game? I've so far steered clear because of such issues. I prefer to own the games I own (WoW being the exception, as I may own the game, I can't play it without their permission, but it's a MMO game).

Re:You can sell your steam games individually

[vux984]

Can you open a new steam account for each and every game?

You can, and probably should. But its a hassle if you want to use any of steams 'IM' or matching services if you or your friends each have a lot of accounts.

The EULA, from what I can tell doesn't explicitly ban you from having multiple accounts.

If you split the games into multiple accounts, it does make it possible to 'effecitvely' transfer ownership of a single title, but its still against the eula. Its also agaisnt the eula to have mutliple people access your accounts... so if you split your games up to let your kids play, that's technically against the eula too.

I personally don't give much weight to the eula, however, it's prudent to know what 'rules' you are breaking before you decide in and how you plan to break them.

(WoW being the exception, as I may own the game, I can't play it without their permission, but it's a MMO game).

MMOs is precisely the model. If you read the steam EULA you do not 'buy games' nor even 'buy a copy of a game' nor even 'buy a license to a copy of a game'. you merely 'subscribe to a game' (of course its a one time fee for a perpetual subscription, which is something of a distortion of the word 'subscribe', if you ask me, but that's how they are trying to structure it to get around any rights you might otherwise have.

Re:You can sell your steam games individually

[trawg]

I suppose as a workaround you could:

1) Create a Steam account for every game you buy
2) Sell each Steam account separately.

I haven't read the EULA but it wouldn't surprise me to find it's prohibited by the license, but I suspect they'd have a hard time enforcing it (and probably wouldn't bother).

Re:You can sell your steam games individually

[Crumplecorn]

Also note that you may only gift new purchases--you may not transfer games you already own. That'd be like wrapping up and presenting the toaster you've used every morning for the past year.

Really? I thought the whole point of Steam was that games are licensed software, not physical products.

Re:You can sell your steam games individually

[Crumplecorn]

I certainly don't doubt that it might sometime in the future possibly bite me. However, I have no problem with it now.

You my friend are the quintessential Steam user. You know it will screw you over eventually, but you just don't care, because not having to pick up a disk and put in a drive frees you of such a monumental burden.

I like standing on train tracks. I don't doubt that a train might come along in the future and possibly harm me. However, that isn't a problem right now.

Re:You can sell your steam games individually

[vux984]

Really? I thought the whole point of Steam was that games are licensed software, not physical products.

Actually, if you read their EULA they think they are 'subscriptions'. You don't even own a software license.

Re:You can sell your steam games individually

[ukyoCE]

Screw you over is a very subjective claim. It's just like non-compete agreements in employment. Is accepting a job where I get paid $$$$ really "you know it will screw you over but just don't care"? There are benefits now, there are (arguably minor) risks later.

Oh no, I MIGHT have to pay $2 to buy Bejeweled Multiplayer in 8 years so my daughter can play it while I play Half-life 5? You really think that edge case is worth "giving up" everything I can gain by using Steam now? It's not.

I love playing Left 4 Dead, TF2, CS:S - these are the best games out there. I'm not going to deprive myself of substantial enjoyment now just for extreme-edge-case fears that are unlikely to ever materialize.

A better analogy than yours would be "I'm going to stand in this drain on the side of the road so I can pick up a $100 bill, but I don't doubt that it might rain eventually and get my shoes a little wet".

Re:You can sell your steam games individually

[amoeba1911]

"That'd be like wrapping up and presenting the toaster you've used every morning for the past year."
Does Steam really say that? Holy crap they do: https://support.steampowered.com/kb_article.php?p_faqid=549#gifts-whatare

<SteamFiction>
Yea... you can't give your old toaster to people or sell it. That's just nasty. It would be like selling the house you lived in every day for the past five years. Why would you want to sell your old house? Ewww... everyone knows you're supposed to burn it to the ground and have the next people on the land build a brand new house.

Same with cars, you can't sell your old used car once you drive it out of the dealer's lot, the title has your name on it and it is non transferable. Nobody else would possibly want that car you farted in while driving on muddy streets. Only the car dealer has the right to sell cars to people.

Same with clothing, you can't give/sell/donate your old clothing because once you wear it, it is yours forever. If you die, you have to bury your entire wardrobe with you.

Software is a whole lot more personal than a house, a car, and clothing. Ewww, why would you want to install software that's already been installed on someone else's computer? That's nasty! Ewww.... that's just plain nasty.
</SteamFiction>

Now back to the shocking reality. Steam is so out of touch with reality.
People can actually sell used houses and their used cars and even their old used clothing and if someone wants to give away or sell their old used toaster they very well can, and someone who is less fortunate who can't afford a brand new toaster can actually buy a used toaster and use it. A quick ebay search reveals dozens of used toasters for sale. Preventing people from selling their used software that they purchased is objectionable and unnatural at the least, possibly criminal.

Re:You can sell your steam games individually

[Crumplecorn]

Oh no, I MIGHT have to pay $2 to buy Bejeweled Multiplayer in 8 years so my daughter can play it while I play Half-life 5?

More like, you might have to torrent down a copy of Half-Life 2 if you want to go back to the earlier entries in the series, because the legit copy you bought was deactivated.

I love playing Left 4 Dead, TF2, CS:S - these are the best games out there.

They are all online focused - Steam has no adverse effects on online games, since they intrinsically require the service to function. I know of no argument against Steam-based online games, except maybe the loss of LAN gaming in the future.

Re:You can sell your steam games individually

[Chosen Reject]

Yup, I am the quintessential Steam user. I smartly decided that for a definite benefit now, I will risk a possible inconvenience later. Playing with disks isn't a monumental burden, however, it does contain the risk of of eventually scratching the disk, especially as I have children in the house. When that happens, I lose a game. That is a much worse burden than my daughter not being able to play Bejeweled while I play Half-Life 5. I could be extra careful with the disks, even locking them up so that my children can't have access, but that just increases the burden of using disks, which increases the benefit of Steam. So thank you for your proper assessment of my smart decision. I'm glad to be counted amongst other smart individuals who have made a smart decision that weighs the known current and future benefits with the slight chance that sometime in the future a problem might possibly maybe happen.

Have fun on the train track. Trains are hard to miss. They're loud, big, and even make the ground tremble. At night they have lights. So go ahead and enjoy standing on the tracks. When one comes along you should be able to easily account for that small risk in your pursuit of enjoyment and take a corrective action so as to continue with your happy train track standing pleasures. This indicates to me that you can also weigh risks and benefits and make decisions that you feel are worthwhile. If you aren't already, you could be a quintessential Steam user, too.

Re:You can sell your steam games individually

[Crumplecorn]

possible [...] might possibly maybe

You don't really get this do you.

Re:You can sell your steam games individually

[Chosen Reject]

Reading your other posts I know that you've thought this through. I'm happy for you. You made a decision you're happy with. Good for you. And no, I'm not being sarcastic. However, I have made a choice different than yours based on my preferences.

Valve has said (so I've heard) that they'll unlock all the games if they were to go under. In that case, I'm happy and I'll make backups just like you have said you are doing with your disks. But, let's assume Steam does die, that when it does I will still care about the games I have, and that they don't release an unlock patch. Then, I will pirate the games and I will still be happy. All of those things are possibilities. That is, it is possible Steam will go under in my lifetime. It is possible that I will still want/be able to play the games I have when that happens. It is possible that Valve will go back on their word and not release a patch. All possibilities. None of it definite.

I like the games I have. I want to play them. So I decided that I would use Steam and all its attendant benefits. Namely, for me, that I don't have to worry about backing up disks, I don't have to worry about putting in a disk or even mounting it with Daemon Tools or similar, I don't have to worry about copying disks in such a way to bypass copy protection schemes. I could go to a friends house across the country and download all my games and play them on his computer. Another benefit is I get to play Steam-only games legitimately such as Portal and the Half-Life series without having to use a crappy console version. You have decided you don't want to play those games (at least not an a PC). Fine, maybe they aren't your cup of tea. Maybe it's a sacrifice you're willing to make. But that was your choice and this one is mine. Do I have a problem with it? Nope. Like I said, I'm a happy user. If a problem came up where I was screwed over, I assure you I have a back up plan. It's called thepiratebay.org.

Re:You can sell your steam games individually

[Crumplecorn]

I'm surprised you, or anyone, are so willing to support bad practice by a company. To use a real-world analogy, if you bought physical games from a certain supplier, and that supplier had a habit of pushing dodgy merchandise, you would just fork over cash for the dodgy stuff because you could always pirate it instead if something goes wrong? Geez, we sure are a long way from the days when people complained about crappy service. Now they pay for it!

Well, if it works for you, good for you, and no sarcasm here either. Some people just don't give a damn, and that's fine (I don't about many things). Try not to think too harshly of those who, like me, have some antipathy for such disregard towards the state of the industry though. We can't help ourselves.

And, on the upside, with Steam users so willing to accept the downsides, we'll never see a better Steam where you get the benefits without the compromises. Which is nice, in a petty kind of way.

I'll have to see some ID

[tepples]

People trade their games to Gamestop because they don't want the hassle of selling them online. For instance, maybe they are just a kid, and their parents won't help

I live in Fort Wayne, Indiana. The pawn shops, coin shops, and used DVD and video game shops around here use LeadsOnline, and they require a driver license or other state ID from someone age 18 or older. I wonder why it isn't the same where you live.

Re:I'll have to see some ID

[adolf]

I forked over a couple of crappy PS3 games around Christmas to Gamestop for pennies on the dollar, and I didn't think much about them wanting a driver's license.

But now that I have some reason to suspect that this stuff ends up in the LEADS database, I'm really no longer interested in doing business with them again.

Thanks for the insight. I really don't need or want my transaction history available to any cop with a laptop.

MMOs beat used game sales

[tepples]

It's about time we turn [the alleged used video game sales] problem around with an economic stimulus package for the game industry.

I thought the anti-used-game stimulus package came in the fourth quarter of 2004.

A royal PITA?

[jotaeleemeese]

Gosh, such a difficult thing to do. Spend five minutes sitting in your ass and tying a few details.

Your definition of "royal PITA" is awfully peculiar.

Re:A royal PITA?

[WNight]

A minimum of 5 minutes, with more contracts to read, details to enter, etc. For $10?

Maybe $10 just isn't worth as much to me as to you, because I'm with Batman. If I had more than two games it might be worth going through extra work...

Comission? The verb of that company!

[jotaeleemeese]

To offer you a ready made infrastructure to sell your stuff and have the gall to charge you for it.

O-u-t-r-a-g-e-o-u-s!

Amazon has already been doing this for years.

[Vegan Pagan]

Amazon has let customers sell used copies of games to eachother for years under the brand "Amazon Marketplace", similar to Half.com.

A lot better than EB Games

[incognito84]

"Hi, I'd like to sell 'Gears of War' back." "Okay, we'll give you $7 for it." "But I bought it three months ago and it's in perfect condition." "Sorry, we never offer more than $7 for used games." "But the selling price for the used copy is $49.99" "$7"

What about the Rental business?

[TheRequiem13]

I'm surprised it didn't appear in this discussion at all (that I could find when searching the text). They are effectively letting you borrow a used game for a week for $10, then cycling it again.

I don't think Blockbuster would be to happy to hear that a given console publisher (or all of them) has opted for digital distribution only. I'd be pretty pissed too, because then I wouldn't get to play games that are fun but not worth buying, just a rental.

Re:What about the Rental business?

[Draeconix]

Not just that but Blockbuster also participates in Trade In's as well as Previous Played Games which come straight from the rental shelves and are almost 100% profit for the company. I worked there when the first Xbox came out and you should have seen how quickly my collection of Xbox games grew just because I could get them for half what a new one costs and that was before my employee discount. Should developers be compensated on the sale of a traded game? Might not be a bad idea. Might solve this issue all together. Will Blockbuster ever give up there 99.9% profit margin? Probably not.

Game Developers Benefit from Resales

[Sheridan Tom]

We are game developers as well as software and audiobook publishers. www.simplydownload.com. Used products support the value for our consumers. Sometimes the used market is higher for harder to get products in our assortments than at retail. How can that be bad? As with cars and houses, resales are key. Amazon is doing it with books; Craig's List with everything. Walking into Gamestop you can see people excited to bring in their old game, get a great refund/payment so they can buy another game. What could be better. A tip of the hat to Gamestop. This can only help publishers. Short or no-sighted not to see this. Tom

Exactly what

[Anonymous Coward]

makes anybody think this is bad? Hell, from a marketing standpoint It looks sharp. Trade in an OLD GAME for credit on something NEW. I doubt Jeff Bezos is collecting old games to corner the market on consoles let alone games(I.P.)that Amazon probably has no interest in. It's a good pitch. Amazon might eat a few bucks for the promo but in the long term it will pay off.

What reasons to use Amazon?

[analog_line]

The only real value you get from using Amazon instead of Gamestop to trade games in is that you can use the proceeds on non-game items. IE, trade in my games and console and buy a Kindle, or a rice cooker, or whatever. Even then, you'd stand to make far more money if you sold those games on Amazon, and that cash can be used anywhere, not just Amazon. Perhaps they're seeing a market from people who don't trust Marketplace buyers and/or sellers. I know I was turned way off of the whole concept of participating as a seller after dumping a collection about a year ago, when the bulk of the buyers tried to talk me down on price after the sale, or refused payment until I went through the motions on a dispute, which took forever.

Amazon is probably just making a very modest bet on long odds that this is going to turn into a real market for them. A third party partner of Amazon is managing the operation, so Amazon's outlay is probably extremely modest. Development time to implement the web interface, postal systems, linking to the partner's internal systems, etc, but Amazon has quite the head start in all those areas. I expect they just skim some profit off the top as their fee for the use of their name and storefront. If it all falls down it's the partner that eats the bulk of the cost, not Amazon.