GameStop Sued Over Lack of DLC For Used Games

Absolut187 writes "According to IGN, 'A lawsuit filed earlier this week against retailer GameStop says the company is "deceptively misleading" its customers into believing a used game purchased from the store comes with all packaged downloadable content advertised on the box. This content, however, is only made available for free to those who purchase the game new, as the code to access the content can be only used one time.' I personally don't have a problem with publishers charging for DLC. IMHO, you put in the effort to make it, you have the right to (try) to charge whatever you want. I have the right to take it or leave it if I don't find your price fair (same goes for the main game). But what about the used game market? Should publishers be allowed to destroy the used market for their games by including 'free' DLC with a one-time use code? Should the copyright doctrine of 'first-sale' have any effect here? Or is it up to the consumer (frequently children) to realize that the product will have a reduced resale value due to the one-time nature of the DLC code? Is this any different from the use of unique 'CD-Keys' that are required for online play (e.g. for Blizzard games since 1997 or earlier)?"

Comments

The Bigger Picture.

[grub]

/me peers into his crystal ball....

I see game publishers starting to make complete games included on disc as DLC then make the unlock code only valid for the original purchaser. That obliterates the resale market.

Re:The Bigger Picture.

[Anonymous Coward]

Why look into your Crystal ball? Modern Warfare 2 has the same limitation. If I sell the disks, manual with the CD key the other person will be unable to install the game and link it in with Steam.

Re:The Bigger Picture.

[VernonNemitz]

I think the obvious solution is for the game developer to allow online sale of new codes to unlock DLC (at a low price). Then they would be improving the value of the secondhand market, AND be able to get in on that action. Hey, they might even encourage users to sell their games! After all, if a game is bought second-hand several times, and each of those buyers also pays for the DLC (because they are not the original buyers), then in the long run the resales of the game might be worth more to the game maker than the original sale.

Re:The Bigger Picture.

[The MAZZTer]

My crystal ball says people will buy games online which can't be resold. Oh wait, that was my crystal ball OF THE PAST. My bad.

Re:The Bigger Picture.

[__aamnbm3774]

you are talking about computer software.
I think the parent was talking about consoles.

Unfortunately, with the 'installable' nature of PC software, I do understand the difference, especially since you cannot play burned CDs in consoles.

Re:The Bigger Picture.

[PopeRatzo]

I think the obvious solution is for the game developer to allow online sale of new codes to unlock DLC (at a low price).

You are assuming that the entire purpose of DLC is not to obliterate the secondary market for games. There's no reason to release DLC except to ruin the used game market. We now have the DLC already finished when the game is released and even included on the disk with the original game. How much more obvious can it be?

The real lawsuit should be by Gamestop against the game publishers. The people who now keep companies like Gamestop in business will just start getting their games from scene releases and keep the money in their pockets. I'm not saying this is right, but we've seen it happen time and time again. I'm continually shocked at how there are scene cracks of games and DLC within a day of the release date. Of course, I wouldn't download cracked games via bittorrent because that would be wrong, but I have no doubt that every time the game industry comes out with one of these brilliant schemes to squeeze an extra few dollars out of consumers it really just serves to create more people who are willing to violate the law.

"DLC" is just a gimmick, and something of an insulting one at that.

Re:The Bigger Picture.

[jitterman]

I see legions, using P2P and usenet to bypass any codes whatsoever... Fortunately, that hasn't entirely obliterated the original sale market yet (despite what publishers would tell you).

Re:The Bigger Picture.

[Anonymous Coward]

...but they are already selling DLC codes seperately.

Besides, why would it kill the used market even if they didn't? DLC generally sucks anyway, a game is still playable without it.

Re:The Bigger Picture.

[mcgrew]

/me peers into his crystal ball....

Balls of crystal? I'd have gotten a less fragile implant.

Re:The Bigger Picture.

[mcgrew]

Then they would be improving the value of the secondhand market

As things stand they want the second hand market to go away, and I doubt they're smart enough to follow your suggestion.

Re:The Bigger Picture.

[NotBornYesterday]

You are assuming that the entire purpose of DLC is not to obliterate the secondary market for games

That's what kills me. You would think that the game companies would want a robust secondary market.

(Sorry in advance) A quick car analogy - High expected resale value on a car makes a high initial purchase price more justifiable. It also makes the consumer more likely to buy another new car sooner, rather than wait until he/she can afford another steep investment with no resale value. Buyers in the secondary market are often buyers that would not or cannot participate in the primary market. A good used car is a good way to get someone to try your product who otherwise would never would have been exposed to it, and may get them to buy a new one next.

Here's a perfect real-life example. My teenage son borrowed Mass Effect from a friend and liked it. Eventually he bought a used copy of it. When Mass Effect 2 came out, he was already in line for a new copy. That new sale would likely never have happened if he hadn't experienced the first game free, then cheap. If he can't sell one game to make cash for the next one, he will buy fewer games, and do so less often. Game designers are shooting themselves in the foot by reducing the value of their games on the secondary market. In the long run it will hurt them and the overall industry. Of course, they won't see it that way. If their sales drop because fewer people will pony up $60 - $80 for a game that is worth $0 in resale, they will find some way to blame it on someone or something else ... downloaders ... used games ... anyone but themselves and their policies.

Re:The Bigger Picture.

[stonewallred]

I will say it. Other than WoW, and one other game ( bought three copies for me, my sister and mom)I torrent every game I have. Even the older ones I bought years ago D1,2, and LoD, NWN and xpac, etc etc. That way I can try the game, see if it is worth buying and not be ripped off 99 out of every 100 games that I buy. Plus I get a better product since the "pirates" have usually removed any DRM, and made installing the game a snap. Common sense would dictate that the stupid game publishers sell DLC, regardless of purchase number of purchase at all. Make the game, as they seem to be doing, $5.00 and all the DLC go for $5.00 a pop. By the time you unlock the ability to buy the DLC in game, and then buy it al, the publishers will have gotten their $50-60 bucks back and then cruise on to doubling their profits through the second hand market. And it would reduce piracy and get rid of retarded and annoying DRM.

Re:The Bigger Picture.

[Bakkster]

Well, the point of pack-in DLC is to continue to make money from the secondary market. The publishers only dislike the secondary market because they don't get paid. If they can make $10-20 in DLC guaranteed from used game sales, then their opposition to resale disappears.

You're also right about the 'this quest is on the game disc, but we wanted you to pay us more for it' DLC. Of course, there's lots of other DLC that's totally reasonable from a consumer perspective, too. Most notable would be songs for Rock Band and Guitar Hero. The alternative is terrible full-disc releases (GH:80s for example) where you need to pay for 30 songs in order to get the 5 you actually want. They also aren't developed until well after the time where they could be included disk, they aren't necessary patches or intentionally removed from the game, and they have a definite non-zero cost to produce (licensing). That's a perfect example of DLC that's good for the company and the consumer. Other examples are car packs for racing games (also requiring licensing and adding to the gameplay) or, to a lesser extent, map packs in a shooter or any other game.

No sense throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Hate the instrusive and offensive DLC (included on the disk, Dragon Age character that prompts you in-game to purchase), but it's really not all bad.

Re:The Bigger Picture.

[dgatwood]

The problem is that content creators think that their works are somehow "special" and unlike physical objects. As long as we as a society continue to play into that delusion, they will continue to believe this, will continue to believe that their efforts to undermine the resale market are productive, and will continue to believe that any loss in sales due to those efforts are caused by piracy. Until they hit rock bottom, they will have no reason to question their delusion.

When you deal with delusional people, there is no reasoning with them; they are well beyond that point. All you can really do is isolate them where they can do no harm. Stop buying products that try to restrict resale, then write them a letter to tell them why you decided not to buy their products. Then wait for those companies to die off and for new companies run by saner people to emerge from the ashes. Buy their products instead.

Now you might be asking yourself why you wrote the letter if the companies won't change. Well, a few of them might, but that's not the reason for the letter; the people reading your letters likely have no say in the matter, or else the policies would change. The reason for the letter is that the people who read your letter are the ones who are still going to be out there on the ground and in the trenches starting up the new companies that replace these companies, giving advice about what works and what doesn't, being the voices of reason. So at least in the long term, the letters help, albeit not with the products and companies currently out there.

It may be a long painful journey, but the only way to fix most companies is to run them out of business and start over. Just say no to single-use downloadable content.

Re:The Bigger Picture.

[bluefoxlucid]

The problem is that content creators think that their works are somehow "special" and unlike physical objects.

No, they're more easy to steal than physical objects because physical objects exist physically (therefor I have it and you do not), while content relies on the extremely shaky basis of distributing physical representations of something non-physical.

This means content creators first off have something more to worry about theft and counterfeiting: there's no way to lock up your shit, and there's no barrier to entry for huge-scale counterfeiting. Sure, someone could produce a CISCO switch copy; but manufacturing a million of them and displacing CISCO? How about making 100,000,000 cracked copies of Windows XP available for digital download?

Beyond these special, unique concerns, it's just business as usual. Physical hardware manufacturers have found interesting ways to make their hardware non-transferable as well, most notably by making the hardware software-driven and then making the software non-transferable; they just make the hardware "free with software license." This is the case with, say, manufacturer-specific automobile diagnostic computers. The GM program is a $200 license and validates itself against a server; the GM computer equipment is $50. When you transfer the software, the EULA says it's non-transferable; but that's okay, buy another $200 license and you can use the $50 hardware you got second-hand for $20.

Re:The Bigger Picture.

[Anonymous Coward]

/me peers into his crystal ball....

  I see game publishers
starting to make complete games included on disc as DLC then make the unlock
code only valid for the original purchaser. That obliterates the
resale market.

Why the crystal ball? How is this different from Limited Installs and Online Activation being done now? The future is now.

Re:The Bigger Picture.

[Nyder]

/me peers into his crystal ball....

  I see game publishers
starting to make complete games included on disc as DLC then make the unlock
code only valid for the original purchaser. That obliterates the
resale market.

Your crystal ball didn't tell you that, unless it happens to be a news reader.
Sony has already talked about including this sort of stuff in some psp games that have, or are about to get released.

Re:The Bigger Picture.

[metamatic]

You are assuming that the entire purpose of DLC is not to obliterate the secondary market for games. There's no reason to release DLC except to ruin the used game market.

Not really true. It's also a great way to jack up the price of games without it being obvious on the sticker.

For example, you buy the latest online FPS, and find that there's a map pack ($15) and a weapons pack ($15) available as DLC. You have to buy them, or you can't find anyone else to play multiplayer with. Hey presto, the $60 sticker price is actually $90.

Then after a few months when you've moved on to the next game, you go to sell your game used. Except the Game Of The Year edition is now out, with the DLC included, for $30. Which means your used copy without any DLC is worth practically nothing, rather than $25.

I noticed this trend a while back. Ultimately, I think the game publishers are playing a very dangerous game jacking up prices this way, because there are people like me who would have paid $50-60 for a new game, but will instead wait and buy the cheap copy a year later rather than be doubly screwed over by DLC.

It's possible that the extra money they make from suckers who still buy games brand new will more than offset what they lose from people like me no longer buying anything at first release, but I'm doubtful.

Re:The Bigger Picture.

[dgatwood]

This means content creators first off have something more to worry about theft and counterfeiting: there's no way to lock up your shit, and there's no barrier to entry for huge-scale counterfeiting. Sure, someone could produce a CISCO switch copy; but manufacturing a million of them and displacing CISCO? How about making 100,000,000 cracked copies of Windows XP available for digital download?

I've read stories about Chinese fake iPod models coming out within a few weeks of the original products. The barrier to large-scale counterfeiting is largely the fear of getting caught even with physical products. Most OEM makers aren't going to take the risk of installing fake stuff, the statistical majority of people don't download copies of software instead of buying it due to the prevalence of trojans, etc. In short, counterfeiting concerns are not really unique to software.

Since you mentioned Cisco, there was a huge Cisco counterfeiting ring that was recently busted and some $78 million worth of fake equipment was recovered (about .2% of Cisco's annual revenue). Could it displace the real thing? Probably not, but neither could counterfeit copies of WIndow, for the reasons stated previously.

Re:The Bigger Picture.

[mattack2]

There's no reason to release DLC except to ruin the used game market. We now have the DLC already finished when the game is released and even included on the disk with the original game. How much more obvious can it be?

Isn't that true in only one case? I'm not a gamer (have a PS2 and buy old games), but I thought that has only happened once so far. I do watch the GameTrailers TV show, and they've had interviews with game producers talking about DLC ongoing for various games. Not all of that DLC is done already.. So I think you're making a huge exaggeration, even though I do think that it's lame in the case that it happened.

Re:The Bigger Picture.

[bluefoxlucid]

I've never met anyone who actually purchased a copy of Photoshop for personal use.

Re:The Bigger Picture.

[Stumpeh]

Unfortunately the used games market is the one place that car analogies fall down on (Shocking, I know!). The difference is the time scales. When a brand new game comes out you can pick up a second hand copy within a week. Noone is mad enough to buy a car and resell it within the same time frame because they'll be out a few thousand local economic units at least. The only way to combat this is to effectively lock second hand buyers out of the market. Resale in games does nothing for the companies. if I'm willing to wait a week or two and buy second hand in the first place why would I have to have the sequel on launch day? The perfect solution would be resale of games after a limited timeframe. Give them a month or so to shift their first sale units then put them up for resale. The problem with that, of course, is that GameStop and their ilk make the vast majority of their money on resold games. They buy them for maybe a third of their RRP and resell them for a couple of dollars off RRP. How can they lose? There are two Electronics Boutiques in my local town both of which have one shelf rack (that's a stacked shelf maybe three feet across) devoted to new games for each platform and the remainder of the store (ten plus shelf racks per platform) devoted to second hand. How can those sorts of sales be good for the games market? Us game developers (so yes, I'm biased!) have to eat!

Re:The Bigger Picture.

[Anonymous Coward]

The phenomenon you talk about would have to outweigh the value for them in slowly moving the whole market to something resembling subscriptions. There is a lot of financial value for a large company in being able to predict how much money they're going to make in a particular month. It means they can invest the money with less risk (when you have money on the scale of an EA, you don't just put it in a savings account).

Re:The Bigger Picture.

[dgatwood]

You have now. Nice to meet you.

Re:The Bigger Picture.

[Killjoy_NL]

I did :)

Re:The Bigger Picture.

[NotBornYesterday]

Analogies are like rubber bands - stretch them too far, and they break pretty easily. I actually should have just left the car thing out and stuck with my unverifiable but true personal anecdote.

Since you're in the game developer community, let me offer some observations. Based on a small subset of the gaming community (my son & his friends), I've worked out a list of stuff that has resulted in game sales, and what doesn't.

Works:

• Free downloadable demos

  He bought a few games that he never would have seen without the demo version.

• Portable games (not tied to a activation code, or a particular console, etc.)

  He has a couple games because a friend brought over their copy, and he later wanted his own.

• Multi-player ability

  Playing with his friends across the street and across the globe is an important part of his perceived value of a game, as well as a prime channel for word-of-mouth advertising. Also, user-customizable maps and environments help too. Any time a publisher can build an active multi-player community around a game, players a) hang onto their games rather than resell them, b) become more loyal to the brand, and c) get more of their friends to buy the game. He spends more time playing Halo 3, Gears of War, and Call of Duty than Mass Effect or Fallout.

• Secondary market

  Several other games were bought second-hand, usually a few months after their debut. There are a few instances where he bought their sequels for full retail because he like the original, and at least 1 case where he bought a game because he liked others by the same publisher. These are games he never would have become interested in without the secondary market.

Doesn't work so well:

• Nickel-and-dime for DLC

  Chargeable DLC is okay in limited doses. He bought the DLC (one mission) for Mass Effect 1. He didn't bother with the several missions for Fallout 3. 5 missions x $5 or so ... why pay $60 for a game and another $25 for content?

• $$$ for demos

  Forget it. He doesn't have infinite gaming money, and he's not about to spend it on a demo. Not even a cheap one. The fish shouldn't pay to get hooked. (I heard this idea floated by someone lately ... I think it was EA games.)

Feel free to share with your marketing department. Consider this your "free downloadable content". If you want more focus group analysis, I'd be happy to charge retail. ;)

Re:The Bigger Picture.

[NotBornYesterday]

I did. Of course, that was years ago, and the price was next to nothing as a piece of dealer demo software.

Re:The Bigger Picture.

[Draek]

The problem is that content creators think that their works are somehow "special" and unlike physical objects

Here's some news for ya: they are. That's why perpetual copyright is idiotic, why software patents are an attrocity, and why the Open Source community is ruled by He Who Is Competent rather than He Who Has Money.

The recent DLC wave ain't a good business model for the gaming market, but treating them as physical objects is far worse and even less grounded in reality, so if you want the DLC gone, better think of something else.

Re:The Bigger Picture.

[sixsixtysix]

the obvious solution is for the game publisher to make it as easy as possible to re-sell your game that you paid for. just have an account setting for transferring your keys to someone else's account. this should be mandatory. killing off secondary markets only leads to more piracy.

Re:The Bigger Picture.

[Ajaxamander]

Seconded.

Re:The Bigger Picture.

[WCLPeter]

Ultimately, I think the game publishers are playing a very dangerous game jacking up prices this way, because there are people like me who would have paid $50-60 for a new game, but will instead wait and buy the cheap copy a year later rather than be doubly screwed over by DLC.

I know I did this with Fallout 3 and Oblivion, haven't played them yet because I haven't had the time to finish Mass Effect One yet so I don't want to start a new game until I get that one done. But I've noticed they do this with movies too. Buy the disc now and feel ripped off because next year they're releasing the Much Macho Grande Delux edition, so now I just wait until the uber edition comes out or buy it for five bucks on the used wall at the Blockblister.

Not much point to this rant I guess, since I agree with you, but perhaps some marketing troll is reading this and will take this back to its corporate masters that people don't like to be cheated and are willing to wait for the finished product rather than the buggy pre release at full price betas.

Re:The Bigger Picture.

[PopeRatzo]

I've never met anyone who actually purchased a copy of Photoshop for personal use.

Yet somehow Photoshop is a big money-maker for Adobe.

So, the piracy must not be as deadly as claimed.

Re:The Bigger Picture.

[PopeRatzo]

Us game developers (so yes, I'm biased!) have to eat!

Of course you do. I'm just not yet convinced that piracy is eating into your caloric intake.

Re:The Bigger Picture.

[blackraven14250]

Rather, I'd have put such a fragile implant in a less-vulnerable place.

Re:The Bigger Picture.

[Lord_Jeremy]

The thing about that is when I buy a game off steam, I do so with the knowledge that I will never be able to resell it. Personally, I don't mind this, and the convenience in installation, activation, and playing on multiple machines overrides that consideration. Even if I bought hard copies I doubt I would resell them, I'm the type that still whips out my old copies of Baldur's Gate 2 or StarCraft.

Re:The Bigger Picture.

[Sabriel]

That's okay - if it's over ten dollars, my Steam purchasing days are also in the past.

Want to give it to your brother?
Want to donate it to your local charity?
Want to sell it to your neighbour?

Steam? Can't do it.

I've gone back to buying real discs, from companies that still care. So yeah, no games with first-user-DLC traps either.

Re:The Bigger Picture.

[dgatwood]

A big part of the money behind Photoshop is corporate use. Most companies won't risk pirating software; it only takes one angry, laid-off employee to call the BSA and cause lots of problems. Most individuals tend to buy Elements.

Re:The Bigger Picture.

[KDR_11k]

Doesn't work because most consoles aren't connected to the internet.

Re:The Bigger Picture.

[KDR_11k]

A used copy only appears if the owner of a new copy decides that holding on to the game is less valuable than what he could do with the money he can resell it for. Considering that Game Stop doesn't pay a lot for trade-ins that would mean the game has lost a LOT of value for the original owner. The way to prevent used sales is to make sure the game doesn't become worthless to a customer that fast, not to force some artificial limitations on trade. Making a game that lasts ten hours and is then practically worthless will obviously result in used sales but it's not because Game Stop is evil. Failing to give your product long term value will result in used sales.

Re:The Bigger Picture.

[ForgedArtificer]

You want to know the bigger picture? Game companies are losing MILLIONS from the secondary market and companies like GameStop are getting rich from their ashes. Game publishers earn no money whatsoever from a secondary sale. None. Zero. Zilch. GameStop pays out, generally, $1-3 for a used game. They sell it for $10-40, and that's pure profit. And they will often sell the same used game 5-6 times. They HAVE to find a way to continue to make a profit from the secondary market, because companies like GameStop are rapidly bleeding them dry due to the unfair competition from secondary market sellers. The car analogy is very poor, because when you buy a used car... it's used! It's not in the same condition as a new car. When you buy a used game... it functions exactly the same as it did when it was brand new. If you'd like a comparison to the used car market, consider the free DLC the difference between a new car and a used car. It's an incentive to buy the product new. Otherwise, there is no reason besides getting the game on day one... and the used copies usually only take a few days to hit the market. There is a reason that PC developers are mostly only publishing online content now. There is a reason that big conglomerates like Electronic Arts are taking over every other video game company. There is a reason that the face of the gaming industry is changing so rapidly - and not for the better - and it's because of piracy, and companies like GameStop. Selling used games is just another form of piracy. The developer receives absolutely nothing for the sale of a product that functions exactly as if it were new, and while used game retailers refuse to publish their sales numbers publicly, it is likely that more used copies of a game are now sold than new copies, due to the effects of repeated reselling. Maybe we should consider, I don't know, actually paying game developers for their efforts, instead of the leeches that take money from them. So let's stop discussing how to "run companies out of business" before ALL of the gaming companies are swallowed up by corporate conglomerates that only want to make more money, ok?

Re:The Bigger Picture.

[Anonymous Coward]

GameStop pays out, generally, $1-3 for a used game. They sell it for $10-40, and that's pure profit

You have an odd definition of "profit". If they pay $1 - $3 for a used game, and sell it for $10 - $40, then the profit would be $7 - $39 (I'll leave the math to you as an exercise, it'll help you calm down).

Maybe we should consider, I don't know, actually paying game developers for their efforts

You're not helping your case by being dishonest: Why not try try phrasing that so it speaks to your intent: "Maybe we should consider, I don't know, actually paying game developers for their efforts, every time a copy of a game is sold, regardless?". That's what you want, I think, so why not just say it, instead of implying that game developers aren't being paid at all?

Re:The Bigger Picture.

[KDR_11k]

Most places don't allow used PC game sales anyway because even without online activation the CD key is usually used up so online multiplayer isn't an option.

Re:The Bigger Picture.

[wshs]

I believe DLC is twofold. First, it means they can sell nearly empty games at full retail, and then charge you for "expansions" which just result in a full proper game (I'm looking at you Guitar Hero). Second, it means the game has virtually no resale value. It essentially guarantees a steady flow of income since you don't have to put any effort into a release product, and nobody will purchase said release product used. It's quite a clever con job, and it's legal and risk free. Cosa Nostra would be proud.

Re:The Bigger Picture.

[ForgedArtificer]

How is GameStop earning money an odd definition of profit? That's the only definition of profit there is. If I have math homework, perhaps you need english.

I'm not being dishonest in the slightest. We have something in this corporate world of ours called a "royalty payment" - that means that every time someone's work is sold they get a cut - and game developers are losing out on the majority of royalties owed them, due to piracy and the secondary market. In addition, companies like GameStop are cleaning up on that secondary market, and they're doing it on the backs of the people actually doing the work that's making them rich.

I don't think that's fair competition, and I also think that this is why every game company out there is being swallowed by the corporate juggernauts. Companies like Activision (which recently bought Blizzard - not exactly a small company!) and EA (who recently bought everyone else) who are more concerned about money than the customer. Who makes the decisions to publish one-time DLC? The guys from the big umbrella corporations, not the developers.

It seems that most people here would rather save five bucks than put food on the developers' tables though.

Re:The Bigger Picture.

[Anonymous Coward]

I see game publishers starting to make complete games

Holy smokes, that would be an improvement!

Re:The Bigger Picture.

[brkello]

Analogies are used to make a complex problem easier to understand. This isn't a complex problem so all an analogy does is confuse the discussion.

The problem with your analogy is that the cost of a car is much different than the cost of a game. Most people can afford a game. If they can't, they generally can wait for the game to become a "classic" or fall in to the bargain bin (in either case, they are buying it for a reduced price).

Also, your anecdote doesn't make sense in regards to the point you are trying to make. Your friend could have just borrowed the game. He didn't need to touch the used market. Also, since he was able to buy ME2, it is clear that he wasn't a "buyers that would not or cannot participate in the primary market.:buyers that would not or cannot participate in the primary market."

There really is no reason for game companies to encourage used game sales. People can already borrow or pirate if they want to try something out. It was that used games were just as much money to them as a pirated game. With DLC, now they still have a chance to gain some profit for their work. While I don't particularly like it, it does make sense from a business perspective and I understand why they do it.

What is DLC?

[Anonymous Coward]

Can anyone explain?

Re:What is DLC?

[characterZer0]

Down-Loadable Content

Re:What is DLC?

[DevConcepts]

downloadable content (DLC)

Re:What is DLC?

[K. S. Kyosuke]

Don't Lose Cash (on it).

Re:What is DLC?

[beakerMeep]

No no, it's "Content we want to charge you extra for" as sometimes those (ever helpful) game publishers include it on the CD.

Re:What is DLC?

[Yvan256]

DeLorean Car.

Re:What is DLC?

[Hognoxious]

If "downloadable" is one word, shouldn't it be DC?

Re:What is DLC?

[DevConcepts]

The Rules of TLA's (Three Letter Acronym's)
Rule 1: There shall always be three letters otherwise it would be a Two Letter Acronym and it would get confusing.
Just like IT or IS IT it? Rule 2; If the TLA is made from two words then use the CamelHump Style for the third letter (CHS)
Rule 3: Requires a obligatory Wikipedia link. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Downloadable_content
Rule 4: There can't be a rule four because it can only have three letters.

If "downloadable" is one word, shouldn't it be DC?

Re:What is DLC?

[Hognoxious]

Yes, it says top-posting is not allowed.

> Is there a rule 5?

The real question.

[Anonymous Coward]

..of course is do they have battletoads?

Read the summary

[tepples]

I can understand not reading the article because it's often either busy or behind a paywall. But even the summary mentions "downloadable content".

Re:Read the summary

[Decessus]

Or he could just ask like he did. Different method, same results.

Re:Read the summary

[Anonymous Coward]

Or he could just google like he didn't do. Different method, same results.

Re:Read the summary

[stevenvi]

Google told me that it's the Democratic Leadership Council. Must have to do with those MMORPGs or something....

Re:Read the summary

[aynoknman]

But even the summary mentions "downloadable content".

The fault is in the summary. If you are going to use an uncommon three letter abbreviation (TLA), for something you have already used in long form, put the TLA in parentheses first.

I am not a grammar Nazi, it just avoids discussions like this one.

You know...

[Pojut]

...I understand that publishers don't make any money off used games sales...I get that. What I don't get is why game makers still insist on doing their hardest to prevent the used game market from existing.

We can easily buy used cars, we can easily buy used computers, hell we can even easily buy used movies. Why are publishers being such dicks about used games? /rhetorical question

Re:You know...

[drinkypoo]

...I understand that publishers don't make any money off used games sales...I get that. What I don't get is why game makers still insist on doing their hardest to prevent the used game market from existing.

Because they can. They already tried this with books, sheet music, and phonorecordings. Then we got First Sale law, which says that you can resell anything you get in your hands regardless of what it says on it, which is why used CD stores can sell you CDs released "not for resale - for promotional use only" etc.

Re:You know...

[ircmaxell]

I understand that publishers don't make any money off used games sales

Sure they do. The ability for someone to sell a game will cause some people to buy more games new. Say they buy a $60 game. Then, in a month when they are tired of it, if they can sell it for $45, the next new game will only cost them $15. The publisher got $120 in sales, but the buyer only paid $75 (well, neglecting the time-cost of money). I'd bet this is the way a lot of younger people buy brand new games. They sell one or more slightly older games to pay for the newest one... Sure, there are some like me that don't sell games unless they really suck, but then again I have the money to be able to do that. If I was pushing a strict budget, you can bet I would sell the older games to finance the newer ones (and when you're talking a 5 or 10% difference between new and used, why not go new and have a better chance of resale later)...

Why are publishers being such dicks about used games?

Because they can, and because we still buy their games. It's as simple as that. If we as a unit boycotted games that have these kind of stupid restrictions, I'd bet they will change their policies. But the fact of the matter is that most people don't care enough to make a boycott effective (and hence it won't work)... Does it suck? Absolutely...

Re:You know...

[Anonymous Coward]

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=rhetorical+question&l=1

Re:You know...

[steveo777]

They aren't doing anything to prevent used sales. They're encouraging new sales with free stuff that makes the game a bit more fun or interesting. The DLC that this kid didn't get is completely unessential. There is no prevention. Prevention would be requiring downloading DLC that makes the game playable or completable. Even if they did make you do that, we have no right to be outraged unless the publishers don't tell us about this.

Bioware knows that people would catch on pretty fast if they had to download things to finish or play the game so they offer something trivial that you may or may not want. It isn't quite the difference in price between used and new, but who knows. I think it's brilliant.

Re:You know...

[aynoknman]

but then again I have the money to be able to do that.

There's just too many people like you, who are want to pay to play, and have that option.

Re:You know...

[WaXHeLL]

Because instead of a single person suing gamestop, you might have gamestop suing the video game publisher... which i'm sure is a legal fight they don't want to take on...

Re:You know...

[TheSpoom]

I am aware of Steam; what I was saying is that now they can use this locking DRM on consoles, preventing even the resale of console games.

PC games have been toying with DRM and hardware locking for a while; I see this one-time DLC as the beginnings of an attempt to kill resale entirely on consoles.

Re:You know...

[Anonymous Coward]

I think it's brilliant.

And I somehow think you're involved in the video game industry.

Re:You know...

[Anonymous Coward]

Except they don't sell it for $45. Gamespot buys it second-hand for $30, and resells it for $55, $5 less than the full retail copy, and the second hand copy is missing DLC that costs $15 to purchase for a anyone but the first sale (where it was bundled with a one time use code). Gamespot makes $15-$30 on the initial sale, and they make another $25 on the secondary sale (and for every time they sell it again after that). The original game developer got a whopping $30 out of this transaction, and a single second hand sale (when combined with the original sale) nets Gamestop twice what the original developer made.

You can see why the developers who are actually producing something would want to move towards a DLC model where they can capture -some- revenue from the second hand market, rather than losing it ALL to Gamespot.

Re:You know...

[Talennor]

...I understand that publishers don't make any money off used games sales...I get that.

Actually, you're wrong. Publishers do make money off used game sales. Not directly, but easy to see if you analyze the system.

Person A buys a game new (ex. $50), plays it, sells it to a used game broker (ex. $20).
Person B buys the used game from the broker (ex. $40), part of this purchase goes to the broker for facilitating the transaction, part goes to subsidize the original purchase price (the $20 Person A received when selling the game comes from this purchase).

So Person A effectively purchased the game for less money. The lower price for Person A either allows him to purchase the game in the first place (was his perceived utility of the game between $30 and $50?), or leaves leftover money for the purchase of another game (this is his hobby).

So through the secondary market, Persons A and B share the cost. If, as the your hypothetical publisher who doesn't "make any money off used game sales" argues, Persons A and B would both have bought the game for $50 each, giving them earnings of $100, then the game could have been priced closer to that $100 knowing the secondary market would allow for the cost sharing (let's say MSRP of $80, giving the broker a $20 piece of the $100 pie). If it wouldn't have sold for $80 to $100, then both A and B weren't interested enough to each pay $50, were they?

Re:You know...

[AntiDragon]

Of course they (the publishers) see that as someone else choosing to spend $45 on a used game instead of buying a new game from them.

The re-seller in your example may purchase more new games with the extra money from his old games, but that doesn't equal the "lost sale" that the publishers perceive. And it's slight worse than that - most newly released games are already available second hand within a few days of release - and at only a very slight discount. In exchange for a paltry discount on a breaking new game, the publisher loses a sale. I see brand-new, just released games already in the second-hand game bin 24 hours after it hit the shelves and usually only 2 or 3 pounds cheaper. And unlike most physical goods, there's less of a stigma about used games - there is no degredation of quality in used software. Most of us are not concerned with having a shiny new copy of the DVD as long as it works, unlike - for example - walking around in a second hand suit.

I sound like I'm on their side, don't I? Well I'm not. I do empaphise - this immediate undercutting must put a dent in their sales. But it's part and parcel of commerce. Any non-disposable product you produce is subject to be resold, given away, shared etc. You take that into account. You make the idea of owning the shiny new one more attractive. You don't start using kill switches or disposable components.

I dislike the way the games stores have pushed and grown the second-hand market to it's current state. Second hand used to mean getting an older game a few weeks or months later at a reasonable price. Now it means cutting out the publisher for hardly any benefit to me. £3 off a £50 is nothing, really. But it's still going to beat the full price new copies.

But the publishers approach to this is equally deplorable - one-shot DLC? DRM (since that what's it's really for nowadays)? Non-transferable online components in a single player game? It's like trying to fix a problem by making your products worse, not better.

Re:You know...

[Pawnn]

The trick is, you know that $45 that someone else paid? Game companies want that guy to pay $60 as well. The used game market prevents them from having that $15. At least that's what the game company thinks. Chances are, he may not buy the game new anyway. But game companies don't know that, yet. They'll have to crush the used game market and find out.

Re:You know...

[wift]

Wow, that is a pretty fancy logical fallacy there. There is no reason for customer to use the money on a game at GS or for on another game that is from the same publisher. Hell they may get wise and buy a used games instead. GS makes money off of used games, publisher do not which is why they are trying to use expiring DLC to sweeten a new deal and to go completely DL games which eliminates the used game market and GS from the picture. Publishers would jump for job if the used game market dried up. Of course those who buy used games would then decided whether to buy new, pirate the game or move on and do something else. Seems to me that the publishers can't come out and kill the used market directly or they will piss off a lot of people into not buying anything.

Law suit worthy or even justified? Doubt it.

Re:You know...

[u-235-sentinel]

Because they can, and because we still buy their games. It's as simple as that. If we as a unit boycotted games that have these kind of stupid restrictions, I'd bet they will change their policies. But the fact of the matter is that most people don't care enough to make a boycott effective (and hence it won't work)... Does it suck? Absolutely...

That's why I'm not purchasing C&C4.

Besides, I hear it doesn't work with linux ;-)

Re:You know...

[IndustrialComplex]

The DLC that this kid didn't get is completely unessential.

Until it is. And in fact, it pretty much IS.

You can argue that certain parts of the game are not essential, but that wouldn't make any sense. Terms like essential simply do not fit with video games. Nothing is essential in video games. You could make the color red a DLC item and still not call it essential. The terminology just doesn't work when applied to video games.

Right now I have a copy of ME2 that has features built into it which I cannot access. What if those features were the last 2 levels? In this case, I think that it's characters I don't have access to.

It's not the same product, and it bothers me.

Re:You know...

[ircmaxell]

Wow, that is a pretty fancy logical fallacy there

I never said that was the way that all of the people worked, or even "most" of them. The fact of the matter is that at least for some games sold second hand, a publisher is generating a new sale that they otherwise would not have made. So 1 sale used != 1 lost sale new... It's slightly less than 1 sale new (the "slightness" depends on how many people sell used to purchase new. If it was 100%, 1 sale used would be 0 lost new sales. But it's not 100%, so there's some number less than 1, but more than 0 lost sales per used sale)... That was my main point. Saying 1 used == 1 lost is the same logic that the RIAA uses to determine damage when something's pirated (1 illegal "download" == 1 lost sale). That's the logical fallacy...

Re:You know...

[Twanfox]

What math are you doing where you take funds paid to the original developer ($60) and give it to another entity. Follow the logic there.

Gamer starts with $60 to buy a new game.

Gamer buys game from retailer for full price $60.
Gamer sells game to Gamestop for $30.

At this point, retailer has $60, Gamer has $30, Gamestop has -$30 (They PAID to get that copy). Net total? $60. The money moved from the Gamer to the original retailer.

New gamer has $55 to buy a game.
Gamestop sells game to new gamer for $55.

Retailer has $60, Gamer has $30, Gamestop now has $25, New gamer has $0. See how this goes?

Gamestop doesn't steal from the pocket of the original retailer. Gamestop is making money on being a discount reseller of games. You can argue all day whether or not Gamestop adds value to the game market by selling for only $5 under the original retail price. Gamestop does NOT make twice what the original retailer makes.

What the developers of these games are griefing about is that they see that extra $55 and they want it instead of sharing it with someone else like Gamestop. They are providing one-time 'DLC' (though how can it be downloadable if it's already on the install media?) in order to entice people to buy the original game from them and cut Gamestop out of the loop. That's all fine and all until the point at which they start short-changing games in favor of making it complete via DLC or locking the sale of a game to an online account ala Steam. At that point, they're directly attacking the doctrine of first sale.

What developers often fail to account for is the idea that, with $30, the first Gamer is likely to supplement that with another $30 and buy another new game (the behavior is already there) for a 'discount' to them ($90 out-of-pocket spent for 2 new games instead of $120). They also fail to account for the idea that perhaps the second gamer would not have paid full price for the game in the first place. I know there are many games, such as L4D, that I didn't feel justified the $50 price tag, but when it came down to $35, that was perfectly acceptable.

Re:You know...

[Watter]

I understand that publishers don't make any money off used games sales

Sure they do. The ability for someone to sell a game will cause some people to buy more games new.

The ability to sell a game back affects not only the willingness to buy more games, but the express ability to do so. Publishers are losing far less to used game sales than they claim. It's the piracy argument all over again. They intentionally only look at the bare surface of a situation.

Re:You know...

[ITJC68]

Because they make no money on used games. If used games were not available people would be forced to buy the new product in order to play. That is their outlook on it. It costs money for game development and marketing but they make all that when the game is new. You are going to see more of this as time goes on. With Blizzard (warcraft) you could sell the game cds to a person but they would have to take over your account and without Blizzard catching on. That would be hard to do I suppose. Haven't tried it although I have no reason to as I still play.

Re:You know...

[pnewhook]

Just like publishers don't make any money off of libraries.

This lawsuit is silly. It's like suing the library that you didn't get the free bookmark that the bookstores hand out.

Re:You know...

[dgatwood]

I think you're way overestimating the profit to the manufacturer on the initial sale. I'm not sure in software, but in most industries, channel costs are somewhere around 60-65%, IIRC. So for a $60 game, the publisher gets about $21-24. If they sell the DLC at $15, they're making almost as much money on resale as they did on the original game.

The next logical step, then, is to eliminate the retail chain entirely. At that point, they could sell copies at $20, still average more money per copy than before, and sell a lot more copies in total.

Re:You know...

[Red Flayer]

What math are you doing where you take funds paid to the original developer ($60) and give it to another entity. Follow the logic there.

The original developer (by which I believe he means publisher) was not paid $60. They were likely paid $45 by the original retailer, who then turned around and sold it for $60, with a profit of $15.

So after one used sale:

Developer/publisher: $45 (wholesale)
Original retailer:1530 ($60 sale minus $45 paid for wholesale)
Original Consumer: $-30 (bought for $60, sold for $30)
Secondhand retailer: $25 ($55 sale minues $30 purchase)
Secondhand consumer: -$55 (bought the game)

The issues here are that
(1) It's cheaper for Gamestop to buy the game used than to but it wholesale
(2) The developer/publisher has trouble covering costs when a large portion of sales are second-hand, where they don't get a cut of the profit.

Here's the complication: If the developer/publisher tries to raise prices so that they can make their money off of wholesale, then *more* people buy used games, which lowers their revenue.

The real problem is that most of the costs of producing a game are fixed, while the producer of the game doesn't see any revenue from a good portion of the retail sales. So we're either going to get games with lower budgets, or we're going to see the developers/publishers figure out ways, such as single-use activation codes and DLC.

Re:You know...

[dgatwood]

The original developer didn't get anywhere near $60 unless the game sold for close to $200. The original retailer got $60. Of that, they probably gave about $40 to their distributor, who in turn gave about $20 to the game publisher. These numbers are all approximate, of course.

Re:You know...

[theangrypeon]

What I don't get is why game makers still insist on doing their hardest to prevent the used game market from existing.

They aren't preventing the used game market from existing. They are simply trying to to get a cut of the profits from used game sales.

Re:You know...

[Khyber]

The entire industry couldn't handle the allied front of "First Sale Doctrine" lawsuits that would come about as a result. Very rarely has an allied front been used in a court but the few times it has it's been devastating to the defendant when settlement isn't an option. When an entire class of people come after you in court, you fucked up and even the court knows it.

Re:You know...

[Twanfox]

I don't dispute wholesale prices aren't retail, and yes, the delineation in terminology between retailer and publisher was not probably clear. However, how does the 'fixed costs' for developing a game differ in any way from the 'fixed costs' for developing a new car, or airplane, or computer? Sure, much of your cost in buying those physical artifacts is the cost to produce it, but also included in that cost is the cost to develop it and, of course, profit. Resale markets for computers and cars and even probably airplanes exist, and there isn't a whole lot those original manufacturers can do to stop it. Software publishers have a different take, apparently. They feel that it's their right to make one-time-use keys and content in order to devalue the resale market and encourage more people to buy new.

There are, of course, other options they can do.

- They can raise the wholesale price as you suggest. One other additional market changes are likely to occur too: Gamestop and other used game resellers will increase their sale price (and perhaps their offer price for those games). This would keep the price difference relatively the same. Since companies are greedy and want to make as much money as they can, that follow up market change is likely to occur.

- They can make games that people want to keep around (replay value). Those games that people want to play again later are less likely to wind up at Gamestop. This removes the used game market all together as there are no used games to buy, everyone is keeping them.

You miss a few big points, too. Not everyone that buys a used game would buy it new. AND the supply for used games is limited by those people willing to sell and the total volume sold. Gamestop simply can't place orders for 500 copies of a game if only 5 people walk in and want to sell it, no matter how low the price is. That ultimately leads to a limitation on how much money Gamestop can make on any particular game.

Re:You know...

[ravenshrike]

*blinks* It wasn't on the install disc, at least not in the case of DA:O.

Re:You know...

[Uberbah]

Well, that and the game sucks. No base building, and you're limited to 15 units. If they wanted to try this gameplay mechanic, it should have been done as a spinoff a la Red Alert or Generals. But as Command and Conquer 4?

w.
t.
f!

Re:You know...

[Anonymous Coward]

£3 off a £50 is nothing, really. But it's still going to beat the full price new copies.

To me that doesn't cover the risk of it not working. At least with a new product stuff like the sale of goods act/fitness for purpose applies.

Re:You know...

[ForgedArtificer]

When you buy a used game though, it very often is a lost "new" sale for a company, especially when the game is basically brand new. The major difference is that unlike in your example, where you state that "the used game market prevents them from having that $15" - it prevents them from having all $60.

Game companies are losing a massive amount due to used game resellers, who are just raking in the cash at next to no overhead.

Re:You know...

[KDR_11k]

Gamespot makes $15-$30 on the initial sale

Isn't it more like $0-$5?

Re:You know...

[TheSpoom]

Do I buy games from the Playstation store?

Re:You know...

[brkello]

I said this further up. Used game sales aren't necessary for people to be exposed to a game. They can borrow it or pirate it. Can't really do much to stop those two. If you can damage the used market, or manage to recover some profit off of it through DLC, then that is more profit for the company.

People's concepts on here that this will hurt the companies bottom line more than help are naive at best.

Why not both?

[halcyon1234]

Honestly, I don't see why they can't get money from both the new and used market.

Keep the "one time use" DLC code in the box. Anyone who buys it new now has a "value add" (though, they are paying a premium for the new game)

If anyone buys that same copy used, instead of "hell no", they should get a screen that says "This code has already been claimed. But for just $2.99, you too can have this exclusive content"

I'm sure someone can find the right price for that-- and it'd effectively be pure profit. (No, you can't call it a lost sale. Instead, think of it as getting paid twice for the same product).

Ideally, the system should also have a "relinquish" command. If I buy a game, get the DLC, then decide to sell the game, I should be able to "deactivate" that code (assuming it's tied to my gamer id or something? Who knows.) Then the next person can download the dlc for free. GameStop might even require people to log in and deactivate their codes before trading in a game, so as not to screw over the next user.

Re:Why not both?

[Anonymous Coward]

If anyone buys that same copy used, instead of "hell no", they should get a screen that says "This code has already been claimed. But for just $2.99, you too can have this exclusive content"

If the retailer is going to make the claims that they did, then it should be their responsibility to make sure that the codes work.

Re:Why not both?

[Anonymous Coward]

Isn't that what EA is doing? As far as I know, owners of used copies of recent EA games have the option of purchasing the "free" DLC that came with the new copy. They don't offer the relinquish option, but it's EA so I doubt they ever will. :)

Re:Why not both?

[rockNme2349]

Ideally, the system should also have a "relinquish" command. If I buy a game, get the DLC, then decide to sell the game, I should be able to "deactivate" that code (assuming it's tied to my gamer id or something? Who knows.) Then the next person can download the dlc for free. GameStop might even require people to log in and deactivate their codes before trading in a game, so as not to screw over the next user.

The entire reason the DLC system is being used is so that the content does NOT travel with the game, reducing the resale value.

Re:Why not both?

[canajin56]

That's what they do. That's why they're being sued. GameStop is selling a box that says the game has multiplayer. It does not, you have to buy it if the game isn't new.

Re:Why not both?

[The Moof]

If anyone buys that same copy used, instead of "hell no", they should get a screen that says "This code has already been claimed. But for just $2.99, you too can have this exclusive content"

That is what happens already (EA even has a gimmicky name for it: "Project Ten Dollar"). And the basis for this lawsuit.

The lawsuit revolves around the box art advertising something like "2 Free Exclusive Maps for Download" and don't mention anything about it only working for the first buyer. So your used game advertises 2 free maps (due to the publisher's box art), but when you go to redeem, they demand payment. Cut and dry false advertising. I can't tell you 'buy this and you get this free!' but demand cash for the free part after you purchase the original item.

The misguided part of all this is going after Gamestop. The fault lies with the publisher advertising free dlc and requiring payment. Gamestop is just a store who sold you the used game.

Re:Why not both?

[Anonymous Coward]

Battlefield: Bad Company 2 actually has a system in place just like the one you described, minus the relinquishing part.

If you buy it new, then you get a map code to get DLC maps, which are probably already on the disc, but also enables you to freely download the map pack that is coming out when Medal of Honor 2 is being released.

If you buy it used, then the code can be purchased separately. I forget the price, but it was not $3.

I am not a huge fan of the system, but I can appreciate their dilemma. GameStop sets up itself to push used copies of the games because it's almost pure profit for them--they pay very low trade-in costs compared to the actual used sale price. In a lot of cases, they are probably selling the same game multiple times without giving any of it back--from used game sales--to the publisher.

In the olden days I probably would have taken less issue with it now because, now, publishers generally host content for the game's that does cost them money (computers and, in particular, staffing).

Re:Why not both?

[delinear]

The problem is publishers can't be trusted not to abuse the system. Already in Dragon Age you have to buy DLC in order to increase your backpack beyond a tiny limit. For a game that involves a fair bit of trawling dungeons and collecting junk to sell, having sufficient storage space for your non-quest items, while not being critical, does make life a hell of a lot easier. By allowing essential game components to be pushed into one time use DLC, they can kill the used market or charge ridiculous prices for their DLC.

Re:Why not both?

[copponex]

The misguided part of all this is going after Gamestop. The fault lies with the publisher advertising free dlc and requiring payment. Gamestop is just a store who sold you the used game.

Why? The publisher does offer the content for free. It's GameStop who should be putting stickers on the pack saying, "You will be required to purchase the DLC for $x.xx".

Re:Why not both?

[Maximum Prophet]

The misguided part of all this is going after Gamestop. The fault lies with the publisher advertising free dlc and requiring payment. Gamestop is just a store who sold you the used game.

And if Gamestop altered the box to match reality, they could be sued by the publishers for messing with their trademarks or somesuch. i.e. Some people legally bought Barbie(tm) dolls, modded and sold them. Mattel(tm) sued because they didn't want BDSM Barbie.

Re:Why not both?

[steveo777]

It's not like they're charging money for the game to be playable or completable. I think this is a brilliant way to keep people buying new content. Bioware knows that they're losing a used sale so they make up for it by offering some trivial (I have played Mass Effect 2, and it IS trival) DLC that you may or may not want. They also know that there would be massive upheaval if they forced you to pay $5 to complete the game if you buy it used.

Also, I think that the case is valid against Gamestop, and that it is a used game. New means unused, by anyone.

Re:Why not both?

[Anonymous Coward]

and they GOT THEIR MONEY. But now it's okay for game companies to double dip because they have an operating costs. It's also okay to fuck the consumer over because someone else is actually making money. Better go firebomb those used DVD, CD, and Book shops cause you know it costs money to produce and if the content products/publishers don't make their money 2, 3, 4 times over the terrorists will have won.

Re:Why not both?

[SydShamino]

Indeed. This is no different than buying a used box of LEGO bricks that claims "over 543 pieces!". If you buy the box used, and find just 300 parts inside, it is not The Lego Group's fault for false advertising. It's at most misrepresentation on the part of the reseller.

And even misrepresentation can usually be solved by a disclaimer posted at the point of sale stating that used products are sold "As Is". Missing the downloadable content advertised on the box is little different than missing the free stickers and included manual advertised on the box.

Re:Why not both?

[nedlohs]

So if I sell you a used car and you then find out that I had ripped out the stock stereo system and replaced it with a cardboard cutout, you are saying that Honda is responsible?

Gamestop sold a used game that did not contain all the material the new game contained. They need to state that upfront, not the publisher. It's possible a used game could still have the working codes, if the original owner didn't bother using them after all.

This is *exactly* the same as selling a used game without the manual - it's perfectly find as long as you don't hide that the manual isn't being sold with it.

Re:Why not both?

[The Moof]

The publisher does offer the content for free.

But they aren't. They're demanding (FTFA) $15 for the 'free' add-on. It's not Gamestop's responsibility to look over every game's box art to ensure its advertising is legit. The publisher should've put the "Free Content" advertising on as a sticker that Gamestop removes before selling the game used.

I'm not a fan of Gamestop, and there's plenty of suspect practices they encourage, but this isn't one of them.

Re:Why not both?

[nedlohs]

Yeah sure.

And they got sued for putting price stickers on them too!

Re:Why not both?

[Anonymous Coward]

Buyer beware. Unless GameStop claims the game is new and has the content, they're fine.

Re:Why not both?

[copponex]

It's not Gamestop's responsibility to look over every game's box art to ensure its advertising is legit.

It is if they are selling it.

Re:Why not both?

[nedlohs]

Oh and do you have a citation for that?

I see some similar lawsuits all of which Mattel lost. The publishers can already sue Gamespot for numerous reasons that they won't win (that their games aren't close enough to the front, that the lights are the wrong color, etc, etc) adding another is irrelevant.

Re:Why not both?

[nedlohs]

And yet I've played through the entire game without buying any DLC just fine. And even had fun doing so.

Re:Why not both?

[The Moof]

So if I sell you a used car and you then find out that I had ripped out the stock stereo system and replaced it with a cardboard cutout, you are saying that Honda is responsible?

No, but if Honda issues a warranty with the car, the warranty moves with the car regardless of how many times it's sold. They don't make you pay for a new warranty for every owner.

Re:Why not both?

[Bigjeff5]

it is not The Lego Group's fault for false advertising.

It would be if the Lego Group were the ones to remove the missing 243 pieces, and then demanded extra money to get them back.

That's -exactly- what has happened, the box says nothing about it being one-time-use content, just that it comes free. When a person sells it, especially given its digital nature, you expect that free content to come with it. By all rights it should, the original purchaser has no right to the content once they've sold the disk.

However EA is charging $15 for it when the box says it is free, making a used game more expensive than a new game.

False advertising.

Gamestop is getting sued here because they are the ones selling the used games. If they lose, I expect they'll be suing the pants off of EA for exactly the same thing - false advertising.

Re:Why not both?

[AusIV]

But if I'm buying a box of LEGO bricks that is advertised to be used, I'm going to be skeptical of anything advertised on the box that describes the new product. Marking something as used implies that it's not quite the same as it was when it was new, even if it comes with original packaging.

Re:Why not both?

[Anonymous Coward]

The fact is, EA are douchebags... STEAM are douchebags... they are all douchebags.

If I buy The "Total War" package, but I already own oh... Empire Total war... I can't gift it to anyone. WTF? But now I've paid for two copies?? Fuckers

Same goes for DLC... if it's tied to MY registered game, it should TRAVEL with my registered game.

I'll pay you for it, if you let me sell it as part of my install. Otherwise, I mostly avoid DLC. It's for chumps... and most times, doesn't really add much value.

Re:Why not both?

[Anonymous Coward]

U AR TROOLEY THA ALPHA NERD

Re:Why not both?

[Bigjeff5]

Bingo.

This is basically a case of EA screwing GameStop by screwing GameStop's customers. I imagine if they lose GameStop will be going after EA to get their money back.

Re:Why not both?

[Anonymous Coward]

Why? The publisher does offer the content for free. It's GameStop who should be putting stickers on the pack saying, "You will be required to purchase the DLC for $x.xx".

And why is this necessary instead of expecting PEOPLE TO HAVE A FUCKING BRAIN.

You're buying DAMAGED GOODS. Do NOT expect it to be in perfect condition or completely as advertised on the original box. I don't go to a garage sale (or pawn shop.) and expect a fucking warranty on a TV to still be valid, it doesn't matter if the original packaging or insert was included to tell me I had "60 days from the day of purchase" or not.

Re:Why not both?

[Kjella]

That highly depends on how you look at it, the game as such is complete exactly as purchased including said code so all the 543 pieces are there. It's the publisher that isn't honoring it, and it doesn't say anywhere clearly say "good for one time only". What if the person who originally bought it tries installing it later on a completely different machine, will he get the same message? I would think so. In short, Gamespot shouldn't be held responsible for the publisher's misleading advertising. The closest thing you'd get to this in real life is a coupon for 2 free pieces, but in that case you'd be able to sell all 543+2 pieces. This game has a secret self-destruct button invoked at sale, and if that's allowed second hand sales will go to hell shortly. Hell, they might as well stop giving you a game, you're just get a 60$ code to unlock the game. Want to sell it second hand? "Sorry, this code has already been used."

Re:Why not both?

[u-235-sentinel]

But if I'm buying a box of LEGO bricks that is advertised to be used, I'm going to be skeptical of anything advertised on the box that describes the new product. Marking something as used implies that it's not quite the same as it was when it was new, even if it comes with original packaging.

What no car analogy? what a rip off! ;-)

Re:Why not both?

[WraithCube]

That would require Gamestop to actually know whether or not the code for it had already been used. While, unlikely there is a possibility that the original owner never used the code for dlc in which case the packaging would be correct. It can't be expect for gamestop to know whether the code had been redeemed or not. This is also why I've seen a lot of used game stores not carry PC games because they have no way of knowing whether a cd key in a used game is still valid.

Re:Why not both?

[Ixokai]

Uhh.

This is a silly comparison. There's nothing that the DAO DLC adds that you couldn't add yourself by making a mod-- or use one of the -countless- mods others have put out there that do -precisely- that.

They released the whole DAO toolchain; there's almost nothing they give you in a purchasable DLC that its not entirely possible for you to add yourself, or others to add. The exception is new models which is a PITA to make, but still possible.

That's different then the Mass Effect situation, where the only way you can get certain things is by having that one-time use Cerebrus network code.

Re:Why not both?

[MattSausage]

I'm not sure if you read the article or not.. but that is EXACTLY what they did. Problem was, when the DLC was purchased it drove the total cost of the game over the original cost of a full retail brand new game.

Re:Why not both?

[IndustrialComplex]

It's not like they're charging money for the game to be playable or completable.

How much of the game are they allowed to remove?

Re:Why not both?

[Twanfox]

If Gamestop is buying a single copy of a game once and selling multiple copies of that game, then I would suspect that Gamestop would be violating Copyright law and should get sued by the publishers. If, however, you mean that Gamestop is seeing the same copy of a game get traded back in to them multiple times, so what? That seems to me that Gamestop as a business is adding value to a discount/used game market, and they're getting their cut to maintain their business. Also, if gamers are buying that game, playing it through, and selling it back, then it doesn't seem to me like they're taking a up whole lot of the publisher's resources (hosted services, etc).

I mean, seriously. This kind of resale market happens in a number of industries, software is not the first nor is it to be the last. The only thing that seems to be different to me is that software publishers CAN double dip by creating one-time-use components. Any other physical artifact can always be sold again.

Re:Why not both?

[CS_Snapple]

Huh. Well, my cereal also tells me they're a prize in the bottom of every box. Clearly, they're in the wrong here, because if I open the box, eat a few bowls of cereal, and dig around and take the toy out, then close my box and resell it to someone, the box still says "A prize in the bottom of every box!" How dare they mislead the people I'm reselling to with their false advertisement! Certainly isn't my job to advertise what shortcomings my used product might have.

Re:Why not both?

[lgarner]

It sounds like the publisher fulfilled their obligation when *they* sold the game. Now that Gamestop is selling it, I'd say it's up to Gamestop to fulfill the obligation.

Re:Why not both?

[h4rr4r]

They are not losing anything you shill. How much do you get paid to make these posts?

Re:Why not both?

[Belial6]

Part of the problem is the long tradition of allowing the lie of "Free" to be used in advertising. It's real simple. If I have to pay cash for access to something, it is not free. They are claiming the DLC is "Free" even though you have to buy a $60 item to get it. This logic is no better than telling a judge, "These women are not prostitutes. They are giving the sex away for FREE with the purchase of these $300 packages of Tic-Tacs."

Re:Why not both?

[ildon]

This is not false advertising because the box art is not intended to advertise for the secondary market. It's intended to advertise for the initial retail market. If the game box original came with a cloth map, and the person who sold the game to Gamestop kept the map, they couldn't very well remove the part of the box art that claims there's a cloth map inside the box. They could possibly put a warning on the box or inform customers in a more general sense the they can't promise used games will still contain the extras that were originally included in the box, but they would still not be responsible for the original box art now being inaccurate (and nor would the original game company be responsible since originally the box did have a cloth map in it).

This is exactly the same situation. There was an extra included in the original packaging. The initial buyer kept the extra and resold the game to a secondary retailer. Secondary retail sells used game "as is". The DLC (at least the EA games I've seen so far that include it) is not required to play the game, just like the cloth map is not required to play the game. It's just an extra to give you some incentive to purchase a new copy instead of a used copy.

The first thing I thought when I saw this article was "this is going to get thrown out".

Re:Why not both?

[badboy_tw2002]

This comment has a link to the box:

http://games.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1596796&cid=31629454

It says "Includes downloadable character and quest A $15 Value One-time use code available with full retail purchase"

Nothing about free or it being any thing more than one time. Not sure how that can be called "false advertising"

Re:Why not both?

[Anonymous Coward]

If anyone buys that same copy used, instead of "hell no", they should get a screen that says "This code has already been claimed. But for just $2.99, you too can have this exclusive content"

They should get a screen that say: "We sold this DLC to the original purchaser. By the doctrine of first sale, we're required to allow them to resell it. You bought the original game from them; so now the DLC is yours."

Re:Why not both?

[brkello]

So they will just need to put stickers on the cellophane wrappers that say that so that the box doesn't say you can get anything for free. It is obvious to me that stuff would only work for the new game, but I guess consumers are dumb and you have to account for that.

Re:Why not both?

[Anonymous Coward]

In regards to your sig, two wrongs don't make a right. Just because someone isn't modding appropriately doesn't mean you are helping the system with your vigilante modding. Besides, no one but you thinks you are right on everything.

Re:Why not both?

[SydShamino]

And other people are welcome to mod up something I've modded down. If Slashdot wants to fix this, they should get rid of the "I agree with this guy!" moderation, i.e. Insightful.

One more reason

[Anonymous Coward]

If the trend continues it will just lead to more piracy, which at the end of the day affects the game publishers/developers exactly the same way as used game sales. The producers of the game make no money either way, all their trying to do is give you a reason to purchase the game rather than buy it used; makes business sense, the issue they're running into is that people are accustomed to used games being just as good as new ones. At the end of the day I can see this seriously reducing the market for used console games, as well as ruining the social aspect of some of the games, no longer can you take your disk to a friends house and expect the same game play experience.

Yep GameSpot is at fault

[commodore64_love]

If there's some kind of bold feature list that says "free downloadable content" on the game's cover, then GameSpot and other sellers need to take a marker or sticker and block it out, because otherwise it's false advertising.

It's just like when I bought a Used Xbox 360. The description said "turn on the wireless controller and start playing immediately" but when I receive the X360 no controller was included. I contacted the seller and he tried to deny responsibility because "that was just a generic description from Microsoft and only applies to new consoles not used." However when I complained to Paypal they sided with me and gave me a $20 refund (which I then used to buy the missing controller).

Used or new, sellers are responsible for what they advertise. If it's on the cover's description it either must be included, or if excluded, blacked-out of the cover.

Re:Yep GameSpot is at fault

[Uranium-238]

If they actually adverstised used games as coming with DLC that it didn't and they knew this then, yes, that's false adverstising. But since I'm not American and so have never been in GameStop I can't be sure, but in shops like Game in the UK they don't actually advertise anything, they just put the used games on the shelves and potential buyers are free to browse. Please correct me if its different in the US.

Re:Yep GameSpot is at fault

[spottedkangaroo]

paypal sided with you? then you're certainly correct. QED.

Re:Yep GameSpot is at fault

[s73v3r]

When you bought the system, did the seller say he was including a controller with it?

Re:Yep GameSpot is at fault

[FlyingBishop]

It's not advertising. It's on the box. If the box isn't clear about what the box contains, they are liable.

Re:Yep GameSpot is at fault

[Demonantis]

I completely agree, but I think there is a due diligence issue here too. If I purchase the game new then I would assume that the person I resell it too will have access to the DLC that I received with it. By that not being clearly explained to the purchaser that it will only work once then it is obviously not tied freely to the product itself but is instead another product completely. If I could prove that a majority of people have this expectation of togetherness. Which the blacking out expectation would demonstrate then the publisher is also committing false advertising because I should be informed of the separation of the two products. Especially when they are combining a consumable to an investment, like this situation because the DLC is not resell able while the game is.

Re:Yep GameSpot is at fault

[Khyber]

'If there's some kind of bold feature list that says "free downloadable content" on the game's cover, then GameSpot and other sellers need to take a marker or sticker and block it out, because otherwise it's false advertising."

Just how is it GS's fault that the PUBLISHER THAT PRINTED THE GAME BOX contains false advertising?

I think you might want to look up some prior caselaw concerning modified product without permission - even a modified game box can be considered a breach of trademark. Mattel did this with modified Barbie dolls that had been legally purchased beforehand.

Re:Yep GameSpot is at fault

[Khyber]

No, the people that printed the box are liable, as it's their product and their advertisement.

Liability is a bitch.

Re:Yep GameSpot is at fault

[CS_Snapple]

Well, I've got it all figured out. Just don't specify what the free downloadable content advertised on the box actually is, and then make sure you always have some really trivial downloadable content available. Like, say, a new desktop icon for the game.

There, now you still have your one-use DLC, but you're still providing something after that one-use is to to satisfy the advertising on the box cover.

Re:Yep GameSpot is at fault

[bluefoxlucid]

If there's some kind of bold feature list that says "free downloadable content" on the game's cover

Is the content "Free," or "Included"? This looks like "Shareware with activation required for full play" to me more than "Free content!"

Re:Yep GameSpot is at fault

[Sloppy]

otherwise it's false advertising

I think the issue is whose false advertising it is.

Suppose Tide makes a laundry detergent where the packaging says, "The whitest whites" and I put it on a shelf in my store and you buy it. But you use it and don't get whitest whites, and that makes you mad. Very understandable. But is your complaint with me or with Tide?

And does this change if I happen to know that Tide doesn't really get you the whitest whites? Does it change if the packaging used to not say that, but then a new pallet came in and I stocked it, not realizing that they had added these words to the box? Or what if I did realize the wording had changed, but then didn't even bother to test whether or not it delivers the whitest whites, before I went ahead and put it on the shelves?

Am I, a reseller, responsible for Tide's words on their box?

No matter how I answer these questions, I can't help but think you're going to be more angry at Tide than with me. Maybe not, though. I think it's a bit of a stretch to say I'm totally without responsibility. Hmm.

What really sucks here, is that the very idea of a one-time use code reeks of a defective product, manufactured in bad faith. Most widgets for sale just don't [deliberately fail to] work like that. But some do, e.g. gift cards, and they're not really evil (well, not evil in this way, I mean; I still don't get why people give no-interests loans to retailers, but that's their problem, not mine). But Gamestop knows the products are created in bad faith; it's reasonable to assume they're informed about how shady the game business is. They should have taken the game back. I know that I if were mad enough at my grocery store over some Tide, they would take it back (whether they're required to or not), and laundry detergent isn't even a shady business (as far as I know).

It's just murky no matter how much I look at it. Makes me glad I don't buy many games. Fuck those guys. What the consumer ought to be learning from this isn't "don't buy used games," but rather "don't buy games."

Re:Yep GameSpot is at fault

[Draek]

Just how is it GS's fault that the PUBLISHER THAT PRINTED THE GAME BOX contains false advertising?

It wasn't false advertising, when the original customer bought the game it did come with the free DLC.

Imagine I buy, say, Windows 7 on a store. Then I burn an Ubuntu CD, put it in place of the Win7 disk then put it on eBay. Somebody buys it, and finds my Ubuntu CD: should Microsoft be held liable for false advertising and send the buyer a free copy of Win7?

If Gamespot doesn't want to modify the packaging for whatever reason, they'd better stick a big "as is" sign on their used section or just stop selling used games altogether. Blaming the publisher would get them nowhere.

Re:Yep GameSpot is at fault

[Khyber]

There is where your logic fails - as-is means as is sold. In the case of software, where NOBODY can be reasonably expected to keep track of every single license out there, there is no reason or means of determining whether that something included with the product as a one-time only offer has already been used.

it is not economically nor logistically feasible, at least not yet. No publisher wants to have a common easily-hackable accessible database where things can be checked/compromised. Too much liability.

Re:Yep GameSpot is at fault

[Draek]

In the case of software, where NOBODY can be reasonably expected to keep track of every single license out there, there is no reason or means of determining whether that something included with the product as a one-time only offer has already been used.

Easy: assume the worst unless specifically noted otherwise. Simple, and so obvious it's what most people did, consciously or otherwise, until some moron went and sued GameStop.

Re:Yep GameSpot is at fault

[Khyber]

Not so obvious given that human behavior is fairly unpredictable. You can't guarantee that anybody would buy or use the added DLC. Sure, maybe fanboys/girls, but that's about it. I know I've got tons of DLC options available to me right now through the games that I own - I have no need for them, so far the core story and gameplay has been pretty awesome for me.

I guess I'm one of the few 'educated consumers' that the law doesn't cover. For the rest, there's lawsuits. This one is 100% misguided. I've spent plenty of time suing other gaming companies, I've got the experience to say "This is bullshit."

Re:Yep GameSpot is at fault

[Hognoxious]

The box wasn't lying when it was new.

It was lying by omission when it was used.

Re:Yep GameSpot is at fault

[Hognoxious]

It wasn't false advertising, when the original customer bought the game it did come with the free DLC.

It was false, because there were conditions attached that were not disclosed - apparently not even in the small print.

Destroying?

[Anonymous Coward]

Should publishers be allowed to destroy the used market for their games by including 'free' DLC with a one-time use code?

How would it destroy the used game market? The free DLC is just a bonus/incentive for all people who bought the game new. Some people may not even use the code and it would still be valid if you bought that copy used.

How is this GameStop's problem? An easy way around this would just to put up a notice in-store saying "DLC codes in used games not guaranteed to be valid."

Suckers.

[MaWeiTao]

I have no love for GameStop, but how is this deceptive? You're buying something used meaning that you're risking acquiring a compromised product. This might mean a missing manual, missing box or limited access to online content. I suppose what will come of this is that GameStop stops providing the box with the game.

I think the most offensive thing here is that this idiot would actually buy a used game for a mere $5 discount. This is the fundamental problem I have with the likes of GameStop. They probably gave the previous owner $20 for this game and then turn around and sell it for $55. The pricing on most of their used games is quite outrageous. But really, it's the fault of the consumer who is too lazy or impatient to shop around. You could probably walk into a Target or Walmart and find that same game, brand new, for $55. In fact, you can find Dragon Age on Amazon for $45. Wait a few extra days and in addition to paying no sales tax you get free shipping.

Keep in mind, I have no problem with selling used games. I have a problem with how GameStop screws people. But again, that's the fault of gamers and nobody else.

Re:Suckers.

[Schnapple]

This is the fundamental problem I have with the likes of GameStop. They probably gave the previous owner $20 for this game and then turn around and sell it for $55. The pricing on most of their used games is quite outrageous.

I take it you never went to college. This is what the used textbook market is founded on.

And it kills me how people get indignant over this. GameStop wants to make a profit. They buy the game for $20 and sell for $55 and they make $35 profit. Are you saying they should pay more? Why? They've already proven they don't have to.

Re:Suckers.

[Anonymous Coward]

I live in Seattle and therefor pay sales tax from Amazon, you insensitive clod!

Re:Suckers.

[Anonymous Coward]

They probably gave the previous owner $20 for this game and then turn around and sell it for $55.

You're completely free to sell your game on eBay or Craigslist for whatever you can get for it.

Don't blame GameStop for making it easy and convenient to buy and sell used games just because they make more profit than you like.

Re:Suckers.

[SydShamino]

And if GameStop has a sign posted in the store pointing out that used products are sold "As Is" and may be missing extras noted on the box, I 100% agree with you.

Lacking downloadable content isn't much different than lacking the free Dragon Age 2 temporary tattoos and bumper sticker, or the instruction manual, or anything else that might be advertised on the box but is missing with a used product. Provided it's posted, let the buyer beware. And yes I include the DVD; provided such a disclaimer is posted, if you are stupid enough to buy a used game without ensuring the DVD is included, it's your fault.

Re:Suckers.

[Shimbo]

You're buying something used meaning that you're risking acquiring a compromised product.

I don't think it's reasonable for the buyer to take the risk when buying a boxed set at near full retail price. Really though, the publisher should makes it clear that they intend to screw the used market on the box. Free downloadable content (offer open to original purchaser only). Problem solved.

Re:Suckers.

[thePowerOfGrayskull]

Indeed. The problem here is not gamestop selling at the ridiculous prices, but the fact that gamers are so willing to buy at such a deep "discount" of $5 off the retail price. As long as people are willing to pay it, Gamestop is perfectly within their rights to sell it for that much.

Re:Suckers.

[MistrBlank]

I'm pretty sure I remember this policy being posted in the store when I worked there 6 years ago. This is a dead case.

Re:Suckers.

[Chees0rz]

I think the most offensive thing here is that this idiot would actually buy a used game for a mere $5 discount. This is the fundamental problem I have with the likes of GameStop. They probably gave the previous owner $20 for this game and then turn around and sell it for $55.

The advantage of buying used isn't always in the money saved... GameStop has (or had) a 7 day full-refund (read: NOT STORE CREDIT) return policy on used games. Don't like it? Return it. Too short and you beat it? Return it. Sure, you're only saving $5 off of retail, but you're getting some security that buying new doesn't grant.

I've only taken advantage of this once for some ps3 game that took me 5 hours to beat and had barely any replay value.

I know this was off topic, but I felt it had to be pointed out. W.r.t the article... I don't really have much of a formed opinion yet.

Re:Suckers.

[Chees0rz]

GameStop can pay less per game because they take on the burden of selling+distribution. They are providing a service. If people find that service fee to be too much (ie. GameStop doesn't pay enough for used games) then they can feel free to track down their own buyers.

Re:Suckers.

[h4rr4r]

So use glyde.com. Just a happy customer, you could also use many other online used/old game sellers.

Re:Suckers.

[mcgrew]

I have no love for GameStop

I do, they put food on my younest daughter's table; she manages one in Kentucky (just across the river from Ohio).

I think the most offensive thing here is that this idiot would actually buy a used game for a mere $5 discount.

It's no different than used movies or CDs anywhere. Somebody stole my Star Wars episodes 1-3, and looking to replace them I found a set at the Elf Shelf here in town, for ten bucks apiece. Thinking that outrageous for used movies, I passed.

I later found brand new copies at WalMart for the same price. What's worse, they pay $2 for a used DVD.

Recycled Records is no better. A used CD in good shape costs eight bucks there.

Links are to Google Streetview of the storefronts.

Re:Suckers.

[Nighttime]

Somebody stole my Star Wars episodes 1-3

And nothing of value was lost...

Re:Suckers.

[bluefoxlucid]

Have you noticed Metroid Prime 3 still sells for $50? It's several years old.

Back in the day, a year after release a game cost about $30, or maybe $20. They started at $50 but bottomed out at $20 new. Gamestop couldn't risk buying a used game TODAY and finding they can only resell it for $20 in 4 months. The new game was $40, marked down from its release day date of $50; they had to resell at about $30 maybe? So $15-$20 is what they'd have to charge... but in 4 more months, if that game didn't turn over, it'd be $20. And the price goes down because the market is less hot for the title right now!

It's really hard to sell used games in that atmosphere; but what's now annoying me is that I can't buy new games for $20 after 9 months to a year.

Re:Suckers.

[metamatic]

If you're a Metroid Prime fan, pick up the Wii Metroid Prime Trilogy *now*. It was a limited release, they've stopped pressing 'em, and the price is rapidly rising. Just FYI.

Re:Suckers.

[Draek]

Offer only to original guy-who-activates-it only, rather. It's still possible for somebody to play through the entire game without using any sort of DLC, so it's conceivable that somebody could sell it with its DLC code still usable (in fact, many people did it on eBay near release, to 'cash in' the preorder bonus craze).

Re:Suckers.

[bluefoxlucid]

Not my point; and in the Trilogy re-release is annoying and changes some of the log files, and also has stuff like Dane not saying "Damn!" anymore.

It's in the article

[tepples]

I think the obvious solution is for the game developer to allow online sale of new codes to unlock DLC (at a low price).

The article stated that such codes were available for sale, but the price was greater than the discount that GameStop offered for a used copy:

Collins discovered weeks later, however, he would have to pay an additional $15 to access the downloadable content, ultimately paying $10 more than the cost of a brand new copy with the same content.

Re:It's in the article

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, there's the real travesty, the Used Copy of the game is only $5 less than full retail copy. Why would you save 5 bucks in that manner on a $50-60 game?
GameSpot is pocketing well over 50% (based on what they pay for used games and what the sell them for) of that for doing basically nothing.

Re:It's in the article

[Anonymous Coward]

Because that 5 dollars buys you a LOT of Smack Ramen Noodles.

Re:It's in the article

[elfprince13]

enough for 2 days maybe....

Re:It's in the article

[WillDraven]

It seems to me that the solution to this resides in our good friend the Sharpie. All Gamestop has to do is send a memo out to its employees telling them whenever they restock a used game they mark over any mention of download codes on the box. If they want to go high tech give them a roll of stickers that say "NO DLC CODES" to stick on there.

Bam, problem solved.

Re:It's in the article

[ender-]

enough for 2 days maybe....

Geez man, how much Ramen do you eat? Around here you can find them for $0.25/package normally, on on occasion, half that.

Re:It's in the article

[Anonymous Coward]

If you're paying more than $0.10 per ramen package then you're getting completely ripped off or you're an idiot. Don't buy "top ramen". That's another brand of ramen that's exactly the same as the cheap stuff but just more expensive.

And yes, I'm currently attending college.

Re:It's in the article

[SleazyRidr]

Simple arithmatic shows that at 25 cents a pop, the 5 dollars will buy 20 packets of ramen. Given the statement that this is enough for two days I would conclude that he eats 10 packets of ramen a day.

Re:It's in the article

[ender-]

Which would suggest he's got a blood-salt level of about .9 :)

Re:It's in the article

[elfprince13]

Around here you can ONLY find Top Ramen, which is $0.50 a pack (or more if you're going for cup noodles)

Re:It's in the article

[ender-]

Around here it's all Maruchan or Nissin.

Re:It's in the article

[Anonymous Coward]

That's only because Gamestop scalps used games. $5 off for a used copy covered with hard to remove yellow stickers? No thanks, I'm not that poor, I'll take the new copy...

Now if the used copy was $20 or $30 cheaper than new I could see it working...

Re:It's in the article

[Sleepy]

With all the trash and e-junk we produce - much of it contaminating groundwater or floating in the middle of the Pacific - I commend ANYONE for buying used games, books, or CDs.
If the library doesn't have it, I'll look for it on half.com or ebay for $5 less if it's in good condition. Assuming everything is there and "complete" of course.. and in this case, that's not true exactly.

I blame GameStop for not publishing this problem, but ultimately this is all due to a deliberate design decision by the publishing house. Those publishers doing this mean to cause inconvenience to their user base.

Re:It's in the article

[mordenkhai]

There is one advantage to the used game from GameStop, and that is the return policy. Yeah you only save $5, but you have 7 days to return the game for a full refund. They tell you, "you can return it if you don't like it", so you get to try the game out. There is no similar return for most new software. Whether or not that is enough of a value add to justify a $5 discount on a used game or not is up to the purchaser, however I give them more credit now that I know of the policy.

Re:It's in the article

[KDR_11k]

Interesting, I returned Castlevania Circle of the Moon the next day because it kept losing its savedata and all I got was store credit.

Re:It's in the article

[KDR_11k]

I agree, the discount is not enough for me to buy used when new copies are available. I can usually get that much if not more just by shopping around.

Re:It's in the article

[yoyhed]

You can definitely get full non-store-credit refunds within 7 days for USED games there, I do it all the time. I'll drive to a GameStop 15 minutes farther away if they have the used copy, not because of the $5 but because I can return it if I don't like it.

Re:It's in the article

[Ranma-sensei]

enough for 2 days maybe....

Not if your name's Saotome Ranma...

Re:It's in the article

[SleazyRidr]

When I first considered moving out of home I estimated my food budget subsisting entirely on ramen.

A meritless Lawsuit

[CorporateSuit]

It's not going to work. Gamestop is rich enough to have lawyers that will squash this little unification of idiots. I have no love for Gamestop, but I downright hate litigous morons. This "I'll sue everyone because I'm almost too stupid to breathe!" attitude SHOULD be stomped on, even if it is stomped on by an "Evil Inc."

Re:A meritless Lawsuit

[characterZer0]

The packaging said something. The buyer had no reason not to think that the packaging was accurate. The packaging was not accurate.

How does this make him a litigious moron too stupid to breathe?

Re:A meritless Lawsuit

[CorporateSuit]

Gamestop did not design the packaging.
The packaging almost ALWAYS refers to the original purchaser or "1 time use"
Gamestop clearly marks the game as "Used"
Gamestop ALSO offers the option of returning the game, without stipulation (the clerk might ask out of interest why you returned it, but otherwise, no questions asked) -- in case you were suddenly upset because you STILL didn't understand you weren't getting the 1-time use token.

Gamestop is not the problem here. The problem is a mindless purchase, nothing done by the consumer to rectify their mindlessness, and a publisher who pulled a scam to revoke the consumer's first sale rights, and a man-in-the-middle powerful enough to be a target.

Re:A meritless Lawsuit

[Anonymous Coward]

"Gamestop did not design the packaging."

But Gamestop IS selling the produce. That makes THEM responsible for what the packaging says (and gives them the right to change it). Why don't people get that?!

Re:A meritless Lawsuit

[Khyber]

Because it's not gamestop creating the false advertising, it's the fucking game publisher.

Did you people not pay attention when I smacked EA over the Spore DRM and misleading advertising? Go check out McQuown vs Electronic Arts and read.

Re:A meritless Lawsuit

[Anonymous Coward]

You might want to post under a different name than "CorporateSuit" when creating topics such as this one.

Just sayin'

Re:A meritless Lawsuit

[h4rr4r]

If they change it they are liable to be sued under copyright and trademark laws.

Re:A meritless Lawsuit

[VocationalZero]

IANAL, but if that were actually true, then any store that puts ANY kind of sticker on the packaging could be held liable for "copyright and trademark" infringement. Fry's Electronics uses stickers that include disclaimers for used or returned products, so why couldn't Gamestop?

Re:A meritless Lawsuit

[VocationalZero]

No, it is Gamestop's fault for misleading their customers; Fry's Electronics uses stickers that include disclaimers for used or returned products, which contain all kinds of legal information. If the box says "comes with free DLC", then free DLC better damn well be included in the product, regardless of who owned it last. If it were EA selling these used games, they would be liable, but they are not.

Re:A meritless Lawsuit

[Anonymous Coward]

Look at his handle. DFTT.

Sorry dude

[KneelBeforeZod]

Caveat emptor. Let the buyer beware. If you knew the game was USED then you had 7 days to return it.

But i wonder how much game studios profit from DLC addons to their games. I'm thinkin Mass Effect 2, Fallout 3, GTA4, and others. Because the worth of DLC is variable from a freebies to 10-15$, always a fraction of the original retail game disc.

It's not just games..

[RabidRabb1t]

Textbook publishers have been doing an analogous thing for years. They set up some pitiful homework website and the code to use it only comes bundled with the new book or will set you back $49.99. Usually this isn't an issue, but some prof's are too lazy to grade the homework and get roped into this scheme (e.g.: mastering physics). It's a total scam. I, for one, bought an old copy of the textbook used for $30. Then i found out that because I didn't buy the new, ~200 textbook, I would have to pay $50 to do my homework!

Re:It's not just games..

[BatsShadow]

Who cares? You still paid $80 for a $200 book. Now, whether or not the book should legitimately cost $200 (or even $80) in the first place is an entirely different question.

Re:It's not just games..

[SydShamino]

To better match the analogy to GameStop, though, the book would have cost him $190 used instead of $200 new, and then he'd have to pay the $50 fee to do homework.

Which, if "As Is" was posted at the point of sale for the used book, would be his fault.

Re:It's not just games..

[thePowerOfGrayskull]

Resulting in a net save of $120...

Re:It's not just games..

[Anonymous Coward]

I have to post as AC because I've moderated a couple posts. Not to get too far off the beaten path, but as a college student, most books on the market are 8th and 9th editions, and several professors have attested to new editions only being graphic updates to the old and swearing by a several years old edition to save the student money. I think the textbook program in the United States is a horrible monopoly and one of many reasons behind rising tuition costs, among others. Getting back on the beaten path, I agree with some posters that this is the fault of Gamestop for not properly labeling their used games 'As is', since many powergamers will chomp at the opportunity for free stuffs in the form of unlockables and DLC.

AC SPEAKS!

[Anonymous Coward]

IANAL, and certainly not an american one, from where i assume the story originates; but in the uk, any thing that is explicitly provided free with the purchase of another good, must be given for free without purchase of the good. the idea being to stop false advertisement, if it's free then it's free (i.e. not conditional on the sale)...

a common example of this is 'FREE ENTRY INTO PRIZE DRAW!' on chocolate wrappers, where free entry can as be gained by contacting the company... thanks to this law.

i would think a similar argument could be said about free content for software games though this is probably untested. also i have no idea if the second hand nature of the sale alleviates the publisher of this burden.

Re:AC SPEAKS!

[Anne Thwacks]

Funny thing is, if they advertise a free mobile with a horrendously over-priced tariff, you cant go into Carphone Whorehouse and get the phone for free with no tariff. (Although in my experience, you can get the tariff and be promised a Blackberry which, when you get it, doesnt work and when you complain, they replace it with "another one" which is actually the same, not working, one! Then when you wont pay for the free phone you have not got, they threaten to use you!)

Disclaimer: I live in the UK and have a legal dispute with Carphone Whorehouse.

Re:AC SPEAKS!

[Anonymous Coward]

The alternative free entry to competitons is because otherwise the organiser would need a lottery or raffle license. Offering free entry by another means (usually writing to a specified address) avoids the need to apply for such a license. If you ever see a competition where the *only* form of entry involves paying money to the organiser (eg by purchase of a product, or a premium rate phone call), they *must* quote details of their license.

Publishers

[magisterx]

I agree with ggeezz. I hate the "one time use codes". If it is part of the core game, then it should be on the disc with no need for codes. If it is an add on, then sell it to everyone as a separate add on. Even when I do buy it new, the need to input that code is an annoying detraction and slowdown from what is supposed to be a pleasant experience in my very limited leisure time. I love Dragon Age Origins, best game since Planescape Torment in my opinion, but putting in the codes for shale and the armor were a royal pain on a PS3. I do not think any party has done anything ethically wrong really, but I think the publishers, not Gamestop, is taking a consumer-unfriendly and inconvient stance on this. Also, this may not apply to eveyone, but when I buy a console game new, I do so factoring in the fact I can resell it as part of the price. If I loose the ability to do that, then either a game will have to be cheaper or it will have to be so good I am convinced it is really worth the full $60. Dragon Age Origins would pass that test, but most of the other games I have purchased recently would not...

It costs five times that much

[tepples]

If anyone buys that same copy used, instead of "hell no", they should get a screen that says "This code has already been claimed. But for just $2.99, you too can have this exclusive content"

If by $2.99 you meant $14.99, you have the situation described in the article.

Re:It costs five times that much

[gauauu]

I play Smash Bros. but want to switch to PC gaming. What platform fighting game should I try? (SFIV != platform.)

Super Mario War
Liero

Of course, your question is a lot like asking:
"I play Starcraft, but want to switch to console gaming. What RTS should I try?"...sure, there are some mediocre answers and pathetic attempts, but trying to find an alternative to one of the best games of a genre on a platform that generally doesn't cater to that genre means you will be disappointed.

Re:It costs five times that much

[tepples]

Thanks for your suggestions.

Of course, your question is a lot like asking:
"I play Starcraft, but want to switch to console gaming. What RTS should I try?"

How about "I play Smash Bros. and Mario Kart, but I like mods, and I don't like having to devote one machine (a PC) to indie games and a separate machine (a console) to major-label games. Can you recommend games for me?"

Re:It costs five times that much

[Anonymous Coward]

If by "the article" you meant "global warming", your comment would be just as relevant as mine.

Re:It costs five times that much

[h4rr4r]

Get a PC and use emulators.

Re:It costs five times that much

[Sleepy]

Funny... you're quoting "I play Smash Bros. but want to switch to PC gaming. What platform fighting game should I try? (SFIV != platform.)" yet when I push PARENT on your post, I don't see that parent post. That's made all the more suspicious by the fact that the 2 sites you just promoted are both owned by the same person and hosted at the same ISP.

So either the post you replied to did not exist in which case this is spam, or somehow that parent post can't be located by Slashdot.

$ host openlierox.net
openlierox.net has address 77.93.211.205
openlierox.net mail is handled by 5 p.banan.cz.
openlierox.net mail is handled by 10 backup.p.banan.cz.
$ host openlierox.net
openlierox.net has address 77.93.211.205
openlierox.net mail is handled by 10 backup.p.banan.cz.
openlierox.net mail is handled by 5 p.banan.cz.

Re:It costs five times that much

[tepples]

yet when I push PARENT on your post, I don't see that parent post.

It appears you have Slashdot signatures turned off.

In my opinion

[Anonymous Coward]

In my opinion Game Stop aren't at fault. If I were going to buy a used game that's exactly the sort of thing I would ask about. In my eyes it's more the fault of the game developers for putting that on the boxes/including DLC for free with games since they must know people buy games and then sell them on to shops like GameStop. Having said that, GameStop could've easily but stickers or similar on the boxes either covering the "includes DLC free" or "DLC not inlcuded when sold as used" or similar. But hey this all my humble opinion.

Re:In my opinion

[RyuuzakiTetsuya]

If it wasn't printed on the receipt as part of a standard boilerplate or marked out by the employees when the used game is received, then they certainly committed misrepresentation of product. I'm also guessing the employee never told him that the DLC wasn't available for used games either; but that's speculation.

The full story is that the box said, "Free code inside to download DLC." Box contained said code. Said DLC isn't available to the player until the main story is finished. player didn't finish the game for weeks, well past the return date. Went to go redeem DLC so he can play addon content he was sold; turns out it was already used. He was sold something that represented itself as working, turns out, did not work.

CD-Key

[rockNme2349]

Is this any different from the use of unique 'CD-Keys' that are required for online play (e.g. for Blizzard games since 1997 or earlier)?

Yes, the CD Keys for Blizzard Games travel with the game. Only one can be active online at any time, but you are perfectly able to uninstall the game and sell it to someone else. DLC is locked in.

Re:CD-Key

[rockNme2349]

Scenario 1)
I play starcraft for a year, I am done playing, so I sell to my friend directly. I give him my CD-KEY and ownership is transferred. Since as you mentioned I could keep it installed, this requires trust.
 
Scenario 2)
I play game X for Xbox 360 for a year, I am done playing, so I sell to my friend directly. I give him the codes but he CANNOT use the DLC that came with the original purchase. The content of the game is tied to the first purchase.
 
Even if two people installed with the same CD-KEY there would not be a problem unless they tried to log on to battle.net at the same time.

Re:CD-Key

[WaXHeLL]

WoW CD Keys don't travel with the game...

Re:CD-Key

[Chris Mattern]

No, it's not the same at all. The StarCraft second-hand purchaser is only denied his online play if the seller commits fraud. The XBox 360 second-hand purchaser cannot, under any circumstances, get online play without paying the game publisher a second time for the same thing. Those are two completely different situations.

Re:CD-Key

[Anonymous Coward]

Which is the great part of older Blizzard games, if I remember correctly, more than one person can be using the same CD key, but not using Battle.net/online at the same time. Which is what the person above me just said, so... Yeah. Although this may have clarified it a bit.

Re:CD-Key

[IndustrialComplex]

No, it's not the same at all. The StarCraft second-hand purchaser is only denied his online play if the seller commits fraud. The XBox 360 second-hand purchaser cannot, under any circumstances, get online play without paying the game publisher a second time for the same thing. Those are two completely different situations.

I wish I had mod points because you hit it right on the head here.

Re:CD-Key

[HandleMyBidness]

The CD key is now tied to your battle.net account and cannot be resold.

Re:CD-Key

[Anonymous Coward]

The StarCraft second-hand purchaser is only denied his online play if the seller commits fraud.

Or if a random key generator somewhere happens to come up with their number.

Re:CD-Key

[Anonymous Coward]

This is no longer true since Battle.net was implemented.

Yes game companies should be allowed to do this

[Todd Knarr]

Yes, game companies should be allowed to do one-time-use codes in their games. Yes, this is going to mean the games aren't particularly attractive in the used-game market. The problem is stores like GameStop that don't clearly mark their used games clearly as to what's advertised on the packaging that isn't actually going to be available because somebody else has already used it up. And I think that should be the responsibility of the used-game sellers, not the publisher. They're the ones who know that copy's used, after all.

Re:Yes game companies should be allowed to do this

[Anonymous Coward]

They're the ones who know that copy's used, after all.

Yes, this is kept secret from the person buying the game who saw the clearly labeled "USED" on the yellow price tag when they bought it.

Re:Yes game companies should be allowed to do this

[IIH]

And I think that should be the responsibility of the used-game sellers, not the publisher. They're the ones who know that copy's used, after all.

Surely it should be the responsibility of the publisher, as they would be the ones that know what doesn't work a second time? So long as the seller marks it as "used", what else reasonably could they do?

Re:Yes game companies should be allowed to do this

[Renraku]

The price should be adjusted according to what's missing. For example, games without manuals or packaging usually go for a bit less than games that have both of those. Games that don't have the included DLC available should have their prices lowered by the total value of the DLC. That is, if it costs $15, then $15 is taken off the resale price when the code is used.

As long as this happens and proper notification is given at the time of sale, I see no problem with it. Of course, it could be abused simply by flat out removing half the game unless you have a 'code' and then not selling the code.

Re:Yes game companies should be allowed to do this

[Khyber]

But they can't determine without actually having the hardware to install and test the game to make sure that either the DLC code has been used or not - that's too much time, money, and effort.

Re:Yes game companies should be allowed to do this

[Todd Knarr]

The publisher sold the game new. The packaging reflects what the publisher sold. The publisher isn't selling it used, so why should their packaging reflect that?

Re:Yes game companies should be allowed to do this

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, game companies should be allowed to do one-time-use codes in their games.

No, they shouldn't. It's a pretty clear attempt to circumvent the doctrine of first sale.

Re:Yes game companies should be allowed to do this

[Xtifr]

Yes, game companies should be allowed to do one-time-use codes in their games.

Only if they're clearly marked as such. They're claiming it's a feature of the game when it's not! If it were a feature of the game, then re-installing the game on a different machine wouldn't change things. Instead, it's a feature of the initial installation, not the game! It's false advertising!

Note that this has nothing to do with used games sales. I can give my copy of a game to a friend, and suddenly it doesn't work as advertised! And there's no indication on the box that that's the case.

Shale is fruity anyway

[Orga]

Really unless you like Zevrian you really don't need Shale in your party

Re:Shale is fruity anyway

[Theoboley]

you do realize that shale is a woman... therefore has the right to be "fruity"

Not like CD keys

[rxan]

Is this any different from the use of unique 'CD-Keys' that are required for online play (e.g. for Blizzard games since 1997 or earlier)?

Yes it is different. For example the Blizzard games only required that one person used the game on Battle.net at a time. As long as whoever sold you the game uninstalls it from their machine, you're in the clear. But it's an act of pure faith.

The key difference is the one-time use codes. However I have usually found publishers to be pretty friendly when it comes to switching machines.

"free" one use DLC is fine

[nedlohs]

The buyers should be demanding a lower initial purchase price due to the lower resale value.

And if the box says there's included stuff that isn't included in the resale version the seller needs to state that. Just like that have to state that the manual is missing, etc.

Re:"free" one use DLC is fine

[Orga]

buyers demand by not being buyers... Can't blame the company for releasing and pricing products that will be bought. It's called making a profit.

Re:"free" one use DLC is fine

[Late Adopter]

I agree. The reason such a thing doesn't really matter so much yet is (at least in my experience) the in-box DLC is just shiny extras, like in Forza 3, where I got a couple tracks and some cars, none of which are used in career mode. It makes buying an original copy a little nicer, like the physical trinkets in old computer games, but it doesn't change the game.

Now if we were talking entire expansion packs, like if the Fallout 3 GOTY edition came with DLC cards instead of an extra disc... then we'd be talking reduced value.

Re:"free" one use DLC is fine

[nedlohs]

Which is exactly what I said.

Re:"free" one use DLC is fine

[nedlohs]

Just wait for the "game" to be an empty shell in which you can do nothing. And *all* the actual game to be "free" DLC included...

Re:"free" one use DLC is fine

[Anonymous Coward]

Gamestop sells a physical game and they guarantee that the game will work. The Publisher is one one claiming there is extra content.

Good for Consumers.

[pwileyii]

I've got two game that use this types of system, Dragon Age: Origins and Mass Effect 2. I honestly think this system is good for consumers in the end because it should decrease the cost of used games. We all know the Gamestop, as well as the other used game sellers, make a killing on buying and selling used games and this may get them thinking about reduced the price on these titles. I find buying a used copy for $5 less then the new copy and bit ridiculous in the first place and I'm hoping this will have the effect of reducing costs. As for the DLC itself, it is never a fundamental part of the game, it is simply a bonus you are getting for supporting the game developer. It is like getting something free for buying new and I like free stuff.

Re:Good for Consumers.

[Anonymous Coward]

I honestly think this system is good for consumers in the end because it should decrease the cost of used games.

You got that backwards: With its diminished resale-value it's actually the original product that should cost less. Used games being cheaper would only be the side-effect.

Re:Good for Consumers.

[Dan667]

it is a bad deal as they did not lower the cost of the game, but held back content they should have given.

Re:Good for Consumers.

[IndustrialComplex]

I honestly think this system is good for consumers in the end because it should decrease the cost of used games.

It is horrible for consumers because it is decreasing the cost of used games by removing value from those items. So right now you have $55 used games for $60 new games and a rebuy of the DLC at $15.

-Used Store adapts and lowers the price to $40. This allows the person to still enjoy a discount.
-Publisher responds by increasing the cost of the DLC to $20.
-Used store adapts and reduces the price to $30.
-Publisher says "You aren't getting the point" Sets 90% of the game to be DLC and raises the price to $70.

Used store goes out of business.

The used market doesn't exist anymore. The only thing people could sell at that point would be the entire damned 'Xbox Live' profiles. And that would probably get you cut off by the publisher in a week.

Re:Good for Consumers.

[h4rr4r]

No, this should mean the original product is cheaper, since it cannot be resold for as much.

Re:Good for Consumers.

[geminidomino]

I honestly think this system is good for consumers in the end because it should decrease the cost of used games.

It is horrible for consumers because it is decreasing the cost of used games by removing value from those items. So right now you have $55 used games for $60 new games and a rebuy of the DLC at $15.

-Used Store adapts and lowers the price to $40. This allows the person to still enjoy a discount.
-Publisher responds by increasing the cost of the DLC to $20.
-Used store adapts and reduces the price to $30.
-Publisher says "You aren't getting the point" Sets 90% of the game to be DLC and raises the price to $70.

Used store goes out of business.

The used market doesn't exist anymore. The only thing people could sell at that point would be the entire damned 'Xbox Live' profiles. And that would probably get you cut off by the publisher in a week.

Somewhere in the progression, the used game stores could opt to not carry said games before the publisher cuts them off. When the big one does this, the publishers will feel it.

It's a risk, yes, but the publishers need the sellers as much as the sellers need the publishers.

Re:Good for Consumers.

[LateArthurDent]

I've got two game that use this types of system, Dragon Age: Origins and Mass Effect 2. I honestly think this system is good for consumers in the end because it should decrease the cost of used games.

You've fallen into EA's trap. The crap additional "free DLC" that I didn't bother to install even with the game that I bought new is just the first wave, designed to make you accept the state of things. They're moving towards giving you essentially a cd-key in order to play the game at all. And since it's also activated online, you won't be able to sell your game at all.

They're not interested in making used games more attractive, they're interested in killing the market. That's why even in this original iteration, they've carefully designed the price of the "free dlc" to be just over the price difference between a used and new copy.

And those of us who wait a year or so before buying a game, so we can pick it up new for $20? The repackaged 1-year old games won't give you the "free" content, mark my words.

The entire concept of downloadable content is unacceptable, unless you were allowed to sell it and transfer your license to other people, with no restrictions.

Re:Good for Consumers.

[Anonymous Coward]

I honestly think this system is good for consumers in the end because it should decrease the cost of used games.

Game retailers aren't the only ones who sell their used games. This hurts the consumers who sell their game to recoup costs of buying them

Re:Good for Consumers.

[brkello]

I don't necessarily agree. Fallout 3 was a complete game (we'll leave the issue of bugs for another discussion). It didn't need any DLC to make it complete, but there were multiple addons you could get. I'd have had no problem paying full price for that game...though I got the GOTY edition when that came out.

If a game company releases and incomplete game and charges more to complete it, then it is an issue. I haven't seen any game yet where the addons are necessary.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

It's generally understood

[jim_v2000]

that such offers apply to the new product, not the used product. It's a bunch of people whining about nothing and I hope the case gets tossed out of court.

Why sue Gamestop?

[Junior J. Junior III]

GameStop has no control over the fact that the codes are single-use. That's completely up to the publisher. Sue them.

GameStop sells used games at reduced prices, reflecting that the games are used. If a game doesn't have a manual, or has a case that is missing the artwork panel, they still sell it. It might cost less. If the DLC code for a game has been used, how exactly would GameStop be able to determine this, in order to adjust the price accordingly? I would think that their pricing assumes that the DLC code is not good, since it cannot be relied or proved good.

That's it, case closed.

Publishers: wake up and make the DLC codes re-usable. Forget the used market for a second. If my console breaks and I have to get it replaced I am going to be pissed off if I have to re-purchase DLC that I already own.

Re:Why sue Gamestop?

[Nukenbar]

What if the case said manual included, but there was no manual? By reselling the game, don't you think they have a duty to accurately describe what is being sold?

Re:Why sue Gamestop?

[Orga]

Make codes reusable: 1 time purchase Make codes not-reuable: 1 time purchase + chance your hardware screws up you'll rebuy the game you already bought? CHA-CHING!

Re:Why sue Gamestop?

[Late Adopter]

If the DLC code for a game has been used, how exactly would GameStop be able to determine this, in order to adjust the price accordingly?

The DLC cards have a little tear-off cover, and the card explicitly states that the card is invalid if received without the cover intact.

Re:Why sue Gamestop?

[Junior J. Junior III]

They generally do, and it's quite easy to determine whether the manual is present before you buy if you're in the store. If you buy through their website, they guarantee that the game comes to you complete, at least in terms of disc, manual, and case.

Re:Why sue Gamestop?

[Anonymous Coward]

DLC like this isn't locked to a computer, it's locked to a user account with the Publisher (EA, Bioware, etc).
If my computer screws up, or I get a new computer, I can install DragonAge or Mass Effect on the new computer, and redownload all the DLC that came with my game and all the DLC I purchased.

The code can't be used by another user account at EA or Bioware, it can only be applied to one user account.

Re:Why sue Gamestop?

[Khyber]

"If my console breaks and I have to get it replaced I am going to be pissed off if I have to re-purchase DLC that I already own."

Well, considering those DLCs are usually tied to an account made on the console, as long as you remember your login and password there should be no problems with that.

Even Steam figured this one out.

You know...

[TheSpoom]

I'm surprised that game companies haven't started doing this whole one-time console locking code business for the whole game. It would completely destroy the used games market for that game, forcing people to buy it new if they wanted to play the game at all.

I don't have much problem with it

[Sycraft-fu]

I would say it was a problem if game makers were deliberately leaving out important parts of the game as DLC to try and force new sales. I'm sure that'll happen at some point, but not so far. The two games I've seen it with are Mass Effect 2 and Dragon Age. In both cases, the DLC you got with buying new truly was an addon. The game was a complete game, worth $50, without the DLC. There wasn't some massive hole that you said "Man there really should be something to do here," or a very shortened game or anything.

I'm ok with that. They give you a bonus for purchasing it new.

Re:I don't have much problem with it

[DMUTPeregrine]

Except for the bits where there's a guy in your camp in DA who wants you to go find his ancestral home. You will! Great, as soon as you [download content button] we can get going.
Or the guy you meet who offers to sell you a control rod to a golem, if you would just [download content button]. Both in the game from the start.

Re:I don't have much problem with it

[Kjella]

What bugs me about them is that they look just like any other quest. If they had a dollar sign above them, it wouldn't be nearly as annoying. But they absolutely want to give you the sales pitch.

Re:I don't have much problem with it

[DMUTPeregrine]

Yeah, and you keep running into the second one (for shale). More wasted time with loading screens.

Maybe he should look at the box next time

[jim_v2000]

Look on the left.

It clearly says that the DLC is for retail purchases only.

Re:Maybe he should look at the box next time

[Khyber]

I got news for you.

Any sale is a retail sale unless you have a reseller license.

Check your local state laws on sales tax - it explicitly defines a retail sale.

Re:Maybe he should look at the box next time

[jim_v2000]

A) The box says "full retail"
B) Maybe they have a reseller license
C) He still got the "one-time use code" even though it was used.

Re:Maybe he should look at the box next time

[dgatwood]

If it says "full retail", then that constitutes price fixing, which is usually illegal.

Re:Maybe he should look at the box next time

[AaronMK]

I don't care what the box says. (In small fine print, no less.) First sale is one of those few rights spelled out specifically in our copyright law. It should not be some right of the publisher to diminish your rights as a purchaser. Should writing on a box magically change that?

Even if the DLC did not come with the game, you should have the right to sell it with (or without) the game. This would not be hard to facilitate on the current consoles.

Re:Maybe he should look at the box next time

[Khyber]

A reseller license allows you to purchase at wholesale without tax liability.

Try again.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Nope - GameSpot is not at fault

[Blue Stone]

"If there's some kind of bold feature list that says "free downloadable content" on the game's cover, then GameSpot and other sellers need to take a marker or sticker and block it out, because otherwise it's false advertising."

But Gamestop isn't making the claim - the game company is.

Better yet would be that since games are able to be sold and re-sold, any claim that appears on the cover regarding free add-ons, should apply to the first purchaser or the hundredth. If a game company wants to charge for add-ons, then the problem goes away.

But of course the real reason they're including one-time codes is because they want to kill the second-hand market. Shame on them.

Re:Nope - GameSpot is not at fault

[Late Adopter]

But Gamestop isn't making the claim - the game company is.

And in the new product, the DLC code is there and usable, with the tear-off cover still in place. But Gamestop is selling an altered version of the product without the publisher's involvement or endorsement. Just like removing the manual or even the disc. If anything, this might even be a violation of trademark ("you're devaluing our product's reputation by selling an inferior version in our trademarked original packaging!"... not that I want to give them ideas)

Re:Nope - GameSpot is not at fault

[DM9290]

"If there's some kind of bold feature list that says "free downloadable content" on the game's cover, then GameSpot and other sellers need to take a marker or sticker and block it out, because otherwise it's false advertising."

But Gamestop isn't making the claim - the game company is.

the party selling the product is the party marking the claim. it makes no difference who originally printed it.

By your logic, if I found an empty box on the road I ought to have the right to sue the manufacturer because it says on the outside of the box that there's a product inside.

Re:Nope - GameSpot is not at fault

[fatalfury]

I don't think GameSpot is at fault completely. I can see where someone who doesn't purchase used games very often may be misled in thinking that DLC would be available if it was advertised on the cover. However, most used game buyers and used product buyers in general are aware that items that might be included in a new condition item may not be in a used condition item. I don't expect digital codes to work for me if I buy a used game or any other item.

If I were GameStop, I would add a disclaimer somewhere explaining that digital codes in used games may not work. I think this lawsuit has some merit but it ultimately frivolous. GameStop has a pretty lenient return policy. You have 7 days to return your used game. If you buy a game for the DLC and it doesn't work, just return it.

The DLC XRC, BBQ!

[noidentity]

Not everyone is familiar with online games and whatever DLC means. After some trial-and-error, I'm thinking it means downloadable content. But sheesh, define terms if it's not common.

Like buying a used car

[jmcwork]

and not getting the 'new car' smell. But really, how many other things do you buy used and lose something over a new version: a book with a special coupon insert, DVD with ticket to the sequel, cereal missing the toy (strike that last one!)

First sale doctrine is an emancipation

[Anonymous Coward]

getting Bobbs-Merrill Co. v. Straus, 210 U.S. 339 (1908) extended.

A License is per se a negotiated object and must exhibit the clear and unique signs of having been the result of an honest negotiation. Negotiations among several economic actors will have the result of Licenses that are unique to each set of negotiators. Identical licenses are evidence that the transactions did in fact not involve a negotiation of terms between the economic actors and should be considered as a sale. These sales would be subject to the first sale doctrine, as should any body of licenses (save a small numbers exemption) that are identical and fail to exhibit the obvious signs of being the product of a negotiated transaction.

The First Sale Doctrine is as much about emancipation as the well know proclamation. Otherwise we all face an enmeshing servitude.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

no it doesn't

[Wain13001]

it says that with the full retail purchase ONE download-able character and one download-able quest comes with the game...it's advertised similarly to extras that might come with a Collector's edition...like a special pet in WoW. It also implies that said character and quest can be purchased separately for $15. Like the person you're responding to suggested as a potential solution.

It says nothing about further download-able content or how that content is or can be obtained, and nowhere on the box does it ever say that you must have an original first sale retail version of the game in order to obtain DLC, it only says you must have a registration and subscription.

Re:no it doesn't

[colesw]

Actually it says it has a One-time use code (with a expiry date), so yeah if the person who originally bought the game didn't use it, then yes someone buying it second hand could use it. Otherwise the code has been used, and now you need to spend $15. Seems pretty clear cut on the box to me.

Re:no it doesn't

[jim_v2000]

"it says that with the full retail purchase ONE download-able character and one download-able quest comes with the game"

That's what he's bitching about.

"It says nothing about further download-able content or how that content is or can be obtained, and nowhere on the box does it ever say that you must have an original first sale retail version of the game in order to obtain DLC, it only says you must have a registration and subscription."

That has nothing to do with this case. It's about the "free" two items that you mentioned previously. He never said anything about not being able to find additional DLC. I'm not sure what you're talking about.

Serves them right

[adamjgp]

Being a former Gamestop manager, this thrills me to death! I'm sure if Gamestop treated their employees with a bit more respect and actually valued them, then maybe their employees would take it upon themselves to inform customers about these kinds of things.

Also, I wouldn't be surprised if Gamestop Corporate sent out a mandate to keep this information from the customer, similar to the way that they tell employees to sell reserved copies of games to non-reserved customer walk-ins on release day.

Let's see

[Registered Coward v2]

Gamestop offers a 7 day return window - during which the purchaser can determine if the content is available or not; but the purchaser apparently didn't bother to try. The cover art states that the DLC is available only to full retail purchasers; which was not the case here. I fail to see how Gamestop, or even the publisher, did anything wrong. I don't like the DLC model; but that's solved by not buying the product.

Re:Let's see

[Galilee]

The Gamestop near me let's you return the game within 7 days if the box is unopened (they put a sticker on the box which you need to tear open). If the box is opened, you can only exchange the game for another copy of the same game. That's not going to help in this situation.

Re:Let's see

[Registered Coward v2]

The Gamestop near me let's you return the game within 7 days if the box is unopened (they put a sticker on the box which you need to tear open). If the box is opened, you can only exchange the game for another copy of the same game. That's not going to help in this situation.

That's interesting. According to their website:

Returns and exchanges are subject to the following guidelines:

A receipt is required for all returns and exchanges.

Unopened new merchandise may be returned for a refund or exchanged within 30 days of purchase.

Opened new merchandise may be exchanged for the identical item within 30 days of purchase but, with the exception of opened new accessories, cannot be returned for a refund.

Used (pre-owned) merchandise and opened new accessories may be returned for a refund within 7 days of purchase or exchanged for the identical item within 30 days of purchase.

We reserve the right to refuse any return and to require that certain items be returned directly to the manufacturer.

Maybe they have franchised locations that can set different terms?

as somebody working in the games industry

[Anonymous Coward]

can I please request that they sue the games industry instead, it might put some sense in upper management who seem intent on screwing people out of the games we work on.

AC for obvious reasons.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

First Digital Sale

[CopaceticOpus]

These restrictions, gimmicks, and weird clauses tied to the purchase of a game are probably legal. However, they are clearly an attempt to damage a product's resale value, and they are in spirit a violation of the first sale doctrine.

We need strong laws to protect the right to resell digital content, just as the first sale doctrine protects our rights to resell our physical property as we choose. Such a law would clearly be fair and in the best interest of the consumer.

Used Game Market

[sonicmerlin]

The used game market is the reason prices for games never drop much at retail. Publishers know no matter how low they drop their prices they will be undercut by Gamestop. That's why on a platform like Steam you see massive discounts and "clearance sale" prices, because publishers don't have to worry about losing money to resellers who simply skim the tail end of a game's sales tail off its profit curve.

Re:Used Game Market

[h4rr4r]

You keep repeating this and it is wrong. They could well lower their price to $10 and kill gamestop completely. They choose not too, fine by me.

Re:Used Game Market

[sonicmerlin]

Their retail partners also need a cut of the game's sale price, so no they can't. Even if they could Gamestop would just undercut them yet again.

Re:Used Game Market

[h4rr4r]

Cds sell for that much and stores seem to do fine. No one would buy used if new prices were not so high. I would buy all games new if I could get them for those kinds of prices.

Nothing to do with publishers...

[Anonymous Coward]

This case isn't about the publishers, why is /. framing it as such? This is about GameStop advertising that this game comes with DLC when it did not.

Missing the point?

[d34dluk3]

I'm seeing a lot of posts wondering why the content isn't included on the disc / doesn't travel with the disc when it's sold. That's the whole point of this content. It's being intentionally sold only with new games to differentiate them from their used counterparts.

This is an economic move by the developers to cripple the used game resale market. EA pioneered this as "Project 10 Dollar" and it seems to be catching on. I personally think it's brilliant as I hate GameStop and their price-gouging tactics, but opinions are obviously going to vary.

First Sale is a Principle

[Bob9113]

The principle of first sale exists for a very specific reason, and it is exactly the case here. First sale exists precisely so that the buyer can have a standard, simple understanding of what "buy" means. Muddling the notion of "buy" makes the free market more complicated, inhibiting the ideal of perfect information.

Of course, in this country we regularly seek not the free market. This is particularly true of late with copyrighted works. Given the DoJ has been populated with former RIAA lawyers, you can guess how much the principles of free market capitalism will matter.

Re:First Sale is a Principle

[calmofthestorm]

If we're going to go with this crap about "intellectual property" the consumers better get the benefits as well as the disadvantages.

First sale doctrine

[JSBiff]

I've often wondered if those one-use codes for DLC are even really legal (in the U.S.), because of the First Sale doctrine. Of course, until someone with money to spend on a lawsuit to settle the question, does, then we'll likely never know the answer.

Perhaps GameStop could sue one of the publishers on behalf of their customers, and make the case that the First Sale doctrine should prevent developers from locking DLC to a particular user.

Or, maybe some lawyer that specializes in class-actions could get a class-action suit going on behalf of the class of users who have purchased downloadable content (or downloadable games, through services like Steam, Direct2Drive, etc), based on the theory that by preventing users from exercising their second-sale rights, with regards to the DLC portion of the purchased product, the publishers have caused damages to those users (by devaluing their used copies). (I mean, if you think about it, if the resale value of used copies is reduced because of the 'missing' content, then you should be able to estimate some value for the 'free' DLC), then you added up all the copies of software which couldn't be sold at the expected resale price for a popular game like, say, Dragon Age: Origins, or Assassin's Creed 2, etc, it probably adds up to millions of dollars.

Re:First sale doctrine

[Trepidity]

The first-sale doctrine is unfortunately fairly weak: it only means that companies can't use something like an EULA to prohibit resale, but it doesn't say that they can't use technological measures to make resale hard.

An interesting case would be if people found ways to resell the DLC along with the used game. This is probably legal under the first-sale doctrine (regardless of what the game companies' EULAs say about it), but would be technologically difficult, especially on consoles.

They don't make money off the used game sale

[rxan]

Pricing the game to account for the market (used sales, piracy rates, whatever) doesn't mean that the publishers make money from used game sales. It just means that they price the game to account for those used game sales.

Someone who sells a game will gain more money. But there's no telling if they will spend it on a game, hoping from the same publisher in your case, or a cheeseburger. No money is directly handed back to the publisher.

By your logic the publishers make money off of pirates because they raised the price of their game to account for the pirates. (And no, lets not get into whether or not a pirate would pay for it because that's a whole 'nother ball game.)

A better model for publishers would be for users to send their game back to the publisher in exchange for a discount on another game of theirs. This would boost brand loyalty for the customer, provide a more constant revenue stream for the publisher, and also allow for a publisher-centric used game market.

Re:They don't make money off the used game sale

[Talennor]

Someone who sells a game will gain more money. But there's no telling if they will spend it on a game, hoping from the same publisher in your case, or a cheeseburger. No money is directly handed back to the publisher.

It's not necessary for the game seller, Person A in my story, to use the money to buy another game. He bought the first game knowing that he'd be able to sell it. This lowered both his perceived and real cost of the game at the time of his purchase, possibly to a point lower than his perceived utility enabling the original purchase to occur.

By your logic the publishers make money off of pirates because they raised the price of their game to account for the pirates. (And no, lets not get into whether or not a pirate would pay for it because that's a whole 'nother ball game.)

Not true. By my logic the publisher was only able to charge $50 for a videogame because Person B (through the secondary market) helped subsidize Person A's purchase at that price. You can raise the original sale price only up to the shared utility provided to purchasers that they are willing to pay for. Piracy does not subsidize a purchase since a pirate does not give any money to Person A to help the purchase. See the difference? Buying used isn't stealing from the producer, it's retroactively helping to pay for the original purchase.

A better model for publishers would be for users to send their game back to the publisher in exchange for a discount on another game of theirs. This would boost brand loyalty for the customer, provide a more constant revenue stream for the publisher, and also allow for a publisher-centric used game market.

That's not entirely "better." Store credit or publisher credit isn't worth the same as real money (to some it's probably close). The publisher could go bankrupt or they might start only publishing horrible games or they could start charging more than the credit holder would otherwise be willing to pay for a game. That risk would have to be insured against to have the same utility as real money. So they might have to give $25 credit instead of $20 cash. Ideally this extra insurance would offset the risk and vendor lock-in exactly and neither option would be "better" or "worse" than the other, it'd just be part of the deal.

Re:They don't make money off the used game sale

[h4rr4r]

Prices do not go up for piracy. If a publisher is dumb enough to do that he deserves to go out of business.

Re:They don't make money off the used game sale

[rxan]

Someone who sells a game will gain more money. But there's no telling if they will spend it on a game, hoping from the same publisher in your case, or a cheeseburger. No money is directly handed back to the publisher.

It's not necessary for the game seller, Person A in my story, to use the money to buy another game. He bought the first game knowing that he'd be able to sell it. This lowered both his perceived and real cost of the game at the time of his purchase, possibly to a point lower than his perceived utility enabling the original purchase to occur.

You're talking about real cost of the game, I'm talking about the publisher making money off of used game sales. Yes, the real cost to the gamer is reduced when he can sell his game, but the publisher still makes no money, which was point of my post.

I didn't get your example in the previous post when I made the piracy connection, but after your second explanation I see what you are getting at.

Re:They don't make money off the used game sale

[rxan]

Actually there is a fair bit of market analysis that goes into pricing digital media. It's a balancing act. Obviously raising and raising the price would only cause more piracy.

So far, this isn't really an issue.

[BitZtream]

You register the code with an account on the publishers system, so people selling their games will just need to create bs accounts to go with each game they intend to sell rather than tying the DLC to their own personal account.

When you sell the game, you sell the account username/password.

That'll solve the problem for a few more years.

But really, just stop buying the games, there are plenty of games out there that don't have Nazi DRM schemes or depend on DLC access codes to prevent reselling.

If you don't like what they are doing ... stop giving them your business, but if you aren't actually going to make a stand, and you don't really care enough to do it ... please shut the fuck up about it, I'm sick of seeing/hearing about it.

Stupid People

[Anonymous Coward]

First, this is not GameStops fault that a box says it comes with a code for free stuff. As a used copy you should expect that the code is used.

Second, buying used games at GameStop is stupid anyway since those games are online in new or better used quality (with description) for cheaper.

Third, I do agree that manufacturers should never be allowed to print free content messages on the box. It can be misleading for future sales. They should stick to game description, features, and content that is on the disc.

Fourth, game makers should NEVER put content on a disc and make it unlockable after the fact with a code. If you have time to finish the content and put it on the disc it should already be in the game. This excess code takes up disc space that could be used for better graphics, shorter load times reading the disc, and more in game content. All DLC should be just that, DOWNLOADABLE. I think that Microsoft overcharges for 90% of its content in the marketplace. I think that more content should be free (like PC). The only issue I have ever had with DLC is the Marvel debocle. I have the Gold Edition of the first Ultimate Alliance but removing the content for the second one, only months after is was released, makes it so the 10+ achievements related to the content are no longer possible. They should release a game update removing the achievements and other download notifications if they are not planning on putting it back in the marketplace.

One last note, If your in the market to buy games with DLC included on the disc look for Gold or GOTY edition. Games like GoW, Fallout 3, etc. have these that include map packs and campaign content. Do some googleing before going into a store and looking like and idiot.

Isn't this an easy fix?

[Anonymous Coward]

Isn't it as simply as just posting a warning at the cash-wraps stating "Gamestop takes no responsibility for claims made by publishers on their box art"?

Solved ... buck passed.

Also not to mention GameStop's policy on returning used merchandise is pretty solid .... 7-days for a full refund 30 days for an exchange ... if you don't realize your DLC isn't free in a week, then I'm sorry you weren't graced with the cognitive capacity to be rational about your mistakes. If it's a gift? Stop complaining you got a game for free .. pony up the dough if you want the added bonus shit.

All pack in Free DLC stuff is a new form of Collector's/Limited/Special/Legendary/Super Spiffy editions. Think of the used game as the regular version you didn't have to pay extra for.

Xbox live demo

[Anonymous Coward]

adamjgp (1229860) writes: "Also, I wouldn't be surprised if Gamestop Corporate sent out a mandate to keep this information from the customer, similar to the way that they tell employees to sell reserved copies of games to non-reserved customer walk-ins on release day."

(Former GameStop employee) What store were you working at? We would hold reserve copies for 24 hours before reselling them. And reserve money was always able to be used as credit later, either on the game or on anything else in the store.

Also, how is this different from when Microsoft launched XBOX live? Almost any game that was Live capable had a pamphlet in it with a code for 60days free on live. Many times this pamphlet was still in games that got resold to Gamestop. Is this not the same scenario? People seemed to understand that a one-time code may or may not have already been used in a used sale.

Console gamers need to start waking up!

[ninjacheeseburger]

When I was younger I used to buy a lot of used PC games, this was when the majority of games only needed a CD key to play. All you had to do was check the game came with the key you were away. As most of the second hand games were older titles, you couldn't by them in stores anyway, and if they game was good I would it would lead me to buying the sequel or another game by the same devs. Recently though it has become a lot more hit and miss buying PC games second hand as some games can be registered to Steam, or have some sort of online activation which stops second hand users. This is rarely advertised on the box though.

they're doing crap like this with new releases

[jollyreaper]

Buy the standard version of the game for $49.99. But wait, the gold edition is shipping the same day! Get this exclusive handsome corinthian leather bullshit gold edition for $59.99. It includes those two skins and another special character.

I'm more than happy to pay for games but there's no fucking way I'm paying for this shit.

game stop is a over priced pawn shop with out the

[Anonymous Coward]

game stop is a over priced pawn shop with out the rules that real pawn shops have.

Some online games recognize first sale

[bugnuts]

Although blizzard is not known for being particularly open with their tech by going after private servers and such, they will recognize first sale by making any world of Warcraft game playable if bought used. Cd keys can't be reused and it's against the Eula to give your account to the new purchaser, but that person can send in the physical cd key and will be sent a new one to make a new account.

I would love to see dlc hacks get tested in court and win a precedent. There are so many analogies which show how messed up this is ... Like having options on your car only valid for the original purchaser, like having your AC disabled when you buy used.

Your logic is flawed

[Anonymous Coward]

The publisher only got $120 from those two sales if the buyer bought them both *new*.

If he cares about getting $25-30 back for his game (its not really $45 as your post posits) then he's also likely to buy it used instead of new to save $5. So the publisher gets nothing from that sale, and GameStop pockets the $55 minus $25-40.

Also, by pushing used sales instead of new ones, GameStop cannabalizes the new game sales. Suppose each used copy is owned by, on average, 3 different people and the third owner decides to keep it. That means the publisher is only getting 1/3rd of the sales, while GameStop gets 2/3rds and with higher margins to boot.

So the reality is that the publisher is getting like $20 from those two sales, and they want a bigger slice (obviously).

By being cheapskate enough to try to save $5 on a game, or to punt it back and recover half of their initial investment, gamers are directing a lot of the money spent on games into the pockets of GameStop rather than the people who actually make and publish the games.

solution already exists

[DriveDog]

Enforced properly, existing laws would force retailers of used games to prominently display a notice that the used merchandise does not contain content equivalent to the new one. Resale value then falls. Over time, there would presumably be less demand for games that couldn't be resold for much, and publishers would notice a decline in demand for the new games that employ such tactics.

No problem here.

[aekafan]

I just buy the game, and get the DLC from other sources as usual. Why waste time and effort,suing, especially the wrong people as in this case, and not just get the stuff and play it?

Resale Market

[wisnoskij]

To developers the resale market is akin to the piracy market, the people stealing money from them.
Of course they will try to destroy it.

They even have more reasons to hate the resale market since not only does it remove game sales, people are making money off it their loss in sales.

Digital content is of value, people buy it

[judeancodersfront]

Digital content is special, just about everyone has a fond memory with a movie or game. The real delusion is on the part of people like you that assume digital content production will exist at nominal levels without intellectual property laws. We've seen this is not true in Asian markets where piracy has restricted the growth of software markets that depends on such laws. Piracy disrupts working economic models and leaves digital producers with fewer options. Or perhaps you think open source developers will just pick up the slack. Sorry but Tux Racer and Quake III mods can't compete with games like Alan Wake.

Re:Digital content is of value, people buy it

[dgatwood]

You're making a common mistake---specifically, you're failing to acknowledge the difference between commercial piracy and noncommercial piracy.

When it comes to noncommercial piracy, most software companies have seen dramatic increases in sales when they get rid of copy protection, which utterly flies in the face of your theory. Why does this happen? Because people suddenly can pirate it, try it, and a percentage of those people then turn around and buy it. Either way, that percentage tends to be substantially greater than the percentage who would blindly buy it if they could not pirate it. Every study I've ever seen on this subject has shown that noncommercial piracy increases sales revenue, and that is true whether you're talking about software or music or DVDs or any other content.

By contrast, you might be able to argue that commercial piracy in China has restricted the growth of legitimate software in China. Of course, this only occurs because large-scale commercial piracy has little regulation. Manufacturing of counterfeit hardware is similarly loosely regulated. The reason people in China buy the fakes so frequently, however, is not merely to save money; there are two main reasons why people buy fakes:

• For many, it is because they do not know the difference. The fakes in hardware can be very believable if you've never encountered the real thing. This is why commercial piracy can significantly hurt the market for the real thing, whether you're talking about software or hardware, particularly when purchasing occurs over the Internet.
• For others, it is because they cannot afford the real thing. And this is also the main reason that people pirate software.

The bigger problem here is that products cannot reasonably be sold at different prices in different markets without huge import tariffs. Otherwise, people will just grey-market the things, and you've lost your more expensive market. This is equally true for software as it is for hardware. The driving force behind piracy is to produce a low-cost equivalent for markets that cannot afford the original, which means it has precisely the same driving force as most other counterfeiting, and with largely the same results. In markets that can afford the original, the majority of buyers get the real thing, and the majority of people who get the counterfeit product would not have purchased the real thing at all. The exceptions are people who don't know that they are buying fakes (which is almost never the case for noncommercial piracy).

In the case of software, however, piracy (commercial fakes good enough to fool people notwithstanding) actually is less harmful than counterfeiting in other areas because of the need for interoperability. A fake iPod need not interoperate with a real iPod. A pirated copy of Word is most likely going to interact with documents produced by many other copies of Word. Thus, even pirated copies of software can create significant income in other markets.

For example, Windows is massively pirated in China, and so is Office, but most people in China would not be able to afford paid copies of Office. That's okay, though, because every business in the U.S. that does business with China does pay for copies of Office as part of doing business with those Chinese companies. Were pirated versions not available, those Chinese companies would use open source equivalents and U.S. companies would be forced to use those open source equivalents instead of buying copies of Office. Therefore, Chinese piracy of software benefits Microsoft's bottom line, albeit not to the degree that selling licensed copies in China would, were it feasible to do so without cannibalizing U.S. markets.

DLC is also used to encourage pre-orders

[judeancodersfront]

DLC can be used to encourage consumers to buy a game early instead of a competing product that comes out at the same time.

When Gamestop sells a 2 day old game for $55 the people who made that game don't see a dime. Is it wrong? No there is nothing wrong with used sales but you can't be upset with game companies that are tired of seeing sales go to Gamestop. I've never liked how Gamestop will push a used sale even when the price difference is 5 or 10 dollars.

The video game business isn't as lucrative as people assume. Like many industries you have a handful of giant corps making big money while medium and small companies really have to watch their budgets. Gamestop has been aggressive with used game sales and DLC is how game companies are pushing back. Gamestop is like Wal-mart in that they so widespread that they have an effect on the market.

DLC problem?, more like Gamestop problem.....

[Anonymous Coward]

What's wrong with everyone here.........

I see the issue as a problem with piracy - pure and simple

Games companies issuing DLC only for the original purchaser is a fantastic way of them getting a slice of cash for every (well, a lot more anyway) game 'copy' out there

My isue here is with the used games resellers not discounting the 'second hand' game enough

provided you can purchase a used game copy AND the original DLC for a total less price than the brand new retail game, what's the problem?

People pirate games because they're too expensive, because they can, and because something 'free' is always good...innit?

DLC charging will, for a short while at least provide additional revenue for further game development.....untill the warez kiddiez figure out a crack and throw that DLC onto a cracked copy!

They don't want to kill off the used market

[judeancodersfront]

they're just sick of Gamestop selling $55 used copies a couple days after release. Gamestop is in every mall in America and they push a low buy / high resale model. They basically operate like a pawn shop.

Re:They don't want to kill off the used market

[PopeRatzo]

They basically operate like a pawn shop.

I'm not sure that pawn shops don't have a more honest business model than a company that develops a game, sells it and includes "DLC" on the same disk as the original game which can be unlocked for extra money.

They are basically telling people that the game they paid 59.00 for is just a demo and they'll have to continue to pay to get the "real" content.

The screwing is consensual but still distasteful

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't think their presence is a net positive to the gaming world. Their company is ran by total pricks who probably don't even play video games. I'm usually fine with chains but Gamestop is one of those corps that I think would be better off not existing. Let independent shops handle the game sales.

.,- /&2

[Anonymous Coward]

This kind of crap is why I don't pay for games...

The Biggest Picture. Evar!!!!!

[sixsixtysix]

No, they're more easy to steal than physical objects because physical objects exist physically (therefor I have it and you do not), while content relies on the extremely shaky basis of distributing physical representations of something non-physical.

let's suppose mass replicators are a common thing. would you think that copying everything physical would be theft, too? like if i could press a button and now i have 2 tvs, i'd be stealing from samsung? i think not. with everything going digital, the values that were once placed on these things change forever. something that can be replicated instantly with a push of a button is nearly zero, or rather, what people will pay for it. what is sad, are all these industries trying to get laws passed because, "oh no, my stuff isn't worth what i say it is, please make them stop!". does this mean that innovation will die? of course not, humans are very resilient. sure, we can try to prolong the inevitable, but these companies are even fucking that up. for example, the phyiscal cost of lots of products is removed by digitization, but the prices is not going down in a very sane proportion. sure you have to pay for servers and shit, but that can't be more expensive than the physical route. the internet was supposed to make things cheaper and accessible, but now it's only a little bit easier to get. there are so many routes they could have taken. (a dvd oop? sell me the .iso for cheaper than retail, like $5), but instead they made the internet gods angry. now, these industries are suffering (or, at least they want you to think they are).
the obverse, of course, is to start applying all this silly stuff to everything else. having to pay for everything everytime it is used(and that indie stuff won't be usable), eulas preventing any modifications to cars, windows apps having to be approved before you can only buy them from microsoft's store. hell, we can start licensing everything from screws, nails and fasteners(use my screws in your product and i want a cut) to the home you live in (if you sell it, the construction company, architects, et. al. get a cut). these make as much sense as what we apply to digital goods, so i don't see how anyone can be for one and not the other.

Re:The Biggest Picture. Evar!!!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

We don't need to speculate about future developments such as mass replicators, energy to matter conversion, etc. We can apply your idea to something that's available right now, and see how it works out.

There's this thing called "time" - it's not physical, either, but people get paid money [1] by others to allocate some of theirs to do something called "work". You probably do as well; most of us do. What's sad is, you probably benefit from labor laws that got passed because "oh no, my time isn't worth what I say, please make them pay me!" Now, I hardly think that it is fair that you should get paid so much for something that didn't cost you anything to produce and have in abundance [2], so you should just get paid an amount closer to your cost, to be fair, right? After all, you're resilient, you'll adapt, and you don't want others to think that you're greedy, do you? Sure, you have to pay for housing and food and shit, but how expensive can that be, really?

It's apparent that you believe that the price of something shouldn't much higher than the cost to make, so I encourage you to not be a hypocrite: Go to your employer, take a pay cut and set the example for the rest of us.

Regards,

dj

Notes:

[1] Which is basically just an idea, too, but I've rambled about that elsewhere.

[2] Until you die, of course, but that's hardly our fault: After all, everyone dies eventually, right?

Re:The Biggest Picture. Evar!!!!!

[djlowe]

I checked Post Anonymously by mistake. The parent post is mine, I'm to blame for it :)

Re:The Biggest Picture. Evar!!!!!

[sixsixtysix]

except that time can't be copied. if employers found a way for people to work near infinite shifts in the same time as 1, but with little to no additional (physical, mental, emotional, monetary, etc.) overhead, do you think they'd pay people proportionately more? i know they wouldn't. if time did suddenly become copyable, it would definitely change the value we place on it, as well as many other things. hell, depending on how this copying was done, we would all live forever.

Resale market support?

[cdrguru]

I find it humorous that somehow people think the publisher of a game should support a resale market in any fashion whatsoever.

OK, last night while walking past a Denny's someone came by and asked if I would like to buy a "used" dinner. I was very upset that it didn't include a napkin, knife and fork like the first purchasor got and I think Denny's is very unfair in not supporting the resale market. Does this make any more sense?

There are things that simply cannot be resold. The idea of first sale doctrine is that you can't make it illegal to resell products that can be resold. I don't think it addresses in any manner the conversion of resaleable products to non-resaleable products by the original manufacturer. Because if there was any sort of law or principal at work here car manufacturers would have been sued out of existance a long, long time ago. Why is it exactly that a car loses 50% of its value within the first 24 hours after a sale?

And why doesn't Denny's support the resale market? While the knife and fork might not have been that handy, I assure you the napkin would have been helpful indeed.

Once again...

[Anonymous Coward]

Pirates win

Buyers get the shaft.

headline improvement

[Anonymous Coward]

moar like "gamestop sued over lack of battletoads" amirite?

best piracy prevention?

[sw33tjimmy]

The answer is simple: only publish shitty games.
Ever see an Acclaim title at piratebay? negative.