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.

[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.

[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.

[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: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: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: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.