Anger With Game Content Lock Spurs Reaction From Studio Head Curt Shilling

MojoKid writes "Studios and publishers are fighting back hard against the used game market, with the upcoming title Kingdoms of Amular the latest to declare it will use a content lock. In this case, KoA ups the ante by locking out part of the game that's normally available in single-player mode. Gamers exploded, with many angry that game content that had shipped on the physical disc was locked away and missing, as well as being angry at the fact that content was withheld from used game players. One forum thread asking if the studio fought back against allowing EA to lock the content went on for 49 pages before Curt Shilling, the head of 38 Studios, took to the forums himself. His commentary on the situation is blunt and to the point. 'This is not 38 trying to take more of your money, or EA in this case, this is us rewarding people for helping us! If you disagree due to methodology, ok, but that is our intent... companies are still trying to figure out how to receive dollars spent on games they make, when they are bought. Is that wrong? if so please tell me how.'"

Comments

Not on the disc

[aaron552]

From what Curt Shilling has said, the content is not on the game disc and was intended to be released as (day-one) DLC, but instead, those who buy the game get it for free. I really don't see the problem, myself.

Re:Not on the disc

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't give a shit what an executive figurehead says out of the corner of his mouth. The outcome is all the matters and game developers are trying to charge the same price for a single use, non-transferable license as they used to charge for transferable media.

Yes that is wrong, because I as a customer have no desire to pay the same or higher price for a reduced value. I will download pirated copies or go without before I willfully entrap myself in this DRM/license pay-per-use dystopia being advanced by IP Rights Holders.

There's nothing wrong with making a profit, but don't complain to congress if you find that your scheme isn't viable in a free market. You'll lose money in your attempt to re-write the social contract.

Re:Not on the disc

[erick99]

It doesn't help that, outside of Boston, Shilling is a very unlikable guy. I wouldn't expect him to throw a rope to a drowning person in a river if it would make him 15 seconds late for lunch.

Re:Not on the disc

[Elbereth]

So, you get the content for free, if you're the original owner, but you need to buy it, if you're a second-hand owner? That's frustrating, but it's not as bad as it could be.

Anyway, my suggestion to them would be to have a market on their own website, where you can auction/sell activation codes to the games that you own. That way, they can track the second hand market, make it easier for people, and also perhaps make a tiny profit off of each sale (say, 5% or 10%). Also, this would make it very easy to trade/sell DLC. In fact, I should probably set up a third party website like this.

Re:Not on the disc

[Elbereth]

Does he know the mayor of Boston?

Re:Not on the disc

[Zemran]

Why should I have to go and get something that I have already bought, paid for and had delivered? Will they recompense me for my time and inconvenience? I doubt that but even if they did, unless they refunded the whole some by way of apology, I would still be pissed. This has all gone to far and I, as someone who had always been happy to buy lots of games in the past, download the cracked copy every time now because I do not want to put up with this BS. If I cannot play the game, when I want (i.e. no need for internet etc.) I would rather have a copy. If I am going to have to go online (to download half the game) I may as well download an entire game. I am not even prepared to put the CD into the drive every time I want to play (why should I? My CD drive is not internal!), I just want to play.

I have got about a cubic metre of games that I have bought in my room but now I download. I do not mind paying but I do mind having to put up with all the shit. If they provide good extras (manual maps etc.) I will buy it and download the crack. For me it is not about the money, it is about being able to play it when I want.

Re:Not on the disc

[Mitchell314]

Meh, If you don't like it, don't buy it. Instead play something else; vote with your wallet. It's not like there's a shortage of games.

Re:Not on the disc

[Conspiracy_Of_Doves]

And what happens when there is nothing else?

Re:Not on the disc

[Squiddie]

The problem with that is that when I want to play my game some years from now, I will have a reduced experience. How long until the whole game is locked out like this? They're just trying to see how much crap people that play games will take.

Re:Not on the disc

[gl4ss]

the intention is more like this: a second hand owner gets a playable demo.

Re:Not on the disc

[Sir_Sri]

How is it wrong to raise the price? This game is not that previous game you bought for the same price. In the same way Harry Potter is not star wars. They may come on DVD's but they are in no way the same movie.

And in short: you're going to go without. Good or bad the games industry is fed up with used games, and piracy. That means the entire experience is going to require you be authenticated with their service, constantly, and some of the core content will only exist on that service. In other words it's going to look at lot more like Steam, and a lot less like the 1980's.

Re:Not on the disc

[VAElynx]

And frankly? I'm fed up with them, and so are thousands of gamers all across the world. And well... we do have an option - these days, F2P games are becoming increasingly plentiful, like the excellent World of Tanks, and given that old-time designers were apparently not as big douchebags, there's still the availability of older quality titles which are both cheaper and more worthwhile than most of what is produced these days.
And for everything else, there's DnD 3.5.
Of course, the resulting sales failure *will* get blamed on piracy.

Re:Not on the disc

[hairyfeet]

Sad an AC had to nail it. I would just add this is also completely against one of the cornerstones of capitalism, and that is first sale. once you sell something that's fucking it, then its mine. I can sell it, wipe my ass with it, turn it into ninja stars if that is what i want to do because ITS NOT FUCKING YOURS ANYMORE you asshole! if you want to play that bullshit why the fuck can't we all do it? from now on PCs aren't sold, we're just giving you a one use non transferable license! Now you have to dispose of all PCs because that license isn't transferable! Hey we'll do it to houses too, clear that whole housing market problem right up because after one use you'll have to burn the fucker!

Just because its on a fucking disc or is IP doesn't suddenly give it magical fucking rights, its STILL a product. this kind of bullshit is what i fucking HATE about these cartels, they are trying to be fucking Schrodinger's fucking cat and be in two states at once. On the one hand they are saying "Oh no, you didn't buy the media, you bought a license" well fine, my disc got scratched so i can just download another one since i have a fucking license right? "Oh no, you don't own a license, you have a disc so if its gone you gotta buy another one!" BULLSHIT fucking bullshit! you can NOT eat your cake and have it too assholes! Its either ONE or the other but NOT both, you can't have all then protections and NONE of the liabilities you greedy little piss ants!

Now i apologize if my language has offended anybody but this REALLY pisses me off. this is just big media trying to do an end run around rules that have been there for ages by trying to claim their IP crap is two things at the same time while being NEITHER ONE when it comes to responsibilities. Well fuck you cartels, i'll pirate also before i buy a single thing from this company!

Re:Not on the disc

[VAElynx]

Um, perceived entitlement?
There's something called the first sale doctrine , which applies to books and which logically should extent to all media.
These are attempts to cheat it, just like DVD regions are a cheat attempt at price fixing.
Call things by their true names, will ya?

Re:Not on the disc

[Sir_Sri]

Um... you do know what the F2p model is right? it's a giant DLC farm (if you want anything good you pay for it), and if you're only there for free you exists as a product to keep some other sucker paying 100 dollars a month for the game. That's what F2P is. Free to play is in no way free. They're going to try and hook you into 'well I spend 10 dollars, what's 10 more?" or "well I could spend 15 dollars a month on WoW, why not 15 dollars for that new Tank or gold to buy tanks or whatever. If there isn't one person paying 150 dollars for every 9 people who pay nothing they're going out of business as would Blizzard if they had no subscription revenue. If you aren't the sucker paying 150 dollars a month then their goal is to make you into that sucker, or you to die for that sucker to feel good about his 150 dollars a month.

Which works remarkably well at generating revenue, and is a perfectly valid business model. But one should be under no illusion what they're doing.

Re:Not on the disc

[couchslug]

"And what happens when there is nothing else?"

Games are toys. There will always be toys. Crave something different.

Re:Not on the disc

[cgenman]

There's nothing wrong with making a profit, but don't complain to congress if you find that your scheme isn't viable in a free market. You'll lose money in your attempt to re-write the social contract.

To be fair, he's not complaining to congress. They went and made a free-market scheme. No complaining to congress, no banning used game sales.

In this scheme, part of a real physical game behaves like a downloadable title. I.E. the original makers get paid something for used games, some of the time. Used games then are genuinely different than new games, which they hadn't been on consoles. (PC games have had single-use registration codes for some time now). Thankfully, it doesn't completely cripple used game sales, like on the PC. It's actually a pretty reasonable compromise.

Re:Not on the disc

[Lord_Jeremy]

F2P game companies like free players because they significantly increase the player base (which of course increases the value of the game in general). They just like paying players a helluva lot more.

Re:Not on the disc

[_xeno_]

Does he know the mayor of Boston?

I'm not sure, but I'll bet the mayor of Boston knows him. I mean, hell, Martha Coakley mistaking him for a Yankee was enough to get a Republican into Ted Kennedy's senate seat.

That said, I listened to Curt Schilling talk at a panel at PAX East last year, and I will say this - the guy is legitimately passionate about video games. He clearly enjoys playing them, and it's clear that he hopes to make the best game he can. So he's not just some random executive, he's a gamer at heart.

While I'm impressed with his passion towards making games, I'm not at all convinced it translates to the ability to make a good game. Nor does it mean that he's able to run a game company.

Re:Not on the disc

[VAElynx]

I dunno - I have been playing it since the closed beta, and didn't shell out a penny, yet i don't see getting steamrollered just because of that. If i'm getting screwed somehow, then i'm pretty fucking happy about it.
Even better example would be TF2 where the things that are exclusively for purchase don't affect game balance at all.
The point is though - yes, this is a business model, and yes , it's aimed at generating revenue, but it is remarkably customer-friendly. The business model mentioned in the article above is just heavy duty assholery attempting to bypass existing laws and screw customers over.

Re:Not on the disc

[symbolset]

I, for one, found your specific use of language inspirational and appropriate. Wish you could have worked some rectal pineapple insertion in there though, as the situation calls for it.

Re:Not on the disc

[symbolset]

"There has grown in the minds of certain groups in this country the idea that just because a man or corporation has made a profit out of the public for a number of years, the government and the courts are charged with guaranteeing such a profit in the future, even in the face of changing circumstances and contrary to public interest. This strange doctrine is supported by neither statute or common law. Neither corporations or individuals have the right to come into court and ask that the clock of history be stopped, or turned back."

Robert Heinlein, Life Line, 1939

Sheer poetry from the Dean of Science Fiction, early in his career and long before he was famous.

Re:Not on the disc

[symbolset]

There's always porn.

Re:Not on the disc

[solidraven]

And this is why I stopped gaming all together. In the limited free time I do have I like doing something I enjoy. Fighting with locked down software isn't on the "fun" list. I can't name a single new game that works properly on my laptop simply due to the copy protection. I always have to use a networked dvd drive cause the one in my laptop can't deal with all their stupid schemes. I'd rather use my money to light a fireplace than pay for a game like that.

Re:Not on the disc

[phantomfive]

You mean, what happens when there is nothing else to entertain yourself? I mean, when you really can't think of anything else, and your life is that bad without entertainment? You invade Afghanistan. There's a long tradition. It's very fun.

Re:Not on the disc

[kainosnous]

I think that you miss the point. Nobody is trying to stop them from making a profit. This isn't about us trying to make them poor, it's about people being fed up with companies acting more like parasites trying to squeeze more revenue from their product their predecessors did and is worth paying. They treat the consumers like they need their products. They forget that people aren't always able or willing to pay higher and higher prices for their merchandise.

Sure, F2P games are often there to provide a profit. We don't have a problem with that like we didn't have a problem buying and trading games back in the 80's and 90's. When I was growing up, part of the fun of buying a game was that after you got bored with it, you could trade it off with one of your friends. You'd still buy the latest games that came out when you had the cash, but your old games still held value. Even in this new age, I still enjoy breaking out the old Nintendo games sometimes.

As a side note, there are many truly free games out there. It's called OSS. I know that some people will complain about the low quality compared to the more polished proprietary games, but at least we have some free options. As for me, I haven't found any game, for pay or for free, that I enjoy as much as nethack. So, let them make a profit, but when that profit is made to spite the consumer, I say it's time to look for an alternative.

Re:Not on the disc

[Phernost]

The only perceived entitlement is that of the publisher and maker believing that they have a right to a percentage of all sales: used, new or otherwise.

I also like how being a business makes you inherently not evil. Just replace “business” with “assassin” and you've described the “free market”. Just because I kill people for money doesn't make me evil. I'm just trying make a profit. Now, if I could just get rid of all those government regulations about not killing people. It's really killing my business model. Stupid people and their perceived entitlement to life.

Re:Not on the disc

[Nyder]

How is it wrong to raise the price? This game is not that previous game you bought for the same price. In the same way Harry Potter is not star wars. They may come on DVD's but they are in no way the same movie.

And in short: you're going to go without. Good or bad the games industry is fed up with used games, and piracy. That means the entire experience is going to require you be authenticated with their service, constantly, and some of the core content will only exist on that service. In other words it's going to look at lot more like Steam, and a lot less like the 1980's.

I think the automobile industry should do this also. Make it so software is required to drive the car, and that software gets downloaded everytime you start the car up.
That way the car manufactures can make money thru the used market without having to actually buy and sell used cars.

Re:Not on the disc

[Sir_Sri]

It's attempting to bypass the existing business model, which has failed. You may not like what they're doing, but we're going to see a lot of failed attempts at new business models.

As to world of tanks specifically: You can buy with real money what you can earn in game through playing. You may not have been steamrolled, but you're there to make the experience enjoyable for someone who bought their tank. That's kinda how the entire game works. That doesn't mean it isn't fun.

Re:Not on the disc

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes that is wrong, because I as a customer have no desire to pay the same or higher price for a reduced value.

There is no reduction in the value. Software does not wear out over time, it's 100% identical to a brand new license. If you're referring to the physical media, packaging, inserts, cover art, etc. yes it does wear over time but all that stuff also can be re-sold under "first sale" and isn't the topic at hand.

game developers are trying to charge the same price for a single use, non-transferable license as they used to charge for transferable media.

Wait, are you talking about the media, or the license? You seem confused.

The license DOES transfer. You didn't bother to read at all, which is obviously lost on the people who gave you a +5 Insightful rating. What you want is the license AND the bonus content license to transfer, and you're pissed that the additional content license isn't transferring. Which is fine, you have a right to your opinion, but stop pretending like the entire thing is non-transferable when that is not true at all.

I will download pirated copies or go without before I willfully entrap myself in this DRM/license pay-per-use dystopia

Again, you seem confused. Are you angry about the DRM? That's one issue. Are you angry about pay-per "use" licensing? That's another, related issue, but not the same issue.

If you have a problem with it, don't play the game. Just like if u have a problem with a company's corporate ideology or manufacturing practices, don't use their products.

There's nothing wrong with making a profit, but don't complain to congress if you find that your scheme isn't viable in a free market. You'll lose money in your attempt to re-write the social contract.

Well it IS viable, and has been for quite some time. I haven't noticed any gaming companies going bankrupt because people boycotted their games due to DRM or non-transferable licensing. And I have no idea why you even bring up Congress in all of this, other than to add some fuel to the fires you're trying to light.
And they are not rewriting any so-called "social contract". There are plenty of things in life which are non-transferable contracts, and since there is no actual property changing hands or physical goods to be owned, it's a moot argument to start with.

We've been through all of this before, with audio cassette tapes (among other things). The license transfers with the media because the license was bound to the specific copy which resided on that specific cassette. If you destroy the cassette, you don't still have license because the copy you were licensed to use is destroyed. (or to be completely accurate, you still have the license but since the copy is gone, it's useless.)
In the case of software, in particular with DRM, the license is a contract specifically between you and the rights holder allowing you to use a copy. There isn't any binding of the license to media, it's bound to you the person.

The price you pay is for the game without the DLC, the DLC is provided for Free to anybody who buys the game "first-hand" from the publisher. Does this have the effect of cutting out the used games sellers? Why, yes it does.

Look, it comes down to a matter of numbers. If we allow used sellers to sell transfers of licenses, then the game publishers will just keep raising the prices to compensate, and if you want a new game you'll end up paying $100 for a copy. These used game companies could approach the content companies and work together to come up with a royalty scheme which would allow for reselling games and still keeping the price point low, while giving some money back to the developer. But they refuse to do that, they've given the developers the middle finger and told them to go get fucked. So the devs are taking the route of simply cutting brick and mortar out of the equation as much as possible.

I

Re:Not on the disc

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah -- but know what you're buying. If you're buying "a non-exclusive non-transferable license" then don't be surprised if they go after you for transferring it. And if you long for them to sell you the game as a thing for you to do whatever you want with, you're far from alone. But your wishing doesn't make it so, and when you show up at a Mexican restaurant wanting fried rice, it doesn't give you permission to trash their kitchen just because they don't serve what you want. Go somewhere else. Make it count. Don't just be either a) a raging pirate or b) a big-words guy who rants, raves, and then buys the game anyway. If you have any principles worth living for, you won't steal; you'll just stiff them by not buying their product, and by buying things that are offered at acceptable terms to you.

Re:Not on the disc

[wierd_w]

No it isn't. It isn't a compromise at all.

A compromise is where both parties give up a little, to reach an "acceptable" solution, where otherwise there is an intractible situation.

Here, we have a game company pushing the envelope to push the transaction in its favor. Right ot wrong, this is not a compromise.

A compromise would be more along the lines of:

"we understand and respect the first sale rights of our customers who buy game discs, but also need to keep the lights on. Because of this, we have decided to offer the base game without any of the optional expansions for a reduced price. We reduced the price due to the extremely vanilla nature of the offering. The expansions can be purchased online as a downloadable content license for a fair price each. The single player basic campaign will not be crippled without the dlc, but the dlc does improve its enjoyability and replay value. You can redownload the dlc expansions any time you like, but they are tied to your user account, and are nontransferable."

Selling a dlc expecting game for the price of a full title, selling the dlc for premium prices on top of that, and offering some dlcs as special exclusives is *not* a compromise.

You are selling a purposefully deficient gaming experience for full price. This is dick move #1.

You try to make us all feel better by offering an exclusive dlc for "free". This dlc is designed so that second hand players cannot legally get it without buying another copy of the game band new. This is dick move #2.

The non dick-move solutions are as follows:

1) "exclusives" should be promotional only. This means "buy the game before christmas eve, and get this special novelty exclusive dlc for free!" (With the intent that 4 or 5 months later you offer the same dlc for sale for a modest price.) The only other time an exclusive dlc is appropriate is for a specific console vendor promotion. If you plan on selling a slimmed doen base game with the intent of selling dlc to make up for it, then you have to price your offering appropriately. If your game is super ultra vanilla without the dlc, offer it for 30$ instead of 60, and charge another 30$ for the dlc. If you want to bundle, then offer a "free" (ahem.) Download ticket for the dlc in the game pack marked 60$. Don't shut out second-hand buyers. Offer them the missing content for a reasonable fee. This way you stand to monetize the 2nd and 3rd hand sales. These are sales of the dlc that you didn't have to pay merchanising costs for. Instead of complaining that you didn't get those people to spend 60$, accept the 30$ they are spending on the dlc. (If they buy smartly, they can still buy used and get the dlc cheaper than new, which is why they buy used in the first place. People who buy used put up with intrinsic bads like scratched disks, missing manuals, beat up cases and the like already. Don't penalize them harder because you want the full 60$ from their wallets.)

In short: "required" (for the full game experience) non-transferrable dlc is *already* a compromise. Don't be a greedy whorish assfuck by dickishly witholding dlc content from second hand buyers that would happily buy the dlc from you, but don't want to pay your MSRP for the game disk. Don be a greedy whorish assfuck by double dipping your customers with a 60$ brand new disk that requires 20$ or more of seperate dlc to be playable. Those are not compromises. Those are being unreasonable, and you will hurt customer relations, and your brand, resulting in future lost sales.

The second hand market is a reality. Instead of pitching a hissyfit that you can't make only brand new sales, offer to service the second hand purchasers for a modest fee. Monetize the second hand market. Don't try to expunge it.

Re:Not on the disc

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm going to summarize this issue:

When you buy a hammer to assemble a bed you just bought, you're perfectly free to sell that hammer once you're finished using it. The hammer manufacturer can not demand that the person you sold it to pays them something too.

And it should be the same with games. If you decide you're done playing with a game and you want to sell it, then you should be free to sell your right to play the game. When you sell a used game, you lose the option to play it again in the future.

Now I know game companies are going to say that a game is designed to be played only once and so if people could just resell their games, they (the companies) would go out of business. My answer: so what?

First of all, my father had only one hammer since he moved out of his parent's home when he was 20. He's 60 today and still has that hammer. When I moved out, I bought a hammer (as well as some other tools) and I plan to keep those tools my whole life. There's one hammer per household, and yet hammer manufacturers don't seem to be going out of business.
People don't buy just one video game in their entire life. They buy quite a few. Even when they can freely resell those games, they still buy several games. Also, video games can be more expensive than a hammer. If hammer manufactures can do it, then why can't game studios? I think it's clear that game studios are just trying to use the fact that their product is digital instead of physical to make more money.

Second, if people don't want to keep your game their whole life, then that's your own fault. Major game studios these days release games that last just a few hours (I think the average is 8 hours). Compare this to the 90's when a game could last 50+ hours. 8 hour games also cost quite a lot, usually $50 - $60. Let me rephrase that: you're expected to pay $60 for just 8 hours of entertainment. And then you're expected to pay that again on a regular basis (hence why we have dozens of sequels to most major games - Call of Duty franchise anyone?)
It's normal that when your product is so expensive but is useful only for a few hours, your customers will try to resell it after they're done with it. See, my girlfriend bought a hammer last month because she had to nail a painting to her wall; she never uses a hammer but she decided to keep it instead of selling it to a friend or neighbor, because she might need a hammer again in a few years.
So instead of complaining that customers don't want to keep your game very long and quickly resell it, why don't you make games that people want to play for a while? Some suggestions to achieve that:
- Longer storyline that lasts 50+ hours (like most games in the 90s)
- Stop holding our hand and penalize getting killed within the game! I played Modern Warfare and when I died, I came back to life right where I had fallen. No wonder I finished the game in a single afternoon! And by the end I hated the game, because while too hard is frustrating, too easy is boring.
- Add a reason to replay the game. For instance, I recently played a game where after finishing the campaign, I could restart a new campaign with all my earned skills, weapons and upgrades. This also enabled me to access secret areas and do stuff you can't do the first time you play. Just don't over do it - replaying the entire game 10 times just to pick up some development art sucks.
- Make expansions to the game. Lots of them. For 5+ years. I hate sequels because sequels add content but also remove some of it. Good expansions (i.e. not cheap DLC that add a costume or a new gun but expansions that are almost as big as a full game) are what I look for. In sandbox games, it's also fun to have one huge map in the same game rather than 3 smaller maps spread through 3 games (think of Grand Theft Auto series and what it would have been like if you could play in Liberty City, Vice City and San Andreas all at once, from the same game).
Just by using expansions, you can make your game last years. You can even price expansions the

Re:Not on the disc

[wertigon]

F2P (Free To Play) does NOT equal P2W (Pay To Win).

League of Legends is doing it right; it's free to play, and everything except skins are obtainable, though paying makes you get those faster. I have no problem with that kind of model and have invested about €100 so far over the course of two years.

Battlefield Heroes on the other hand, now there's a game that's pure P2W. Sometimes I play it for a few rounds just to see if it has improved; everytime I find it worse than before. It used to be an awesome game. Nowadays, it's all about how much money you can spend on those über weapons... Makes me sad. :(

Re:Not on the disc

[AmiMoJo]

This "take it or leave it" attitude is part of the problem. Aside from there being a lot of sly deception (does it clearly state on the box that you are buying a license rather than a game, and that it is worth less second hand, and that if you buy second hand you get a cut down version?) companies need to form relationships with their customers, and part of any relationship is a two way dialogue.

Customers have every right to complain, and in fact in this case it is absolutely vital because if they don't and the game fails to sell it will be blamed on piracy. We need to make it clear that the nasty DRM is what made it fail in the marketplace.

Re:Not on the disc

[jamesh]

Nailed it. I wish I had your eloquence.

But that's what it comes down to - if you don't like the terms of purchase of the game, don't buy it, but definitely don't steal it. Just wait until the copyright expires.

I fully agree that copyright rules are pretty well fscked up right now. Anything over a 2 year copyright term on a video game strikes me as kind of pointless, and 20 or 50 or whatever years it is now is downright stupid. Information should be free, but the creators deserve to make some money off it first, and on their terms, not the public's.

I think it would be great if there was a 2 year (or maybe 5 year as a compromise) copyright on digital media (movies, games, music, etc). That way the freeloaders can still get their little hands on it eventually, they just need to wait a bit.

Re:Not on the disc

[jamesh]

+1

For once a content producer has taken things into their own hands to ensure a return on their investment instead of troubling the courts with it, which always ends up sounding like childish whining no matter which side is speaking.

Re:Not on the disc

[sjames]

Good or bad the games industry is fed up with used games, and piracy.

Yeah, and I want a pony.

Re:Not on the disc

[aaron552]

This analogy is flawed. If you buy the game second-hand, you can still get the content, you just have to pay for it, where the person who bought the game new didn't have to.

Your analogy would be more like:
You can buy the car form us and get free air conditioning. If someone else buys the car from you, they have to pay us for that air conditioning unit you got for free.

Re:Not on the disc

[aaron552]

You can still do this, though. If you intend to resell the game, you create an EA account specifically for the game, and then when you sell the game to someone else, you provide them with the login details as part of the package. Then they get all the DLC you purchased or recieved with the game.

Re:Not on the disc

[symbolset]

OK, we're going to have this talk about RAH and the evolution of his political leanings. The man was complex. He was a huge advocate of the dissociation of social mores of sex and marriage from state regulation. He had homosexual characters in his books in the 1940's, and biracial couples in the 1950's. Group marriage, line marriage, and so forth were social norms in his works. This is not right-wing liberatarianism. This is... something else. Many of his ideas were controversial, but they became so popular during the 60's "free love" movement that unwanted hippies were camped on his lawn.

But he didn't "descend into right-wing liberatarianism". He started in extreme liberatarianism and moderated his projection of his views to sell books. As they became less political tracts and more entertainment, they moved more units. But his views didn't change - except during a painful divorce - which I personally could forgive him for having been there.

Re:Not on the disc

[frinsore]

No it isn't. It isn't a compromise at all.

How much do games cost in the store? How much did they cost 10 years ago? 20? 30? Games have gotten cheaper when inflation is taken into account. Here: http://arstechnica.com/gaming/news/2010/10/an-inconvenient-truth-game-prices-have-come-down-with-time.ars

we have decided to offer the base game without any of the optional expansions for a reduced price

It's believed that consumers take the price of good as a reflection of quality. If you see a game that is $40 on a shelf that's filled with $60 games most people will assume that there is something wrong with that $40. I'm not saying that the American games retail market can't change but I doubt it.

Selling a dlc expecting game for the price of a full title, selling the dlc for premium prices on top of that, and offering some dlcs as special exclusives is *not* a compromise.

...

Don't shut out second-hand buyers. Offer them the missing content for a reasonable fee. This way you stand to monetize the 2nd and 3rd hand sales.

I don't know what game you're complaining about but it isn't Amular. If you buy Amular new then you also receive a code to buy the dlc for free. If you buy Amular used and if it doesn't come with an unused code then you can purchase the dlc like normal. You seem to be arguing that the companies should be doing exactly what they are doing.

Re:Not on the disc

[aaron552]

I'm pretty sure there's nothing stopping you from selling the EA account with the DLC along with the game.

Re:Not on the disc

[symbolset]

I have on my shelf every word he ever wrote that was published - some 300 volumes, occupying some 14 shelf feet of space including Boy's Life. I have the recordings of him narrating Apollo 11. I have his nonfiction works. Of course I've read them all a dozen times at least.

So the question becomes whether I've understood them, because of course I've read them. You got me. I'm by definition not a good judge of that.

Re:Not on the disc

[Maxo-Texas]

I agree they are being jerks.

But if you invest $10,000,000 to make the first coffee table, then you are going to want to make at least $10,000,000 back.

And if you invested $30,000,000 in three other failures, then you are going to price this game to make $40,000,000 or go bankrupt.

That investment is people's salaries, rent on the buildings, power bills, computer and desks.

Once you get past that base cost, sure, the extra copies are "free".

I think the publishers are cheating, swindling, weasels who want us to pay 5 times for the exact same content. And we have a right to scream and shout about it and try to convince people not to buy the products.

But try to be realistic about the real costs to make these games.

Re:Not on the disc

[cheekyjohnson]

but definitely don't steal it.

What about downloading it?

Re:Not on the disc

[VAElynx]

Yep. And there's a difference between a new business model that attempts to bypass fair use policies and alienate their own userbase ,and one that doesn't, much like there's a difference between a new position from kamasutra and unpleasant things involving ass and a broom handle.
In other words, i'm not saying we won't be seeing such attempts, but that they are flat out wrong, and I don't feel like letting myself be ripped off.

Re:Not on the disc

[Maxo-Texas]

Ah.. so when you resell the car, the trunk should lock, the A/C should stop working, and the gas mileage should drop from 27mpg to 21mpg.

We want to keep the "premium" car experience to first purchasers.

Re:Not on the disc

[Anonymous Coward]

I just love how people like you defend this crap. I'm not 'signing a fucking contract' when I buy a game, I'm buying a product and I really fail to see how the two are even remotely similar.

Unless you're being paid by a company who is doing this, I don't see how in the hell you can defend such actions. This isn't capitalism at all. This is greedy company trying to milk your wallet by making up bullshit rules about how to use their products after the transfer of ownership.

We'll yell and scream all we want. Maybe this company won't change their practices, but maybe a company or two out there will hear it and it will stop them from changing theirs. And maybe some gamers out there will hear it and choose not to buy products that do this sort of thing.

Re:Not on the disc

[NickFortune]

How is it wrong to raise the price?

Well, I suppose that depends on how you go about increasing the prices.

I mean, if all Shilling wanted was to raise the price he could have simply, you know, charged more money for the product and then we'd not be having this silly conversation.

Re:Not on the disc

[TFAFalcon]

When was the last time you had to agree to 'terms' when purchasing your game? You don't get to learn about them until you get home and open the box, or even until you finish installing it.

Why should those terms be enforced? Why should their violation be considered copyright infringement? You bought a copy, now you should be able to do with it whatever you want. Including reselling it.

Re:Not on the disc

[PSVMOrnot]

"And what happens when there is nothing else?"

Games are toys. There will always be toys. Crave something different.

Today it is games and toys. Tomorrow, it will be tools and necessities. We fight this battle over baubles in the hopes that we will not have to fight over the things that really matter.

Re:Not on the disc

[kainosnous]

... and none of it goes to the original developer!

And why should it? The developer was paid from the initial sale. Part of the value of the product for the initial buyer was the fact that it was his to now keep or sell. Wen you buy something, it's yours, and you have to right to use it, sell it, or throw it away if you want.

How many other industries let you sell something, and then still keep all rights to it? When a car company sells you a car, they don't demand that every time you sell that car, they get a portion of the sale. If you buy fries at McDonalds, your friend doesn't have to pay McDonalds a fee if you give them one of your fries. Suppose that I went out and built a radio and sold it to somebody. You would think I was crazy if I demanded that each time it was sold or given a way, I should get some of the profit. You would think me insane if I pushed laws demanding that you never take it apart or use its parts for other things. And yet, that is exactly what you propose for games. It's interesting to see how you and others like you have been conditioned to express shock and resentment when it's legal for people to do the same things with media that they do with any other legal product.

Also, it's been a while since I've bought any games, but I find it unlikely that somebody would pay 90% of the new product price when they could get the new, out of the box version for only 10% more. Of course, if they would, that only goes to further show how much resentment people are feeling for the manufacturers.

Re:Not on the disc

[Anonymous Coward]

A couple of things you're missing here:
1/ Their 'contracts', EULAs, whatever are not sacrosanct, they are subject to various laws and quite likely violate consumer laws in many countries; they rely on having more lawyer money than you to counteract this. This *should not* be a viable business model - to break the law and get away with it because of how much money you have. If they don't want to do business under certain countries' consumer laws they should just not sell their products in those countries, but they want it both ways.

2/ They treat the transaction as a simple sale when it suits them and a license when it doesn't. If they are effectively tying you to a onerous and difficult to understand contract which limits your rights such as return, resale, reinstallation etc. in various ways, this should be made clear at the point of sale - there should be a license/contract document for you to sign saying you understand these provisions and agree to them (subject to consumer and contract law). Why don't they do this? Because they want to falsely make out that it *is* a simple sale. This is fraudulent and should be stopped - and hopefully will be stopped when someone makes an appropriate legal challenge in a country with sane consumer laws.

Re:Not on the disc

[Totenglocke]

So he's not just some random executive, he's a gamer at heart.

A gamer who wants to badly fuck other gamers over to make an easy buck. It's utterly absurd that he thinks he has a right to perpetual profits after the original point of sale for a particular copy of a game.

Re:Not on the disc

[Totenglocke]

That means the entire experience is going to require you be authenticated with their service, constantly, and some of the core content will only exist on that service. In other words it's going to look at lot more like Steam, and a lot less like the 1980's.

And that means that there will be a lot more piracy or people who just stop buying from the major game studios until they quit being greedy little shits who think they can violate the doctrine of first sale to make perpetual profits off of one copy of a game.

Re:Not on the disc

[Totenglocke]

Just wait until the copyright expires.

That's great, so roughly 45 years after my unborn grandchildren die of old age, the copyright will finally expire.

but definitely don't steal it.

First off, you cannot steal something if they still have the item. Secondly, by their own words, buying used = pirating, so why not? The greedy fucks view it the same, so why pay any money to Gamestop for it then?

Re:Not on the disc

[delinear]

That's all well and good - the problem comes when they box it to look like a regular buy-to-own physical product and sell it alongside such products without making it abundantly clear to the customer that what they're buying is a very different beast. I can't create a smartphone and call it an iPhone and sell it alongside real iPhones and use the argument "it's my phone, if you don't like it don't buy it". There are very strict rules in place to avoid customer confusion, yet people (aside from a few well informed people who follow these topics online) are clearly going to just buy this as they would buy any other game without realising the restriction on their right to resale. I'm all for game studios playing around with the payment format to find the one that works but they need to be more than transparent, they need to make a concerted effort to inform customers what they're getting that's different - that way they don't skew the market by hiding in a herd of real physical products (since, if sufficient number of informed customers decided they didn't want to lease when they could buy that would affect the price, and that's what they're hoping to avoid - they want to keep the high price but remove the option for resale, when they always claimed resale was one of the reasons for the high price).

Re:Not on the disc

[psiclops]

i think your inventing a point about something that has nothing to do with piracy .

if i'm a developer and want to sell a game for $42.00 - $48.00 to a game store and they want to buy it and we can come to an agreement then that should be okay. what happens to the game after is none of my business. the store now owns this copy of the game.

If the store wants to sell it to customer a for $59.00 and customer a agrees with this then that should be okay to. what happens from here on out is no-one's business other than customer a. customer a owns the copy now.

if customer a now wants to sell it back to the store for $5 and the store wants to buy it for that price. then no one is doing anything wrong and no one other than customer a and the store are involved in the transaction.

if then the store wishes to sell it to customer b for $54.95 and customer b accepts then go for it. the copy of the game is now customer b's.

if you can give me a single valid reason why any of these transactions are immoral or advise where the developer should get more money then i shall concede that something should be done to hinder the used game market.

resale of goods occurs in every other market, and no one has a problem with it. i don't understand why developers believe they should have some extra right to stop resale of their goods. nor do i understand why they get away with planned obsolescence in their products(which many of the schemes to combat the used game market are). planned obsolescence is a breach of consumer rights in at least the UK.

Re:Not on the disc

[delinear]

When my local Game store has a section for "PC games" and a section for "PC non-transferable licenses to temporarily play games at the rightsholders' sufferance" your argument will be more valid. In the meantime the vast majority of customers aren't going to be sufficiently aware of the issues until it's too late.

Re:Not on the disc

[psiclops]

don't steal it. Just wait until the copyright expires.

there won't be enough seeders then.

Re:Not on the disc

[SacredNaCl]

This "take it or leave it" attitude is part of the problem. Aside from there being a lot of sly deception (does it clearly state on the box that you are buying a license rather than a game, and that it is worth less second hand, and that if you buy second hand you get a cut down version?) companies need to form relationships with their customers, and part of any relationship is a two way dialogue.

Customers have every right to complain, and in fact in this case it is absolutely vital because if they don't and the game fails to sell it will be blamed on piracy. We need to make it clear that the nasty DRM is what made it fail in the marketplace.

After a horrible delivery fiasco, I was forced recently to buy a textbook via an adobe DRM type encryption method. I will never do it again. What I expected was something closer to a PDF file. What I actually got was a broken PDF-like document, only viewable in a horrible viewer with the lack of a decent zoom feature, the inability to *print* pages that I need (it will let you print some of them, but not others, and it doesn't tell you before you try it), an incomplete product (compared to the physical book) filled with broken links to the publishers website, and a 2 hour headache finding the links to the prior version of the book to make it work in a cumbersome wrapper. I'm annoyed enough that I'm trying to get a refund on it, and may push it as far as going for a charge back from my credit card company under the defective goods clause. If anyone from Bedford/St Martins is reading this: You need to step up, and deliver what you promise.

If people are having DRM experiences with games anything close to what I just had with a DRM protected textbook -- they indeed have every right to complaint, and need to do it loudly.

Re:Not on the disc

[Ihmhi]

I'd just say it's about them double-dipping and trying to work around the first-sale doctrine.

Once a game is bought new, the creator shouldn't be able to say shit about how it's used. Licenses and CD-keys should be 100% transferable.

Re:Not on the disc

[varcher]

Actually its their game and their contract and they can have it both ways and another four ways too if they want.

Yes. Until one of the contract clauses specifies something that is illegal, in which case that contractual clause is null and void - it doesn't exists, and you can ignore it.

Every content industry, gaming included, hates the first sale doctrine. Actually, every industry hates the first sale doctrine. If the car industry could prevent the sale of used cars, and force you to buy exclusively new cars, they would probably pop the cork, and the cheers would be heard all around the world. But they haven't found a way to go around the first sale doctrine.

(no internet discussion is complete without a car analogy)

A company could try to do so. They'll sell you the car, but only lease you the right to turn on the engine. So you can sell the car, but then, the new buyer would have to get a new engine (or rather the license for an engine). Of course, you wouldn't pay the same amount for this car. And it's clearly a way to get around the first sale doctrine.

The analogy goes even better: if you don't like that car idea, you can go and buy a different car under better terms (it's a different car, since the car manufacturer has a monopoly on its brand).

So why don't the car industry do that? Because if they did, the blatant attempt at weaseling out of the first sale doctrine would be obvious enough, and they'd get crucified. So it's telling that the content industries think they can get away with it, and indeed, they succeed in doing that.

Re:Not on the disc

[Mabhatter]

I thought it was more difficult to work out?

Re:Not on the disc

[Anonymous Coward]

General Motors doesn't get a dime of the sale when I buy a used car either. Why should software companies feel they are more entitled to resale $ than any other company in the world?

Re:Not on the disc

[geminidomino]

i think your inventing a point about something that has nothing to do with piracy .

He's not inventing it. He's just echoing sound-bites from a half-dozen different press releases whining about the evils of the used game market. We don't see them a lot on slashdot, but on sites like, for example, The Escapist, every few months there's a new press-release from some butt-hurt developer telling people that customers who buy used games are no better than pirates.

And said sites are full of people like the OP, who seem to be about even money between being "reputation management"-level shills, or just empty-headed industry cheerleaders supporting these scumbags to the detriment of their own interests.

Re:Not on the disc

[GameboyRMH]

That investment is people's salaries, rent on the buildings, power bills, computer and desks.

Oh boo freaking hoo. Most of us would be out on the street from one significant financial slip-up, but we're supposed to pity the boneheaded fuckers in the game industry who can't tell good business from their own assholes?

All they have to do is sell the games cheap and DRM-free to turn pirates into customers. It's not fucking rocket science. People will be able to pirate your games just as easily either way. In the current situation, the incentive to pirate is driven by horrific DRM and a $60+ cost, and the disincentive is a little bit of up-front effort. Sell the game for under $20 without DRM and probably half of the pirates become customers, while you retain all your old customers, and you get new customers who couldn't afford your games before or were offended by the DRM! The downside? Fucking nothing! You can lay off your DRM developers who can crawl back into the dark pit they came out of and shut down your DRM servers. Your initial costs are CUT, your running costs are CUT, and it BRINGS IN MORE REVENUE. Figure it out morons!

As for used games, if you sell your games cheap and DRM-free with online backup and official support, why would anyone buy used? Seriously it's astounding that these are the idiots who get rich.

Re:Not on the disc

[FireFury03]

Economically, there is no difference between not buying and pirating.

That's untrue. Resale allows the original purchaser to recoup some of the cost of buying the product. This either makes the product more valuable (i.e. the seller can charge a higher price for the new product), or means the buyer has more money to spend on the next product they want (so they can buy more games or higher priced games as a result). At the end of the day, this means that the publishers should be making more money from each purchaser since a proportion of the money flows up from the resale activities.

Of course, the publishers are restricting resale, under the premise that if people can't buy a used game at a knock-down price, they will instead buy a brand new one at full price. If this were true, then preventing resale would make sense. However, IMHO this isn't going to happen - people only have a certain amount of money to spend on games, and if they can't get old ones for the knock-down price they will either buy less games or turn to the black market.

All this is, of course, disregarding the loss of sales from the primary purchasers who boycott as a result of feelng that they are being abused by the vendor.

Re:Not on the disc

[ultranova]

Good or bad the games industry is fed up with used games, and piracy.

They are fed up with the Doctrine of First Sale, yet whine when everyone else gets even more fed up with the rest of the copyright law.

I guess we're headed for another great video game crash; the combination of incompetence, rising development costs and feelings of entitlement reaching the level of absurd hubris in the industry are a deadly combination. Now if only they'll take the movie and music industries with them, we can start cleaning the corruption they have inflicted on us, such as ACTA.

Re:Not on the disc

[Theaetetus]

So he's not just some random executive, he's a gamer at heart.

A gamer who wants to badly fuck other gamers over to make an easy buck. It's utterly absurd that he thinks he has a right to perpetual profits after the original point of sale for a particular copy of a game.

He doesn't, and he's not attempting to do so. Buy the game used, and you never have to pay a single penny to the studio. If, however, you want additional downloadable content, then you have to pay for that additional content... in the original point of sale for that content.

Re:Not on the disc

[Anthony Mouse]

A gamer who wants to badly fuck other gamers over to make an easy buck.

The most hilarious thing is that he doesn't understand how markets work at all.

People discount the price they're willing to pay by the amount they'll get back later if they sell used. When I go out and sell a used game for $20 that I originally paid $50 for, that's $20 I put toward the purchase of the next new game I buy. If I don't have that $20 in my pocket, I'm not paying more than $30 for the next game because I literally don't have the money anymore. Meanwhile, the guy who would have bought the game used from me has still only got $20 to buy a game, and if the game doesn't cost $20 then he can't afford it either.

There are three actual ways to make more money selling video games: Either you set the price more appropriately (because it's either higher or lower than the sweet spot, which means that volume times price is not maximized), or you make better games so that more people buy them, or you make games that are just as good more efficiently so that you have lower costs against the same revenues. There is no option that says "fuck over your paying customers" because that doesn't work.

Re:Not on the disc

[tmarsh86]

What about books? They take a long time to wear out. Should the author and publisher make $$ every time that new book is sold used to someone else? No, that's just stupid. And it's stupid for physical software, too(used is never 100% identical to brand new).

Re:Not on the disc

[petermgreen]

Valve has proven that while gamers will bitch about it they will put up with anti-resale measures. Heck if you make the service you are locking them into treat them well (unlimeted redownloads, massive discounts in sales etc) then they might even grow to like it (I'd say I see far more positive posts on steam round here nowadays than negative ones).

I guess the only questions left for devs are

1: which is more controversial and/or more profitable. Preventing resale altogether as valve and blizzard do or trying to cream some money off resale through content that is free to the first owner but chargable to subsequent owners.
2: how to balance strength of the protection measures verses inconviniance caused to user.

Re:Not on the disc

[Moryath]

Not only that I have to defend Gamestop a little here - I know several people who work at Gamestop, and three of them are store managers.

Here's how it works according to the fucktard who wrote the article: "The remaining $31.99? Pure profit..."

Now, here's how it works in reality:
- On that one game, Gamestop got $31.99 in profit. That profit went back into the sales figures for the store to pay for new inventory and to pay the wages of the workers and the rent to the property owner (Gamestops are in malls or strip malls, they never own a standalone storefront building on corporate-owned land).
- On several other games, Gamestop plunked down $20-25 in either store credit or cash payout. Those games sat at the $45 price point for a while. Then the $40 price point. Then $35. Then $30. Then $25. Then $20. Somewhere between $25 and $20, the "pure profit" that the fucktard article-writer assumes turned into a loss.
- On even more games, Gamestop plunked down maybe $10-15. The same thing happened. Maybe they managed to sell it at $20-25, maybe they sold it at less.

The short version is, sure, on that ONE used title Gamestop got a net $31.99 profit. Maybe that was enough to pay for one worker for roughly 2 and a half hours worth of time if they're at the standard $12/hour. On a number of other titles, Gamestop barely broke even, or even lost money when the game fell into "crap it's old, get it out of here, chuck it in the $5-10 bargain bin" range. Because that WILL happen to some titles, even if Gamestop shelled out $20-25 for it when it was new.

There's a Gamestop near my location that was posting sales numbers in the top 100 Gamestop stores for most of Christmas. They just got word anyways that they are getting shut down in February. Apparently Gamestop decided rent in the area isn't enough to justify keeping the store open, even with fantastic sales on both the new and used end.

So before you vilify Gamestop, think about that. A lot of the people working those stores are actual gamers. A lot of the people working those stores are trying to make ends meet. And the dirtiest secret of all... the "profits" for an operating Gamestop store are nowhere near CLOSE to what Asshat McDouchebag writing for ShitHardware, a crappy blog site with a broken registration system, came up with by pulling numbers out of his lying ass.

Re:Not on the disc

[Moryath]

You obviously don't understand how the supply chain works.

If Gamestop sells a NEW copy of a game at $60, then they may make $5-6 "profit" on it. The wholesale prices on the brand new games in the box sent to the stores are HIGH.

This is why you will NEVER, EVER, EVER AGAIN see a single-purpose store that sells nothing but brand new in the box games and systems. You won't. Think about it - when's the last time you saw a Software Etc? Oh yeah they started selling used games before they went under. How about Babbage's? Oops, gone under. The margins simply will not and probably will not ever support a "new only" software storefront business model any more.

Instead, you have Best Buy, you have Target, you have Walmart, and you have the rinky-dink "electronics" sections of other department stores where they staff minimum wage employees 2-3 to a store, or if they get up to 4-5 then they have someone minding the REALLY high ticket items like plasma TV's and $2000 cameras.

That is the reality. Margins on brand new games SUCK. The fact that Gamestop will manage to have new releases and launch parties when Crap of Dookie: Modern Warfare 4: Beating A Dead Horse comes out next year is because the USED game market subsidizes getting the brand new copies into the store. And that's the complete truth of the matter.

Re:Not on the disc

[Theaetetus]

The whole point of this discussion that it is not additional content. It is part of the single player game that can not even be accessed unless you pay the original point of sale at the original price.

This would be like buying a book with pages missing out of the middle.

Except as multiple people have noted, it's not on the disc. It's additional downloadable content, and it's not necessary for the single player game. This isn't like a book with missing pages - the single player game is complete, and you don't need the DLC to finish it. This is more like buying a book new and having a bookmark in it with a URL for an additional free short story.

Why yes it is.

[sethstorm]

Is that wrong? if so please tell me how

There's nothing wrong with wanting to make a profit. There's everything wrong about withholding product and lying about it.

Re:Why yes it is.

[Telvin_3d]

I don't think they are lying about anything. They are being very clear in what they are doing and why they are doing. People are not happy with what they are doing, but I don't think deception is involved.

Re:Why yes it is.

[Requiem18th]

Actually yes. It involved deception. When you buy a game, there is a reasonable expectation that you will be able to play everything that is in the disc. More over, there is an expectation that you will get a "complete experince".

It's kinda like if you bought out The Dark Knight only to find that the last 15 minutes are locked by a subscription system. Or like going to see a movie and then just before the last part the managers ask you for an extra fee to see the end.

This is the kind of thing that you would expect to be informed beforehand. So while it isn't a crime, it deserves all the backslash it can get, I hope you are not suggesting that the gamers should shush about this.

Re:Why yes it is.

[nabsltd]

I don't think they are lying about anything. They are being very clear in what they are doing and why they are doing.

Do they clearly state that when their activation/DLC servers are turned off, you will no longer have access to the complete game you paid for unless you are still using the original install? Because, that's how this works.

Once you activate the content using the code on on the package, that code is no longer valid. So, that first install is the only one with the full content available.

Re:Why yes it is.

[Solandri]

Conceptually, it's kind of a new type product. Something which you can use, but can't resell. In MMORPG terms, it's an item which binds to you upon pickup, so you can't sell it or even give it to anyone else.

Yes they're not lying about it. But since it's a new concept, if they don't make clear in great big letters on the box that it's not transferable, then it will be deceptive. At least until such items become commonplace enough that customers know enough to check whether the game is the transferable type or the binding type.

Also, if prices in MMORPGs are any guide, Shilling should take note that items which bind typically sell for 1/10th the price of the "real" thing or less. That is, when buying the "real" thing, people expect to get about 90% of the purchase price back on the resale, and value possessing the thing at only 10% the price they pay.

So if he's expecting to get anywhere near as many sales of these crippled games at uncrippled prices, that's a pipe dream. My own guess, based on the used price being about half the new price, would be they'd have to drop the retail price to half or a third in order to get as many sales as the unrestricted version at $50-$60. Unless they're deceptive about it and hide the fact that it's non-transferable, in which case they're going to trick a lot of people into paying $50-$60 thinking that they can resell it later.

Re:Why yes it is.

[Goboxer]

Your comparison to The Dark Knight is flawed. It would seem the DLC you get when you buy the game is not needed for the completion of the game. The last 15 minutes of the movie are required for the completion of the movie.

A more apt comparison is you've bought a movie used, expecting there to be special features. Then it turns out you have to pay extra for those special features. Had you bought the movie new they would have given you a code so you could go download the special features free of charge.

It's not exactly a business model I would endorse, but it's hardly pilfering the pockets of orphans. I just prefer not to deal with DLC at all. If a game is too pricey or relies too heavily on DLC, I don't buy it. If it shows up later on sale and/or with the DLC included, then I consider buying it.

"Is that wrong? if so please tell me how"

[Anonymous Coward]

First sale doctrine. QED.

Re:"Is that wrong? if so please tell me how"

[MachDelta]

If Ford started selling the key to your car as a "free" app for your smartphone, but anyone buying that same car second hand had to shell out $1500 for a new "key," how long do you think it would take for before either a) congress enacts a law outlawing the practice, or b) FoMoCo's HQ is burnt to the ground?
Or c), GM, Chrysler, VAG, Toyota, Honda, Subaru, BMW, Mercedes, etc all start doing it too and everyone just accepts it as the new norm. Because, sadly, "c" is where the video game world is headed.

Re:"Is that wrong? if so please tell me how"

[Uberbah]

When you buy a game, you normally have only bought a license to the game. You do not own the game.

Because some industry hack told you his wishful thinking and you lapped it up? I'll sell you a controlling interest in the Brooklyn Bridge at a discount rate...

Re:"Is that wrong? if so please tell me how"

[giorgist]

Actually ... this is close to already the case. If you buys a car you get free keys thrown in. Try loosing one of those keys. I had to replace my Mazda 3 key. $700 later I had a shiny new key. At this point, I can sell the car with the key so we are not quite there yet ... but we are close

Re:"Is that wrong? if so please tell me how"

[makomk]

A copy of a particular piece of information on a nice shiny round disk is pretty clearly still property even if the actual information or idea isn't.

Yes, it's wrong

[BLKMGK]

They are preventing someone from having anything of value to sell after they are done with it. Perhaps if the game didn't cost so much in the first place it would have less value used and more would buy it new - what a concept. I don't buy too many games these days but I play many older ones and some online games. It's stunts like this that would prevent me from buying this game new OR used. $50 and $60 dollars per game is crazy and has greatly curtailed my desire to buy. Between crappy DRM that makes my life hell and is now starting to limit even hardware changes to publishers pulling crap like this to ensure I cannot resell any game I buy I simply have no stomach to purchase their crap. Let them go bankrupt and someone who values their customers more take their place so far as I'm concerned....

Re:Yes, it's wrong

[erick99]

I am single dad with a single income but I have two teenage sons who like to play games. When something hot comes out like Gears of whatever, I buy a new copy. But for other games they wait until it's available used. I can't afford a new version of everything. I think that what they are doing is, at the least, mean-spirited.

Re:Yes, it's wrong

[jythie]

Not just mean spirited, but bad buisness. I am trying to figure out what box of cracker jacks these CEOs got their MBAs out of... various industries have encountered this for centuries, each has tried to wipe out the 'used' market because it felt they were not getting a good deal out of it, and they each tend to rediscover the same basic problem, the used market puts money into their industry and ads value to their products

Stop used sales, and your product becomes worth less... one might get more of each sale, but the total number of sales tends to go down resulting in a net decrease of income. Sadly, new industries keep forgetting that there is more to a market then the immediate first order effects.. learning how things interconnect is important. grrr.

Re:Yes, it's wrong

[VAElynx]

Correct.
A lot of people will buy a game, mess with it, and if they get enough, or if they don't like it all that much , they'll pawn it.
Take that away and they will become far more wary of what to pay for.

Re:Yes, it's wrong

[Tastecicles]

"BUY IT NOW!" on DVD and game ads *is* misleading. You're "buying" a revocable license to use the media in an approved device. I've been saying this for YEARS on /. and getting slated for it. Now it seems people are at last waking up to this most insidious truth.

Some people owe me a fucking apology!

Re:Yes, it's wrong

[Zenin]

What % of gamers resell their games?

Of that percentage, how many will view the inability to resell a game a complete blocker?

Is that number higher then the people who'd normally wait to buy it used (cheaper), but instead buy a new copy because that's the only option?

I know when I buy a $60 game it's because I feel the experience I'm about to enjoy is worth $60. I don't think "Oh, it's only worth $20, but I'll get $40 back from selling it later so it's Ok".

Or look at it this way:
A new game goes on the market for $60-80. Over time the price tends to drop. If you feel the game is only worth $20 to you, instead of buying it for $80 hoping to sell it later for $60, you now just have to wait until the price drops. Either way you're paying $20 for your experience....the only difference is choosing to pay a premium for early access.

Even if the "lower value" from not being able to resell the game hurts demand and subsequently causes the publisher to drop the price accordingly, it still means all sales income goes to the publisher and artists, rather then a hefty chunk being scrapped off the profits by the secondary market.

Re:Yes, it's wrong

[arose]

I think you missed the "used market puts money into their industry" part. Perception of value doesn't matter for that. Say low budget gamer has $100, they can either buy a new game for $60 and two used for $20, five used games for $20 or one new at $60 and two movies at $20. If they buy used, the money will go to other gamers who will buy games with it, if they buy movies the game company has lost that $40 until it cycles back to another gamer.

OK then.

[The Grim Reefer]

companies are still trying to figure out how to receive dollars spent on games they make, when they are bought. Is that wrong? if so please tell me how.

In my case they need to figure out a better way to receive my dollars. There's absolutely nothing wrong with what they are doing. It simply means that I will refuse to support their business by purchasing their products. If enough people feel the same way, then they will either find a way to stop treating people like shit and make money or go out of business.

Re:OK then.

[Doctor_Jest]

Well said. The problem here is, like Garth Brooks, some companies believe that used games are somehow the bane of their existence. I've seen games sell upwards of a million or more copies in a week, and how again is used killing them? Oh, it's out of their control. Something I don't care about.

I know people use it all the time, but damnit, the First Sale doctrine is alive and well. If they want to "license" us a copy of the game, then we should be able to exchange media when ours is scratched by our kids playing frisbee. We should also be able to get a replacement if we break the disc. Currently, you're mostly shit outta luck with respect to the latter (and the former, but it varies by publisher.) But if they want this sort of licensing model (effectively killing used game sales), then they should be prepared for the consequences of their new model.

Trouble is, they want (like the music and movie industry) to have it both ways. No need for them to uphold any sort of content licensing agreement, but if they want to squeeze you, the customer, about something like used games or DLC, then they want that power. Funny how companies are like that. :)

And no, I am not interested in their game. They (and EA) have decided to make it difficult for me, so I will make it difficult for them to continue with this business model by NOT buying their games. Quite simply, if it's not "evil pirates" it's those goddamned "evil used buyers." I'm tired of fucking hearing it. Clamping down on your paying customers is NOT going to solve the infringement problem... nor is it going to garner you any goodwill, which once you lose, takes YEARS to get back.

Re:OK then.

[EdIII]

There's absolutely nothing wrong with what they are doing

There is absolutely everything wrong with they are doing.

I understand that digital delivery and games that can be played online has confused the issue, along with the persistent confusion over what copyright is.

However, it is really this fucking simple:

Customer purchased product from store.
Customer owns product from store.
Customer after some period of time sells product used to somebody else.
Store already got paid, so they have no legal interest, much less moral or ethical interest, in the second sale.

First Sale Doctrine covers this. Everywhere else in the physical world you cannot pull this fucking shit for two seconds without being called crazy greedy retarded sons of bitches.

I have said before, and some of disagreed with me (they are wrong), but when you pay for copyrighted content you are granted rights in return for the consideration you paid. Part of that, is quite obviously, the ability to sell your copy. Traditionally in the past this was very easy to wrap your mind around with when it came to art and books, since they were physical items you could touch and pick up. Every single time a piece of artwork or book is sold the legal entitlements that came from copyright are transferred. It is completely legal, moral, and ethical to be able to do so. You own it, the physical medium and those rights.

They can try all the EULA crap that they want. That does not make it right, or legally defensible in a court of law. Shilling is a greedy fucking dumbass who cannot understand why he cannot get a part of each and every resale in perpetuity. Quite simply, he is not satisfied with being legally compensated one time, but has major entitlement issues to believe (erroneously) that he has every right to be compensated when his customer sells the game to another gamer used.

The fundamental problem being that Shilling does not want to understand copyright as it currently is, or what it was designed to be. Shilling, and other shitheads like him, only want to be part of a world where they have absolute control over every copy everywhere and that it always remains their direct property under their direct control at all times.

Well fuck him, and fuck Microsoft with their 720. When I purchase physical mediums, or directly download copies of copyrighted content I will absolutely protect, by force if required, my right to transfer those rights to anyone I please for any amount of consideration I please.

There is everything wrong with they are doing from every perspective you can think of.

Re:OK then.

[guises]

If they want to "license" us a copy of the game, then we should be able to exchange media when ours is scratched by our kids playing frisbee. We should also be able to get a replacement if we break the disc.

Some companies will do this, not out of the goodness of their hearts but to preserve this fabrication that when you go into a store and buy a thing you haven't really bought it - you've just licensed it in a manner indistinguishable from a purchase.

Rights over copyrighted material distributed on physical media isn't new or legally ambiguous. First sale doctrine is more than a hundred years old and it comes from almost the same situation - book publishers trying to control books after they'd been purchased. The only new thing here is the ability for copyright holders to build failure into their product: I'm sure that book publishers would have been ecstatic if they had had a way to get the books to automatically erase themselves.

Re:OK then.

[aaron552]

With Origin, you come pretty damn close to that, actually. The only thing you don't have is the ability to resell your license (I'll admit that this is a fairly big thing, though).

You can even register retail copies of games and be able to download them any time anywhere. Blizzard do something similar, too.

Re:OK then.

[trawg]

They can try all the EULA crap that they want. That does not make it right, or legally defensible in a court of law.

I am not sure if that is true any more (in the US) since late last year in the Autodesk trial.

From the Freedom to Tinker blog:

The Ninth Circuit's decision in Vernor significantly erodes the first sale doctrine with respect to software and other mass-licensed digital goods. ...
In Timothy Vernor's case, however, the publisher of the AutoCad software argued that it never actually sold the copies Vernor bought, so there was no "first sale" for copyright purposes. Under the software publisher's logic, which the Ninth Circuit adopted in the case, both the copy and the intellectual property embodied in the copy were only licensed, and quite restrictively so, pursuant to the terms of a mass end user license agreement (EULA); nothing was ever sold, despite the retail transaction that put copies of the software into the hands of the initial purchaser, and despite the downstream transaction that put those copies into Timothy Vernor's hands. ...
Under Vernor, software copyright owners not only own the work embodied in every copy of a program they sell, they own every copy, too. Consumers are left with both empty pockets and empty hands.

I strongly believe First Sale doctrine should extend to software, but the EULA looks like it is sneaking in to block it.

...if so please tell me how...

[rsilvergun]

Make games I don't want to sell 2 weeks after I buy them?

I still got my original copies of Chrono Cross & Star Ocean 2 from launch day. Just sayin'...

Re:...if so please tell me how...

[Sir_Sri]

Not every game wants to be that epic. In this day and age you're competing as much for time as for money. If people can't pick up your game and be done with it in a week (when they buy the next big game) you might not sell very many - because if you aren't Skyrim you're better to be Portal than Divinity 2: Ego Draconis or the First templar . "Long" is not a selling point anymore and nor is "50 hour experience" or "70 hour experience".

Want to know why? Because the people who have money to game all have their original copies of chrono cross and star ocean too, and guess what, those people all have (or are trying to get) jobs, and families and stuff now, and spending 70 or 80 hours on one game doesn't have the appeal it did when they were younger. People *might* want a few games a year that are big epics, but most of the time they want portal, uncharted 3, call of duty or any collection of other 'short' games interspersed amongst their skyrims and WoW/SWTOR time.

Re:...if so please tell me how...

[Hentes]

Exactly. If a game is good and has high replayability, people won't sell it. Used games market only hurts the creators of bad games.

Rewarding people for helping us

[macraig]

... this is us rewarding people for helping us!

Where did this jackass study economics? This ain't the way it works: I give you money, you give me something of equal value in return, period. His former dean and professors should fail him retroactively.

What a spin doctor.

Re:Rewarding people for helping us

[bmo]

>study economics

Curt Schilling was never an economist.

He was pitcher for the Red Sox, however. Bloody ankle and all.

This is called "learning your second career by the seat of your pants."

--
BMO

Re:Rewarding people for helping us

[gl4ss]

physical products that come in a box are quite often bought with the notion that you could resell them like books.

note: book publishers don't like used book sales either, but have to live with it.

book publishers would probably use disappearing ink too if they thought they could get all publishers onboard.

It's simple

[Anonymous Coward]

Game with resale value > Game without resale value. If you make a game that's as good as another game, and I can sell that other game for more, I am more likely to buy that if I have any interest in possibly selling or even giving away that other game.

By blocking content to secondary users, you have lowered the value of your game. If you don't lower the price in a corresponding fashion, you will have fewer sales.

My take on it.

[michaelahess]

So I buy a used ford and I no longer get to use the radio without paying an activation fee? Same concept, a stupid, naive, greedy one. I have only bought a few games at gamestop as I know their markup practices, but I don't disagree with a used game market. I use Steam almost exclusively as I can get most games at incredible savings, then I don't feel the need to sell them to recoup on a crappy game. If game makers are so concerned about this, maybe they should actually make games worth playing for any length of time. Like Skyrim. Then this wouldn't be an issue to the degree it seems to be to the publishers. People play their copy longer, won't put it on the used market for a while, probably sometime after the initial profitable margin of the games release, then used games are available for those that can't afford the ridiculous price of todays games. Seems pretty simple to me.

Re:My take on it.

[LucienChase]

I think in this situation, it's more like you buy a new car and you get a tank of petrol thrown in. You buy a used car, and you have to look after the petrol yourself. From what I've read, it's more like that analogy. They're apparently giving away for free something that they were going to charge for to people who buy the game. Like the DLC with Dead Island. Having no interest in the game, and then having played the demo, I think this would be a game worth investing in.

Doublespeak

[SoftwareArtist]

"We're not trying to take more of your money, we're rewarding you! By generously allowing you to access content that you've already bought from us and that already belongs to you. But we don't allow you to resell that content that you bought, even though you're legally entitled to. We don't want to reward you as much as that."

DLC

[Black Parrot]

[rant]Game companies are already forking us over on DLC. When you buy a game, figure on 2x the list price in order to get a *complete* game.[/rant]

I never buy new games anymore. I wait until you can buy the game, all the expansions, and all the DLC on Steam for $20 before I buy it.

Re:DLC

[Sir_Sri]

Which puts about as much money in my pocket as a developer as buying it new on a shelf for 60 bucks, and gives me infinitely more (and costs me less) than if you bought it used. So that's a workable model. If you want it RIGHT NOW pay full price right now. (and accept that the infrastructure for someone like valve to deliver 2 or 3 million copies of skyrim all at once can be astronomical).

Though steam are sort of bastards on the backend about sales (they don't tell you when they're doing sales, so they can run out of keys, then they delist your game for a random amount of time, even if you get them more keys in an hour or two, and you don't really want a pile of valid keys sitting with steam in case a keygen comes out or the like, no offence to Valve on that one).

49 pages of comments and that's the best he's got?

[gstrickler]

How clueless can you get. This guy clearly didn't bother to read any of the comments or he wouldn't have made such an ignorant statement that completely ignores his customers. How's that shoe leather tasting, Mr Shilling?

The Fight Against Ownership

[paleo2002]

Game companies, like more and more content and service providers, seem to be contesting the concept of ownership. They want to charge just as much (or more) for their products as they've done in the past but with fewer associated rights. Or they want you to pay perpetual subscription and licensing fees. Secondary markets for games (and books, music, clothes, cars, etc.) aren't some new phenomenon created by interweb hackers and sexting teenagers. Its been a fact of life for commerce for quite a long time. Why suddenly begin treating it like a threat to your business now?

The market.

[Anonymous Coward]

I've bought more legitimate games for my PS3 than any other system. Want to know the secret? I pay $25.00-$50 per game. They ship from the UK, from OZGameShop.com There's no DRM, there's no bullshit. I put them in my PS3, they install, and they play. I don't have to be online to use them. I own 26 Playstation 3 games, I even preordered 2 of them and paid full price $70-100. That's more than every other console I own combined. If you try to force me to pay $60-120/game. I will stop buying games again. You will have priced me out of the market. I will prefer to spend my $500 on PC hardware, and crack your software. Because I can't justify YOUR prices. There's a point where buying a game is a good honest deal and I will buy many games. But then there's the point where you're ripping me off blind, and I will stop buying your products. It's your choice really. I pay well above average for the humble bundles as well. My first payment was $35 because I saw the value of what they wanted to sell. I wouldn't own any PS3 games or even a PS3 if I couldn't get the games I want for $25 each. You wouldn't have 29 sales of games, hardware, and controllers without that available. That's about $1200 Sony and it's publishers would be missing. Don't screw over gamers, and we won't screw you over. Stop acting like entitled children. You don't own our money and we don't owe you anything.

GREED is not good. Do they even notice?

[bussdriver]

As with music and everything else, the big USED product market didn't prevent various massive industries from being born... which are now using their power to warp reality and politics.

Infinite stock price growth is what fuels this war with their customers. Share holders are all that matters today nobody thinks of customers. The past is not enough, they must wring every cent from you in every way conceivable or the board picks a new CEO. Many newspapers that died were still profitable but not as high as desired (or they were just less profitable but still profitable) so they were gutted and the owners made away on the entrails.

Dear Curt Shilling

[bpkiwi]

Curt

I can see that you might struggle to understand why you shouldn't get a cut every time something you once produced is re-sold. After all, when you buy a used book you send some money to the original publisher right?. And every time you sell your used car, you are happy to make sure a percentage makes its way to the original manufacturer don't you?.

Just think, that beautiful antique Ming vase you brought, the original effort and creativity that went into the painting. It's unique, some Chinese artisan spent months, or even years, of their life making it. They would never do that if they didn't know that hundreds of years later when you bought it at an auction in New York, they were not going to get a cut of that.

Yes, I see your problem. Your problem is that an item's value consists of it's useful value (the value of actually using it), plus the residual value. The residual value is the amount the owner can get by selling the item once they have no further use for it. You are attempting to reduce the residual value artificially. Your problem is that reduces the actual value of the game over all. So guess what? people won't pay you as much for it.

Your other problem is that you really don't understand the above.

Re:Dear Curt Shilling

[LearnToSpell]

Just think, that beautiful antique Ming vase you brought, the original effort and creativity that went into the painting. It's unique, some Chinese artisan spent months, or even years, of their life making it. They would never do that if they didn't know that hundreds of years later when you bought it at an auction in New York, they were not going to get a cut of that.

Actually, look up 'droit de suite.' You may laugh. Or cry.

Damned if you do, damned if you don't

[mentil]

It seems developers can't win with day-1 DLC. If they release it normally, it's content that should've been released on the disc (even if it was gold or content locked before the DLC was finished). In this case, they're including a one-time-use code to get the DLC for free; isn't that better than asking ALL players to buy the DLC?

I don't see how this is worse than the other "project 10-dollar" schemes of having players of used games pay for a DLC that unlocks multiplayer or something, especially if the content isn't already on the disc (as the game developers claim).

Perhaps if they provided an online code generator that anyone could use to redeem for a free copy of the DLC, that'd suffice? It's worth noting that the PC version comes with this DLC already included, no code required, although there isn't much market for used PC games.

Give the game developers a break

[Karmashock]

They are doing their best in a very tough industry.

It's very easy to work really hard, put your heart into a project, and then have it die with NOTHING to show for it.

Even the guy flipping burgers knows he's going to get paid even though not very much. These game devs will sometimes work on projects for years spending profits from old projects or savings on the hope that the new project will be worth the effort.

Great game studios go out of business all the time for lack of sales, poor marketing, or just bad luck.

I'm not commenting on this specific technology they're trying here... I'm just saying... give them a break. They're trying really hard to stay in a business they love and we the gamers enjoy.

One thing which I wish the game companies would try more of is serialized game development. There have been some experiments with this but I really feel this is the solution to a lot of problems. Rather then making the game all in one shot, focus on sorting out the engine, netcode, etc out and then release the game in little packets good for an hour or so of gameplay.

Then the investment isn't as large. If people aren't buying the game then stop development after a couple episodes rather then completing a full season which should be roughly equivalent to a large full release game.

Further, if the game is a success and sales are good you can just keep releasing episodes ultimately making a much larger game then you'd otherwise release. And the game dev gets rewarded for making larger games.

Right now in the current game market you can charge maybe 50-60 dollars for a AAA game title. If you release a game that is twice as big as most games on the market you can't charge 120 dollars even if its' well worth it. Gamers just won't pay it.

However, if you packaged the game into episodes then you could charge 2-5 dollars per episode, release a new episode every month or so, and then keep making them for as long as people bought them.

That gives you all the long lasting profits of an MMO with all the great single player goodness we've been missing from MMO titles.

My only experience with this model so far has been the games from TellTale Games. I preordered the whole Monkey's Island series and was very happy with the process. I think I paid 40 dollars or something for the whole series and they released a new title every two months over the course of a year. I can't speak for everyone but I was very happy with the arrangement and if anything would have been very happy to buy a second season.

In any case... that's my suggestion. Break the games up into bits small enough that you can afford to fail and expandable enough that if you have a hit you can milk it for all it's worth. That's why some TV shows only have two episodes and others go on for 10 years. If it's a flop you're out the cost of a pilot. If people like it you can just keep making them until people get tired of them or you decide to retire you private island.

Re:Give the game developers a break

[Karmashock]

No point getting upset about it. If it's a stupid idea it will fail. If it's a good idea it will succeed.

He has every right to try to do this... he's breaking no laws.

So whether an assmonkey or not, he is entitled to do this... whether or not he makes money doing it is at question.

It's a simple price increase.

[infosinger]

Under the old model I could buy the game for $59 and sell it for $19. Net cost is $40. Also, I could share the game on all the consoles or PC's in my household (Family plan). Now the game is $59 and the family plan is over $118 or higher. Now add the inconvenience of the DRM and the effective playability (i.e. value has been decreased). Take all this together and ask: Is this game still worth buying? Some people will still buy at this "higher price" some won't. If they made the right choice they will have higher profits, if the didn't the result will be lower profits. Getting all upset because they "screwed up" the product is like getting all pissed off because the new Ford Mustang only has a 100HP engine and they are charging the same price for it. You probably won't like it, won't buy it, and Ford will have lower earnings.

By his logic...

[VJmes]

Car companies should limit features in their cars when sold as used. Say GM can disable the GPS or in-dash entertainment when their car is on-sold to someone else and then offers an upgrade to the new owner, all because the new owner isn't rewarding the thousands of engineers and designers who put so much work into that car.

No, bullshit and that reasoning would not be accepted by consumers in any other industry. So why do publishers constantly treat their customers like a piece of shit and why does the average consumer accept it?

Re:I'm never missing gears...

[SEWilco]

I see their point however the methods are still misplaced. If I buy a used car, It's not like I can't use Gears 4 and up.

Maybe you can't if you don't renew your OnStar service. Did you read your contract?

38 Studios might be b/w a rock and a hard place

[Anonymous Coward]

Curt Schilling, the CEO, is an ex-Major League Baseball pitcher who is likely headed for the Hall of Fame (he lead three different teams to 4 World Series). He turned his video game hobby, marketable name and tens of millions in the bank into a post-baseball career as game studio head. In parallel, he has flirted with the idea of entering politics as a conservative Tea Party-type candidate, and wrote occasional political as well as baseball commentary on his 38 pitches blog.

To nobody's surprise, 38 Studios (38 was Schilling's uniform number with the Red Sox) soon fell well behind schedule on their AAA game, and was hemorrhaging cash. They tried to get Massachusetts (their original home base) to guarantee a loan, but Mass said no. However, a business development board for Rhode Island (a notoriously poorly run state with a longtime corruption problem) agreed to co-sign a $75 million (!) loan, on the conditions that 1) 38 Studios relocate to RI; 2) RI gets a substantial equity stake in the company; and 3) 38 Studios agrees to meet an aggressive schedule of hiring hundreds of RI citizens to good-paying staff positions. The board is hoping that Schilling's company will help spark the emergence of a tech industry in RI. That's a big reason why they have so many employees, and why they have little or no wiggle room in cutting consumers a break. They need the revenues, now!

You may have noticed that they missed the 2011 Christmas season (as well as 2010, etc). Lots of Democrats pointed out that by accepting the government-guaranteed loan, Schilling violated all the "small government, free market" principles he'd been espousing in his blog. I've noticed that since the move, Schilling hasn't blogged about politics, and was amusingly silent when Boston Bruins goaltender Tim Thomas refused to join his teammates for the Stanley Cup victory dinner at Obama's White House (just the kind of news item Schilling used to delight in blogging about).

Good luck, Curt.

Re:DLC.....so what??

[Endo13]

It all depends on how much you're paying for the game and how important the DLC is. Also, day 1 DLC just really really sounds like something they stripped out of the game to resell separately to make an extra buck.

The problem with most blockbuster video games these days is that they're overproduced and then overpriced as a result. You don't have to spend hundreds of millions, or tens of millions, or even millions of dollars to create a game that will generate revenues of those same amounts. But they do it any way, thus putting themselves in a position where they have to sell millions of copies at $60-100 just to break even. Then they try to make it sound like it's the fault of gamers when they go bankrupt.

Not about bargin bin

[Telvin_3d]

This isn't about games being picked out of bargain bin for $5 two or three years after release.

It's about the practice of game stores selling new $60 games, then a couple weeks later buying them back for $8 (or more typically store credit) and re-selling them for $55. It's a practice that sees almost as much money leave consumer pockets but half as much reach the people who actually made the games and is very wide spread. The stores deliberately under-stock new games in order to push people towards the used copies. It's typical to go in a week after release and be told they don't have any new copies, but there are a half dozen used for a couple dollars off.

It's a practice that's bad for the developers, the publishers and fairly bad for the consumers as a whole. Basically bad for everyone but the pawn shops in the middle. It siphons enormous amounts of money out of the industry and is one of the reasons that basically every studio smaller than EA or Ubisoft is forced to sell out or close, regardless of how well liked their games are.

Yes, measures taken to combat this have some nasty collateral damage. No such thing as perfect system in real life.

Re:Not about bargin bin

[Rennt]

I understand the pressure that publishers are under, and I can understand that they see profit made by GameStop and want a piece - the simple truth is that they just haven't earned a dime of it.

IT'S YOUR BUSINESS MODEL, STUPID! GameStop can only abuse the industry on such a massive scale because of the prices YOU set. And if you offered an online service for users to trade used licenses, not only could you make a bit off the second hand market but you would put GameStop out of business overnight.

Exploiting your customer base and breaking games is NOT acceptable collateral damage.

Re:Not about bargin bin

[sabt-pestnu]

Odd... you'd think that a publisher could dictate terms to his retailors. Like, perhaps, "you and your subsidiaries cannot sell 'used' copies of this game for X period of time."

Or they could announce that they will have DLC available on day 1 for customers with verifiable new copies and on day X for all valid copies of the game ("new" or "used").

If I can think of this after 2 minutes, consider what a game publisher could do with 6 months to think about the problem.

Fight Piracy, plunder your customers!

[Y2K is bogus]

At a time when all of the content producers are crying foul about piracy, they are plundering the pocketbooks of their customers! They want to have their cake and eat it too, eliminate piracy and prevent their customers from seeking value from a disused game.

The used game market allows people who are bored with a game to see value and allow people who want to sample a game they aren't familiar with. This completely ignores the people who are took friggin' poor to pay $60 for a first release title and instead pickup 3 games for the price of 2 at a GameStop sale -- not to mention that the 3rd game they got for 'free' was a turd!

What a great way to encourage repeat customers or to gain a first person sale, knife them in the back!

EA had it right with the "Veteran" guns in Battlefield, but wrong when they required a VIP code to get 6 of the 10 maps (or whatever)! Like I want to pay $18 for a demo of a game and get nickled and dimed to death for the full game!

If they want to sustain this business model, then everyone has to be on a level playing field. The game disc is $5 and is a boostrap playable demo, then you pay $15 to get the full game. Give the disc to another, they pay $15 to get the full game. You can't have your cake and eat it too!

Re:Don't buy

[SecurityGuy]

Sure, but this problem is only affecting the second hand market. For the games company it is as if they didn't make that second sale anyhow. How is withholding that second purchase going to make any difference?

Because it diminishes the value of the product to the original buyer. I don't buy many secondhand games and never sell them back, so I'll use an example for something I would buy: a decent mac laptop. They're not exactly cheap compared to the Wintel ones, but they have great resale value. I may not want to spend $1k on a laptop, but if I can buy it use it for a year and sell it for $800+, I'm no longer asking myself "Do you want to spend $1k?" It's become "Do you want to spend $200 to have this for a year?" The fact that I can sell the thing easily makes me a willing primary buyer.

ObCarAnalogy: It's as if when you buy the car, you can never sell it. You can blow it up, you can park it in your garage, you can cut the top off and plant plants in it, but you can never sell it. Suddenly cars have become very, very expensive for people who only keep them for a year or two. Those people will start buying fewer cars.

Here's a novel idea.

[idbeholda]

Instead of bitching about how the makers of the game are screwing the user over, why not opt to NOT BUY ANYTHING FROM SAID COMPANY AT ALL . The only way they'll listen is if they either lose money, or barely break even instead of making a profit. It's that goddamn simple. Crying to them about "fairness" accomplishes nothing. Hitting them with lack of funds to develop the game says a lot more.

Re:Piracy is great

[donscarletti]

Everything looks shitty compared to having the same thing for free.

Curt you have been paid once why do you need more?

[tg123]

Curt Shilling I think you have a poor business model or your being greedy If you need to be paid every time your product changes hands. Yes I know Bill Gates used to have fits because it felt that people were stealing his basic code but that was then now is now. Dare I say it but when you sell your product its is out their in the market place and I have the physical product that I have paid money for why cant I trade it in so I can get another game? The only reason there is such a large used games market is that the games are too expensive and the only way I can get new games is to trade the old ones in.

Not just about Gamestop.

[Uberbah]

This effects gamers trying to sell their old games to other gamers - not sure why that part was left out of the storyline.

It's about the practice of game stores selling new $60 games, then a couple weeks later buying them back for $8 (or more typically store credit) and re-selling them for $55.

Too damn bad. If a used car dealer buys three month old Honda's for cheap and resells them for 95% of the original asking price, it's really none of Honda's business.

This is my concern as well

[LostMyBeaver]

When a company sells you a game, there has to be some sort of means of guaranteeing that you can continue to play it in the future. I buy PC games because of two main reasons. PCs never become obsolete, you can always get a new an better PC. It's not like a console where you find yourself screwed into buying a new obsolete console when your old one dies to play old games. I recently played Falcon 2.0 from Spectrum Holobyte for a retro feel... I admit, I didn't have a 5.25" floppy drive anymore, but I did have the 5.25" diskette itself. So I downloaded a pirated copy of the game to play it. But I could play it after all this time. So my second reason is, I want to know, even if the company who makes the game goes out of business, I can still play it.

So, this type of DRM is a great reason not to buy the game since I won't be able to play it later. It has a limited life span.

Transferable licenses are the answer

[neiras]

I buy games. After awhile they get boring, so I sell them. They have more value to someone else at that point than they do to me.

I don't care if I'm selling media and CD-key or an online DRM'ed license; I should always be able to sell my license to someone else, without interference from the game publisher. I bought the right to play the game; why shouldn't I be able to sell it when I no longer want it? It's not like the publisher suddenly has the burden of supporting a user that they didn't before.

If the publisher can't compete with used copies, their product is overpriced.

Compete on Quality

[inglorion_on_the_net]

Dear Curt Shilling,

Nothing wrong with companies trying to make money.

I'd just rather you compete for my money by making the best product at the best price, rather than focusing your resources on making the best scheme to extract money from people who have already paid for the product.

Kind regards,

One Potential Customer

Re:They are violating copyright

[Keen Anthony]

Actually, it's not clear what the law regarding resale of software. There's caselaw that supports both arguments: one that digital content is licensed, and one that digital content is purchased. You would think it's obvious that you can resell anything you've purchased, but it's not that simple.

Re:No one treats farmers this way?

[Karmashock]

Look, my family actually farms amongst other things and so I know of what I speak here.

You don't know what you're talking about and I really don't have the patience to give you an education in... everything.

No offense... if you want to have a different opinion... whatever. That isn't how the world works and I have first hand experience with things you were probably fed and don't properly understand. I find that I'm explaining these things people three times a day... it's just too much.

I'm sorry.

Have a good life and try to be a bit more humble in your positions until you actually know what you're talking about. Truly... best of luck.

Re:Piracy is great

[Terrasque]

Actually, that's not entirely true. Pirating games looks shitty compared to Steam in my opinion.

* No need to find new crack every time the game updates (or even check for new version.. it auto-updates)
* In-game chat system, with one-click multiplayer join function (for those games that support it)
* Savegames are stored on Steam's servers and synced between machines (for those games that support it)
* Consistent screenshot / gallery system across games, with upload support to Steam servers.
* Game statistics and achievements, displayed online on your profile.
* Direct access to high-speed download of games, no virus risk, minimal game install process.
* No need to search around, try different downloads, find one that downloads fast, then find out if it has virus, then find out if it works... Just click-click-click-click-click, and it downloads, full speed.

Yes.. Steam can fail (server down, can not start single player game), and it's offline modus can really do with some improvement (you have to be online to play offline? What?), but overall it does give some value over pirating games.

Re:Piracy is great

[B1oodAnge1]

See, that's not true, Steam is a perfect example of why it isn't.
Valve has managed to create a DRM system that actually adds value to the game for the majority of users. Every single Valve game is just as easy to pirate as games from other publishers, yet they lose very little sales to piracy. Why do you think that is? It is because Valve makes buying from steam more attractive than piracy.

Dear Curt

[flyneye]

Dear Curt,

          There is not a damn thing wrong with making money. There is something wrong with the way you intend to make it though.
I know coding is long hard work and bringing a game to fruition must be like having a cow.

          However, you may've noticed that I.P. is a hot topic nowadays. Turns out that sitting on ideas and intangibles for years and years is an unworkable bad thing that threatens worldwide prosperity and innovation. That brings us to you.

          See if I sold you a car, and you used it till you decided to sell it and upon selling the buyer discovered that the car wouldn't go into 5th gear or reverse, you'd have the damn thing back in your driveway unable to sell. The world is full of enough plastic crap that doesn't work and further when I buy something to take home, it is mine Mine MINE to do with as I please. If you license (rent) something to me, I know it isn't mine and I will return it in close the the same shape I got it in and pay the diff on repairs. This is the way the world works, sell it to me, it's mine so you just forget about what I do with it, rent it to me, then you have a say. There is NOTHING IN BETWEEN! Just because someone decides to have an ass backward business model that says" you buy it, we own it", doesn't mean the world will EVER have any intention of honoring it. It goes against hundreds of thousands of years of human evolution and development.
So you and the RIAA, MPAA, Apple, AT&T, the U.S. Senate and Congress and all the other silly corporations who think they can have riches in exchange for a handful of dust can just get with the program or eat feces. We're not gonna take it.

        So you see, Curt, if you wanted to make a bunch of money you would work an MLM real hard. If you want to have a good time and do something rewarding
keep making games. If you want to be successful at it, remember when my money hits the counter, I OWN IT. If you want more for it, charge for it, but it's mine now and if I sell it, well you already got your money and I'm making some back, fuck off. Same goes for music, movies, software,computers,phones,cars and dog chow. If you don't like the business model, go somewhere else and do something else, reality doesn't change everytime someone has an idea. Some ideas are just bad, I bet you got some experience to resonate with that statement. Everyone does.

        Just relax and take a reality pill. Sell games. Expect they are gonna get resold. Well... What have you done for us today? Got a new game, sell it, make money, repeat. Forget the old game. That was yesterday. Not enough money? Sorry man, you gotta choose between something you like and something that pays. Just because you think you need more money, doesn't entitle you to it. It's a hard lesson you and the rest of those fighting over UNWORKABLE IP MODELS will have to learn. Go ahead, you'll quit hitting your head on the wall when you're smart enough to figure out it hurts.

                                Love
                                        Fly N. Eye

Garth Brooks running game companies?

[jjohn]

Used media has always been a legitimate business as has used software. If there is really only one user with one installed copy, the gaming companies need to have a big mug of STFU. Games are crazy expensive anyway. It's a wonder that they sell any copies at the original MSRP.

Here's link to Garth Brooks and his anti-used CD crusade:

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/304702/GARTH-BROOKS-HASNT-THROWN-IN-THE-HAT-ON-USED-CD-CONTROVERSY.html

 

Grrrrr

[tibit]

This is not 38 trying to take more of your money, or EA in this case, this is us rewarding people for helping us! If you disagree due to methodology, ok, but that is our intent... companies are still trying to figure out how to receive dollars spent on games they make, when they are bought. Is that wrong?

Since when, you idiot, is a game publisher a tax collector? Because what you intend to do is tax each and every sale of the game on the secondary market. It's not yours to figure out how to "receive" in the first place. You sell it once, get your money, and that's it.

Lemme help you out, Curt.

[Loosifur]

"...companies are still trying to figure out how to receive dollars spent on games they make, when they are bought. Is that wrong? if so please tell me how."

Tell you how, Curt? Sure. Ever hear of used book stores? Music stores? Used DVDs? Pawn shops? Amazon.com? All of these sell used books, CDs, and DVDs/Blurays, and none of them turn a penny of that profit over to the original creators. Now do me a favor, Curt, and tell me why the game industry (not even the software industry as a whole) is special? Why should a consumer not feel like you're using DRM to squeeze as much profit out of your customers as possible, rather than to protect yourself from unethical behavior?

I own a PC, so, unfortunately, most of this argument is academic for me, now that digital distribution is the predominant model, and there's no drive on the part of distributors (Green Man Gaming notwithstanding) to develop a reselling mechanism. But for console owners, the whole "Gamestop and private resales are decimating the gaming industry" is the biggest pile I've ever heard.

Shrinking market

[moorley]

The problem is greater than they imagine and you will start to see it every where.

Just google the word plutonomy for the big picture.

The dilemma has always been to provide a customer with a product for a price that works for all. The problem is the price no longer works for the producer so they want to jack it. The blow-back is that customers, who do not think themselves thieves, but savvy consumers are being told they are no longer viable and not wanted.

As the majority of Americans continue to make less while a small part of them continue to make more you will see more and more "big companies" have this same fight. They don't see that the problem isn't that fact that as time goes on only fewer folks will have the ability to afford their goods, they will instead see that they need to lash out against the "unworthy" customers who just don't want to shell out the cash they know in their hearts their product is worth.

One should remember that Price is one of the 4 P's of marketing. We tend to think that it means that charging 5 to 10 times the true value of Chanel No. 5 is all that it is about but it also works on the lower spectrum. If your target market is spending 0.025% of their monthly income to purchase your product you need to remember that has to scale. I don't buy my DVDs at best buy. I buy them low cost from the WalMart bin or secondhand in pawn shops. It's not that I don't want to buy DVDs but that source meets my budget.

By continuing to start a war of words and technologies against folks who perceive they are your customer to you are basically telling me I am not your customer. I am not worthy of your product. Fair enough. If they keep this up their customers will find new products to fill that same niche in their income bracket, as they should.

  I don't dream of Lamborghini's or Chanel No. 5. My heart no longer goes pitter pat to see the latest Spielberg flick on the big screen at today's movie prices. Although game design studio's may think their products are gold, and they may very well be, they will find by shrinking their own market, rather than finding ways to price appropriately that they also will have no market.

Looks like they want to get to their destination fast rather than slow. Screw 'em. I like board and card games better. If I need story I will pick a good pick up a god book or short story they may or may not have paid the rights to themselves (actually I will lend it from the library cuzz I can't afford to buy it.)

This lesson was learned by me again just the other day. The local coffee roaster that I have loved for years and seen them grow decided that a free cup of coffee could no longer be given if you bought a half pound of whole bean coffee instead of a full pound. The owner actually got the employees together to "discuss this" and then expounded on his personal view that it was too expensive. They never thought to offer a cup of coffee for 50-75 cents with the purchase of the half pound, instead the owner basically made the moral judgement that folks who can only afford half a pound of coffee (6 bucks by the way) are no longer their customer. So I am no longer their customer.

I bought a used car last week...

[ski9826]

So what happens when Ford is "sick" of the used car industry? Will they put a retinal scan in their vehicles that only allow that person full functionality of the vehicle, but if they sell it to someone else they cannot drive above 25 miles per hour? Where does this end? It is ridiculous. The used games industry is a good thing. I for one, would never have bought the sequels to MOST of the games I have played if I hadn't bought a used copy of their previous game first. And how about those people that trade in their old games so that they can buy brand new ones? Does this not increase sales of the gaming company's most current game?

Why is software different than any other product?

[Streamweaver]

Why is Game Content a special class of merchandise that is seeking to be exempt from long standing practices of ownership and resale? Ever other form of property in the world allows purchase and resale by the purchaser with the exception of controlled or dangerous materials such as drugs or weaponry. Both EA and Shilling seem unreasonable on this issue.

Monopolization

[vga_init]

This is quite simply about monopolization. Free market economic systems are purported to offer the lowest prices on goods and services, but the major flaw in free market economies is that they tend to form monopolies. When a monopoly forms, then the price is no longer "fair" because it can be raised and people will still buy it because there is nowhere else to get it.

This key concept of "you can't get this anywhere else" is what makes intellectual property tick. For example, if I sell a book and other publishers produce copies of that book, the price of the book will be very low on the street because competition between publishers will force it to be near the cost of production (which, for a book, is very little). Copyright comes along and says, hey, only one publisher is allowed to print this book; now that publisher can jack up the price because competition is eliminated, making the publishing business much more profitable. The free market comes up with all kinds of loopholes to resist this; for example people buy the book, read it, then sell it to someone else to try to regain some of the cost; people buy the book used and save some of the expense. Libraries buy books and lend them to people willing to wait. This effectively reduces demand for the production of the book and very (smartly) economically ensures the best use of the product with the fewest wasted resources.

Publishers, like in this case, are eyeing the used market covetously, because they only see "sales" out of context and think, "those sales must be mine." It's greed, pure and simple, and it hurts the economy/society, frankly. They want to make it so "you only buy this from me" so they can squeeze more money out of the economy. Granted, video games are not that important to society to worry if the market is being monopolized or not, but imagine if this happened with more important products? School textbook publishers try to accomplish this by frequently revising their texts and bribing schools/teachers to keep changing to the newest edition so that the older editions (used books) reduce their value or become worthless. You want to know who is worthless? Textbook publishers.