GameStop Wants To Sell Secondhand Digital Download Video Games
MojoKid writes "GameStop makes a killing selling used videogames, but what happens to that business model when digital distribution platforms run physical media out of town? That's not anything to worry about today, tomorrow, next week, or even next year, but at some point, GameStop will have to deal with the direction the games industry is headed, and it may already have a solution. GameStop CEO Paul Raines recently brought up the possibility of reselling used digital downloads."
Putting an end to Gamestop's business model is exactly what the publishers intended to do when they started moving to digital downloads. Add to that the DMCA which makes it illegal to circumvent such practices and the non-existence of the right of first sale for digital goods and Gamestop is up a creek without a paddle. And as much as I dislike Gamestop, so are we.
GameStop has also been getting into the refurbished iDevice market. There will always be hardware of some kind to (re)sell.
I doubt they'll be able to see Steam downloads secondhand, nor EA's games that use Origin, and nor Blizzard's games that use battlenet. Doesnt leave alot else, then they have to get the DRM issues sorted with publishers.... GL with that Gamestop
Its amazing, all of this lockdown in the gaming industry has completely put me off buying new video games. The last game I bought was Minecraft and I had pirated that for a month before I bought it.
The only way this could happen is if Game Stop is able to further limit the terms of the licenses of their download sales to give them an exclusive right to license buy-back. Without that, if Game Stop can buy back a license you purchased and resell it to someone else, that would mean that consumers have to have the same right to resell their software licenses and keys. There's a sound basis for businesses having the ability to restrict types of sales to distribution outlets that contract with them, but once a sales transaction to a customer has been completed, you cannot similarly restrict purchases of the same good or license purchased to specific outlets without either regulatory backing or specific license terms. IOW, if you can sell Game Stop a license for software that you purchased, you should be able to directly sell it to anyone else.
I'm all for the idea, personally; I'd love to see Craigslist filled with software resales. TFA article notes that a court in the EU has identified a right to sell secondhand software. However, I think this will undercut so many profit models of US businesses that, even if there were a similar court ruling (itself unlikely), it would face a lot of money being thrown in the direction of Congress to ensure that secondhand software sales remain impermissible. At best, US consumers will probably just even more restricted software licenses.
Gamestop has some usefulness with used physical games, but I don't think that translates to downloads. Digital files can't be scratched, and they don't have any real storage costs. At the very least, they are going to have to go with MUCH smaller margins
This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
As far as I know there is currently no means to transfer a license between the seller and the buyer on any current digital distribution platform. if they attempt to start their own competing digital download service where people can sell their games back then more power to them. However I think GMG already does this to some extent?
I think Gamestop is just dreaming.
I think it's safe to assume that Steam isn't going to allow them to ride on their systems for this, and neither is Origin. You also have the issue of games that have one time use serial numbers (most notably, MMOs) and day one DLC content. For them to be able to do this at all, they would have to come up with their own distribution system.
Since IP owners have more rights than anyone else in the US, there's no way they'd be able to put games in their system without the permission of said owners. But how do you get someone's permission to make money off of their product, while giving them nothing? They would have to pay royalties to the studios/producers (let's not start nitpicking terminology here - you know where I'm going with this), which is precisely what they're currently avoiding with physical media in order to make money hand over fist with used games.
Of course they -want- to sell secondhand digital downloads; I just don't see it working out for them.
When it comes to you and me buying a game digitally directly from a game vendor, we typically get a license to that game. It's OUR license. Sometimes we even own a copy (rare, and becoming even more rare every year, until we make licenses == legal copy in terms of copyright law, like the EU is doing right now). We usually don't have the right to resell our license, but if we own a copy, then we do.
Now steam doesn't let you RESELL your digital copies to other players. But they don't sell licenses, nor copies. They sell a subscription to their license of the game, which means they're selling a refurbished digital game to you, except not at the same time, because they bind ALL of your rights, leaving you completely and utterly fucked.
IMHO, licenses should be seen as equivalent to copies, legally. And Steam's model of selling a "subscription" should be seen as a sub-license, and also be legally upheld as a copy. This combination would permit us to re-sell purchased digital games, and either force Steam to enable us to remove games and give them to others, or be hit with massive lawsuits. And then Steam would become Gamestop's digital counterpart, as it would be in their best interest to implement an Amazon-style used market. Though that might be horribly scary for Steam, because the only reason they can offer massive sales is because you don't have any rights at all over the content you "buy" from them. Such a legal ruling would probably invalidate most of their licensing rights to games and turn them into yet another MSRP vendor, lining them up to be defeated by Amazon at their own game.
I'll be supporting used downloads. It's about time someone started recycling electrons. They are a non renewable resource and clearly this one-use culture has to end. The universe only has 15 747 724 136 275 002 577 605 653 961 181 555 468 044 717 914 527 116 709 366 231 425 076 185 631 031 296 electrons to begin with!
After logging in slashdot still does not take you back to the page you were on. It's been that way for 20 years.
An extensive web search, comparison with analogous disruptive changes in the past and discussions with MBA colleagues lead me to the conclusion that it's utterly fucked.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
I hope they get sued by ReDigi, because that would be hilarious.
He provides the ecosystem that keeps people interested in what the producers are selling.
Once again a wonderful example of FARTS.
I note that recently the Court of Justice of the European Union rejected an attempt by Oracle to stop the sale of secondhand licences on software downloaded over the internet. It seems to me that reselling of games software should also be allowed under the same ruling.
Why does everyone have to call it "digital" (digital copies, etc)? Software is digital by definition, including that on CDs and floppies. And if you say it's short for "digital downloads", that doesn't make sense either, as "digital" is a useless qualifier (all downloads are digital).
You mean, if I bought it, I own it? I can resell it? I remember that battle, way back when, and we recorded our LPs onto cassette tapes.
Gently reply
Of course you're a consumer, and you're being screwed because the publishers are trying to force a model where you don't actually own anything. If you owned it you could resell it.
If I buy a car, I can sell it to someone else. Ford don't get a look in. Both myself and the other purchaser are consumers, though. Whether ford give a crap about the on-sale is irrelevant, but they sure as hell don't get to prevent it.
I guess they have never heard of viruses....
Not 1 single gamer I know wants a digital-only copy of anything ever. Unless it's half the price or the only option, they want a physical copy so if anything happens to the company, their account, their computer, etc they can still play the game. For the tiny amount of people who prefer digital, it's like iTunes. You only need to get burned by losing everything once before you decide that's not a good idea.
My main issue, and in fact, THE main issue with downloads is that they take up a tremendous amount of space on your hard drive. Most consoles and that upcoming SteamBox have pathetically tiny hard drives such that a dozen games that you've downloaded pretty much stuff it full, while a physical disc just has game data on it. If you've tried to download a full game from most online services for a console, it's an all-evening scenario as well.
Why do you hate the first sale doctrine?
FC Closer
When did Steam get those? I was looking for them a few years ago. :(
I wished Amazon wouldn't ask for my credit card even though I have gift cards! I hope Steam doesn't do this too with its gift cards!
Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
I've noticed more and more games are requiring a 1 time use only code to play. For example, EA NHL12 requires you to enter (which is a complete pain in the ass on an xbox) a 16 digit code to play any on-line modes. Essentially it makes the game worthless for re-sale.
So for those of you siting Steam's reasonable prices as "the system works" I disagree. EA dominates a VERY large portion of the gaming market, almost entirely the sports game genre. They have no intent on playing nicely. Yes I can boycott them (which I largely do), but that is LOT of games to boycott.