Your right @NEStalgia the young or unwise gamers don't seem to realize how terrible digital only is. I don't know about you but digital video games are the only thing i've ever owned that i can't sell or trade. I have been collecting video games and selling/trading video games for 30 years now. Now my hobby and job are about to be no more.
@HobbitGamer When you you start playing Stadia on Google Cardboard? Maybe you can read your strategy guides on a Sony Reader.
I do notice a lack of defending the Jimmy Buffet purchase though. See, the intervention helped!
@BacklogBlues Yeah, there absolutely needs to be real legislation on property rights of digital. Digital on its own isn't a bad thing inherently, but the fact that everything is treated in a way that ignores any sense of property rights, from a US perspective, is almost entirely unconstitutional. It's a country founded mostly around the very ideas of property rights (for better or worse in some cases.) Of course in the modern world corporations really own the government(s), so everything really exists to serve corporate interests first and foremost, and we've become a society (the west in general) where the population exists to serve the needs of business like a sideways Feudalism. I wonder if digital property rights even can become an issue under such a system?
The EU makes noises about being better with regard to consumer interests, but if you read between the lines of what they actually do, it's still the same corporate republic...they're just better at making a show of it.
Like many others and i said in post #14 on this forum nothing will change until some sues the video game and wins and then wins the 10 years of appeals. But i'm not holding my breath. I miss the days when i could sell my beaten games to fund buying my new ones. This has been the way i've done it for over 20 years.
@Cotillion
You buy the original license, you decide to sell your license, the buyer pays you a license transfer fee, you as the seller accept payment to complete your contract that your license has been transferred to the buyer.
If this wasn't the case then couldn't we all be open to legal cases for selling used games, movies and books?
@Cotillion Ironically the industry gives you the answer as they try to lock you out of your own property. They did not sell you the content of the disc when they sold you a disc, they sold you the disc, as you said. You could trade that disc. What they officially gave you was a license to access content, and local storage of said content, in the case of the DVD on a lacquer disc. If you give me that disc, you are giving me your license's physical lock (the disc), and the permanent storage of the content. You could have copied the data on that disc before giving it to me, but by giving me the disc you gave me the legal license to access it.
Now when we talk about digital...what is different, at all, about digital? Not how they present it but how it actually works in relation to property rights? If you buy a digital game you bought a license to access that content. Instead of a physical disc, it comes with credentials for a master authentication server (that part alone should be up for debate....perhaps instead of each company maintaining their own credentials a more open credentialing system should be publically available, etc.) - but in either case, whether you download the content, or I donwload the content - the license to access it was purchased and owned by you. Currently they simply don't offer you any way at all to transfer that license to me. The only difference in this case would be the rights to transfer a license to whomever you wish, the terms of the transaction to be defined by you. You give it to me, you sell it to me, you barter for it in bottle caps, doesn't matter, when you decide to transfer the license to me, there should be nothing preventing you from doing so.
Similarly with how motor vehicles are transferred. They are registered to an individual. The registration is then transferred to the new owner with the appropriate paperwork (and fee, because government.) They don't care how much you sold it for or whether it's a gift from a game of checkers, you're just transferring whom is registered to use it.
The transfer wouldn't even need to delete your copy. But you would then become unauthorized to access it. Same as with a DVD, if you copy the contents before selling it it's illegal (albeit unenforceable) for you to access that content (this is where the industry wants to eat their cake and have it to as currently they'd treat possession of the copy as a violation...but that's getting into the details too much, and ignores the online DRM aspect of software and licensing servers.)
"Used" applies depreciation from prior use, though arguably a BluRay disc has no real depreciation either. The content is simply less in demand than it was. But again this is why it needs to be a legislative level discussion. Does the value of property no longer work by the same rules in the digital age? If not, our economy and legal framework is still entirely based in the old rules, and needs a complete overhaul if those rules no longer apply. This remains the industry itself trying to manage and control the usage of the products they sell. And if they only issue licenses as non-transferrable, can they even legally sell those licenses as property as they currently do? And would consumers pay the current asking prices for it if they understood that?
Ironically XBox/Windows Store purchaes have a "download now" button on many games for Game Pass subscribers, or free Games with Gold games, but then have a "Buy to Own" button next to it. Buy to own....they're directly stating ownership.....curious....
"Used" no longer constitutes diminishing value due to wear as it does for material goods. But then we get back to the same problem. Our entire system is designed around the buying and selling of property. From the founding of the US to present, that was established (Different in the UK and Europe where, at the same time, most countries were feudalism still and peasants effectively had no property and no rights. The UK was experimenting with such ideas (the experiments that spawned the US ideas to begin with.) Since then of course most of EU/Europe adopted the US/UK conceptualized systems.) But if the rights to buy and sell property only apply if the property devalues through use and time, and are centrally managed as to what property you may buy and sell based on it's value....do you actually have any property rights at all? That's why it must be debate at the legal level....the implications are deeper that selling video games. The implications affect the underpinnings of the basis of law and economics in western society and the US especially. Either a ruling would have to treat digital property the same as all other property, or effectively the entire system by which modern society has operated needs to be halted and rewritten from scratch to accomodate the changes.
But going back to your original thoughts, what you definitely do own is the license, if nothing else. Be it on disc, or download, what you buy is a license. And there should be no reason to prevent you from buying, selling, trading, or destroying your license like any other possession, beyond a backward system of serving business above the citizenry. Currently it simply lets companies determine when all licenses are destroyed and access halted. Imagine if you were to buy a coffee maker, and one day Samsung declares that all their coffee makers will stop working today, you should go buy a new one, albeit one that's a combi-cooker because that's what they make now. Actually you can get a coffee maker for less money than a video game..... so that's not even as bad as this.
There's always the argument that if people are reselling who would buy new? But on the other hand, music has been doing this longer than any other digital industry. Even with easy piracy of drm-free downloads, iTunes isn't exactly hurting in sales. Streaming subscriptions keep growing, and buying used physical to rip is still the cheaper way to do it. If they have to hamstring sales by restrictions and access control, they're offering too little value, too little convenience, or both, to begin with. Even with used sales, notice the PSN store and such will discount their own first party games almost half price within the first few months on sales? Selling used, I couldn't compete with that....I'd still be losing money if I bought new, I'd be better off holding onto my license. Interesting how proper pricing fixes the whole used equation? Restricting resale is a method of price fixing and maintaining an obsolete business model, ironically enough, by denying customers their half of the "obsolete" model .
Of course that debate does have to happen, but, there's the other problem, as games ever more become continuous services, the license is worthless without paying for ongoing subscriptions to services. Apparently even digital, revocable rights is just too generous.
That's the fun of the industry though, they want it both ways. When they sell you a disc, they tell you you didn't really buy what's on the disc, you just bought a license to access it. But when you buy digital they tell you you didn't buy anything transferrable because there's no disc. They conveniently forget that they've been telling you for 20 years you're buying licenses.....therefore...you're still buying licenses because that's the same thing you were buying before, as well. Which means you can still sell your licenses. And it's even more secure for them now because they are their own license server, so they knw you're not copying it. (ALL digital content except music is authenticated against a license server. On your Primary Switch it authenticates on initial download but not on execution. On any other Switch it authenticates every time you access it.) Same for PS/XB/Steam/Vudu/Google Movies & TV, etc.
Edit: Conversely we can flip the argument around as well. If they have sold you ownership of nothing to dole as property.....then what exactly did you exchange money for? Can they legally charge at all? Even to go to an event/venue, you purchase a ticket - access to the venue - as property, and you may transfer it. Digital media is the only industry where you can exchange money for absolutely nothing in return except the good faith of the seller to provide you viewership of their product at their discretion, revocable at any time. If the new rules are that if you didn't create it, you don't own it....then can any contract with the studio's employees be valid that the company owns the artwork/code? Or does that under the new rules really belong to the artists, actors etc that actually produced it? Does any company have ownership over the product of it's employees? Or is it a new system of laws that mostly says "all property belongs to corporations unless otherwise stated?" And if so, is that not a feudalism, replacing a lord with a corporation?
And this is why the politicians won't touch the hot potato If you draw attention to these facets it shows what the real thinking of the digital age is.... a return to serfdom.
@Cotillion
Bandai can't get money from a game it made twenty years ago because it lost the license to certain characters like the Mighty Morphin Power Rangers Fighting Edition on SNES I picked up recently. Of course it's a physical cartridge, but let's say for arguments sake the Power Rangers Battle for the Grid was digital only. You don't buy the game now but say in 20 years there's a retro revival of the switch. You hear about this game and want to own the game for yourself. With it being digital only though you can't since although the switchron plays physical carts access to the eshop will more than likely be closed. So what can you do? You could always emulate the game I guess but then tge devs wouldn't get any money.
The whole sticking point to your arguments is that you are buying new even if you buy it secondhand from someone else. If it is second hand it is used (of course there are conditions we give things, sealed, good, poor but it's still considered used. It may be as new or like new but it will never truly be new)
@Cotillion
First off we are having a discussion. Discussions can have opposing viewpoints. No need to get bent out of shape simply because I don't agree with your points (I admit I may be better off to shut up sometimes bit I do want my point to be heard).
Digital simply doesn't exist. It can't be "new". It only exists when trapped in a physical medium. It's on a server somewhere right? That is composed of physical parts, hard drives, disc drives, ICs, a physical she'll etc. Even with old nes and snes games the data, the game and save files, only exist within the cart. The cart ages and wears, tears. But without it you would have nothing. I would even go so far to say my vc games are different from yours because of the data contained therein. My save state, score and other conditions existing within that frozen state are all entirely mine and would be different from yours.
If digital truly has no age then time stamps have no relevance either. A picture taken today is the same age as a photo taken 5 years ago in that case even though the time stamp says otherwise. Digital can only exist in physical mediums and they age. Heck with the way you two talk a game from 20 years ago is still new as a game created today. By y'alls own assertion some data can't be ran using today's computers so that would imply age. Age! If it can age then it should be considered new or used!
No
This is good because more of the money you use goes to the ones that develop the game.
Where if you buy used copy you are give money to the previous owner.
Besides all the fraud that could be made with selling your license is not worth the time
@Slitth
But what if the game is no longer available? If they aren't currently selling it and not making any attempt to do so your only option is to buy from someone who has it.
If it can age then it should be considered new or used!
Afraid not.... I can still buy a 'new' Switch physical game from last year. That may have been sitting on the shelf or elsewhere for months. But it's not used.
While when you move files, even on your own phone or whatever, how it actually works is copying it to the new location & deleting the original. So, however you transferred your digital game to another person, they don't actually get the 'used' version
In the same way you can't play Wii & Wii U games on Switch, unless it's ports, etc, you might not be able to play Switch games on future consoles. Is that clearer?
"By y'alls own assertion some data can't be ran using today's computers so that would imply age."
It
@Slitth
But what if the game is no longer available? If they aren't currently selling it and not making any attempt to do so your only option is to buy from someone who has it.
Then the game is no longer available to sell on the service that handles the User Licence.
Because that what you are really selling. An User Licence.
As the User Licence is bound you your account, you would need a way to unbind the Licence.
While that would be possible it open up a lot of problems.
What if you account was hack and the unbind all your the games?
Can you get them bound to account again?
What if the Licence key is not bound to another account?
No, that would make account hacking much more profitable and therefore more enticing.
Any digital store would be wise not to open up this can of worms.
And there is also the possibility that reselling of User License may cost the developer so much money that they close. And then you cannot get "new" copy of the game any more.
Besides most digital stores have discounts on older games that would be cheaper that a "used" game.
They think that because it does. Do you know what a store like Gamestop does with the money from used game sales? They use it to support their business which includes purchasing new games from publishers to keep their stores stocked. It's a win for everybody.
Here's the thing, I want the money to go to the company that made the product, not the ones who are selling it. It's one of the big reasons why I'm such a supporter of digital downloads since I know that most of that money is going directly to the developers and publishers.
Don't kid yourself. Digital shops are taking a cut of the purchase, then publishers take their cut, and then developers get their cut, depending on their agreement with the publisher — in some cases, developers are given a certain amount up-front with additional payments tied to milestones, such as "Earn a minimum score of 8.5 on Metacritic" or "Sell X number of copies in the first week". If you think buying digitally means the developer gets more money then you're just fooling yourself.
When it comes to physical purchases, once the game box lands on a store shelf, the publisher has already been paid by the store. That's how it works: the shop buys from the publishers and then tries to turn a profit by selling to the public. That's one of the reasons stores like GameStop push pre-sales, because they don't want to eat the loss on unsold product.
@Mountain_Man
Do you think that the store buy it at the same price?
No they get a cut to, same as a digital store.
Sure the physical store might have to pay the publishers and developers cut before the sale.
But there is always a split between the store, publisher and developer.
On pre-owned the games is often sold to the store first and then to the new owner.
Now where in this chain does the publishers and developers get a cut?
So buying unused games supports the ones the create and deliver the games to you.
Pre-owned do not.
@Mountain_Man
Do you think that the store buy it at the same price?
Of course not, but the markup is only a few percent. Stores like GameStop usually have razor thin profit margins on new sales. Used sales is where they make the real money because the markup is much larger.
And, yes, buying used from GameStop does support the industry, as I said, because they use part of the revenue from used sales to buy new product which directly benefits the publisher and developer.
@Mountain_Man
Do you think that the store buy it at the same price?
Of course not, but the markup is only a few percent. Stores like GameStop usually have razor thin profit margins on new sales. Used sales is where they make the real money because the markup is much larger.
And, yes, buying used from GameStop does support the industry, as I said, because they use part of the revenue from used sales to buy new product which directly benefits the publisher and developer.
Gamestop has huge margins on used games they will pay you $17 or $18 for a game then sell it for $55 a 300% markup. I never sell games to brick and mortar stores anymore(Rip Off). I sell them on Ebay for 2 time what they would pay me. Which is a deal for me and the buyer. As i get double the money and the buyer gets it for $36 instead of $55.
It depends on the game. Newer, popular, and rare games will naturally fetch a higher price, but I've always found GameStop to be fair, and it beats the hassle of eBay.
Forums
Topic: Do you think we will ever get the ability to sell digital games to another person?
Posts 61 to 80 of 83
This topic has been archived, no further posts can be added.