Why we should be allowed to resell games?

[Somebodyelse]

I've been in this Intro to Business summer course this summer as an 8 week course, and just today, my teacher wanted to hit on stocks a bit and secondary markets. He mentioned how say you buy a 2012 Corvette for $50,000 and then something happens where they become really rare, and it goes up in value and you're able to sell it for $75,000 later on. The comparison isn't so much about things becoming rare or what not, but he talks about how the money obviously doesn't go back to the company, rather the new title owner.

Why can't this be the same with games going forward? More and more often lately, they've been making it harder and harder to resell games, whether to friends or Gamestop, etc. PC games have been the worst ever since the 90s, perhaps before? We already paid our fair share to the company and if we no longer wish to play said game, the latest big issue being Diablo 3 and how many people are displeased with that, the option isn't there for us to just sell it for a lower price to a store/friend. I am sure there is a way they could figure out to track and enable CD keys based on who is the new rightful owner, etc. Like, I personally would just love to sell this SWTOR disc for $20 or what have you, but the option isn't there.

What do you guys think?

You mix some things up...Diablo COULD be easy to sell to someone else if they didn't force you to connect it to you bnet account...Another GOOD way to have a resellable Diablo3 would be to start another Bnet account and ONLY put your D3 there...then you resell the account...

For mmo's it's trickier and not really possible...Because the former owner can always call Blizzard/Bioware/Funcom and such to claim back their account falsely saying they were hacked...

So I agree that offline single player games and even games like COD/BF could be sold again...But for mmo's forget it

[Dazzy]

I look at it this way. Netflix can buy a DVD for movie x for $20 and probably thanks to subscriptions etc etc make a killing return on lending it out hundreds of times. Why cant I sell my videogame? Why aren't movie companies pissed at netflix for stealing their money from new DVD sales.

It's just silly. But long gone are the days of going to target and getting a full game for $20. Companies cant expect the market to keep buying overpriced games at $60 everytime. They'll one day drop their prices. People are fed up with paying $60 for a cookie cutter CoD game. When it happens with more game titles. Shit will change.

That's exactly why I don't buy games until they're in the $19.99 bin at wal-mart, it only takes 4 months with the exception of 3 games I can think of in the last 10 years. Nothing spectacular happens in the first 4 months of a game, most are single player, the mmo's have most of their kinks worked out, it's fantastic.

Games just aren't worth $50 or $60 these days, they last ~10-12 hours, some may say that's worth it, 5-6 bucks for an hour of entertainment is decent. I personally have been gaming for over 30 years (since before 5 1/4 floppy disks existed) and the length of today's games price to length ratio is at least 300% shorter than it ever has been.


I don't think the US will go to the EU model, but they will most likely end up charging a fee for a new code. Gamestop etc. will probably end up paying a $5-$10 fee for each game resold. Which will lower the price they'll give you when selling them games unfortunately.

The same will probably be true for personal sales, you buy a used game for $XX, go to the companies website, pay $10 or so and get it activated.

As for the legal, you're buying the game in most cases, physical discs with a game on them, for standalone games reselling should be just like anything else you resell. You can resell everything in your house right now if you wish, but not games? Agree or not, there's a dangerous precedent going to be set in motion if that continues.

Pretty soon, bluray players, tv's, microwaves, hell, anything with an electronic component will need a retina scan or fingerprint id to turn on. Then good luck selling those.


It's not about video game companies being greedy, it's about america being run by corporations, and it needs to stop.

[Gringgotts]

Give a man a gun, he can rob a bank. Give a man a bank, he can rob the world.

[Zenzoh]

Me? No. If a company charges an extortionate amount then it is more likely people will just pirate it instead of buying it.

Which proves people are scum, and the product needs to be protected, not that its price is unreasonable but that is besides the point.

So does this mean you think it should be illegal for people to sell or lend out their old video games, movies, books etc?

No, because the businesses sell them in this matter. The business has every right to stop selling it like that and attempt to sell it in a one use per customer fashion if they choose and make it impossible to resell. I am saying sell your used game and rejoice, but that there is no logical reason to have you keep that ability. Lend it out, sell them, do as you will. That doesn't mean the company has to be legally forced to accommodate yours wants to cheat them out of money. They can, will and should be able to charge per person and if the price of doing so proves unfair then the market will adjust and prices will fluctuate until the new value is set. It is really that simple.


Assuming the bold part was a typo,

I also never said that they were some faceless evil that deserve no money. I think anyone insisting that one copy only for one person is being completely unrealistic and absurd. We share information all the time, no exceptions.

I pointed out that I have no sympathy for their plight given those whining compose some of the richest suits on the planet.

You did. Also had no reason to say that one copy is unrealistic, plays have been doing it for a loooooooong time, no one claimed they were some kind of absurd model being used in that business.

I'm not sure where I said I had a specific problem with people earning "stupid amounts of money".

Underlined, they earned the money, every ridiculously sized drop of it. Stealing money from the rich does not make it okay, just because they don't need it doesn't mean they didn't earn it.

I am asking you. I know the business model allows for it. This is because they can't stop it. But if they could, would that mean you'd be against people lending a media product to their friends? Yes or no.

Yup, in the same sense I am against sneaking in to screenings and sneaking in to watch sports games. It seems silly but what you suggest is not fair to the business. They did not receive the money for the sale, it didn't "cost" them anything but that still means profit was lost for the experience they provided.

Or rather, would you be against anyone consuming any media product without paying the content providers for it. That for anyone to enjoy any content offered at a premium price they must first pay for it. Agree always with no exceptions?

Why not? If I live alone and I watch Iron Man 7, I don't want to be charge as much as the party of 7 people watching the same thing. They have no way of enforcing such an idea anyway so it doesn't matter. They do however have a system to easily apply it to games and I do no shed one drop of sweat at the idea of charging them. If it was simple and non intrusive it wouldn't even matter.

You understand that people who resell their games get an extra piece of cash to possibly put into a new game and those who buy preowned games might be inclined to spend money on the sequel, or check out previous games in the franchise if they like. This is also true of those who are lent video games. Advertisement is always good and the preowned game market provides that.

That $15 you get for a used game and put back into the game market is a $60 lost in a game that could have been sold at full price to the company selling it as Gamestop or whoever it is will now have one more game to sell before a used copy has to be ordered.

"Might be inclined" sound reasonable? Steam sells games on sales at the price of or cheaper than used games. That model seems to get people interested in series just fine. Previous games are almost assuredly new when talking about used game sales so it wouldn't help the developer at all anyway. I can tell you I've bought new games from recommendations (no used game component required), low prices (no used game component required) and playing it (trials/demos fill this void too). They do not add money to the system as all of the benefits are outweighed by the huge hit used game sales are on new sales.

None.

Exactly, so fine we can go with this system if you want but say goodbye to steam sales and $60 price tags, stuff is going to sky rocket.

[Deleted]

Which proves people are scum, and the product needs to be protected, not that its price is unreasonable but that is besides the point.

They're welcome to protect it then. Never said otherwise.

No, because the businesses sell them in this matter. The business has every right to stop selling it like that and attempt to sell it in a one use per customer fashion if they choose and make it impossible to resell. I am saying sell your used game and rejoice, but that there is no logical reason to have you keep that ability. Lend it out, sell them, do as you will. That doesn't mean the company has to be legally forced to accommodate yours wants to cheat them out of money.

Never a part of my point.

The company can put DRM measures on their product if they like. Or they may not. I was asking you if you thought it should be illegal to lend or sell any media product you own.

You did. Also had no reason to say that one copy is unrealistic, plays have been doing it for a loooooooong time, no one claimed they were some kind of absurd model being used in that business.

Me saying that I have no sympathy for some of the richest companies on the planet is not the same as saying they do not deserve any profit. At any rate: Do you think a father buying a DVD should buy a kids DVD three times to account for the fact that him and his two sons will be watching it?

Underlined, they earned the money, every ridiculously sized drop of it. Stealing money from the rich does not make it okay, just because they don't need it doesn't mean they didn't earn it.

Does being exposed to any would-be premium content in any fashion constitute stealing money from the rich?

Yup, in the same sense I am against sneaking in to screenings and sneaking in to watch sports games. It seems silly but what you suggest is not fair to the business. They did not receive the money for the sale, it didn't "cost" them anything but that still means profit was lost for the experience they provided.

Wow. I can't top that.

You're the first guy I've ever met that thinks that lending media content should be against the law. The kind of corporate totalitarian state you'd create or allow if you could is just frightening.

That $15 you get for a used game and put back into the game market is a $60 lost in a game that could have been sold at full price to the company selling it as Gamestop or whoever it is will now have one more game to sell before a used copy has to be ordered.

But of course, people will continue to buy preowned if they consider the retail price too expensive. The answer to the game market in that is tough shit. Perhaps if they sold their game for $30 the guy buying preowned might have bought it when it came out and they've have made money.

You seem to think that the $60 opening price must be adhered to and everyone should pay it. Perhaps they should take onboard the fact that people prefer cheaper services such as steam and cheaper alternatives such as preowned as a sign that their opening prices are way too high. If they don't feel that they need to do that then obviously the lost sales through their opening price doesn't harm them too much.

"Might be inclined" sound reasonable? Steam sells games on sales at the price of or cheaper than used games. That model seems to get people interested in series just fine.

Yes, Steam does. Getting preowned games on the cheap also does.

Previous games are almost assuredly new when talking about used game sales so it wouldn't help the developer at all anyway. I can tell you I've bought new games from recommendations (no used game component required), low prices (no used game component required) and playing it (trials/demos fill this void too).

What demos? MMOs have trials, but the only way to get trials of single-player games these days is to play it at someone else's house, pirate it, or something else. Demos are barely used anymore and I can tell you I will not buy any product blindly.

[Zenzoh]

They're welcome to protect it then. Never said otherwise.

The company can put DRM measures on their product if they like. Or they may not. I was asking you if you thought it should be illegal to lend or sell any media product you own.

I did answer that;
"No, because the businesses sell them in this matter. The business has every right to stop selling it like that and attempt to sell it in a one use per customer fashion if they choose and make it impossible to resell. I am saying sell your used game and rejoice, but that there is no logical reason to have you keep that ability. Lend it out, sell them, do as you will. That doesn't mean the company has to be legally forced to accommodate yours wants to cheat them out of money."
If they sell it as one use per person, then it should be illegal to share it. If I sell an OS for one use, it is for one use. It is illegal to do otherwise. I can sell it for 3 uses, I can sell it for infinite. They should not be forced to only allow infinite uses of it. I know OS isn't the most comparable thing but the point is made, they are not forced to sell it as infinite uses. If they sell a game as they do currently then it is perfectly legal, if they place the limit it is then illegal.

Me saying that I have no sympathy for some of the richest companies on the planet is not the same as saying they do not deserve any profit. At any rate: Do you think a father buying a DVD should buy a kids DVD three times to account for the fact that him and his two sons will be watching it?

Saying they don't deserve as much. Their "plight" is the %20 or however many sales they lose to the used game market.

Does being exposed to any would-be premium content in any fashion constitute stealing money from the rich?

Does being flashed constitute as rape? Of course it isn't and or course it isn't "stealing". The terminology gets rough but you did not pay them for the service of making the game, you paid another consumer for the service of giving you a game that works just as well as it did when he bought it. Whether or not you can see this is different from something like a chair is completely your terms. Not everything should be sold in the same way, not everything should be resell-able. Sell me the experience of watching The Avengers in the movie theatre while keeping it in your memory. Oh wait you can't. But for some reason you can do that with games.

You're the first guy I've ever met that thinks that lending media content should be against the law. The kind of corporate totalitarian state you'd create or allow if you could is just frightening.

That is easy to paint me however you want when you leave out information. I think if they change the way they sale media then the way you pay for them should change. Toss in totalitarian and suddenly you are a visionary.
Totalitarianism (or totalitarian rule) is a political system where the state recognizes no limits to its authority
Yes this means private companies charging you for an optional experience in any form of media is not even close to totalitarianism. In fact having the government force these kinds of rules on businesses that have no connection to the government is closer to the complete control you keep mentioning.

But of course, people will continue to buy preowned if they consider the retail price too expensive. The answer to the game market in that is tough shit. Perhaps if they sold their game for $30 the guy buying preowned might have bought it when it came out and they've have made money.

They will buy the game at the price they are willing to pay and is the best deal. If there was no used option then it would simply be buying a new game at reduced cost when it reached what they were willing to pay. If I think battlefield was worth $100 I'd buy it day one for full price, if you thought it was worth $30, you would wait until you was that low or a sale made it that low. Charging less with the current system will not solve everything (I can't think of anything it would solve but that is not the point).

You seem to think that the $60 opening price must be adhered to and everyone should pay it. Perhaps they should take onboard the fact that people prefer cheaper services such as steam and cheaper alternatives such as preowned as a sign that their opening prices are way too high. If they don't feel that they need to do that then obviously the lost sales through their opening price doesn't harm them too much.

I never did, I said $60 once, didn't even imply it should be adhered to. People don't buy used games because they are cheap, they buy them because they are cheaper. It doesn't matter how low they set the price, used games will always be cheaper, taking sales away from the company. They could charge $1 or $100 the games would still be sold used. Not buying the game proves the game isn't worth the price it is sold at, buying it used proves you wanted a better deal. There is nothing evil about that it just doesn't show what you think it shows.

Yes, Steam does. Getting preowned games on the cheap also does.

Steam gives money to the developers, used games don't.

What demos? MMOs have trials, but the only way to get trials of single-player games these days is to play it at someone else's house, pirate it, or something else. Demos are barely used anymore and I can tell you I will not buy any product blindly.

I honestly don't even know what to say. So some games don't have demos therefore any method of trying them is justified? I would believe you if every time someone pirated a game and enjoyed it they actually paid but that doesn't happen. I may google a review of a game if it doesn't have a demo, watch some gameplay maybe to see if it is worth it. I wouldn't go to the trouble of wasting my friends time if he had the game, most likely he would be able to tell me if he enjoyed it or would recommend it. Regardless they should includes demos/trials, if companies noticed a drop in sales in game without demos compared to one where people can try them, then demos would be added. Most of the game I have wanted to try a demo is because no one I know has it/has a recommendation on it. I've never bought a used game to try it, which is the topic at hand.

Anyway I'm done. It is clear I am not making any impact since anything I say that is in favour of fair business practice is part of my evil totalitarianism slave plan. No point in giving you points over and over again when you are not even attempting to see my reasoning, simply screaming everything is wrong. I can admit that I see why you would worry if the business practice got out of hand, but in capitalism if it did, you just don't give them money and it solves itself. I can see why you want to protect your "freedom" but really charging a family $6 for a movie rental vs 3 charges of $2 is something I see no fault with and charging 100 gamers the cost of 1 game is simply not fair to the business.
If I could guarantee every game drops in price 33% would you be willing to agree to no used game sales? If it is phased out prices will drop and I honestly see no problem with phasing out used game sales. Like I said I'm done here, have a nice day

[Letmesleep]

It isn't a gray area to me. People can lend out their content if they like.

And I agree to a point. See my example of where I draw the line a few quotes down. Ultimately in this case, as I said earlier, even if a game company was a single individual, I would respect that individual's right to do whatever they can to make sure that everyone using their product has paid. Right now, the system allows for people to buy and sell used games, and that's fine. I take no issue with the companies trying to bring in more revenue off the products they have made. The right to sell your used property is not a moral right, it's just how business currently works. If you do want to claim it's a moral right, then I'm going to claim it's a moral right for people to be paid for their work. As I said, I think it's more important that people get paid and their jobs are kept in tact over your ability to sell a used game back to Gamestop for $6.

If companies want to impose obnoxious one use only restraints on their content, they're welcome to. They should expect fully that people will break through it out of spite and contempt for their practice and upload it to Piratebay.

I think you just lost any moral high ground you were attempting to stand on.

So does that mean you are, like I said against people's rights to lend content out to friends and family or have someone over to watch a DVD at home?

No I'm not. There are moral lines though that I draw. My cousin's parents have Netflix and I think it's perfectly fine for them to show movies to anyone and everyone that comes over. The service is meant to be shared in such a fashion. However, when she attempts to use her parent's service over at my house with her fiance (my roomate) I take issue with that. Purchasing something one time does not give anyone related by blood to use the service whenever and wherever they want. She didn't even pay for the service in the first place, and now she's using it outside her parent's home. I draw a line there.

How totalitarian are you willing to get on this?

Me? A totalitarian? Ha. You don't know me very well.

I labelled his attitude a "corporate slave". That is not an insult.

I'll concede that you did not directly call him a corporate slave, however you insinuated that he was insane for his beliefs. You seem to like tossing out labels on people. That's kind of a bad way to argue something.

I didn't do that. I pointed out that I have no sympathy for their plight given those whining compose some of the richest suits on the planet.

Again, how much someone has does not entitle you to determine how much they should continue to get. Working hard should entitle you to its benefits. You can't ever say "well I deem this person to have enough, so my actions are justified". Morality doesn't work that way.

[Deleted]

If they sell it as one use per person, then it should be illegal to share it. If I sell an OS for one use, it is for one use. It is illegal to do otherwise. I can sell it for 3 uses, I can sell it for infinite.

What constitutes being designed for "one use"? A deliberate design that makes it expire after a single installation or just the company insisting that it only be used once by the person who bought it?

They should not be forced to only allow infinite uses of it. I know OS isn't the most comparable thing but the point is made, they are not forced to sell it as infinite uses. If they sell a game as they do currently then it is perfectly legal, if they place the limit it is then illegal.

No, it just means that they've designed it to expire after a set amount of uses. Doesn't mean you're not allowed to lend it to someone.

Saying they don't deserve as much. Their "plight" is the %20 or however many sales they lose to the used game market.

Do you think a father buying a DVD should buy a kids DVD three times to account for the fact that him and his two sons will be watching it?

Does being flashed constitute as rape? Of course it isn't and or course it isn't "stealing". The terminology gets rough but you did not pay them for the service of making the game, you paid another consumer for the service of giving you a game that works just as well as it did when he bought it. Whether or not you can see this is different from something like a chair is completely your terms. Not everything should be sold in the same way, not everything should be resell-able. Sell me the experience of watching The Avengers in the movie theatre while keeping it in your memory. Oh wait you can't. But for some reason you can do that with games.

You can recreate the experience if a movie theatre if you have the space and equipment and yes you can sell that on if you like. You can also sell on or lend movies anyway, so not sure what your point is. The comparison of a video game to a movie theatre is not there.

That is easy to paint me however you want when you leave out information. I think if they change the way they sale media then the way you pay for them should change. Toss in totalitarian and suddenly you are a visionary.

You think being accused of being totalitarian actually makes you a visionary?

How do you think the way they sell media should change, out of interest? Presumably you think it should change to prevent anyone from lending or selling their copies. How would you do that?

Totalitarianism (or totalitarian rule) is a political system where the state recognizes no limits to its authority

That's why I used the word corporate before it.

Yes this means private companies charging you for an optional experience in any form of media is not even close to totalitarianism. In fact having the government force these kinds of rules on businesses that have no connection to the government is closer to the complete control you keep mentioning.

You would, if you could (and you confirmed this) prevent people from lending their media products to friends. That can only be accomplished by infringing on people's personal liberty.

They will buy the game at the price they are willing to pay and is the best deal. If there was no used option then it would simply be buying a new game at reduced cost when it reached what they were willing to pay. If I think battlefield was worth $100 I'd buy it day one for full price, if you thought it was worth $30, you would wait until you was that low or a sale made it that low. Charging less with the current system will not solve everything (I can't think of anything it would solve but that is not the point).

It would mean more people buy immediately and prevent many from pirating or buying preowned.

I never did, I said $60 once, didn't even imply it should be adhered to. People don't buy used games because they are cheap, they buy them because they are cheaper. It doesn't matter how low they set the price, used games will always be cheaper, taking sales away from the company. They could charge $1 or $100 the games would still be sold used. Not buying the game proves the game isn't worth the price it is sold at, buying it used proves you wanted a better deal. There is nothing evil about that it just doesn't show what you think it shows.

Or they charge at prices the consumer is willing to pay. If games came out cheaper then many would buy them brand new rather than preowned.

Steam gives money to the developers, used games don't.

So? Again, people share stuff. It is unrealistic to expect people not to share stuff with their friends.

I honestly don't even know what to say. So some games don't have demos therefore any method of trying them is justified?

Some games don't have demoes or any way to play them without buying them first and the idea of buy before you try is becoming more and more archaic.

I would believe you if every time someone pirated a game and enjoyed it they actually paid but that doesn't happen.

I didn't say they did. I just said that it is a reason why some pirate games.

I may google a review of a game if it doesn't have a demo, watch some gameplay maybe to see if it is worth it. I wouldn't go to the trouble of wasting my friends time if he had the game, most likely he would be able to tell me if he enjoyed it or would recommend it. Regardless they should includes demos/trials, if companies noticed a drop in sales in game without demos compared to one where people can try them, then demos would be added. Most of the game I have wanted to try a demo is because no one I know has it/has a recommendation on it. I've never bought a used game to try it, which is the topic at hand.

No. People don't tend to buy used games to try it but they can get into a series from buying used games.

Anyway I'm done. It is clear I am not making any impact since anything I say that is in favour of fair business practice is part of my evil totalitarianism slave plan.

I'm not making any limits on what businesses can do at all. They can charge what they want, can not produce demoes for their games and have DRM bullshit if they like. People will act and share accordingly.

I can see why you want to protect your "freedom" but really charging a family $6 for a movie rental vs 3 charges of $2 is something I see no fault with and charging 100 gamers the cost of 1 game is simply not fair to the business.
If I could guarantee every game drops in price 33% would you be willing to agree to no used game sales?

No.

It is a matter of personal liberty. The game is yours, you have the right to fucking resell. By your logic ebay should be shut-down.

---------- Post added 2012-07-08 at 07:20 PM ----------

And I agree to a point. See my example of where I draw the line a few quotes down. Ultimately in this case, as I said earlier, even if a game company was a single individual, I would respect that individual's right to do whatever they can to make sure that everyone using their product has paid. Right now, the system allows for people to buy and sell used games, and that's fine. I take no issue with the companies trying to bring in more revenue off the products they have made. The right to sell your used property is not a moral right, it's just how business currently works. If you do want to claim it's a moral right, then I'm going to claim it's a moral right for people to be paid for their work. As I said, I think it's more important that people get paid and their jobs are kept in tact over your ability to sell a used game back to Gamestop for $6.

Well, that's fine. You can take that moral pregorative all you like.

No I'm not. There are moral lines though that I draw. My cousin's parents have Netflix and I think it's perfectly fine for them to show movies to anyone and everyone that comes over. The service is meant to be shared in such a fashion. However, when she attempts to use her parent's service over at my house with her fiance (my roomate) I take issue with that. Purchasing something one time does not give anyone related by blood to use the service whenever and wherever they want. She didn't even pay for the service in the first place, and now she's using it outside her parent's home. I draw a line there.

That depends on the family. Some people will let any friend or family use their services.

Wouldn't bother me.

You said nothing about an attitude and straight up called him a corporate slave. You seem to like tossing out labels on people. That's kind of a bad way to argue something.

I still think he is a corporate slave. He wishes to annul people's personal liberty to appease corporations.

[Deleted]

If i buy something i consider it is now my property. I can do whatever i want with my property..

[Zenzoh]

What constitutes being designed for "one use"? A deliberate design that makes it expire after a single installation or just the company insisting that it only be used once by the person who bought it?
No, it just means that they've designed it to expire after a set amount of uses. Doesn't mean you're not allowed to lend it to someone.

*Sigh*, it doesn't matter, they sell you one use, you can pass around a useless piece of plastic no one is stopping you.

Do you think a father buying a DVD should buy a kids DVD three times to account for the fact that him and his two sons will be watching it?

I think if they planned to enforce it they would stop selling them as DVDs. I would say he should be charged for 3 views of it or whatever the system is. They do it in theatres why is it unthinkable to have a similar system at home.

You can recreate the experience if a movie theatre if you have the space and equipment and yes you can sell that on if you like. You can also sell on or lend movies anyway, so not sure what your point is. The comparison of a video game to a movie theatre is not there.

You have to pay the company that makes the movie a portion of profits for doing so. Keeping all profits of displaying a DVD and selling attendance is illegal. Not sure where you got the idea otherwise. It isn't enforced because nobody has done it on a large enough scale to make it worthwhile, doesn't mean it isn't illegal though.

You think being accused of being totalitarian actually makes you a visionary?

No I was making a mockery of you. You claim I am a totalitarian using an improper definition and seem to think that makes you seem as some form of visionary for calling me out (incorrectly) as one. Choice of words could have been better but whatever.

How do you think the way they sell media should change, out of interest? Presumably you think it should change to prevent anyone from lending or selling their copies. How would you do that?

Same way they do it in games in a one use code. I have no idea how to charge multiple members of a household but I don't need to know because I am not the one who would profit from making such a discovery.

That's why I used the word corporate before it.

Forgive me then, you used in without it in the first post you use it in. /care

You would, if you could (and you confirmed this) prevent people from lending their media products to friends. That can only be accomplished by infringing on people's personal liberty.

I would not force them to stop redistributing existing copies in any way. Simply make a one time use (or however many want) licence for the software. No one is kicking down doors or taking liberties. You just wouldn't be able to sell used games (just like it has been on the PC market for many years).

It would mean more people buy immediately and prevent many from pirating or buying preowned.

If every game was cheap it wouldn't. Some people would just wait and buy and even cheaper used game anyway

Or they charge at prices the consumer is willing to pay. If games came out cheaper then many would buy them brand new rather than preowned.

They do sell them at prices they are willing to pay. AAA sell for $60 or more every time. I section of the market wants it cheaper, unless they start "infringing on your liberty" there is no way they could know who is willing to pay what. Which I should mention is a terrible system charging people multiple price for a game at the same time. I have no problem with a slow decline in price, and when the product reached your desired price, you can buy it happy. Some people would buy AAA at 60, some at 50, some at 40, some at 15 and some at 100. There is no obvious place to start at so slowly decreasing in price seams good enough. Having two versions that do so is not.
100 new vs 80 used
60 new vs 50 used
30 new vs 25 used
The problem will exist just with a smaller number gap, companies will sill lose sales to used games.

So? Again, people share stuff. It is unrealistic to expect people not to share stuff with their friends.

You don't share movie tickets.

Some games don't have demoes or any way to play them without buying them first and the idea of buy before you try is becoming more and more archaic.

It is bad, but that has nothing to do with used game sales.

No. People don't tend to buy used games to try it but they can get into a series from buying used games.

There isn't something magical about a used game that hooks you into a series, it is a cheap game that makes you get it. This happens without used games and just because it happens with them aswell doesn't mean it is worth the lose caused by it.

I'm not making any limits on what businesses can do at all. They can charge what they want, can not produce demoes for their games and have DRM bullshit if they like. People will act and share accordingly.

You are. They HAVE TO allow reselling, that is what the point is. If you cannot share (one used per person), then you will not share, so you are saying piracy. If you can share(infinite uses), you will share (lost revenue). I pass games between friends so I don't have to buy them, not because I want to help the industry. It is greed the make me do it, nothing more. I played through and enjoyed AC2 to the fullest extent, finished everything and didn't spend a dime. They earned the money for my experience but I avoided it with this flawed system.
The system is so flawed there is corporations founded on resale of games for a large portion of their profit (gamestop as an example) by insisting on used game sales. If the world was perfect used games could work, but it will never be and this is a significantly better solution imo as all prices are fair and appropriate. If the are not it is enjoyment that I can get somewhere else from a better company.

It is a matter of personal liberty. The game is yours, you have the right to fucking resell. By your logic ebay should be shut-down.

Ebay really? I don't see the connection. The stuff is used, so you buy used stuff. When a game is used you buy the exact same code as the first purchase. The best argument for used game sales is disks can scratch and that is more of a limitation in consoles that would be solved with licences allowing you to download the game you purchased from their server. Games are not comparable to something physical as you are paying for an experience. You may sell the packaging, the limited edition materials, etc but the game is the experience. You cannot sell the feeling of watching titanic, you cannot sell the taste of food (all right maybe with some kind of delicious sauce but realistically), you cannot sell that in any other product. They currently have it on the market in this way because it was the best way at the time. A company would love to charge per person but that was unrealistic so they sold copies of books for many to read.

There is absolutely nothing malicious about selling per person for certain things. It is not personal liberty, it is not anything of that nature. Calm down with the f bombs, no one is impressed that you can swear. The game is not yours, the IP is owned by the developers, you merely own a copy of it as it should stay. You own a copy, the copy is on a disc as a means of getting it to you, but all you own is one singular copy. You can move that thing around all you want but while you may own the copy, you didn't pay for a disc and packaging, you paid to play and experience the game. It has nothing to do with any made up rights to resell things. You can demand money back if the software doesn't work or even give it a shot at demanding it back if you thought it was terrible, but used game sales will never fix that.

[Deleted]

*Sigh*, it doesn't matter, they sell you one use, you can pass around a useless piece of plastic no one is stopping you.

It does matter. Some games are designed to only work an amount of times until it is no longer functional. Some are not.

Which ones are designed just for one use?

I think if they planned to enforce it they would stop selling them as DVDs. I would say he should be charged for 3 views of it or whatever the system is. They do it in theatres why is it unthinkable to have a similar system at home.

Okay. So how would you go about enforcing this? How would you ensure that someone who buys a DVD only watches it for themselves?

You have to pay the company that makes the movie a portion of profits for doing so. Keeping all profits of displaying a DVD and selling attendance is illegal.

I meant for yourself. I did not mean setting up a cinema. I meant you could recreate a cinema experience for yourself if you had space and money and buy DVDs to fund that if you like.

No I was making a mockery of you. You claim I am a totalitarian using an improper definition and seem to think that makes you seem as some form of visionary for calling me out (incorrectly) as one. Choice of words could have been better but whatever.

No, it just means what it means. I means I called you a corporate totalitarian. I didn't mention "visionary". Those are your words.

Same way they do it in games in a one use code. I have no idea how to charge multiple members of a household but I don't need to know because I am not the one who would profit from making such a discovery.

So you think DVDs should only be able to be watched once or a few times? A book only readable once? A music album only listenable once or several times?

I would not force them to stop redistributing existing copies in any way. Simply make a one time use (or however many want) licence for the software. No one is kicking down doors or taking liberties. You just wouldn't be able to sell used games (just like it has been on the PC market for many years).

I'm not talking about used games. You are on record opposing people lending their video games, movies and other media content to friends. To enforce that would require an absurd amount of legislation and interference into people's private lives.

If every game was cheap it wouldn't. Some people would just wait and buy and even cheaper used game anyway

Yes, they would - but I suspect more would be willing to buy at release.

They do sell them at prices they are willing to pay. AAA sell for $60 or more every time. I section of the market wants it cheaper, unless they start "infringing on your liberty" there is no way they could know who is willing to pay what. Which I should mention is a terrible system charging people multiple price for a game at the same time. I have no problem with a slow decline in price, and when the product reached your desired price, you can buy it happy. Some people would buy AAA at 60, some at 50, some at 40, some at 15 and some at 100. There is no obvious place to start at so slowly decreasing in price seams good enough. Having two versions that do so is not.

Uh, okay.

Point is lower prices mean more people will be willing to buy it than are now.

You don't share movie tickets.

No, you don't. You don't because that is a different system entirely. You are paying to watch an event. You can't just pirate that. What is your point? Going to a cinema is not comparable to buying the DVD. That's like claiming that watching a live concert was as if you were there.

There isn't something magical about a used game that hooks you into a series, it is a cheap game that makes you get it. This happens without used games and just because it happens with them aswell doesn't mean it is worth the lose caused by it.

No, there isn't. Point is that used games are cheaper and generate advertisement for video games towards people who might otherwise not buy it (this is also true to an extent of piracy). There's no reason to just assume every sold pre-owned game is a lost sale.

You are. They HAVE TO allow reselling, that is what the point is.

No, I'm saying they ought not have any say in it. They can try and prevent it through DRM and that's up to them.

If you cannot share (one used per person), then you will not share, so you are saying piracy. If you can share(infinite uses), you will share (lost revenue).

DRM can be and is broken, by the way.

Ebay really? I don't see the connection. The stuff is used, so you buy used stuff. When a game is used you buy the exact same code as the first purchase. The best argument for used game sales is disks can scratch and that is more of a limitation in consoles that would be solved with licences allowing you to download the game you purchased from their server. Games are not comparable to something physical as you are paying for an experience. You may sell the packaging, the limited edition materials, etc but the game is the experience. You cannot sell the feeling of watching titanic, you cannot sell the taste of food (all right maybe with some kind of delicious sauce but realistically), you cannot sell that in any other product. They currently have it on the market in this way because it was the best way at the time. A company would love to charge per person but that was unrealistic so they sold copies of books for many to read.

Okay. You're paying for an experience. So what? Doesn't change my stance.

There is absolutely nothing malicious about selling per person for certain things. It is not personal liberty, it is not anything of that nature. Calm down with the f bombs, no one is impressed that you can swear.

I'm not sure I said anywhere that anyone was. You really look too deep into what people say. I simply view it as a personal right to what you like with your physical property.

The game is not yours, the IP is owned by the developers, you merely own a copy of it as it should stay. You own a copy, the copy is on a disc as a means of getting it to you, but all you own is one singular copy. You can move that thing around all you want but while you may own the copy, you didn't pay for a disc and packaging, you paid to play and experience the game. It has nothing to do with any made up rights to resell things. You can demand money back if the software doesn't work or even give it a shot if you thought it was terrible, but used game sales will never fix that.

Do you think you should be allowed to make a personal copy for yourself?

[lunariongames]

I think selling games back to Gamestop, Walmart, etc. should be an option. However, the only option we really have to get cash back on game sales is to sell it to a friend or relative tbh. Gamestop gives the option to get store credit for game turn-ins, but is only worth it for multiple turn-ins at once for their more money for each extra game deals.