Support NeoGAF

[Exterminieren]

With theme parks, people do not complain that they cannot sell their used ticket to someone else. This has also proven a decently sustainable model, with a few failures. But it is easy to see how that used ticket sale would collapse that market completely.

Holy false equivalence, Batman.

A ticket to a theme park does not grant me ownership of the theme park. I cannot visit it at any time I choose, and I cannot operate it based upon my own whims. A ticket is a license to enter another person's property, and it has no inherent worth outside of that.

If I pay for a game, then I own it. It is my property. It is absolutely no business of the original makers of the item what I do with my property, and the arrogance of the publishers who would say otherwise should be rewarded with consumers not buying items from them.

Open Source used economic analysis of used games in a used games topic, while faceless007 used a look-how-inept-others-are-so-you-better-respect-my-rights emotional appeal. We can see which approach wins more support on GAF.

Someone clamouring for their own rights? Outrageous.

 

[Seik]

http://youtu.be/WtNHuqHWefU

Holy shit! :lol

I really need to watch this movie again.

 

[PogiJones]

Yeah, because GAF is mostly made of gamers and mostly care about their rights as customers.

And where do you derive your right to sell a completely-equal-to-new experience after you've finished it, one week later? Do you have the right to sell your ticket to the theme park after you've had your fun and have gone home?

 

[fuzzy.dunlop]

In short, no one knows what will happen, and each side has valid arguments.

The bolded is the only certain truth, but I'll have to side with faceless007 and the pro-used games camp when it comes to the future of gaming. I'd rather not even entertain going down the other road even if it's "just to see how it'll play out."

I don't think I can put into words my disgust at this demeaning display of groveling at the feet of your game developer overlords... No, the problem isn't at this end.

Winner winner chicken dinner

 

[Joni]

The Real Estate Industry.

The real estate industry is dealing in something which is only available in a limited commodity while recent games are often more easily available then used copies. They have to sell 'used' because the market for 'new' is fairly limited, and even then I'd doubt they'll push clients wanting a new, more expensive house to a cheaper, used one because the profit margin is higher for them.

 

[NullPointer]

Ye Gods.

So I guess if a publisher puts a game out we, the gaming consumer, must have demanded it. How else can one explain why they all succeed?

And where do you derive your right to sell a completely-equal-to-new experience after you've finished it, one week later? Do you have the right to sell your ticket to the theme park after you've had your fun and have gone home?

If the totality of that theme park experience is sold to me and brought to life by my own purchased hardware, YES.

 

[Unhandled Exception]

And where do you derive your right to sell a completely-equal-to-new experience after you've finished it, one week later? Do you have the right to sell your ticket to the theme park after you've had your fun and have gone home?

Am I buying a product or an experience when I purchase a fucking video game?

 

[Seik]

And where do you derive your right to sell a completely-equal-to-new experience after you've finished it, one week later? Do you have the right to sell your ticket to the theme park after you've had your fun and have gone home?

First, I keep my games.

Second, for the bolded...it's really, really not a good comparison.

I swear...it almost hurts to see people doing shit comparisons like that. :/

 

[Exterminieren]

And where do you derive your right to sell a completely-equal-to-new experience after you've finished it, one week later? Do you have the right to sell your ticket to the theme park after you've had your fun and have gone home?

A game is content. A ticket is not.

Come on, this isn't fucking difficult.

 

[saelz8]

Do you have the right to sell your ticket to the theme park after you've had your fun and have gone home?

Is this real life?

 

[PogiJones]

Holy false equivalence, Batman.

A ticket to a theme park does not grant me ownership of the theme park. I cannot visit it at any time I choose, and I cannot operate it based upon my own whims. A ticket is a license to enter another person's property, and it has no inherent worth outside of that.

If I pay for a game, then I own it. It is my property. It is absolutely no business of the original makers of the item what I do with my property, and the arrogance of the publishers who would say otherwise should be rewarded with consumers not buying items from them.

Someone clamouring for their own rights? Outrageous.

Take an IP class. You do not own the game. You own the physical medium, but not the game. And the law is fuzzy even then. A game is an experience. As you mentioned, you don't have full ownership when you have only a license to enter someone else's property. A game is someone else's intellectual property, and many user agreements explicitly state that you only possess a license. Courts have upheld these, usually. Hence, you can only install Office on 1 computer. The disc still contains the info, but you lack the right to access it.

 

[Open Source]

http://youtu.be/WtNHuqHWefU

Care to rebut, or do you just like to throw feces?

 

[Open Source]

Take an IP class. You do not own the game. You own the physical medium, but not the game. And the law is fuzzy even then. A game is an experience. As you mentioned, you don't have full ownership when you have only a license to enter someone else's property. A game is someone else's intellectual property, and many user agreements explicitly state that you only possess a license. Courts have upheld these, usually. Hence, you can only install Office on 1 computer. The disc still contains the info, but you lack the right to access it.

Yes, but the 1st sale doctrine allows you to resell it.

Unless, of course, you don't actually own it in the first place, which seems to be the approach that game publishers are moving towards.

 

[NullPointer]

Take an IP class. You do not own the game. You own the physical medium, but not the game. And the law is fuzzy even then. A game is an experience. As you mentioned, you don't have full ownership when you have only a license to enter someone else's property. A game is someone else's intellectual property, and many user agreements explicitly state that you only possess a license. Courts have upheld these, usually. Hence, you can only install Office on 1 computer. The disc still contains the info, but you lack the right to access it.

You own the license, yes, not the game or IP, though you do possess the compiled code and assets on disk. The property that should be transferrable is the license itself.

 

[StreetsAhead]

Take an IP class. You do not own the game. You own the physical medium, but not the game. And the law is fuzzy even then. A game is an experience. As you mentioned, you don't have full ownership when you have only a license to enter someone else's property. A game is someone else's intellectual property, and many user agreements explicitly state that you only possess a license. Courts have upheld these, usually. Hence, you can only install Office on 1 computer. The disc still contains the info, but you lack the right to access it.

A game is a product, like a DVD, BluRay, book, or CD. They provide the user with an experience, but they are not the experience themselves.

 

[DarkFlow]

Care to rebut, or do you just like to throw feces?

Why should I bother? You won't listen to anyone and will continue your seemingly anti consumer crusade. Though one thing, how are those subs working out for any mmo not named Warcraft?

 

[Seik]

Take an IP class. You do not own the game. You own the physical medium, but not the game. And the law is fuzzy even then. A game is an experience. As you mentioned, you don't have full ownership when you have only a license to enter someone else's property. A game is someone else's intellectual property, and many user agreements explicitly state that you only possess a license. Courts have upheld these, usually. Hence, you can only install Office on 1 computer. The disc still contains the info, but you lack the right to access it.

Dude, dude.

We're not talking about fucking Office here. We're talking about games, or licenses if we talk your talk.

Ok, ok, I'll explain it your way. After I'm going to sleep because I fucking need it.

Those licenses we never owned, yeah, yeah right we never owned that shit.

Well, apart the fact that we never owned it, we're still able to play those PS1/2/3 Xbox/360 NES/SNES/N64/GC/Wii licenses and all the older console's licenses today. Why? Because we own and paid for the physical media to be able to play those licenses, and this, whenever we feel like as long as we own the discs and the hardware to run those properly. That you want it or not it's a right we always had since the very beginning of gaming. You say we don't have the right? Good, I'm fucking waiting for the police to come and fucking get everything I have. They might get my ass in as well because man, when they'll see all those post-dated licenses I have home, they'll fucking shoot me at sight because I'd be one of the dangerous ones.

You can't compare a video game you buy at the store to a fucking ride at the theme park, it's not the same thing man, compare it to a physical book, movie, but not a ride at the theme park please for god sake.

And you know what, I paid for those fucking licenses and it fucking feels GOOD to play those old licenses today. I don't want a bland future where everything I buy with the money I'm working my ass off to win will fucking vanish into thin air because of the simple fact that time has passed and I need to give it back to it's respective creator. Fucking BS I say.

I guess GAF is just a bunch of fucking criminals that deserves jail time.

Good night GAF... Holy fucking shit, wow!

 

[Open Source]

The problem is that Open Source's economic analysis is wrong. The reason for the success behind digital markets and license or subscription-based business model isn't because there is less competition from used games, it is because they offer different/better products and because they are more convenient.

Wrong. The non-transferability is a major factor. That is why Steam, XBLA, F2P, mobile, social, etc. have all done very well while models vulnerable to transferability have tanked.

 

[8sanders]

The bottom line for me is there are very few game that are worth buying day 1 for full $60 retail. At that price most games simply aren't worth it. If I wait 1-2 years I can pick up most titles for $20 or less. Eliminating used sales won't make me buy more new retail purchases unless there is a corresponding drop in price.

 

[Mercuryvoid]

Basically, every items, software or hardware, are a product of an intellectual property. A TV is a hardware, but it is a product of someone's intellectual. I bought my TV with my own money, and I can do whatever I want with that TV, without having to resort to some diabolical patent regulation. I can sell my TV to whoever I want. Why should this be any different than used game?

 

[hooijdonk17]

And where do you derive your right to sell a completely-equal-to-new experience after you've finished it, one week later? Do you have the right to sell your ticket to the theme park after you've had your fun and have gone home?

Oh gtfo; by this definition everyone should be banned from selling second hand diamonds.

 

[PogiJones]

If the totality of that theme park experience is sold to me and brought to life by my own purchased hardware, YES.

As the owners of the intellectual property, they can choose to sell it as a limited and conditional license, even on a disc, such as Office. You cannot buy something the owner is unwilling to sell.

Am I buying a product or an experience when I purchase a fucking video game?

See above.

First, I keep my games.

Second, for the bolded...it's really, really not a good comparison.

I swear...it almost hurts to see people doing shit comparisons like that. :/

See above.

A game is content. A ticket is not.

Come on, this isn't fucking difficult.

See above.

Is this real life?

See above.

Yes, but the 1st sale doctrine allows you to resell it.

Unless, of course, you don't actually own it in the first place, which seems to be the approach that game publishers are moving towards.

1st sale doctrine is super fuzzy in this area. I will not pretend it is clear, but the tend seems to be that a license to use software is not subject to the first sale doctrine as we've come to think of it.

 

[Broken Joystick]

Well, this is the disconnect I guess. You admit you only hold this view because of the detrimental effects (you think) are impacting the industry. You are asserting that a fundamental aspect of property rights and consumer rights as it has existed since the beginning of trade should be adjusted and recodified on a per-industry basis, not because it's inherently bad or unethical, but just because you think it's a threat to the industry's health. Which means you are essentially arguing for protectionism for corporations--consumers are free to exercise their consumer rights only up to a certain point, but if that free exercise is perceived to threaten the viability of the industry, then their rights must be limited in order to save the industry.

I don't think I can put into words my disgust at this demeaning display of groveling at the feet of your game developer overlords. Even a die-hard laissez-faire capitalist would not be so subservient, because even a capitalist would accept that sometimes industries die and that's the way the world works. As much as I enjoy games, there is no inherent good in this industry. The ends do not justify the means here; there is nothing that makes the gaming industry inherently worthy of preservation, not to the point that would justify carving out a special exemption for them where used games are somehow magically not OK when they are OK for every other packaged good on the planet. Just because your favored set of content producers couldn't properly adapt does not justify rewriting the rules of what "property ownership" means and fundamentally removing the ability to preserve, inherit, pass on, lend, and share its products.

The industry does not come first; consumers do. I have no sympathy for an industry that cannot properly stumble its way around a viable secondhand market like every other mature industry in the world. Sometimes your old product just isn't good enough, and the way you solve it is by making a better product, not by forcing consumers to adapt to your archaic and myopic business model with your dying breath. If this industry can't find a way to make money off the primary market -- even with DLC and exclusive pre-order content and HD re-releases and map packs and online passes and annualized sequels and "expanding the audience" and AAA advertising and forced multiplayer -- then, if I may be so blunt, fuck it. It doesn't deserve our money in the first place. If an entire industry has its head so far up its ass, is so focused on short-term gains, and has embraced such a catastrophically stupid blockbuster business model in the pursuit of a stagnant market of hardcore 18-34 dudebros that it thinks it has no choice but to take away our first-sale rights as its last chance of maybe, finally, creating a sustainable stream of profits, then it can go to hell. It doesn't need your protection, it needs to be taken out back and beaten until it remembers who its real masters are.

I especially have a hard time having any sympathy because so many of the industry's problems are of its own making. They chose to focus on shaderific HD graphics over long-lasting appeal and gameplay; they chose to focus on linear scripted cinematic B-movie imitations that were only good for one playthrough instead of replayability and open-ended design; they chose to pour so much money and marketing into military porn and fetishized violent shootbang Press A to Awesome titles, exactly the kinds of games that hardcore gamers, the most likely gamers to trade in games quickly were prone to buying and reselling; and perhaps most galling, they chose to give Gamestop loads of exclusive pre-order bonuses while they knew exactly what Gamestop would say to those customers once in the store. They kept making insanely lavish and nonsensical displays of spectacular whizz-bang, despite that being exactly the kind of game most susceptible to trading after one week because there was nothing left to do with it. And now they're discovering that putting so many insanely expensive eggs into one fragile and easily breakable basket is maybe not the most sustainable business model ever.

So forgive me if I find myself not caring one bit when the industry complains that it's just so hard to sell six million copies of Gears of Medal of Battle of Uncharted Angry Dudes VII in the first week and that's why they need to take away used sales for the entire platform. No, the problem isn't at this end.

I'm high fiving you through my phone, please tell me you're getting it.

 

[charlequin]

And where do you derive your right to sell a completely-equal-to-new experience after you've finished it, one week later?

From one of the more basic principles enshrined in the bargain between products and consumers that is copyright law?

I've gotta hand it to you: I've seen some real bad metaphors in GAF copyright topics, but this theme park ticket thing is easily the dumbest.

 

[NullPointer]

Wrong. The non-transferability is a major factor. That is why Steam, XBLA, F2P, mobile, social, etc. have all done very well while models vulnerable to transferability have tanked.

So the model where you can only rent access for an indeterminate amount of time is more profitable than a model where you sell something that can be resold. Color me shocked.

We should stop allowing people to resell anything. Imagine how much it would help our economy.

I also read your use of the word "tanked" to actually mean "profited less". Let me know if this is incorrect.

1st sale doctrine is super fuzzy in this area. I will not pretend it is clear, but the tend seems to be that a license to use software is not subject to the first sale doctrine as we've come to think of it.

It should be, and it will be.

 

[Coxy]

I can buy a chesss set, play as many games of chess as I want and then sell the chess set on, congrats on the terrible analogy though

 

[DarkFlow]

Wrong. The non-transferability is a major factor. That is why Steam, XBLA, F2P, mobile, social, etc. have all done very well while models vulnerable to transferability have tanked.

All the models you listed are all VERY cheap. This is why no one cares about resale because I spent 2 bucks and that's the end of it. A Xbox game on the other hand is a sizable chunk of cash that some people might feel like selling later to recoup some of that and maybe buy another new game. If I bought a $30k car and I was legally stopped from selling it, well I don't think I would be buying many cars, since I'm most likely going to sell that car in the future to buy another car.

So non-transferability is not a major factor in these markets because it's cheap enough for me to not care.

 

[hooijdonk17]

We should stop allowing people to resell anything. Imagine how much it would help our economy.

Yeah, like, if we had no second hand car markets, I'm sure people would actually renew their cars more often. Because, you know, we would all be magically richer and able to afford three cars per household all of a sudden. Right? (EDIT: I know your post was sarcastic, sorry, this was not in direct response to you)

The so called economists in this thread are corporate monkeys with absolutely no understanding of the basic principles of an open market. A closed market never benefits both parties, and if you're defending it we all know where your loyalties lie.

 

[StevePharma]

XBLA was a success specifically for this reason. If you could consume a game that was designed for just a few hours of play and then sell it to someone else, most people would have done so, and sales would have cratered, and dozens of games that people love would not have been made.

Wow.

 

[Dascu]

Wrong. The non-transferability is a major factor. That is why Steam, XBLA, F2P, mobile, social, etc. have all done very well while models vulnerable to transferability have tanked.

The non-transferability here is because consumers don't want to transfer, not because it is impossible to transfer. These models have succeeded because they have given incentive not to transfer due to the on-going online aspects. The most successful console games as well are those with strong multiplayer aspects. Singleplayer games still suffer to sell as well as their multiplayer/online counterparts, even on restricted markets such as Steam and XBLA.

1st sale doctrine is super fuzzy in this area. I will not pretend it is clear, but the tend seems to be that a license to use software is not subject to the first sale doctrine as we've come to think of it.

Some recent court cases move towards acceptance of first-sale on licenses, if these licenses are de facto equal to property (perpetual use, non-recurrent pricing, etc.).

 

[gngf123]

As the owners of the intellectual property, they can choose to sell it as a limited and conditional license, even on a disc, such as Office. You cannot buy something the owner is unwilling to sell.

Depends on where you live. Over here in Europe, by law you are permitted to resell licenses of software even if the IP owner says you cannot.

 

[NullPointer]

And people DO sell their MMO accounts.

And people have found ways of selling digital property and loot from online games.

 

[Wolves Evolve]

Yeah, I was going to say, Microsoft can say what it likes about licenses - the fact remains that the law in Europe and other places makes clear that a physical object is subject to the equivalent of first sale.

 

[The_Lump]

Well, this is the disconnect I guess. You admit you only hold this view because of the detrimental effects (you think) are impacting the industry. You are asserting that a fundamental aspect of property rights and consumer rights as it has existed since the beginning of trade should be adjusted and recodified on a per-industry basis, not because it's inherently bad or unethical, but just because you think it's a threat to the industry's health. Which means you are essentially arguing for protectionism for corporations--consumers are free to exercise their consumer rights only up to a certain point, but if that free exercise is perceived to threaten the viability of the industry, then their rights must be limited in order to save the industry.

I don't think I can put into words my disgust at this demeaning display of groveling at the feet of your game developer overlords. Even a die-hard laissez-faire capitalist would not be so subservient, because even a capitalist would accept that sometimes industries die and that's the way the world works. As much as I enjoy games, there is no inherent good in this industry. The ends do not justify the means here; there is nothing that makes the gaming industry inherently worthy of preservation, not to the point that would justify carving out a special exemption for them where used games are somehow magically not OK when they are OK for every other packaged good on the planet. Just because your favored set of content producers couldn't properly adapt does not justify rewriting the rules of what "property ownership" means and fundamentally removing the ability to preserve, inherit, pass on, lend, and share its products.

The industry does not come first; consumers do. I have no sympathy for an industry that cannot properly stumble its way around a viable secondhand market like every other mature industry in the world. Sometimes your old product just isn't good enough, and the way you solve it is by making a better product, not by forcing consumers to adapt to your archaic and myopic business model with your dying breath. If this industry can't find a way to make money off the primary market -- even with DLC and exclusive pre-order content and HD re-releases and map packs and online passes and annualized sequels and "expanding the audience" and AAA advertising and forced multiplayer -- then, if I may be so blunt, fuck it. It doesn't deserve our money in the first place. If an entire industry has its head so far up its ass, is so focused on short-term gains, and has embraced such a catastrophically stupid blockbuster business model in the pursuit of a stagnant market of hardcore 18-34 dudebros that it thinks it has no choice but to take away our first-sale rights as its last chance of maybe, finally, creating a sustainable stream of profits, then it can go to hell. It doesn't need your protection, it needs to be taken out back and beaten until it remembers who its real masters are.

I especially have a hard time having any sympathy because so many of the industry's problems are of its own making. They chose to focus on shaderific HD graphics over long-lasting appeal and gameplay; they chose to focus on linear scripted cinematic B-movie imitations that were only good for one playthrough instead of replayability and open-ended design; they chose to pour so much money and marketing into military porn and fetishized violent shootbang Press A to Awesome titles, exactly the kinds of games that hardcore gamers, the most likely gamers to trade in games quickly were prone to buying and reselling; and perhaps most galling, they chose to give Gamestop loads of exclusive pre-order bonuses while they knew exactly what Gamestop would say to those customers once in the store. They kept making insanely lavish and nonsensical displays of spectacular whizz-bang, despite that being exactly the kind of game most susceptible to trading after one week because there was nothing left to do with it. And now they're discovering that putting so many insanely expensive eggs into one fragile and easily breakable basket is maybe not the most sustainable business model ever.

So forgive me if I find myself not caring one bit when the industry complains that it's just so hard to sell six million copies of Gears of Medal of Battle of Uncharted Angry Dudes VII in the first week and that's why they need to take away used sales for the entire platform. No, the problem isn't at this end.

Goddamn. Flawless.

Requoted because it's worth it (and because more people need to read it and memorise it)

 

[Unhandled Exception]

As the owners of the intellectual property, they can choose to sell it as a limited and conditional license, even on a disc, such as Office. You cannot buy something the owner is unwilling to sell.

I think you're only familiar with American law. There are plenty of areas in the rest of the world where this is entirely bullshit and would not stand a chance in court.

 

[Jobbs]

Well, this is the disconnect I guess. You admit you only hold this view because of the detrimental effects (you think) are impacting the industry. You are asserting that a fundamental aspect of property rights and consumer rights as it has existed since the beginning of trade should be adjusted and recodified on a per-industry basis, not because it's inherently bad or unethical, but just because you think it's a threat to the industry's health. Which means you are essentially arguing for protectionism for corporations--consumers are free to exercise their consumer rights only up to a certain point, but if that free exercise is perceived to threaten the viability of the industry, then their rights must be limited in order to save the industry.

I don't think I can put into words my disgust at this demeaning display of groveling at the feet of your game developer overlords. Even a die-hard laissez-faire capitalist would not be so subservient, because even a capitalist would accept that sometimes industries die and that's the way the world works. As much as I enjoy games, there is no inherent good in this industry. The ends do not justify the means here; there is nothing that makes the gaming industry inherently worthy of preservation, not to the point that would justify carving out a special exemption for them where used games are somehow magically not OK when they are OK for every other packaged good on the planet. Just because your favored set of content producers couldn't properly adapt does not justify rewriting the rules of what "property ownership" means and fundamentally removing the ability to preserve, inherit, pass on, lend, and share its products.

The industry does not come first; consumers do. I have no sympathy for an industry that cannot properly stumble its way around a viable secondhand market like every other mature industry in the world. Sometimes your old product just isn't good enough, and the way you solve it is by making a better product, not by forcing consumers to adapt to your archaic and myopic business model with your dying breath. If this industry can't find a way to make money off the primary market -- even with DLC and exclusive pre-order content and HD re-releases and map packs and online passes and annualized sequels and "expanding the audience" and AAA advertising and forced multiplayer -- then, if I may be so blunt, fuck it. It doesn't deserve our money in the first place. If an entire industry has its head so far up its ass, is so focused on short-term gains, and has embraced such a catastrophically stupid blockbuster business model in the pursuit of a stagnant market of hardcore 18-34 dudebros that it thinks it has no choice but to take away our first-sale rights as its last chance of maybe, finally, creating a sustainable stream of profits, then it can go to hell. It doesn't need your protection, it needs to be taken out back and beaten until it remembers who its real masters are.

I especially have a hard time having any sympathy because so many of the industry's problems are of its own making. They chose to focus on shaderific HD graphics over long-lasting appeal and gameplay; they chose to focus on linear scripted cinematic B-movie imitations that were only good for one playthrough instead of replayability and open-ended design; they chose to pour so much money and marketing into military porn and fetishized violent shootbang Press A to Awesome titles, exactly the kinds of games that hardcore gamers, the most likely gamers to trade in games quickly were prone to buying and reselling; and perhaps most galling, they chose to give Gamestop loads of exclusive pre-order bonuses while they knew exactly what Gamestop would say to those customers once in the store. They kept making insanely lavish and nonsensical displays of spectacular whizz-bang, despite that being exactly the kind of game most susceptible to trading after one week because there was nothing left to do with it. And now they're discovering that putting so many insanely expensive eggs into one fragile and easily breakable basket is maybe not the most sustainable business model ever.

So forgive me if I find myself not caring one bit when the industry complains that it's just so hard to sell six million copies of Gears of Medal of Battle of Uncharted Angry Dudes VII in the first week and that's why they need to take away used sales for the entire platform. No, the problem isn't at this end.

this legendary post is a discussion ender. we don't need to keep talking, imo.

 

[Open Source]

From one of the more basic principles enshrined in the bargain between products and consumers that is copyright law?

I've gotta hand it to you: I've seen some real bad metaphors in GAF copyright topics, but this theme park ticket thing is easily the dumbest.

I agree that it's not very good because of the dissimilarity in permanent ownership and temporary admission, but it's similar in one important respect - that the value of the game to many customers after they are done experiencing it is zero, and the time it takes them to complete that experience is relatively short.

Let's imagine for a minute that every theme park ticket provides lifetime admission. Now, buying a game and buying that ticket are very similar in that you have access to it as often as you like, in perpetuity.

And let's assume that the theme park does not deteriorate over time - it provides exactly the same opportunities for experiences on day 1000 that it provides on day 1. And let's also assume that the ticket stays intact except for the rare loss and destruction.

Now, what is going to happen when you can sell your lifetime pass to anyone you choose? There will be a secondary market in lifetime passes. People who want a pass have zero reason to buy it from the park and instead will buy it from people who have had all the theme park experiences they want, no longer value the ticket, and wish to sell the pass so that they can spend the money on other experiences. As a result, the park will sell fewer and fewer tickets over time relative to what it would have otherwise, as the supply of used tickets continues to grow.

Eventually, the park will have to implement measures to maintain revenue:

• Charge a ticket transfer free (like online pass or the rumored XB1 fee)
• Increase revenue from concessions (like DLC)
• Make tickets non-transferrable (like XBLA, Steam, etc.)

 

[charlequin]

Wrong. The non-transferability is a major factor. That is why Steam, XBLA, F2P, mobile, social, etc. have all done very well while models vulnerable to transferability have tanked.

You are aware that all of these things combined are a tiny fraction of the industry's revenue, right?

In the boxed game market, moving to non-transferable licenses is going to turn (to give a non-precise example) $10b revenue split over 10 titles into $6b on the top one or two. Good if you're Activision... bad if you're anyone else.

 

[Unknown Soldier]

1st sale doctrine is super fuzzy in this area. I will not pretend it is clear, but the tend seems to be that a license to use software is not subject to the first sale doctrine as we've come to think of it.

In Europe, first-sale doctrine has been expanded to software and you do have the legal right to resell it.

In America, I don't think anybody has tried to challenge it in court yet. They could if they wanted, though I wouldn't do it now while the Supreme Court has a Republican majority.

 

[MrBud360]

PC gamers that use Steam agree with this guy. But to stop that, maybe MS and Sony could sell digital games with DRM cheaper than retail.

 

[NullPointer]

I agree that it's not very good because of the dissimilarity in permanent ownership and temporary admission, but it's similar in one important respect - that the value of the game to many customers after they are done experiencing it is zero, and the time it takes them to complete that experience is relatively short.

Sounds like my Bluray and DVD movies. I can buy one, bring it home, watch it, and then resell it a few hours after I bought it. Or let a friend borrow it, or give it to them.

 

[hooijdonk17]

I agree that it's not very good because of the dissimilarity in permanent ownership and temporary admission, but it's similar in one important respect - that the value of the game to many customers after they are done experiencing it is zero, and the time it takes them to complete that experience is relatively short.

Let's imagine for a minute that every theme park ticket provides lifetime admission. Now, buying a game and buying that ticket are very similar in that you have access to it as often as you like, in perpetuity.

And let's assume that the theme park does not deteriorate over time - it provides exactly the same opportunities for experiences on day 1000 that it provides on day 1. And let's also assume that the ticket stays intact except for the rare loss and destruction.

Now, what is going to happen when you can sell your lifetime pass to anyone you choose? There will be a secondary market in lifetime passes. People who want a pass have zero reason to buy it from the park and instead will buy it from people who have had all the theme park experiences they want, no longer value the ticket, and wish to sell the pass so that they can spend the money on other experiences. As a result, the park will sell fewer and fewer tickets over time relative to what it would have otherwise, as the supply of used tickets continues to grow.

Eventually, the park will have to implement measures to maintain revenue:

• Charge a ticket transfer free (like online pass or the rumored XB1 fee)
• Increase revenue from concessions (like DLC)
• Make tickets non-transferrable (like XBLA, Steam, etc.)

And that's exactly why Theme Parks don't sell perpetual passes.

If the gaming industry wants to move to a model where they charge by the hour, by all means they can go ahead and try it and see if I give a fuck about gaming anymore. (They actually tried this with the MMO bandwagon and it's come crashing down.)

Now, I want you to imagine waking up tomorrow and going to Ford and trying to buy a car to be only given the chance to buy one for perpetuity with no right to resell or a pay per mile model.

That's all.

 

[Open Source]

So non-transferability is not a major factor in these markets because it's cheap enough for me to not care.

Yeah, and I would like us not to continue down that path, which is where used games is taking us. Towards shitty social/mobile/F2P. I'd prefer an alternative where deep, enjoyable single player games can actually have a fighting chance to make money. Because otherwise they don't get made. And they are already not getting made because of this.

 

[McLovin]

Gosh this thread opened my eyes. When I buy an xbone where do I send my xbox 360 games to? Do I send them to Microsoft? Pleese halp! I don't want to be a criminal!

 

[NullPointer]

Now, I want you to imagine waking up tomorrow and going to Ford and trying to buy a car to be only given the chance to buy one for perpetuity with no right to resell or a pay per mile model.

That's all.

That car will only be around as long as Ford decides to keep its registration servers running, and when they do shut them down at some indeterminate point in the future, *poof*, your car will be bricked.

 

[PogiJones]

You own the license, yes, not the game or IP, though you do possess the compiled code and assets on disk. The property that should be transferrable is the license itself.

Problem is, to support an open market you gotta have both consumer rights and seller rights. We as a country strongly believe in the right to contract, with few exceptions. Software has brought on new problems with the first sale doctrine, which was developed centuries ago. The doctrine was not created with software and piracy in mind. Personally I agree that the license should probably be transferable for tools like Office as I see those as similar to physical tools, but for entertainment experiences that you consume and have no need for, I'm more torn as I think that may hurt the market.

From one of the more basic principles enshrined in the bargain between products and consumers that is copyright law?

I've gotta hand it to you: I've seen some real bad metaphors in GAF copyright topics, but this theme park ticket thing is easily the dumbest.

Thanks for the criticism. I liked how you pointed out precisely how licensing software intellectual property for limited use was completely different than licensing physical property for physical use.

Look, I'm not even trying to claim that MS is doing the right thing. Frankly, I don't know. All I can say is that from a legal perspective, it's fuzzy, but it tends to indicate that they have a right to sell a limited license just like a theme park does.

 

[Open Source]

And that's exactly why Theme Parks don't sell perpetual passes.

If the gaming industry wants to move to a model where they charge by the hour, by all means they can go ahead and try it and see if I give a fuck about gaming anymore. (They actually tried this with the MMO bandwagon and it's come crashing down.)

Now, I want you to imagine waking up tomorrow and going to Ford and trying to buy a car to be only given the chance to buy one for perpetuity with no right to resell or a pay per mile model.

That's all.

Subscription MMOS have been largely replaced by F2P, not by some model that allows for used games.

Please stop with the car analogies. They're really awful.

 

[NullPointer]

Please stop with the car analogies. They're really awful.

You wouldn't metaphor a car.

 

[charlequin]

that the value of the game to many customers after they are done experiencing it is zero, and the time it takes them to complete that experience is relatively short

congratulations, you have successfully identified the reason why the aaa industry's problems are its own fault

 

[DarkFlow]

PC gamers that use Steam agree with this guy. But to stop that, maybe MS and Sony could sell digital games with DRM cheaper than retail.

I don't look at steam as DRM myself. I look at it as google drive or sky drive for my games. Once I download it on my computer I no longer need the Internet to play it. Yeah I can't resale them (I can could sell the account if I wanted but that's not really legal) but I pretty much only buy steam sale games so I'm not investing all that much.

I also have a small hard drive, so I install and uninstall the same games over and over as I grow bored of them or feel like playing them again. I'm also really bad about keeping track of discs so having all my games in the cloud is really useful for me.