I just think in this area you are screwed, the games you want to play like NS2 and the like will not have the ability to be resold and you'll buy (and preorder) them anyway.
I know I'm screwed. But I also know what's right. I don't expect the US government to address pretty-much anything I care about in my lifetime.
I think you'll find a majority of people will wave their first sale rights for convenience.
The point is they shouldn't have to. It's a flaw in our governance that technology can wipe out a previously existing right de facto.
TychoI traded in games for a long time, there's probably comics somewhere in the archive about it - you can imagine how quickly my cohort and I consume these things. It was sort of like Free Money, and we should have understood from the outset that no such thing exists. You meet one person who creates games for a living, just one, and it becomes very difficult to maintain this virtuous fiction.
If a game's sales are hurt by the used market, so what? Physical goods have the same problem. Are they seriously suggesting that, because I can buy a used Pontiac Sunfire cheap, that this somehow is immoral in the face of buying a brand new one for much more money? Are they suggesting that Pontiac should have some interest in what I do with their product after I'm done with it?
Wow I could not believe what I was reading in that comic and post this morning. I am actually offended with how I, as a used game purchaser, am lumped into a group and demonized. Much of the argument posed against used games sales is that it does not give money back to the developer. The arguer then usually goes on to bring Gamestop into the issue. Seriously, if you are buying used games for a $5-10 discount at Gamestop, when you could be buying the game for 50% off and putting that money directly in the hands of another gamer, you are beyond help.
I'm sorry but throughout the years I have not been able to keep up with the flood of great game releases. I live 2-3 years in the past on console games, and am currently playing the best games of 2008. Yeah I know there is great new stuff out, but I'll get there. Am I really an asshole for not putting $60 new releases as my priority, yet still having a desire to play games? I see myself as a part of the food chain. Kid buys a game for $60 bucks, plays it, and offloads it to me for $20 two years from now. My $20 probably goes towards more games.
Seeing that horrific generalization from the PA guys is pretty scary, since I've been loving their work for almost 10 years now, and almost never disagree with them. I'm not ringing the death bells here, as I'm sure they will be great for years and years to come, but eventually all good things get ruined, and this moment makes me feel that they are beginning to lose touch with their roots.
The PA guys are out of touch on this issue because they have plenty of money and also have very close relationships with game developers. It's a big problem people have is that they put "not being a jerk" as a higher priority than being morally right and wrong.
Let's say you have a friend who is a game developer. 90% of the people who played the game pirated it and it is loading up the used bins at Gamestop. It's really popular, but the person is having financial difficulties. This person is your true friend. Are you going to be a jerk and tell this friend that used sales and piracy are AOK and not morally wrong? You see a person you care about suffering, can you say something like that? Mike + Jerry are just too nice, they can't do it. They will change their stance on an issue before they are jerks to their friends.
Is that admirable? Or is strong moral integrity more admirable? This is the world we live in.
Doesn't mean we don't need it. Just means getting it will be difficult. The government doesn't care, the people with money want us to lose the right, and the public is largely indifferent.
I'm laughing because I agree, but know it's highly improbable we'll get it.
Are you going to be a jerk and tell this friend that used sales and piracy are AOK and not morally wrong?
Can we really lump used sales and piracy together, though? While it's easy to argue that they carry effectively the same outcome from the developer's point of view, one is very legal while the other is not.
Can we really lump used sales and piracy together, though? While it's easy to argue that they carry effectively the same outcome from the developer's point of view, one is very legal while the other is not.
Legality doesn't really matter here. The point is that they are both things the developers believe are hurting them, and are against. If you are friends with someone can you defend something that they believe is hurting their livelihood?
Selling used stuff = Good. Piracy (where you download something for free and use it without paying) = ehhhhh... Bootlegging (where you download it for free and sell it for money) = BAD..
Bootlegging (where you download it for free and sell it for money) = BAD..
Obviously, this is the event that developers ultimately want to prevent.
It's pretty trivial to pirate a game these days. Legally enshrining first sale rights is a good idea, but you have to reconcile that with the ease of piracy. The only thing I can imagine is some kind of convoluted system that involves a transfer of a unique physical token, like a SecurID fob. Buy the fob and connect it in order to play the game. Want to transfer the game? Sell the fob. Free up the data.
Selling used stuff = Good. Piracy (where you download something for free and use it without paying) = ehhhhh...
Thing is, from the publisher's perspective, these two have the same net effect in most cases. Only when there is immediacy of desire to own, or else a general desire to keep and play indefinitely, is there any distinguishing between the two (as then piracy can reduce the effect of demand whereas re-selling can not).
You should also list lending and renting. Both are legal, and both have similarly no tie to the original publisher.
What if Steam had n copies of CounterStrike, and so long as no more than n people wanted to play, it was free (you borrowed a copy from Steam for the duration of your play). If person n+1 wants to play, they either have to buy their own copy, rent from someone else, or wait until one is free. This is OK for movies, why not games?
Obviously, this is the event that developers ultimately want to prevent.
No, they want to prevent first sale as well. If you lag one year behind on Madden games, you can buy them in discount bins for like $3. They have a vested interest in removing ALL secondary market: there is no financial gain for them in allowing one to exist in any form.
The only thing I can imagine is some kind of convoluted system that involves a transfer of a unique physical token, like a SecurID fob. Buy the fob and connect it in order to play the game. Want to transfer the game? Sell the fob. Free up the data.
Server check-in a la Steam. Right click > "transfer game." Steam could implement this trivially.
Server check-in a la Steam. Right click > "transfer game." Steam could implement this trivially.
I would think people might complain about having to be online for a server authentication. A physical key that has to be attached in order for the game to function would allow for offline play, so that you could play a multiplayer game with your friends at the Jersey shore.
You should also list lending and renting. Both are legal, and both have similarly no tie to the original publisher.
Lending and renting are very simlair to selling used. In that a copy was bought and is now being lend. I'm pretty sure Blockbuster and Netflix signs a deal for their DVD's to "rent" them out to people. (back in the day VHS were absurdly expensive because they were assumed to be used for renting) That's why when you stream a movie off of netflixs it still counts to some sort of small payment to the industry (it's just A LOT smaller then what they would get in other methods).
No, they want to prevent first sale as well. If you lag one year behind on Madden games, you can buy them in discount bins for like $3. They have a vested interest in removing ALL secondary market: there is no financial gain for them in allowing one to exist in any form.
I think this is all going to go away soon anyway, I believe especially with sports games you are going to buy a "madden pass" or something and then just download updates while paying a small fee each time. I'm not quite sure why they haven't done that for PS3 and XBOX other then they are not all online yet...
Why haven't any developers tried to implement their own buy-back program? Clearly, there is demand for first sale rights and the existence of a secondary market. So, as a developer, you just buy your games back for more than Gamestop would, then sell them back to people at a smaller profit. You could do smaller production runs of a game, and then prolong their lifespan by creating a very attractive secondary market.
Why haven't any developers tried to implement their own buy-back program? Clearly, there is demand for first sale rights and the existence of a secondary market. So, as a developer, you just buy your games back for more than Gamestop would, then sell them back to people at a smaller profit. You could do smaller production runs of a game, and then prolong their lifespan by creating a very attractive secondary market.
Because it's easier to blame the customer than it is to get creative with your business model.
Also, because in football and business you NEVER take points off the board. If you score a field goal, and there's a weird penalty, don't drop the three points and try for a touchdown. If someone pays you $50, don't give back a dime.
Unless you can make more money off of that dime than you could otherwise. Games could be reusable.
Think of it this way. A brand new beer bottle costs about 50 cents. If you buy in super mega bulk, you can get that down to like 20 cents a bottle. If I implement a bottle buyback program offering 10 cents for every used bottle you bring me, I save at least 10 cents per bottle, increasing my profit margin.
It's a cost-saving measure. You'd have to balance the cost of actually producing a brand new copy of a game versus the cost of acquiring a used game. If you can buy a game back for less than it cost you to make it but still more than Gamestop, you can basically create a money-generating machine.
Unless you can make more money off of that dime than you could otherwise. Games could be reusable.
Think of it this way. A brand new beer bottle costs about 50 cents. If you buy in super mega bulk, you can get that down to like 20 cents a bottle. If I implement a bottle buyback program offering 10 cents for every used bottle you bring me, I save at least 10 cents per bottle, increasing my profit margin.
It's a cost-saving measure. You'd have to balance the cost of actually producing a brand new copy of a game versus the cost of acquiring a used game. If you can buy a game back for less than it cost you to make it but still more than Gamestop, you can basically create a money-generating machine.
It's a good idea for beer, not so much for video games.
With beer, you ARE going to sell more. You are going to need more bottles. It's also an effectively infinite cycle. You buy a bottle, fill it, sell it, buy it back, fill it, sell it, forever. Video games are only good for a short time. Unless you have a single game that's a perennial seller, the disc you buy back is useless.
The only real way to fix all these media businesses is for them to fundamentally change their business model. One way is to sell service, such as WoW. They're basically renting you time on their servers. It's like getting some shared web hosting. Another way is to not sell copies of your game, but to sell your talent directly. Valve should say "pay us X and THEN we'll make Portal 3" instead of "we made Portal 3, please give us money."
If I ever were to make an artistic work for profit, such as game, movie, or book, obviously I would start doing one for free to get fans and notoriety. After that, I would basically hold the for-profit works for ransom. Then when the ransom was met, I would release them all Creative-Commons-y. No worries about DRM, used sales, or any other BS. At the same time, I've got all the money I need. What do I do if the ransom isn't met? I either wait or give a refund. Obviously if people aren't willing to pay, then they don't want my work badly enough. That means I suck and don't deserve the money.
If I put myself in the shoes of the people I buy used games from, I would be less lilely to choose Game A over Game B if Game A is gonna get me jack shit when I go to sell it b/c it's got disabled features. The developers are eating their own lunch.
I don't admire the position the PA guys are in. If my best friends where hurting cause of something like this I don't know what I'd say either.
Video games are only good for a short time. Unless you have a single game that's a perennial seller, the disc you buy back is useless.
But the secondary market proves you wrong here. Video games have a large lifespan. Cartridges can be re-sold over and over again until they break; the same is true of discs. There is already a market that is making money reselling your games; cut that market off and jump in on it.
Your service idea works for a lot of people, but it does prevent offline play. Send out a controlled and monitored supply of blackbox authentication devices that allow users to play your games, and then buy those things back for less than they cost to produce and re-sell them at a profit. It's like using CD keys, except you hide the authentication parameters from the users. It wouldn't prevent piracy, but it would make it inconvenient enough that only a very small minority would even bother.
You buy a bottle, fill it, sell it, buy it back, fill it, sell it, forever.
Obviously if people aren't willing to pay, then they don't want my work badly enough.
Or you would never get the money you needed because you don't have the capital to advertise that you need money to fund your project. Until some publisher comes along and decides to fund you're next ... oh wait that's what we have....
Or you would never get the money you needed because you don't have the capital to advertise that you need money to fund your project. Until some publisher comes along and decides to fund you're next ... oh wait that's what we have....
The free stuff you make to start out is your marketing.
Penny Arcade makes free comics then sells merch and books. The free comics are the marketing.
Unknown Worlds makes a free mod for Half-Life called Natural Selection. Then people give them a pile of money to make NS2. This is the way to go.
The free stuff you make to start out is your marketing.
Penny Arcade makes free comics then sells merch and books. The free comics are the marketing.
Unknown Worlds makes a free mod for Half-Life called Natural Selection. Then people give them a pile of money to make NS2. This is the way to go.
That model supports a EXTREMELY small group of developers, webcomic artists and writers and the few it does support only a couple that truly can survive off that income.
That model supports a EXTREMELY small group of developers, webcomic artists and writers and the few it does support only a couple that truly can survive off that income.
Only a few are actually talented enough to have artwork so amazing that people will gladly part with their money for it.
Only a few are actually talented enough to have artwork so amazing that people will gladly part with their money for it.
Reading the background of NS2 it's not like money came to him when he asked, he was literally begging for money at a convention when a investor just happened to be in the audience and decided to fund his project... I'm not even sure from the description whether he was a NS player...7 years of NS (orgin story)
This wasn't 20,000 people buying a pre-order... (that came later).
I think you have the rights unless you sign an agreement like you do with steam to not resell the item.
I think you have a right even if you sign an agreement.
Can you sign a contract that makes you a slave of someone else? No, it is void because it violates your rights. The same goes for this as well. You can't sign away your rights.
Ideologically, do US citizens deserve the right of first sale for things they purchase or otherwise legally acquire?
Yup. The question I ask is why a given company doesn't involve themselves in the secondary market. I suppose it's probably cheaper to just create new copies of a game, but buying used copies basically gives you access to that large secondary market.
I beg to differ those discs freaking wear out.
With a lot of time and abuse, sure. That's also why I'd support something more like a fob; they're generally more durable. Really, a physical medium is just a form of control of access to content; you could come up with an access control system that can be damaged without damaging the content itself.
Comments
Wow I could not believe what I was reading in that comic and post this morning. I am actually offended with how I, as a used game purchaser, am lumped into a group and demonized. Much of the argument posed against used games sales is that it does not give money back to the developer. The arguer then usually goes on to bring Gamestop into the issue. Seriously, if you are buying used games for a $5-10 discount at Gamestop, when you could be buying the game for 50% off and putting that money directly in the hands of another gamer, you are beyond help.
I'm sorry but throughout the years I have not been able to keep up with the flood of great game releases. I live 2-3 years in the past on console games, and am currently playing the best games of 2008. Yeah I know there is great new stuff out, but I'll get there. Am I really an asshole for not putting $60 new releases as my priority, yet still having a desire to play games? I see myself as a part of the food chain. Kid buys a game for $60 bucks, plays it, and offloads it to me for $20 two years from now. My $20 probably goes towards more games.
Seeing that horrific generalization from the PA guys is pretty scary, since I've been loving their work for almost 10 years now, and almost never disagree with them. I'm not ringing the death bells here, as I'm sure they will be great for years and years to come, but eventually all good things get ruined, and this moment makes me feel that they are beginning to lose touch with their roots.
Let's say you have a friend who is a game developer. 90% of the people who played the game pirated it and it is loading up the used bins at Gamestop. It's really popular, but the person is having financial difficulties. This person is your true friend. Are you going to be a jerk and tell this friend that used sales and piracy are AOK and not morally wrong? You see a person you care about suffering, can you say something like that? Mike + Jerry are just too nice, they can't do it. They will change their stance on an issue before they are jerks to their friends.
Is that admirable? Or is strong moral integrity more admirable? This is the world we live in.
Piracy (where you download something for free and use it without paying) = ehhhhh...
Bootlegging (where you download it for free and sell it for money) = BAD..
It's pretty trivial to pirate a game these days. Legally enshrining first sale rights is a good idea, but you have to reconcile that with the ease of piracy. The only thing I can imagine is some kind of convoluted system that involves a transfer of a unique physical token, like a SecurID fob. Buy the fob and connect it in order to play the game. Want to transfer the game? Sell the fob. Free up the data.
You should also list lending and renting. Both are legal, and both have similarly no tie to the original publisher.
What if Steam had n copies of CounterStrike, and so long as no more than n people wanted to play, it was free (you borrowed a copy from Steam for the duration of your play). If person n+1 wants to play, they either have to buy their own copy, rent from someone else, or wait until one is free. This is OK for movies, why not games?
However, yes, Steam could do this easily.
Also, because in football and business you NEVER take points off the board. If you score a field goal, and there's a weird penalty, don't drop the three points and try for a touchdown. If someone pays you $50, don't give back a dime.
Think of it this way. A brand new beer bottle costs about 50 cents. If you buy in super mega bulk, you can get that down to like 20 cents a bottle. If I implement a bottle buyback program offering 10 cents for every used bottle you bring me, I save at least 10 cents per bottle, increasing my profit margin.
It's a cost-saving measure. You'd have to balance the cost of actually producing a brand new copy of a game versus the cost of acquiring a used game. If you can buy a game back for less than it cost you to make it but still more than Gamestop, you can basically create a money-generating machine.
With beer, you ARE going to sell more. You are going to need more bottles. It's also an effectively infinite cycle. You buy a bottle, fill it, sell it, buy it back, fill it, sell it, forever. Video games are only good for a short time. Unless you have a single game that's a perennial seller, the disc you buy back is useless.
The only real way to fix all these media businesses is for them to fundamentally change their business model. One way is to sell service, such as WoW. They're basically renting you time on their servers. It's like getting some shared web hosting. Another way is to not sell copies of your game, but to sell your talent directly. Valve should say "pay us X and THEN we'll make Portal 3" instead of "we made Portal 3, please give us money."
If I ever were to make an artistic work for profit, such as game, movie, or book, obviously I would start doing one for free to get fans and notoriety. After that, I would basically hold the for-profit works for ransom. Then when the ransom was met, I would release them all Creative-Commons-y. No worries about DRM, used sales, or any other BS. At the same time, I've got all the money I need. What do I do if the ransom isn't met? I either wait or give a refund. Obviously if people aren't willing to pay, then they don't want my work badly enough. That means I suck and don't deserve the money.
I don't admire the position the PA guys are in. If my best friends where hurting cause of something like this I don't know what I'd say either.
Your service idea works for a lot of people, but it does prevent offline play. Send out a controlled and monitored supply of blackbox authentication devices that allow users to play your games, and then buy those things back for less than they cost to produce and re-sell them at a profit. It's like using CD keys, except you hide the authentication parameters from the users. It wouldn't prevent piracy, but it would make it inconvenient enough that only a very small minority would even bother. Bottles break eventually.
Penny Arcade makes free comics then sells merch and books. The free comics are the marketing.
Unknown Worlds makes a free mod for Half-Life called Natural Selection. Then people give them a pile of money to make NS2. This is the way to go.
This wasn't 20,000 people buying a pre-order... (that came later).
Ideologically, do US citizens deserve the right of first sale for things they purchase or otherwise legally acquire?
Can you sign a contract that makes you a slave of someone else? No, it is void because it violates your rights. The same goes for this as well. You can't sign away your rights.