News - Asda And Tesco trial pre-owned game scheme and trade-ins

[HEXUS]

Two major retailers step forward for a bite of the used-game market cherry.

Read more.

[Jay]

This is good for us but devs hate it, they get nothing back from it. I think this is another reason Steam is so popular

[mmh]

do games not have the disclaimer on them about resale, lending and public performance prohibited etc?

are they not in breach of something by doing this?

if the devs dont like it, do something about it!

[shaithis]

If the devs do not like it, the software houses should drop the prices.

£40-50 for a game that can last some people 4-8 hours, is a complete rip-off and they should expect re-sales in a lot of cases.

[eshrules]

do games not have the disclaimer on them about resale, lending and public performance prohibited etc?

are they not in breach of something by doing this?

if the devs dont like it, do something about it!

Game have been doing it for years, I'm sure if they were in breach, something would have been done about it by now.

Personally, I'm with shaithis, I can't afford full rrp all the time, so I'll wait for the game(s) to show up in preowned.

I know we have 'classics' that are released, similar to the PS2 platinum system, but it takes far too long to happen imho.

[Steve A]

If the devs do not like it, the software houses should drop the prices.

£40-50 for a game that can last some people 4-8 hours, is a complete rip-off and they should expect re-sales in a lot of cases.

Totally agree with you here ... it will all be steam or equivilant tied eventually i recon.

[jim]

Game have been doing it for years, I'm sure if they were in breach, something would have been done about it by now.

Actually, I remember somebody complaining on the Football Manager forums when they introduced mandatory activation via Steam or their own method of DRM that they'd no longer be able to sell on the game.

And one of the high-ranking devs/publishers came in and said it was illegal to do that anyway with regard to the EULA and said people had no right to resell it.

So they certainly try to claim that it's the case.

[eshrules]

Actually, I remember somebody complaining on the Football Manager forums when they introduced mandatory activation via Steam or their own method of DRM that they'd no longer be able to sell on the game.

And one of the high-ranking devs/publishers came in and said it was illegal to do that anyway with regard to the EULA and said people had no right to resell it.

So they certainly try to claim that it's the case.

Perhaps it's one of those rules that exists but isn't terribly enforced? <shrugs>

I've bought quite a few new games but they're often traded in or sold on, to fund new purchases. I can safely say if such a rule was enforced, I couldn't justify spending £40/50 on a game as a one-off purchase. Prices would have to come down dramatically imho

[jim]

Yeah I'm in the same boat really, although I can't recall spending £40 on a game for a very very long time.

I don't expect to pay more than £25 even for a new game to be honest. And I'll still sell it on.

[finlay666]

If the devs do not like it, the software houses should drop the prices.

£40-50 for a game that can last some people 4-8 hours, is a complete rip-off and they should expect re-sales in a lot of cases.

It makes no difference the cost, because the initial cost in most cases is to recover the cost of development. Games are very expensive to make.

The common case is to offer DLC in order to help recoup these lost sales from people buying used instead of new. They have no choice in a lot of cases as they see nothing from the pre-owned sales. There needs to be a way that they receive a %age of the 2nd hand sales then they could reduce the initial cost of the game.

Games are getting shorter because the general attention span for a game is shorting. RPGs are shorter than they used to, just looking at current games FF13 will be approx 60 hours gameplay and 40 hours FMV, Lost Odyssey is approx 50 hours gameplay yet Final Fantasy 7 was 20-200 hours depending on completion.

The cost to make games longer is a lot too, hence why DLC adds more to games in a lot of cases, because they will receive revenue from the additional work, as they currently receive nothing from people buying 2nd hand again they need revenue from these new customers.

Keep in mind due to the economic downturn a lot of high profile developers have gone out of business and it's mainly the huge companies such as EA/ActiviBlizzard releasing these "short" games, as it's what people want and pay for.

[Saracen]

Actually, I remember somebody complaining on the Football Manager forums when they introduced mandatory activation via Steam or their own method of DRM that they'd no longer be able to sell on the game.

And one of the high-ranking devs/publishers came in and said it was illegal to do that anyway with regard to the EULA and said people had no right to resell it.

So they certainly try to claim that it's the case.

Software houses might claim that, and it's a legally unclear area ... but there have been cases where software houses have claimed hat and lost in court.

There are several issues, including the exhaustion principle in IP (known as first sale doctrine in the US). This says that the distribution right ceases on the first valid sale ... at least, within a defined area, though it's more complicated when you start talking about imports. So, you buy a game on a CD/DVD and that purchase eliminates the right of the IP owner to control distribution. Note, it does NOT exhaust other IP rights, so you still can't copy it, etc, but it does seem to preclude them from preventing resale of used items.

On the other hand, if you explicitly agreed to a EULA, they may seek to maintain that that precludes resale. But there are problems with that theory, not least that the distribution right ceased on sale before you ever got to see the EULA, and that the contract had bee made by then. So .... selling it might invalidate your EULA and prevent you using it, but it doesn't affect the exhaustion of distribution right. There have been a number of cases that support that both the in the US and EU.

But it gets more complicated if you downloaded the game, because you will most likely have agreed to terms and conditions when using the download service (like Steam) and if they include a restriction, and bearing in mind that you are arguably paying for a service, that being the download game, rather than a physical product such as the disc, manual, box etc, that the distribution right hasn't been exhausted as the usage has merely been licenced and the game not actually "sold".

It is very clear, explicitly clear, from EU copyright and software directives that the exhaustion right is intended to apply inside the EU to computer software, and that a second-hand market is envisaged in those directives. However, there is a paucity of actual case law, at least, that I have been able to find.

My conclusion, therefore, is that the validity of selling physical media second-hand is pretty settled, my the selling of downloaded versions is MUCH less clear.

[Saracen]

.....There needs to be a way that they receive a %age of the 2nd hand sales then they could reduce the initial cost of the game.

Why?

There's a need for them to properly price their products in the first place to make the business viable, or to adjust their cost structures to fit what they can charge, but I see no justification at all for expecting a chunk of second hand sales. If I sell a second hand Ka, Ford don't expect to get a chunk of the proceeds.

[kalniel]

Why?

There's a need for them to properly price their products in the first place to make the business viable, or to adjust their cost structures to fit what they can charge, but I see no justification at all for expecting a chunk of second hand sales. If I sell a second hand Ka, Ford don't expect to get a chunk of the proceeds.

Your second hand ka isn't a pristine 100% accurate copy of the original experience either. There's a built in incentive to buy a new car, publishers need to create similar measures for games, which is happening with day 0 DLC etc.

[jim]

Software houses might claim that, and it's a legally unclear area ... but there have been cases where software houses have claimed hat and lost in court.

There are several issues, including the exhaustion principle in IP (known as first sale doctrine in the US). This says that the distribution right ceases on the first valid sale ... at least, within a defined area, though it's more complicated when you start talking about imports. So, you buy a game on a CD/DVD and that purchase eliminates the right of the IP owner to control distribution. Note, it does NOT exhaust other IP rights, so you still can't copy it, etc, but it does seem to preclude them from preventing resale of used items.

On the other hand, if you explicitly agreed to a EULA, they may seek to maintain that that precludes resale. But there are problems with that theory, not least that the distribution right ceased on sale before you ever got to see the EULA, and that the contract had bee made by then. So .... selling it might invalidate your EULA and prevent you using it, but it doesn't affect the exhaustion of distribution right. There have been a number of cases that support that both the in the US and EU.

But it gets more complicated if you downloaded the game, because you will most likely have agreed to terms and conditions when using the download service (like Steam) and if they include a restriction, and bearing in mind that you are arguably paying for a service, that being the download game, rather than a physical product such as the disc, manual, box etc, that the distribution right hasn't been exhausted as the usage has merely been licenced and the game not actually "sold".

It is very clear, explicitly clear, from EU copyright and software directives that the exhaustion right is intended to apply inside the EU to computer software, and that a second-hand market is envisaged in those directives. However, there is a paucity of actual case law, at least, that I have been able to find.

My conclusion, therefore, is that the validity of selling physical media second-hand is pretty settled, my the selling of downloaded versions is MUCH less clear.

So, if I've understood what you're saying correctly...

Once you've bought an item, the previous owner no longer holds any rights over what you do with that particular specimen. They may well retain rights over copying it, etc, but the actual physical specimen is no longer under their control - and as a result they can't ban you from selling it.

However, you may sign a contract with the previous owner that binds you - perhaps someone sells you an item on the condition that you retain it for the next 50 years, and you sign a contract saying that - and in that case it's the contract that binds you. However, an EULA is theoretically unenforceable because you don't read and agree to it before purchase (I've seen that argued before in other cases as well) - so it's possibly irrelevant here.

But because the EULA for Steam/similar systems probably get you to agree to a contract prior to purchase that changes everything around a bit?

I thought your comment about "licensing" vs "owning" was a fairly moot point since the software companies always explicitly only licensed software rather than selling you ownership of it. Or are you saying that their opinions on that may not be grounded in law? I have to admit I always thought it was ridiculous that they could sell you a box and a disc and then claim it wasn't really yours... next Ikea will be licensing me a table design - but nonetheless I always considered it to be true.

[jim]

Your second hand ka isn't a pristine 100% accurate copy of the original experience either. There's a built in incentive to buy a new car, publishers need to create similar measures for games, which is happening with day 0 DLC etc.

The built in incentive is getting to play the game.

You can't buy a second-hand game on release day for half the price. If you're prepared to wait 6 months to play a game, then fair enough.

As I've thought before, if you lived your life 5 years in the past you could save a fortune

[OilSheikh]

If I could afford to buy new games, I would.
But, I can't hence I buy used games 2-3 months later after release date.

Do the devs expect me to pay full price after 2-3 months?

And DLC's don't work. I for one don't buy them.

If they decide to completely abolish purchase of USED games, I'll just become a pirate! Now, is that better than what I am doing now?