There is another point to make besides the fact that buying used games does not send money to the developer. Unlike the movies, we do not have a theatre release. That boxed copy on the shelf (or digital download) is our only means of revenue generation. This is why we love digital delivery. There are no used games on Steam.
I know you guys catch a ton of shit for talking about topics like this, but if even a small percentage of your readers walk away a little more educated on the subject then it is a big win for everyone (except gamestop)"
"Hey Mike. I worked at a Gamestop for three years in Dixon, CA, and I can no longer support saving $10 on used games after seeing all of the profit Gamestop turns by hurting the very developers that fuel their business. Every used game purchase means another chance to sell Game Informer, which is just a rag to hype GS pre-orders, which just happens to come with a card that entices you to buy more used games and trade in your new games for less than a third of what you paid for them, which in turn will be sold to someone else for 200% markup. I realize that economic times are tough and people need to save money where they can, but buying used is bad for the industry that is providing you with all of this entertainment. No one wants to see the big picture, so now we get these "buy new or get effed" tactics that publishers are pushing.
Here's a suggestion; how about making the new games more affordable? Another advantage of used at Gamestop is that you can return the games if you don't like them. I have a feeling that there's a lot of underrated games that may have sold much better at the $50 price point."
Honestly, people should be as against GameStop as they can. "Power to the players" my ass. Back when I did buy console games ages ago, the players didn't have to promise to buy a game sight-unseen just to access additional features. They were just included in the game to begin with. Add to that just how much game devs do lose from used game sales and chances are that they'd still be included with games, and that prices would or should be considerably lower, and overall quality of games could/should be higher.
All of that said; GameStop isn't going to stop selling used games, so very little is likely to change short of the devs themselves making changes, and I really don't blame them. This kind of solution definitely beats increasing box prices across the board, and were it to put enough of a dent in GameStop's used sales in the long run, it could mean some good things for everyone.
"The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it." George Bernard Shaw
What is a cynic? A man who knows the price of everything and the value of nothing. Oscar Wilde
I do see people tending to be more cautious about what they buy like this since they cannot resell it. In the long run this will reduce the initial sales as more people will wait for the price to drop. It is like everything in life their action will cause the buyers to rethink their purchases. We all get smarter you know. In the end they will be forced to reduce the price faster than they normally would on titles that are not doing so well. Basically as a consumer you will still get the lowered price if you wait.
Just like the DRM thing they tried to restrict it to 3 installs and when they realised it was having a negative effect they increased it and the second upcoming Bioshock will have like 15 reinstalls. So yes they will adapt to the consumer. Ultimately they need the consumer to buy. So if they find they cannot make that much money initially in the end they will reduce the price.
Maybe if developers charged more reasonable prices to begin with, like say $30-40 instead of $50-60, then more people would be willing to buy 'new' copies rather than used copies.
Studies of steam sales data has proven that dropping game prices exponentially increases sale revenue, which pretty much proves that most game devlopers are pricing their games entirely too high these days.
Heck, maybe some of the people who pirate games would be a little more willing to actually buy a game now and again.
Did you guys see that Best Buy and Target are gong to start doing used game stuff now? With Target, you can trade in at the customer service desk and get a gift card to be used on anything in the store!
Maybe if developers charged more reasonable prices to begin with, like say $30-40 instead of $50-60, then more people would be willing to buy 'new' copies rather than used copies.
Studies of steam sales data has proven that dropping game prices exponentially increases sale revenue, which pretty much proves that most game devlopers are pricing their games entirely too high these days.
Heck, maybe some of the people who pirate games would be a little more willing to actually buy a game now and again.
I do agree some kind of a pricing structure, seriously how can every game cost 59.99$
the door. Nothing cost the same for take a pair of shoes good quality or brand name you
pay more for. So games they know are good raise the price and games they know (and
And this is the beauty of downloadable content. It allows devs to make money on there game even if the game was bought used. Throw in a couple of one shot codes for new product buyers and let the used product buyers pay for the downloadables. Then the person can choose to save 5 or 10 on a used game and easily spend that much on down loads or just buy it new.
This whole conversation is getting weird ... Just plain weird
To my understanding. 360 games are acutally $50. But Sony added $60 because of the "Blu Ray". So 360 seeing Sony doing it. Monkey see Monkey do. Fail Sony
And this is the beauty of downloadable content. It allows devs to make money on there game even if the game was bought used. Throw in a couple of one shot codes for new product buyers and let the used product buyers pay for the downloadables. Then the person can choose to save 5 or 10 on a used game and easily spend that much on down loads or just buy it new.
I would happily buy all my games new if they were available a year or two after release. Usually by that time you could only find used versions. It happened already to me. I picked up Deathsmiles on 360 and only two used 39.99 copies were left. If we didn't have used games howzwould I have found it?
All Sony and the others are doing is biting themselves in the ass. No online unless I buy new? I don't play online anyway, so now I can save money right off the bat by just buying the part of the game I use by waiting and getting it used. And they can't stop used game sales ( unless they plan to make ALL games multiplayer only or require internet authentication for consoles, in which case they'd again be screwing themselves again ) , used game sales are protected under law. You have a right as a consumer to sell what you personally own without monetary compensation to the person and/or company you bought it from originally. And that includes software and PC games, not just console games. That clause software creators/game developers use saying you only license the software, you don't own it? That's crumbling. At least in the U.S. Federal Courts opinion.
A federal district judge in Washington State handed down an important decision this week on shrink-wrap license agreements and the First Sale Doctrine. The case concerned an eBay merchant named Timothy Vernor who has repeatedly locked horns with Autodesk over the sale of used copies of its software. Autodesk argued that it only licenses copies of its software, rather than selling them, and that therefore any resale of the software constitutes copyright infringement.
But Judge Richard A. Jones rejected that argument, holding that Vernor is entitled to sell used copies of Autodesk's software regardless of any licensing agreement that might have bound the software's previous owners. Jones relied on the First Sale Doctrine, which ensures the right to re-sell used copies of copyrighted works. It is the principle that makes libraries and used book stores possible. The First Sale Doctrine was first articulated by the Supreme Court in 1908 and has since been codified into statute.
The first-sale doctrine is a limitation on copyright that was recognized by the Supreme Court of the United States in 1908 (see Bobbs-Merrill Co. v. Straus) and subsequently codified in the Copyright Act of 1976, 17 U.S.C.§ 109. The doctrine allows the purchaser to transfer (i.e., sell or give away) a particular lawfully made copy of the copyrighted work without permission once it has been obtained. This means that the copyright holder's rights to control the change of ownership of a particular copy ends once that copy is sold, as long as no additional copies are made. This doctrine is also referred to as the "right of first sale," "first sale rule," or "exhaustion rule."
-Letting Derek Smart work on your game is like letting Osama bin Laden work in the White House. Something will burn.- -And on the 8th day, man created God.-
Here's a suggestion; how about making the new games more affordable?
You are a God damn genius!!!
Unfortunately, I think that $50 is still to high.
If I want to buy a hard back book that will take me a week to read, I pay around $30. If I want to buy an album that I will play over and over again while I drive to work or exercise on the treadmill, I pay around $20. If I want to buy a new release Blu Ray movie, I pay $30. If I want to buy a board game that me and my family / friends will play a couple of times a week, I pay around $30.
Do you see a trend here? I have a rule about not paying more than $30 for any video game. Period. There are ways that I can do that without buying used... sometimes. But when the game isn't in the "Greatest hits" list, on sale, or even in publication anymore, I do what is neccassary to keep my hobby affordable.
StarCraft, Gear's of War, WoW, (I don't play Halo but) Halo. are among some games that are worth $50. But not all are worth that price no way in hell...Gears of War same price as Hannah Montana is an insult.
The software comanies need to be very careful how they try to prevent people from buying and selling physical media, in at least one case, the courts have weighed in and told the software comanies to shove it:
(Somewhat long)
From the now defunct Seattle Post Intelligencer:
A Seattle man is free to sell second-hand software on eBay, a US court has said. It found that the maker of the software, Autodesk, could not stop the resale by claiming that its software is licensed rather than sold.
Software companies have long claimed that software is not sold to users but licensed, and many software licences forbid the resale of the software. A Seattle District Court has found, though, that the packages of software in question were sold, not licensed, and that the licence is not binding on subsequent buyers.
Timothy Vernor bought several copies of Autodesk's AutoCAD design software in 2005 and 2007 from businesses that had originally bought the software from Autodesk. He then put the software up for sale on eBay. Each package contained discs, a copy of a licence agreement and other documentation.
Each time, Autodesk issued a Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) take-down notice asking eBay to suspend the auction, which it did.
Each time that happened Vernor wrote to Autodesk asserting his rights and saying that the software was legitimate and not a pirated copy, but received no reply. Ebay reinstated the auctions. At one point eBay suspended his seller's account for a month for repeat infringements of its policies when Autodesk had complained a number of times.
Vernor applied to the Court for a declaration that he had the right to sell the software because he believed that this process would be repeated every time he tried to buy and sell software.
The court said that Autodesk's initial transfer of the software to the businesses was a sale, not a licensing arrangement. Those businesses, therefore, had the right to re-sell the software with or without the permission of Autodesk.
The 'first sale doctrine' is an important part of US copyright legislation. Richard Jones, the judge in the case, said that if invoked, the doctrine would protect Vernor.
"If there were no License, there is no dispute that Mr. Vernor's resale of the AutoCAD packages would be legal," he said in his ruling. "The first sale doctrine permits a person who owns a lawfully-made copy of a copyrighted work to sell or otherwise dispose of the copy."
The Court relied on a 1977 decision involving prints of films, in which the US government took action against Woodrow Wise, who operated a film sales operation in Los Angeles.
That case was the first to look at what is a licensing arrangement and what is a sale, Jones said. It found that in cases where a company expected the material to be returned – as it would if loaning a print to a cinema for display – that was a license arrangement. Where it never expected the material to be returned – such as when a studio allowed actress Vanessa Redgrave to have a print in return for money – that was a sale.
Jones said that subsequent decisions had backed Autodesk's contention that software distribution could be a sale, he had to stay consistent with the earliest relevant ruling, which was that of the case of Wise.
"Although technology has changed, the question at the core of this case is not technological," said Jones. "Mr. Vernor does not seek to take advantage of new technology to ease copying, he seeks to sell a package of physical objects which contain copies of copyrighted material. The essential features of such sales vary little whether selling movie prints via mail (as in Wise) or software packages via eBay."
The ruling also dealt with the extent of the power of the original software licence. Vernor asked the Court to declare that the original licence, which forbade the re-selling of the software, did not control his behaviour.
The Court said that the argument Autodesk had earlier made – that Vernor should not be allowed to own the software because the licence was non-transferable – must govern to whom it can apply.
"Not only has Autodesk failed to surmount the thorny issues of privity and mutual assent inherent in its contention that its License binds Mr. Vernor and his customers, it has ignored the terms of the License itself," said the ruling. "The Autodesk License is expressly 'nontransferable.' License: Grant of License. Autodesk does not explain how a nontransferable license can bind subsequent transferees."
The software industry relies on categorising what consumers often think of as software sales as software licensing agreements. If followed by other courts, the Autodesk ruling could affect the ability of software publishers to restrict the transfer of their technology in that way.
The court denied Autodesk's motion for dismissal or summary judgment. The case continues
Only a matter of time before this makes it into the gaming sector.....
StarCraft, Gear's of War, WoW, (I don't play Halo but) Halo. are among some games that are worth $50. But not all are worth that price no way in hell...Gears of War same price as Hannah Montana is an insult.
Calm down thar chief, it's not that critical.
$20 is also what you would pay for the complete works of Kafka or a more recent release of Citizen Kane. Price does not equal quality. But since you dropped some names....
I haven't played Gears of War so I'm not going to comment on it beyond saying that I outgrew that particular brand of misogynistic, macho insecure entertainment right around the time I hit puberty. Unfortunately, I have played the single player sections of every single Halo game that's been released. Twenty dollars per title is all kinds of generous for the single player half of Halo. I spent way more time, both online and offline, with the multiplayer section of Halo, which is easily worth twenty bucks. Why they haven't split up the series in this way is beyond me.
In fact, with most games, I'm only interested in the multiplayer part of the game. I'm sure that there are plenty of people who only care about the single player game and never touch the multiplayer part. So why charge people for the half that they're never going to play? Hell, the only reason to buy ODST was the Multiplayer disk that included every Halo map and mode ever released. I assume that they're going to do the same with Reach. By spliting the single player and multiplayer parts into different products and charging less per game, Microsoft would actually make more money spread the franchise to a larger audience. What's more, they could put money into expanding the more popular part of the game, adding value for the consumer.
BTW, I've never owned a single Halo Game. I rented each game over the weekend and beat them in two sittings. I will still rent ODST on a Friday or Saturday that I know I'll have free. Although I might just buy Halo: Reach on Half.com if the price drops quickly enough. Funny.... Renting is okay, but selling used games is pure evil.....
I think this is BS for non-MMO games. Once the game is paid for, that's it. The original owner of the game has no benefits from playing the game. The new owner's only benefit is buying it cheap. The original owner can't play the game, and the new owner doesn't have a powerful character. I don't see the problem. This is just some greedy shit imo.
I buy both new and used games. I also sell games I've beaten so I get some money back. I don't really see the problem with used games. I doubt this will help them all that much with more sales.
renting games. Don't even get me started on that. Gamefly is good. Outside that, I can't condone. A friend of mine has spent upwards of $25 a month on renting video games, I try to convince him otherwise. But no. I have had Gamefly for a few months and rather enjoyed it. I might start that up again actually....hrmm...
renting games. Don't even get me started on that. Gamefly is good. Outside that, I can't condone. A friend of mine has spent upwards of $25 a month on renting video games, I try to convince him otherwise. But no. I have had Gamefly for a few months and rather enjoyed it. I might start that up again actually....hrmm...
You do realize that rented games don't pay royalties to the developer? Don't you?
Unlike with movies, rental games are only paid for once. I can't tell you the number of games that I didn't even buy used because rentting them for a week, and completing them, was cheaper than the used price. If used games are hurting the poor, inocent, hard working developers and publishers, then renting should be just as bad. That's regardless of whether you're renting from Gamefly or Blockhustle Video.
Yes I realize that. And I guess what I was trying to say is off topic, I didin't reall specify that he rents the SAME game. He probably could have boughten the same game twice over. anyway...
nice. I'm still sideing with the Dev's however. So that says they can't stop used game sales. Fair enough. Doesn't mean they cant "impede upon" the second owners game play.
Have you ever purchased a used car? How about a home that wasn't part of a new residential development? The original makers of the autos or homes do not gain from the secondary sales. Can you imagine if you weren't allowed to drive on the roads because you weren't the original owner of the car?
How about stock? Unless you were part of an IPO, you are purchasing "used" stock in a secondary market. Does that mean that you should not be entitled to receive dividends because you weren't the original owner?
The game companies are really beeing greedy right now.
You need to perform maintanence and buy parts for videogames now? no? then i guess your analogy makes no sense then does it?
Car comapnies make money off parts, and repairs, and a house sint a single item you just buy, its just likie a computer, made of thousands of different parts from hundreds of different companies.
Every time a gamer compares a game to a car its just laugh worthy.
Actually, your analogy is rather amusing to me and missing a ton of context. The builders of houses don't ever sell you parts...you go to a supplier with the parts you are looking. The builder (the company that actually builds your house) doesn't make a dime off the secondary market. As for cars, the car manufacturer doesn't make off repair labor at all, and only makes money off of parts sold directly by them (or if they own the manufacturer of the parts)...and, most importantly, you can typically find the parts from other manufacturers that will work just fine. Although I'm certain car companies would absolutely love a way where they could force you to deal only with them and eliminate the secondary market altogether (at which time I guarantee higher prices will be the result).
Understanding how the car and housing markets actually work does bring up an interesting subject. If the software companies to manage to succeed in forcing the purchase of only new games, they could find themselves stuck in interesting anti-trust lawsuits.
Used games for recently released titles are only $5 off. A majority of people just get new at the point, IMO.
No, people are cheap and will buy the $5 cheaper used copy, thats why they sell the $5 cheaper used copy.
pleh! I suppose you are right. I used to work at Gamestop and their cycling of used games saves people "some" money in the long wrong, I can't deny that. However, I also did netflix. Netflix > Gamestop, totally. Their used games price's are also better.
I also look at it as; if there was no used games then perhaps more piracy and maybe even more expensive new games. But more money in Dev pockets could mean less costly games?
I buy lots of used games at Gamestop mainly older titles from last gen consoles-PS2 , Gamecube, Dreamcast, but I buy brand new titles as well sometime I wait for 6months to a year for a Game of the Year Edition with all the content on one disc instead of being nickel and dimed on DLC, at 60$ a pop for one game plus 50-now 60$ for Xbox Live a year then 5$ here 10$ there for DLC content gaming on consoles is becoming too expensive for my tastes if I can save a few dollars on a title I'm going to do so , but mainly I play PC games for reasons prices are reasonable , you can mod the games and even create your own content if you have the tools and the know-how. I remember when Doom 1-2 came out and for map packs all community created and sound and texture packs were sold as expansions for a reasonable price and you got 100's of maps and new sound effects, now its 10-20$ for a handful of maps made by devs that is already on the disc you bought. Its starting to become a ripoff to even buying games anymore.
This used game thing only affects online play right. So if I by a used game like Lord of the Rings Battle of Middle Earth II or World in Conflict used I can still play the campaign and single player or am I restricted there too ? A used key in these games that run Securom or other DRM software will it prevent me from playing it at all ?
no, you still be able to play single player, if this does get implimented. I was talking with some guys at gamestop and they said some guys already do this. They named a few but I forget them. They also said that if you wanted to play online you can spend $10 or whatever to get the activation key.
Comments
Good quotes on the subject...
Honestly, people should be as against GameStop as they can. "Power to the players" my ass. Back when I did buy console games ages ago, the players didn't have to promise to buy a game sight-unseen just to access additional features. They were just included in the game to begin with. Add to that just how much game devs do lose from used game sales and chances are that they'd still be included with games, and that prices would or should be considerably lower, and overall quality of games could/should be higher.
All of that said; GameStop isn't going to stop selling used games, so very little is likely to change short of the devs themselves making changes, and I really don't blame them. This kind of solution definitely beats increasing box prices across the board, and were it to put enough of a dent in GameStop's used sales in the long run, it could mean some good things for everyone.
"The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it."
George Bernard Shaw
What is a cynic? A man who knows the price of everything and the value of nothing.
Oscar Wilde
I do see people tending to be more cautious about what they buy like this since they cannot resell it. In the long run this will reduce the initial sales as more people will wait for the price to drop. It is like everything in life their action will cause the buyers to rethink their purchases. We all get smarter you know. In the end they will be forced to reduce the price faster than they normally would on titles that are not doing so well. Basically as a consumer you will still get the lowered price if you wait.
Just like the DRM thing they tried to restrict it to 3 installs and when they realised it was having a negative effect they increased it and the second upcoming Bioshock will have like 15 reinstalls. So yes they will adapt to the consumer. Ultimately they need the consumer to buy. So if they find they cannot make that much money initially in the end they will reduce the price.
I highly doubt they will increase there sales very much people who buy used will probaly wait until the
price comes down to buy new.
Maybe if developers charged more reasonable prices to begin with, like say $30-40 instead of $50-60, then more people would be willing to buy 'new' copies rather than used copies.
Studies of steam sales data has proven that dropping game prices exponentially increases sale revenue, which pretty much proves that most game devlopers are pricing their games entirely too high these days.
Heck, maybe some of the people who pirate games would be a little more willing to actually buy a game now and again.
Did you guys see that Best Buy and Target are gong to start doing used game stuff now? With Target, you can trade in at the customer service desk and get a gift card to be used on anything in the store!
I do agree some kind of a pricing structure, seriously how can every game cost 59.99$
the door. Nothing cost the same for take a pair of shoes good quality or brand name you
pay more for. So games they know are good raise the price and games they know (and
they know) are bad or not as good lower.
This whole conversation is getting weird ... Just plain weird
To my understanding. 360 games are acutally $50. But Sony added $60 because of the "Blu Ray". So 360 seeing Sony doing it. Monkey see Monkey do. Fail Sony
MWF2 had two downloads at 15$ each.
right right, mindless sony hate...
Thats exactly what it was, or are you trying to say that bashing a company for something it had nothing to do with is somehow NOT mindless hate?
Apparently stating the truth in my sig is "trolling"
Sig typo fixed thanks to an observant stragen001.
It happened already to me. I picked up Deathsmiles on 360 and only two used 39.99 copies were left. If we didn't have used games howzwould I have found it?
Playing: Rift, LotRO
Waiting on: GW2, BP
All Sony and the others are doing is biting themselves in the ass. No online unless I buy new? I don't play online anyway, so now I can save money right off the bat by just buying the part of the game I use by waiting and getting it used. And they can't stop used game sales ( unless they plan to make ALL games multiplayer only or require internet authentication for consoles, in which case they'd again be screwing themselves again ) , used game sales are protected under law. You have a right as a consumer to sell what you personally own without monetary compensation to the person and/or company you bought it from originally. And that includes software and PC games, not just console games. That clause software creators/game developers use saying you only license the software, you don't own it? That's crumbling. At least in the U.S. Federal Courts opinion.
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2008/05/court-smacks-autodesk-affirms-right-to-sell-used-software.ars
A federal district judge in Washington State handed down an important decision this week on shrink-wrap license agreements and the First Sale Doctrine. The case concerned an eBay merchant named Timothy Vernor who has repeatedly locked horns with Autodesk over the sale of used copies of its software. Autodesk argued that it only licenses copies of its software, rather than selling them, and that therefore any resale of the software constitutes copyright infringement.
But Judge Richard A. Jones rejected that argument, holding that Vernor is entitled to sell used copies of Autodesk's software regardless of any licensing agreement that might have bound the software's previous owners. Jones relied on the First Sale Doctrine, which ensures the right to re-sell used copies of copyrighted works. It is the principle that makes libraries and used book stores possible. The First Sale Doctrine was first articulated by the Supreme Court in 1908 and has since been codified into statute.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-sale_doctrine
The first-sale doctrine is a limitation on copyright that was recognized by the Supreme Court of the United States in 1908 (see Bobbs-Merrill Co. v. Straus) and subsequently codified in the Copyright Act of 1976, 17 U.S.C. § 109. The doctrine allows the purchaser to transfer (i.e., sell or give away) a particular lawfully made copy of the copyrighted work without permission once it has been obtained. This means that the copyright holder's rights to control the change of ownership of a particular copy ends once that copy is sold, as long as no additional copies are made. This doctrine is also referred to as the "right of first sale," "first sale rule," or "exhaustion rule."
-Letting Derek Smart work on your game is like letting Osama bin Laden work in the White House. Something will burn.-
-And on the 8th day, man created God.-
You are a God damn genius!!!
Unfortunately, I think that $50 is still to high.
If I want to buy a hard back book that will take me a week to read, I pay around $30. If I want to buy an album that I will play over and over again while I drive to work or exercise on the treadmill, I pay around $20. If I want to buy a new release Blu Ray movie, I pay $30. If I want to buy a board game that me and my family / friends will play a couple of times a week, I pay around $30.
Do you see a trend here? I have a rule about not paying more than $30 for any video game. Period. There are ways that I can do that without buying used... sometimes. But when the game isn't in the "Greatest hits" list, on sale, or even in publication anymore, I do what is neccassary to keep my hobby affordable.
No game is worth more than $40 tops. NO. GAME.
$20 for a music CD? holy balls!!!
StarCraft, Gear's of War, WoW, (I don't play Halo but) Halo. are among some games that are worth $50. But not all are worth that price no way in hell...Gears of War same price as Hannah Montana is an insult.
The software comanies need to be very careful how they try to prevent people from buying and selling physical media, in at least one case, the courts have weighed in and told the software comanies to shove it:
(Somewhat long)
From the now defunct Seattle Post Intelligencer:
A Seattle man is free to sell second-hand software on eBay, a US court has said. It found that the maker of the software, Autodesk, could not stop the resale by claiming that its software is licensed rather than sold.
Software companies have long claimed that software is not sold to users but licensed, and many software licences forbid the resale of the software. A Seattle District Court has found, though, that the packages of software in question were sold, not licensed, and that the licence is not binding on subsequent buyers.
Timothy Vernor bought several copies of Autodesk's AutoCAD design software in 2005 and 2007 from businesses that had originally bought the software from Autodesk. He then put the software up for sale on eBay. Each package contained discs, a copy of a licence agreement and other documentation.
Each time, Autodesk issued a Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) take-down notice asking eBay to suspend the auction, which it did.
Each time that happened Vernor wrote to Autodesk asserting his rights and saying that the software was legitimate and not a pirated copy, but received no reply. Ebay reinstated the auctions. At one point eBay suspended his seller's account for a month for repeat infringements of its policies when Autodesk had complained a number of times.
Vernor applied to the Court for a declaration that he had the right to sell the software because he believed that this process would be repeated every time he tried to buy and sell software.
The court said that Autodesk's initial transfer of the software to the businesses was a sale, not a licensing arrangement. Those businesses, therefore, had the right to re-sell the software with or without the permission of Autodesk.
The 'first sale doctrine' is an important part of US copyright legislation. Richard Jones, the judge in the case, said that if invoked, the doctrine would protect Vernor.
"If there were no License, there is no dispute that Mr. Vernor's resale of the AutoCAD packages would be legal," he said in his ruling. "The first sale doctrine permits a person who owns a lawfully-made copy of a copyrighted work to sell or otherwise dispose of the copy."
The Court relied on a 1977 decision involving prints of films, in which the US government took action against Woodrow Wise, who operated a film sales operation in Los Angeles.
That case was the first to look at what is a licensing arrangement and what is a sale, Jones said. It found that in cases where a company expected the material to be returned – as it would if loaning a print to a cinema for display – that was a license arrangement. Where it never expected the material to be returned – such as when a studio allowed actress Vanessa Redgrave to have a print in return for money – that was a sale.
Jones said that subsequent decisions had backed Autodesk's contention that software distribution could be a sale, he had to stay consistent with the earliest relevant ruling, which was that of the case of Wise.
"Although technology has changed, the question at the core of this case is not technological," said Jones. "Mr. Vernor does not seek to take advantage of new technology to ease copying, he seeks to sell a package of physical objects which contain copies of copyrighted material. The essential features of such sales vary little whether selling movie prints via mail (as in Wise) or software packages via eBay."
The ruling also dealt with the extent of the power of the original software licence. Vernor asked the Court to declare that the original licence, which forbade the re-selling of the software, did not control his behaviour.
The Court said that the argument Autodesk had earlier made – that Vernor should not be allowed to own the software because the licence was non-transferable – must govern to whom it can apply.
"Not only has Autodesk failed to surmount the thorny issues of privity and mutual assent inherent in its contention that its License binds Mr. Vernor and his customers, it has ignored the terms of the License itself," said the ruling. "The Autodesk License is expressly 'nontransferable.' License: Grant of License. Autodesk does not explain how a nontransferable license can bind subsequent transferees."
The software industry relies on categorising what consumers often think of as software sales as software licensing agreements. If followed by other courts, the Autodesk ruling could affect the ability of software publishers to restrict the transfer of their technology in that way.
The court denied Autodesk's motion for dismissal or summary judgment. The case continues
Only a matter of time before this makes it into the gaming sector.....
Calm down thar chief, it's not that critical.
$20 is also what you would pay for the complete works of Kafka or a more recent release of Citizen Kane. Price does not equal quality. But since you dropped some names....
I haven't played Gears of War so I'm not going to comment on it beyond saying that I outgrew that particular brand of misogynistic, macho insecure entertainment right around the time I hit puberty. Unfortunately, I have played the single player sections of every single Halo game that's been released. Twenty dollars per title is all kinds of generous for the single player half of Halo. I spent way more time, both online and offline, with the multiplayer section of Halo, which is easily worth twenty bucks. Why they haven't split up the series in this way is beyond me.
In fact, with most games, I'm only interested in the multiplayer part of the game. I'm sure that there are plenty of people who only care about the single player game and never touch the multiplayer part. So why charge people for the half that they're never going to play? Hell, the only reason to buy ODST was the Multiplayer disk that included every Halo map and mode ever released. I assume that they're going to do the same with Reach. By spliting the single player and multiplayer parts into different products and charging less per game, Microsoft would actually make more money spread the franchise to a larger audience. What's more, they could put money into expanding the more popular part of the game, adding value for the consumer.
BTW, I've never owned a single Halo Game. I rented each game over the weekend and beat them in two sittings. I will still rent ODST on a Friday or Saturday that I know I'll have free. Although I might just buy Halo: Reach on Half.com if the price drops quickly enough. Funny.... Renting is okay, but selling used games is pure evil.....
... What a crock of bullshit!!
I think this is BS for non-MMO games. Once the game is paid for, that's it. The original owner of the game has no benefits from playing the game. The new owner's only benefit is buying it cheap. The original owner can't play the game, and the new owner doesn't have a powerful character. I don't see the problem. This is just some greedy shit imo.
I buy both new and used games. I also sell games I've beaten so I get some money back. I don't really see the problem with used games. I doubt this will help them all that much with more sales.
@Jimmy_Scythe
renting games. Don't even get me started on that. Gamefly is good. Outside that, I can't condone. A friend of mine has spent upwards of $25 a month on renting video games, I try to convince him otherwise. But no. I have had Gamefly for a few months and rather enjoyed it. I might start that up again actually....hrmm...
You do realize that rented games don't pay royalties to the developer? Don't you?
Unlike with movies, rental games are only paid for once. I can't tell you the number of games that I didn't even buy used because rentting them for a week, and completing them, was cheaper than the used price. If used games are hurting the poor, inocent, hard working developers and publishers, then renting should be just as bad. That's regardless of whether you're renting from Gamefly or Blockhustle Video.
Yes I realize that. And I guess what I was trying to say is off topic, I didin't reall specify that he rents the SAME game. He probably could have boughten the same game twice over. anyway...
Actually, your analogy is rather amusing to me and missing a ton of context. The builders of houses don't ever sell you parts...you go to a supplier with the parts you are looking. The builder (the company that actually builds your house) doesn't make a dime off the secondary market. As for cars, the car manufacturer doesn't make off repair labor at all, and only makes money off of parts sold directly by them (or if they own the manufacturer of the parts)...and, most importantly, you can typically find the parts from other manufacturers that will work just fine. Although I'm certain car companies would absolutely love a way where they could force you to deal only with them and eliminate the secondary market altogether (at which time I guarantee higher prices will be the result).
Understanding how the car and housing markets actually work does bring up an interesting subject. If the software companies to manage to succeed in forcing the purchase of only new games, they could find themselves stuck in interesting anti-trust lawsuits.
I buy lots of used games at Gamestop mainly older titles from last gen consoles-PS2 , Gamecube, Dreamcast, but I buy brand new titles as well sometime I wait for 6months to a year for a Game of the Year Edition with all the content on one disc instead of being nickel and dimed on DLC, at 60$ a pop for one game plus 50-now 60$ for Xbox Live a year then 5$ here 10$ there for DLC content gaming on consoles is becoming too expensive for my tastes if I can save a few dollars on a title I'm going to do so , but mainly I play PC games for reasons prices are reasonable , you can mod the games and even create your own content if you have the tools and the know-how. I remember when Doom 1-2 came out and for map packs all community created and sound and texture packs were sold as expansions for a reasonable price and you got 100's of maps and new sound effects, now its 10-20$ for a handful of maps made by devs that is already on the disc you bought. Its starting to become a ripoff to even buying games anymore.
@Firefly
I wish all the big named companies behind video game pricing could read your post
/Love
no, you still be able to play single player, if this does get implimented. I was talking with some guys at gamestop and they said some guys already do this. They named a few but I forget them. They also said that if you wanted to play online you can spend $10 or whatever to get the activation key.