Reports: New Xbox could DOOM second-hand games market Microsoft has been quite cagey about its plans for games licensing on the new Xbox One, but multiple reports now suggest there's going to be very little incentive for a second-hand games market anymore, and buyers could get stung with extra charges. On Thursday Consoledeals.co.uk received a note from a senior member of a UK …
Well. I DO get most of my games from second hand shops. They are way cheaper.
Why? Because if I buy a freaking cell phone and within 10 days i do not like it, i can turn it back ( assuming it's in mint condition, of course ). If I buy a fridge and notice it's not suitable for me, i can turn it back ( again, in the first 10 days, and in mint condition ). If i buy a game, and notice it just suck too much, i'm stuck. I just spent 50 euros on something i hate.
And, also, when i finish some game, and i know i won't be replaying it, I have two choices:
1 - Let it sit around, gathering dust.
2 - Sell it to that same shop.
I usually go for the second. I get some of my money back ( even if it's just 1 euro ), and someone else can experience the game for a cheap price.
Why does this not hurt the developer? There's still only ONE copy of the game involved. I can no longer play it, and another player now gets it. I didn't duplicate anything. And that player had to wait for me to finish it.
If the player really wanted the game, he would have bought it, not waited until someone finished it and sold it.
If I buy a cell phone, and later buy a better one, would it be illegal for me to sell my old cell phone? Of course not!
This way, microsoft is saying two things:
1 - "we want to get paid more than once for the same game".
2 - "rhiakath, you may forget buying the new xbox. Keep your current one, which we were very happy to sell you, and in the future, buy a ps4".
I suppose it all depends on whether the customer has a choice. If they can get new video games running on a platform with up-to-date technology from a competitor that doesn't do this, then, except for a few to whom this issue doesn't matter, and who prefer the Xbox, Microsoft's new console will find few takers.
But if Nintendo and Sony decide to do the same thing, the consumer is likely to just accept the change as inevitable.
I made a similar comment when the same topic was discussed about the PS3. European courts have made some very robust defenses of the first sale doctrine. The case of textbook importers in the US have also confirmed the first sale doctrine there. If this policy is implemented, I expect some courtroom action over either of first sale or antitrust regulations, and past form on these issues does not bode well for M$.
This is utter crap; software development is nothing like the traditional manufacturing industry.
Most of the cost of a car is the cost of the raw materials, building it, and shipping it. Whereas in software, you sink umpteen million into R&D and the manufacturing costs are negligible.
The people who actually make the games need paid, or they won't be able to make any more games. When you buy second hand, the people who make the games get nothing.
I think there is a key point that is being missed here - games players (indeed all software users) now expect updates to the software as standard. Gone are the days when you literally bought a shrink-wrapped piece of software and used it bugs and all.
The problem being that all these updates cost money - lots of money, and whle the games industry does make a lot of money, in truth there are probably 10 (or more) mediocre selling titles for each smash hit, and the software publishers rely on the profits from the hits to cover the losses on the less successful products.
So, on the one hand you have the games consumer who not unreasonably sees their shrink wrapped game as an outright purchase in just the same way as a kettle, TV etc. is seen, while at the same time expecting the games provider to supply the sort of after sales support that realistically goes far above and beyond the guarantee provisions on your average kettle (when was the last time you bought a kettle and after a few weeks/months were able to take it back for new features to be added for 'free'?)
So now (unsurprisingly) the games industry is looking for ways to increase revenue to cover the cost of these additional services, while keeping the initial purchase price 'affordable'. Personally, I think for the games industry to go down this road they need to stop selling skrink-wrapped games and move to downloads. If you remove the physical aspect then you get rid of the quite reasonable consumer perception that they have bought something physical. Obviously there are problems with this route (download speed for one) but it does not appear to have hurt iOS and Android sales, and most PC/Mac software has been sold in this manner for quite some time now.
I think there is a key point that is being missed here - games players (indeed all software users) now expect updates to the software as standard. Gone are the days when you literally bought a shrink-wrapped piece of software and used it bugs and all.
When was that ever the case except with games consoles that had no patching mechanism?
This is just one part of a bigger story. Corporate America and the likes of the RIAA do not like anything that they think will not give them more and more money. This is just the first step, the next way they will try to do this is with music. They will want everything to go digital with no option but DRM for every purchase and that also mean for every device. On a separate note, I remember as a kid friends who would sell two or three of their old games to purchase a new title and so the fat cats may just find their new releases don't get quite the response they were hoping for.
I sell my old computer to raise some money to buy a new one. I sell my old camera to help pay for a newer model. I sell my old car when I buy a new(er) one. Why not sell my old video games? Trading up is as old as civilization itself. What happens to resale-ability of a console if it can't be package with a heap of games? An old console with no games is next to worthless. Buying last year's model with a handsome selection of games ready to play is usually an awesome deal for the buyer. Manufacturers are not going to make larger profits if they cut out the second hand market. On the contrary, they will kill their primary market quickly.
If you couldn't resell your car when you wanted to get a new model, you might find it difficult to afford the new car. Financing options such as leasing would go away since the residual value at the end of the lease is part of the equation. Without that value, there is not leasing. A similar situation exists for car hire companies. They expect to sell on their fleet within a year or two before repairs become an issue. If they can't turn over their stock for more than scrap price, the business model won't work and hiring a car will be come a thing of the past.
There are always unintended consequences with trying to change established ways of doing things. If the locked-down, permanent rental method of "selling" products gets put in place, there will be all sorts of immoral practices that companies can invoke. Not illegal, immoral. How about bringing out a new console with a new authentication system and closing the old system to force users to upgrade. For gaming I am not too bothered. There may be withdrawal symptoms, but you'll live. Setting a precedent scares me much more. My cell phone is a few years old, but works just fine for me. What happens if I'm forced to buy a new one every two years? Start buying stock in recycle and landfill companies. They'll be the only profitable industry.
I have some PC games that no 2nd hand shop will touch because they have a 'one time only registration' along with 'permanent Internet connection required'.
It's quite outrageous that these sorts of systems are even allowed in the market place as they drive a coach and horses through previously understood concepts of seller and buyer and what happens to the property as a result.
I have another few games that I discovered trawling torrent sites, downloaded and tried and went out and bought the legit' discs for, only to find that 6 months later I can't play it without cracking it anymore because I've "exceeded the maximum number of permitted installs" (I went through a period of trying various different Linux distros, looking for the best implemenation of WINE (LinuxMint if you're interested), so the game was reinstalled a fair few times over a period of a few weeks).
And they wonder why people pirate software.
I think it more likely that the Xbox One will simply fail to catch on as well as its predecessors. Or at least I hope. If you want to make Microsoft understand how unacceptable you find their mistreatment of the used-game market, don't buy their console. Words mean nothing to a large company like that. If you want them to listen, you have to vote with your wallet.
There come points where one decides "That is a straw too many!" cost of ownership is an important criteria when considering gaming equipment (or any other equipment). "Can't replace a worn-out DVD drive? Can't trade games?" Screw you, Microsoft. Your hardware will never darken my threshold again. Guests can leave their equipment on the porch.
I find all the frothing at the mouth over this particular issue equal part amusing/bewildering for several reasons.
1. Everyone has made their mind up that game developers are all massive, greedy corporations creaming in millions in profits year after year. I'm pretty sure last time I checked most of the money is made by the largest few and everyone else is struggling to break even. How many went under last year exactly?
2. To claim the distribution of luxury items such as videogames is immoral is hilarious. It implies that people are completely powerless to NOT buy a particular product if they don't agree with how it is priced. It doesn't matter how ridiculous the analogy you can conjure up (cars which cannot be re-sold, implode after 100 miles, must be serviced at Ford etc. etc.) You can STILL always vote with your wallet no matter what and guess what happens to products which don't sell??
This whole issue boils down to MS making the decision that developers should see more of the money floating around in the industry. If you don't think they should then that's fine, vote with your wallet (I say this knowing full well gamers are completely incapable of doing this, completely spineless most of them imo)
Actually, the money would go to the publisher, not the developer. There's a big difference. The publishers are the profiteers, the development studios are employees paid to create a product. If someone put up a website that allowed me to donate a few extra quid to the "Developer Beer Fund", I'd be all over that (in a way, it's what Kickstarter allows). Lining the pockets of companies who produce nothing at all annoys me. Watching them insist on being paid twice for a product they did not even create bothers me more.
Don't trade in your games. Don't loan your games to your friends. This is a good thing for everybody. Now that punk from up the street won't steal your games because they will be worthless to him/her. If MS is going to make more money I would hope the games will be cheaper and possibly bring down the price of the console since most of the money they make is with game sales to begin with.
On top of all this, MS has not finalized anything yet, this is all just speculation and rumors.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
