I can only speak for myself here. I grew up in near poverty. I was never ahead of the curve in getting the hottest new system . Still am not. I've never been of a economic bracket that makes me part of a value demographic to most businesses that sell luxuries. I've been devoid of whatever romantic ideal some people seem to hang onto about what businesses "should" be about for a long time.

I completely understand the value of a used-anything market. That they exist is as much evidence as needed to see their value. But I don't exactly worship at the alter of their existence and protection because they are ultimately business as well. They aren't exactly out for my best interests anymore than Activision, EA or any other deemed "evil empire."  There are plenty of tyrants in that space as well. There are perfectly valid points and logic holes on either side, no matter how blindly some seem to want myself and other to rail against publishersor used game market..

I understand enough business that I can't get worked up over a business trying to take measures to get more people to buy in a way that benefits them most. It's not like Gamestop doesn't do the same for them. It's in many ways the center of that struggle. Companies that are in many ways need each other whom best interests aren't those of the other. But I also don't personally see anything being done illegal or I find socially or morally objectionable. Others do and I respect their right to view things that way and act on it.

But again, I can only speak for myself.

You're not alone -- I've written [url=http://www.bitmob.com/articles/in-defense-of-gamestop]several[/url] [url=http://www.bitmob.com/articles/why-the-secondhand-market-is-important-for-new-game-sales]articles[/url] for Bitmob on this exact subject.

The problem is that this kind of control over content is unprecedented in other mediums, precisely because video games are entirely digital. By their very nature, games make this control possible. As much as book publishers would like, they can't easily withhold the last chapter from secondhand buyers.

The other problem is that all too often the debate boils down to a discussion about the lesser of two evils: publishers vs. GameStop. This isn't about GameStop -- this is about [i]your[/i] ownership rights! This is about what you can expect your $60 to buy. Publishers are using technological means to limit what you can do with the content you purchase.

I don't think it would be fair to penalize new games by lowering their score because of a corporate decision to recoup losses incurred via the used game market. Do I agree with those policies? Not really, because I believe consumers have a right to sell goods on the grey market to other consumers. But I couldn't, as a critic, let that affect my opinion of the product as a whole - good or bad.

For example, let's look at Singularity. If you buy the Xbox version new (before August 31) you can send in a voucher and get a copy of Prototype for almost nothing. That's a great deal. Does that mean the Xbox version is better than the PlayStation 3 version? Does that make Singularity a better game than, say, Blacklight Tango Down?

The answer is no. A better value, perhaps (I guess that depends on your view of Prototype) but certainly this extraneous promotion does not increase or decrease the quality of the product for sale. Were I reviewing Singularity, I would not even mention this for it is irrelevant.

The same goes for Project $10, Free DLC or whatever new idea comes down the pipeline to interfere with used games sales. I agree that consumers should argue for their rights, but I strongly disagree with the notion that reviewers should take it upon themselves to factor such systems into their metrics for evaluating games.

You will never see video game magazines or websites say anything against Project Ten Dollar or Online Pass because the media needs its access, and won't alienate anyone or any company who can remove that access. End of that discussion. ;)

The only reason I care about either of these policies is because I think that PTD will increasingly result in holding back content that should have been part of the finished product in order to become the "free stuff you get" which justifies the value of things like the Cerberus Network for Mass Effect 2 and the VIP pass for Bad Company 2, and because online play is an integral part of any sports title, and not something "extra" that one should ever have to pay extra for if they buy used. Online Pass is much more egregious, IMHO.

In the end, the only time one has to worry about people expressing their opinions is if and when you see lots of other people jumping on the bandwagon and the opinion makes no sense, such that you have to worry about it being implemented and screwing things up. No one's going to do anything about GameStop, so we will still get our used games. :)

I can't speak for everyone else, but the reason I don't care is simple: I have enough self-control to just wait a few months or keep an eye on sales. I still manage to get my games new, with all the codes, and pay far less than Gamestop's insane used game prices. 

If you're truly conscious about spending money, there really is no reason to ever buy a used game when you can always have a new copy for less money if you're just a little patient.

Jay, this goes deeper than saving $10, though, because publishers actively devalue used copies by withholding content that comes standard in new copies. What are you going to do when you track down an out of print game that you missed (i.e., you had no choice but to buy it used) and find that you can't even purchase the missing content anymore because the publisher shut down the servers?

Alexander is right that we should worry about losing games to history.

Speaking from the development side, it is pretty disheartening to see a game you've worked on for 2+ years get devalued so quickly after its launch by Gamestop/EB through their used game program.  Not one sales dollar of used games sales goes to the developer of that game (or the publisher), it all stays in Gamestop/EB's pockets.  I'm all for being able to find old games that you may have missed the first time around but it would be nice to at least have some reasonable time period before a game can be sold back to the store for their used pile.  After the game has hit one or two markdowns should be good.  What most people don't realize is that one of the main reasons game prices are high is because of the many ways the publisher and developer don't get paid back for their work.  Between used game programs and pirating (not to mention hardware licensing fees), it makes it very challenging to recoup the development and marketing costs of a game.

Rob, most releases now will include some DLC in their lifecycle at this point. If you're buying a game so far after release that the DLC (all DLC, not just release) is no longer available, that's a fault of the industry model in general. I see this as a reality irrespective of the used games argument.

 

Jay, the article isn't about tacked-on DLC or other minor additional content. This is about access to core components of the game, such as the ability to use multiplayer functionality.

Don't forget that Epic Games President Michael Capps [url=http://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/michael-capps-part-two]fantasized[/url] about withholding [i]the final portion of a game[/i] from secondhand buyers, too.

This is an unfortunate consequence of the digital age. Players can so easily and conveniently have access to content, yet companies can so easily and conveniently withhold it, too. Anyone who is so worried about keeping the "history" of games should really be fighting to keep everything on disc, in my opinion. What perishes faster: a hard drive, a server, or a hard copy?

I'm not upset by charging for Online play. You're using their servers to play online, and if you buy used you're not paying them for that server use. Online play is something I can easily skip on most games however. I'm mostly an offline gamer except for MMORPGs... and for those, charging you for playing a used copy of the game is commonplace. ;)

I would, however, complain about them withholding ending content from the offline mode. You're not using their servers, nor downloading any premium extra content in this case, so it would be wrong to charge you for the ending of the game. 

Rob, if we're talking about buying the game so late that the DLC is unavailable because the servers are offline, lack of multiplayer is likely a moot point.

I wouldn't agree with withholding the end of a game, but that's still a fantasy, as you said.

Meredith: The idea that used game sales don't contribute any money to developers/publishers is just wrong. Anyone who buys new games and sells them back for cash or store credit has increased incentive to buy more new games because they're getting back more for them. Were they unable to sell them back, they would buy less of new games because they wouldn't have the extra cash/store credit from selling them. This means that ultimately used game sales result in more new game sales.

I feel like I've written that same paragraph about four or five times now on Bitmob, pretty much every time this whole debate is brought up. I'm going to keep harping on that point until people understand it, too.

I agree with you 100%. I was furious when I read about these plans. Not only was I furious, but the first thing I did was go straight to the Better Business Bureau and filed a complaint against THQ and EA for forcing gamers who legally buy used games to pay an extra fee in order to unlock content that the customers thought they were buying in the first place. And at the same time purposely attacking the resale value of their products in an attempt to force people to purchase new.

Over 2 months later I still did not get a reply from the BBB, THQ, or EA. Which tells me they either don't care about the complaint, or just have nothing to say in their defense. Over and over again I listen to podcasts where the very journalists who are supposed to stick up for us say things like "I don't see a problem with this".......WHAT!!!! How in hell could you NOT see a damn problem with this. This is the most blatant attempt by the industry to attack the less fortunate gamers who NEED to buy used, and no one cares?? Outrageous. Even Bitmobs own podcast is guilty of this.

I have explained to almost everyone on my friends list about this problem on the PS3 and 360. I have about 12 of them swearing to never buy another Activision, EA, or THQ game new until they stop attacking gamers. One of my friends was so upset that he is currently in the process of opening a website which will explain to gamers why and how they should download THQ, EA, Activision games for free off the internet. Now I do not agree with illegal downloading, but his idea makes sense.

He simply wants to fight back. He want's to be able to have people download as many of their games for free as possible to show them that we WILL fight back. We will not just sit back and take it. Innocent gamers should NOT be your target, THQ, EA and Activision! And if you are going to treat us like criminals who are doing something wrong by buying used games, we are just going to prove you right and become criminals who download all of your games for free.

"After all, if you are not going to let me buy your game the legal way when I buy it used, I might as well just steal all of them." That is a quote from his website. Like I said, I do not agree with illegal downloading and have personally never done it. But sometimes you need to fight fire with fire.

I don't think there's a problem with used games at all - that's like saying there's a problem with used DVDs or bikes or cars. There isn't. I think there's a problem with the way used games are currently handled, namely that they are all owned by Gamestop. I unfortunately cannot think of a legitimate way to make things better. But I do know that downloading new games illegally doesn't help one bit. I have a friend who used to be a Gamestop employee and that's how he gets all of his PSP and Wii games - illegal downloading.

The only games I will download are retro games, generally ones I physically can't buy in DLC form or old arcade games. In some cases, like Sin and Punishment, playing them illegally back in the day made me motivated to support them when they were made available for DLC purchase. Not to condone it in particular but it CAN help in some cases.

The online thing I just don't know about. Servers do cost money to maintain and they're losing some of that money when you buy a game used instead of new. I think it's slightly reasonable to charge a few bucks for an optional feature of the game that does require resources on their end since they saw no money from you when you first bought it.

@Eddy: I do agree that GameStop's dominance of the market is a problem, in more ways than one. Aside from their control of prices, both for trade-in and for re-sale, their control of the market (as I mentioned in the article) shapes the dialog. There are alternatives - eBay, Amazon, Half.com, or even an local independant video game store if you're lucky to have one.

The problem is, by letting GameStop shape the dialog, the conversation stops being about the consumer. At best, all the consumer gets from the discussion is "GameStop sucks. Sell your games on eBay" which doesn't address the roots of the problem - that people in the game industry, whether in their publishers or development studios, have been saying nasty things about how used games are killing the industry - something that is fundimentally anti-consumer.

With the library remark - I know of precisely one writer who has complained violently and fervently in public about libraries and how he doesn't get any money from them - S.M. Sterling, in a post on UseNET (yes, people still use that). However, Sterling has his own problems which I won't get into too much detail here. I'll summarize by saying that he's said some rather vicious, nasty, and racist things recently leading me to put him on my list of Writers I Don't Touch, along with Orson Scott Card and Tom Kratman.

@Tim - I do have my own probems with Digital Distribution as well, over having physical copies, particularly for PC games. However, I'm pleased with sites like GOG, which do it the right way - with a DRM free downloadable installer, which means that if GOG (God forbid) goes under, or (a preferable option) the games in question go into the public domain or are made open source, the installers can freely be distributed through abandonware sites, as they might have been distributed previously.

@Alexander

Yea, see, sites like Ebay or CheapAssGamer or GameGavel are consumer-driven solutions but that still doesn't do anything for the creators. I can't think of a valid solution that is pro-consumer and pro-developer.

Eddy, I think that's missing the point. Developers were already paid the first time a consumer purchased a particular copy of the game. They don't have rights to any subsequent sales of that same copy. That's the concept behind the [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-sale_doctrine]first-sale doctrine[/url]; i.e., once sold, the developer doesn't own it anymore -- you do. It's your property.

@Benoit

"The problem is pure greed : The video games market in excellent shape ! There is a lot of money being made, a wider user base, more oportunities for smaller studios, we are at the peak of a console generation,  and YET the video games industry is acting like the music industry did, by declaring war to its consumers."

I'm sure the thousands of developers that were laid off in the past 18 months agree with you.

Edge Magazine's N'Gai Croal offers some [url=http://www.next-gen.biz/blogs/the-disc-is-not-enough]insight[/url] on this issue today:

[quote]The challenge with these initiatives, however, is that the redeem-code-for-multiplayer-and-bonus-content is a blunt instrument with which to beat back used game retailers. If I want to, say, lend my copy of UFC Unlimited to a friend, he or she must purchase a new code in order to play multiplayer. That hardly seems fair. And this doesn’t even cover digital distribution, which often fails to allow any sharing options in its default state. In my opinion, publishers should approach this entire issue with more carrot and less stick. Rather than look at their consumer as someone who just wants to blaze through the game as quickly as possible and sell it for GameStop dollars, they should look at their customers as carriers who could infect other gamers with enthusiasm for the title in question, which could in turn lead to increased sales.[/quote]

The main problem with used games sales at the moment is the shear scales of it. GameStop is too focused on used games, here in Sweden new games are purposely marked more expensive than other stores that deal only in new copies, on average 50 krona (+/-  $5) more, With the used games prices just below the competing store's new games, on average 50 krona (+/-  $5) less. Used games sold to GameStop does not give cash but GameStop in store credit, so the seller has no choice but to spend that credit at GameStop. As we all know the value GameStop overs the seller is but a fraction of what thet will sell it for. GameStop is one of the two major game retailers here in Sweden, the other being Game and it is a carbo copy of GameStop.

Used games shops like these, profit greatly off the work of the developer and publishers. And while this is completely legal, in practice they function exactly like boot leggers, the only differnce is they did not product thier own copies.

I am pro consumer, and strongly believe the bussiness models of GameStop and Game will harm the industry overall. Publishers are already moving to a digital distribution only, just to try to take a cut out the second retailer market, and there we are already losing something. There should be a second hand market where the publishers and developers get a cut of the high profit / high volume second hand sales, else we will lose phyiscal media copies forever.

A second hand market for out of print games is a necessary one, so that retro and classic games can find the way to avid collectors. But in that case the publisher already decided there is no longer profit to be made with that title.

Pre order bonuse content and new game purchase incentive content/featues are just plainly annoying. For the first we must now decide at which retailer we must buy game, as all of the game content is not available at any one store. For the second we must jump through more hoops just to able to access content that should already just be there.

GameStop and it's like are to blame for the whole mess.

Game companies are greedy, I hear you cry. I should be able to loan games to friends, you say. What's wrong with trading a game in to knock the price down on another game, you may ask.

Since when is it good business for a game company, or any company, to cater directly to people with NO MONEY? If you're broke, so what? Find a hobby that doesn't require state of the art electroncs and $60 supporting purchases. Wait until the games are $19.99 or run a generation behind, or just go get some cheaper hobby like kite flying.

What happens if you want to see a new movie at a theater and you don't have the money? Well, 1) You suck it up until it hits the dollar theater. 2) You wait for it to hit cable. 3) You rent it. If you're really broke, 4) you wait for it to go to regular television. Or if you're an ahole and you're a child of the baby boomers, 5) you pirate it or if you're an ahole and you ARE a baby boomer, 6) you sneak into the theater.

Do you think that a company that spends $10 million making a game doesn't deserve $60 from you for playing it, or $60 from anyone who plays it, including your friends you want to loan the game? Because that's what it sounds like to me. You all think they don't deserve to make some money off of every person who plays their game. They make $60 off of someone who plays a new version, and now they have a chance to make $10 off of someone who borrows one or rents one or buys one used.

Everyone is so quick to point how how they feel like they're being screwed over, and I hear very few people considering how the game companies are getting screwed over.

Finally, developers and publishers make games, and Gamestop just sells them. If this conspiracy results in the death of Gamestop, so what? You'll still have games to play. But if Gamestop's used game business results in the death of a number of companies who actually make the games, then not only does Gamestop go under too, but so does the entire hobby. If somebody has to go, it should be the used resellers, not the developers and publishers. If one of them should die, it should be for producing crap games, not because of a used game market.

Dupe post, sorry.

@Meridith

Your point is flawed in a number of ways. First off, much like the piracy debate, your argument erroneously makes the underlying assumption that every used sale represents a lost new sale. That's simply not the case. For many used buyers it's a choice between used and not at all, not used or new. Granted a couple of price cuts later, the game IS often affordable, but the game makers have made no valid argument why a gamer should wait to buy discounted new (Other than, Dude we need money). In another parallel to the war on piracy, the publishers then go out of their way to try and punish used buyer.  If the games industry should learn anything from the music industry, it's that screwing your loyal fans in the name of profit doesn't work. 

Secondly used sales, drive new sales. If there is more demand for a used title, there HAS TO BE corresponding increased demand for new copies, especially around release. Used copies are hard to get, and in a lot of cases the premium to purchase new is $5 or less. Given the choice between a beat up copy stained with unknown bodily fluids, and a new copy of a game for 5 bones more, it's not a tough choice for all but the folks that are REALLY strapped for cash.

Third,  addressing your development costs as a developer, I can tell you a of development money is simply misspent. When you have a massive library of art assets available, why is nearly every rock, tree, building, character, and item, every song, menu sound, and effect, created from scratch. Every. Single. Game. Why is a pefectly good engine tossed, and rewritten from the ground up, rather than being polished? We never question it, just complain about how much it costs to redo everything.

 

You really want to 'fix' this 'problem'? Use a carrot, not a stick. How about, as a new game ages, and DLC comes out for it, include discounts for the DLC in the new copy of the game? ADD value, don't delete it. Otherwise, best case scenario, people will buy the used game, and maybe some of your DLC to go with it.

I see 30 more greedy game developers lost their jobs at 2K this week.

There is zero proof, and zero logic, that used game sales drive new game sales. Used game sales serve no purpose but to take away new game sales.

Unless you're using the logic that getting $10 in trade credit for their game trade makes the difference in whether they get a new game or none.

@Ed Webb:

Game developers are not "screwed over" by used sales any more than any other manufacturers. You might as well ask, "Do you think that a company that spends $10 million designing a car doesn't deserve $15,000 from you for driving it, or $15,000 from anyone who drives it, including your friends you want to loan the car?"

Silly, right?

You sell one car, you get paid once. If you want to get paid twice, you have to sell two cars. When the person who bought the first car sells it to a used car lot, you don't get paid again -- it's his car now, not yours.

Why on earth would it be any different for games? If you want to get paid twice, sell two copies. You don't get to sell one copy and then take a cut every time it changes hands: after you sell it, it belongs to the person who bought it, not to you.

Dear Video Game Publishers,

If you really want to get a cut of used game sales, just fucking buy out GameStop, already, or create your own competing service.

Imagine the money you could make selling us the same game over and over again.

Sincerely,

Me

Some awfully big stretches being made here. The knee-jerk reaction is cry foul (because we as consumers are somehow owed everything these developers and publishers produce) and say we're being screwed. On the flip side, those who are ponying up the cash to buy the game new (which is the most beneficial for the publisher) are getting something they wouldn't get if they buy the game used (which only benefits the middleman).

Is every step that's been taken thus far the right one? No. But this industry isn't as healthy as we all want to think it is, so we have to accept that publishers are going to try something to drive new game sales. Thus all the pre-order bonuses we see for major releases, or the extra-content codes. This is uncharted territory in a lot of ways, and so there's no magic formula for these publishers to follow.

And the whole line of "there's no proof that a used sale is a new sale lost" is bullshit. I can just as easily say there's no proof that a used sale isn't a new sale lost. The fact of the matter is that, mere days after most games come out, if I go into a GameStop and try to buy it I'm more often than not offered a used copy for about $5 less. is it your right to sell your property? Absoutely. Is it GameStop's right to sell a used game for a much higher profit margin? Absolutely.

But do the publishers have the right to profit from their hard work and investment buy adding value for the new game buyer? Apparently not...

@ Ed Webb, So by your logic companies should always get money from their products long after the intial sale?? Ok, remember all the times you had company over and they watched movies with you on your TV? You better call them and tell them they need to pay the studio who made those movies, because they didn't have to pay for them, yet still watched them at your house.

Remember that time you borrowed a friends car? You better call the auto maker and pay them a few grand, since you drove that car and didn't pay them.

Remember that time you borrowed a friends copy of the Lord of the Rings Novel?? Well you should call the publisher and send them a check, since you didn't pay for the book before reading.

Your logic makes no sense. No other industry would dare ask people to pay them twice for one product. If I buy a car, I can lend it to whoever I want and sell it to whoever I want because it is MY car, and the auto maker does not get a DIME after the initial purchase and there is nothing they can do about it. Why? Because when I put my money down on their product they are now giving ME ownership. If I buy a DVD, I can do whatever I want with it after that. If I want to sell it on ebay that is my choice, and the studio can't do shit because it is MY DVD that I PURCHASED.

Do you see where I am going with this?? Why should the industry demand money from second hand sales?? Could you imagine Honda knocking on your door and demanding thousands of dollars because you didn't pay them for the Used Accord you bought from a used dealership?

@ Greg :

"I'm sure the thousands of developers that were laid off in the past 18 months agree with you."

"I see 30 more greedy game developers lost their jobs at 2K this week."

And how many  video game jobs were created during the past 18 months ? 

How many jobs were lost in the same period in other industries ? 

How many of theses are lost to used game sales ? 

Since used games sales have been around since the very beginning of a video games market, how don't companies, publishers, studios plan their business accordingly ? 

Why I should be the victim of lousy business planning ? 

The car analogy is pretty flimsy, too. Sure, car companies don't ask you to give them cash when you buy one of their vehicles used. (Unless you buy it through a dealership. Certified Used and all that.) But they do nickel and dime you up front.

Want an automatic transmission? $1k please. How about a stereo capable of MP3 playback? Or something that will connect to your iPod? Leather interior? Power Windows? Keyless Entry? Mud flaps? Extra air bags? Air conditioning? Cargo net? Oh, and we're going to add a grand or two on top of the MSRP for shipping.

Yeah...boy, the car industry is the epitome of fair play when it comes to customer service.

Movie studios? They've been trying to charge you twice ever since the advent of home video.

The debate seems to be getting muddled, here. Suddenly we're talking about how much it costs our friends to borrow our games. That's a bit of a stretch when the debate began over how much used game buyers are getting "screwed."

@Benoit - you're the one who said the game industry is the healthiest it's ever been. The jobs lost or created in other industries really has no bearing on how wrong that statement was. And while used game sales have been around forever, it's never been at the scale it's at now - the biggest (and only) specialty retailer in North America has practically based its entire business model around pushing used games over new games. That's a bit different than mom and pop shops having a used game shelf back in the 80s.

Not to mention the sheer amount of resources it takes to create a retail title nowadays. Or the level of competition. Or the rampant piracy. Or the cost of creating, certifying, and pushing out extra content. Or the cost to keep multiplayer services and servers running.

Yes, used game sales have been around forever. But the retail landscape back then is almost incomparable to what we have now. Thus, publishers are trying to figure out how to stay in business in the current landscape. Are you really going to argue that laying off a couple dozen people each time a project comes to an end is a viable business model? Because that's the situation developers are in right now.

And let's be clear, here. No one is a "victim" of anything. If you buy a game new, you get the full product. Stuff like online pass only affects you if you buy used. And even then, it's not like this is some great secret. If you feel it's unfair, then don't buy the game. Vote with your wallet. But none of us have a right to this content. Like any other product, the manufacturer decides how much they want to charge for what they have produced, and it's up to the consumer to decide whether they think it's fair. Otherwise, they don't buy it. Until video games are required to live, no one is being "victimized" here. 

@ Greg :" you're the one who said the game industry is the healthiest it's ever been. The jobs lost or created in other industries really has no bearing on how wrong that statement was."

The video game industry is still a growing business in a declining global economy. Last year's small dip in sales is nothing compared to the previous years growth (and ignores a lot of the digital distribution sales). A couple loyoff here or there doesn't change this. 

"And while used game sales have been around forever, it's never been at the scale it's at now - the biggest (and only) specialty retailer in North America has practically based its entire business model around pushing used games over new games. That's a bit different than mom and pop shops having a used game shelf back in the 80s." and "Yes, used game sales have been around forever. But the retail landscape back then is almost incomparable to what we have now."

But the market has grown for new games also ! There is big business around used games because there is a big business around games - period. We are talking about scale !

"Not to mention the sheer amount of resources it takes to create a retail title nowadays. Or the level of competition. Or the rampant piracy. Or the cost of creating, certifying, and pushing out extra content. Or the cost to keep multiplayer services and servers running."

Still, there is a bigger market so bigger retail titles can make money. And sequels are cheaper. And big name studios can make smaller games and be profitable. Extra content is a cost but is also revenue; Map packs used to be free, you know. The costs of bandwith & hosting for a server is way cheaper now than before, and if hosting servers is a problem, let the players do it - Except publishers are now BANNING the use of player-operated servers.

"Yes, used game sales have been around forever. But the retail landscape back then is almost incomparable to what we have now.

"Thus, publishers are trying to figure out how to stay in business in the current landscape. Are you really going to argue that laying off a couple dozen people each time a project comes to an end is a viable business model? Because that's the situation developers are in right now."

It does make business sense ! Every entertainment industry is based around projects. Once a project is done, its team move on to another one. Why should the videogame industry be any different ?   It's viable in the movie, tv, live performance, music industry. When a band is done touring, the roadies search another job. 

That isn't an indicator of how bad the industry is doing, but how the development model of a project is tructured.

"And let's be clear, here. No one is a "victim" of anything. If you buy a game new, you get the full product. Stuff like online pass only affects you if you buy used. And even then, it's not like this is some great secret. If you feel it's unfair, then don't buy the game. Vote with your wallet. But none of us have a right to this content. Like any other product, the manufacturer decides how much they want to charge for what they have produced, and it's up to the consumer to decide whether they think it's fair. Otherwise, they don't buy it. Until video games are required to live, no one is being "victimized" here."

I vote with my wallet everytime I can, but when I and countless others do, video game exec start to blame the used games market. See ?

@Greg - Claiming that because games aren't required to live - we shouldn't complain is, frankly, a poor argument. To be precise, it's a ignoratio elenchi (irrelevant thesis). Yes, games aren't essential to life - Maslow's hierarchy doesn't contain "entertainment". However, to be blunt, that argument would render this entire site, and any arguments criticizing the game industry irrelevant, so let's move on.

I don't have problems with publishers providing services like Cerberus Network to people who bought the game new, and making people who got it used pay for it. Ultimately, they're rewarding people who bought the game new with free DLC, and that's fine. Stuff like denying online multi-player to people who bought the game used, on the other hand, bugs me, especially considering it's stuff that's on the physical disk (I have my own objections for paid “DLC” in general that consists of nothing more than an unlock code for stuff already on the disk, but that's a complaint for another time). It bugs other people in the game press too, as demonstrated by Alex Navarro's comments on that in his review of Madden 11 at Giant Bomb.

Ultimately though, it's a matter of tone, and a matter of respect for the consumer. Attacking GameStop for ripping off customers over credit given for trade-ins would actually be pro-consumer. However, blanket attacking used game sales, and particular the right-of-first sale, on the other hand, is quite the opposite. You do that, and you're attacking the customer. You're all but telling us that you don't give a crap about us, what we think, or whether or not we even like your game. You just want us to bend over. To be honest, they might have been thinking that from the beginning. However, then they at least had the good sense to lie about it. Now, though, they're being up front about it, and any protest through the usual means (voting with our dollars) will become interpreted as consent and acceptance of what we're about to receive (“See, we were right, used games are hurting our sales!”). Plus, as has been mentioned, internet petitions do little good without some sort of real-world demonstration of our displeasure, either though protest, or through having a large number of people delivering the petition, say, by hand.

Additionally, now that I think about it, there isn't much the ECA can do in this regard either. The game industry isn't actively trying to overturn the right-of-first-sale through the courts or the legislature. They're trying to undermine it. Consequently, there's only one place I can think of where they're truly vulnerable anymore. Metacritic.

The game industry uses Metacritic scores to decide bonuses, to decide if sequels are made, and numerous other things. Yes, it also determines whether people keep their jobs, but, frankly, we don't have any options anymore. If enough critics bump down review scores for design decisions that are clearly anti-consumer, like denying features and important content from people who purchased the game used, then hopefully, eventually, somebody will get the point.

@ Greg.

Your car argument is actually just nonsense. You are talking about features auto makers offer you in their cars as a comparison to tacked on fees for used game purchases. I have purchased 4 used cars and 2 new ones in my time, and I never had any dealer offer me features that did not come standard with the vehicle model of my choice. You see, vehicles come in different models, and regardless of the model I choose I will never have the auto maker bang on my door and ask for more money after I purcahse it from a lot.

You are talking about Dealerships trying to offer you more features for a car you have not purchased yet. We are talking about video game companies blocking features from used games and demanding money in order to play them. Features that the customer does not know are going to be blocked before he or she purchases the game. It would be like Honda removing the tires from your car, and asking for $100 to get them back. (Hey, Look!! Another Car analogy!!!)

Also, "Shipping"??? You are using the cost to ship a vehicle as an excuse?? Who is talking about shipping here? There are 39 car lots within 100 square miles of my house, why would the shipping cost attatched to it have anything to do with the subject at hand?? That is like me saying "McDonalds once sold me a cold hamburger, so this is proof that every other industry nickel and dime you all the time". Stay focused.

Also, you use the DVD industry as an example, but forget to give any sort of evidence or argument. So I am going to have to consider that void at the moment. The bottom line is that video game companies are getting in the way of customers rights to sell, lend, or borrow products that they purchased. There is no law against selling or buying used video games. If every other industy on the planet has to put up with their products being sold a second time, then the video game industry should not have any right to complain.

An Example, I just sold my old 16gig iPod Touch on Ebay a month ago for $110. You know what happened directly afterward?? The buyer deposited the money in my PayPal account and I sent him the used iPod Touch. He is going to use that iPod all the time, I am sure of it...You know what didn't happen after I sold it to him? Apple did not force him to pay a fee in order to use all of the standard features in the ipod. They did not ask him for $10 to unlock Safari. They did not ask him for $10 to unlock the App Store. They did not ask him for $10 to unlock the built in calculator either.

@Ed - My point with the car and movie industries was not that they do the same thing as what the game industry is doing right now. It's that they do try to wring more money out of consumers, just in different ways. I've never said that locking features away is a good thing. I've said that the simple fact of the matter is that we have to expect publishers to do something to add value in order to drive new game purchases. I haven't debated whether the decisions made thus far are the right or wrong ones.

@Alexander - My required to live statement was in response to someone referring to themselves as a "victim." There are no victims here. Sure, you can call it unfair, but saying you're a victim implies you have some sort of right to this content - or at least an amount you deem fair, which is ridiculous in its own right. Every game comes with a varied amount of content, normally for the exact same price. How do we define "complete" or "incomplete?" Where is it written exactly how much we get for our $60? What is the rule?

Based on what you're saying, you wouldn't have a problem with what's happening if, say, the code to connect to an online server wasn't actually on the disc when you bought it. In that case, you'd be fine if you and every subsequent user of your game had to pay to play an online match of, say, Halo. Right?

(Edit: I was just being argumentative with that last bit :)  )

@Greg - I would argue a right is being violated. Not all rights are decided by the social contract between the governing and the governed. I would say that forbidding people who bought a used game from being able to play that game online hurts the right-of-first-sale, because it makes it literally impossible for me, as a customer, to resell a product that I have purchased in the same condition that I purchased it in. It means that once I buy a game, the game becomes damaged goods. It's crippleware.

To put it another way, it re-defines the entire meaning of software from being "goods" (like it was from the old days of computing before we got high-speed internet), and "goods & services" (once the internet started being used by companies for their own multiplayer servers, as well as for patch distribution), into simply being a service.

This is bad. I didn't go much into this in my column, because it's probably a matter for another column, but it makes it more difficult for gamers to pass on our gaming history to the next generation (and possibly meaning that there won't be future generations of "Retro Gamers"). It requires us to explicitly trust game publishers to always be there, just as much as Internet Authenticated DRM does - to provide the $10 unlock code to enable online multiplayer, or any other feature or content in the game that could in theory be disabled for people who bought the game used.

And be honest here, are you really willing to trust Activision?

In answer to your question about what is "complete" or "incomplete" in this case - I define it as being everything on the disk or cartridge. If you're locking content on the disk for people who only bought it new, then you're forcing people who can only afford to get the game used to get an incomplete game.

I'm going to quote Sewart here, because, up to a point, I think this kind of sums up the whole argument:

"Is it your right to sell your property? Absoutely. Is it GameStop's right to sell a used game for a much higher profit margin? Absolutely.

"But do the publishers have the right to profit from their hard work and investment by adding value for the new game buyer?"

And the point up to which that sums it all is this: Yes. Game publishers do have the right to add value to encourage new game sales. But, we as consumers also have a right to call them out when we feel they've gone too far. How far is too far? Yes, there's no obvious, rigidly defined definition, but if a large enough number of people feel that any one thing in particular is a ripoff, maybe it's worth considering that they might have a point.

I think this is really the crux of AC's argument -- not that companies shouldn't be able to make a reasonable effort to encourage new game sales but that we should call them out when they're unreasonable. Unreasonable -- again -- is hard to define, but certainly we all know when we think someone has crossed that line.

That said, I'm curious as how people feel about the fact that this whole argument is, in the long run, pretty much moot.

By which I mean that, ultimately, the used games market is going to more or less disappear. Everyone seems to be of the opinion that digital distribution is the inevitable future and that physical media is going to go the way of the proverbial dodo -- and that's the extinct bird dodo that doesn't exist anymore, not your idiot cousin you just wish would disappear.

There's currently no method to sell your unwanted downloads back to PSN in order that the previously used digital file might be resold at a lower price. I don't expect this functionality to exist at any point in the future on any platform regardless of your first-sale rights.

GameStop is going to die. And then who is the industry going to blame when they feel they aren't making as much money as they think they should be?

@Joey -  I'm still not completely convinced anything's going completely to digital distribution anytime soon. I just personally don't think between there's really enough commitment to (at least in the U.S.) improving the national infrastructure to make that a great options everywhere. For as much as publishers might want to push that route, that (at least anytime soon) will be more cutting off their nose to spite their face than anything of the completely overblown "victim" cries people are doing for GameStop or for consumers on this one. So while I don't buy this as the worst of publisher problems, I also find a lot of this "death of the used game" market talk more dramatics than anything else.

@Alexander

Very good points. I, too, worry about the digital distribution future and the fact that we no longer own our games, but are basically paying for the right to play them up to the point that the publisher either can't or won't allow us to do so anymore. I think the next generation of console hardware in particular is going to be interesting, because it will be the first transition where consumers will have considerable libraries of downloaded games and content that they may or may not be able to carry forward. Unfortunately, it looks more and more as though software will make the transition from a good to a service.

Your post also brings into focus exactly my point about people being robbed of the "complete" experience. You say that "I define" complete as a certain thing. The problem is that there is no definition, which is why arguments like this are really pointless, since the definition of "complete" shifts so much from person to person, game to game, and software generation to generation.

We as gamers tend to take for granted how much content we really get today compared to even 10-15 years ago for a comparable price.

I don't like to support second hand sales. A game is a piece of software and just like a retail copy of Windows, you agree to the TOS by opening the package and using it. If I were a developer and I saw that 15-20 people played the same copy of my game instead of each buying their own, I'd be ticked off as well. That's ONE game I got paid for, while gamestop resold that same disc 14-19 times. I fully support publishers wanting to protect their investments from people who think they can just give them the shaft, and still think they have the right to complain about it.

Unless a game is discontinued or impossible to find new, I refuse to support gamestop buying second (or third,fourth, fifth...) hand games. 

If they have it the way they'd like to,  you won’t have hard-copies of media period, new or used- digital distro only. Although this sometimes does enable the release of more niche or oldschool titles that might not make it out otherwise, overall it sucks imo. I like to own a physical copy; I like it sitting on my shelf; I don't want to worry about an HD crashing and losing content; I don't want to worry about some account fuck up and losing ability to re-download content; I don't want to have to store personal info and CC numbers with even more companies just to play games; I don't want to get jerked around with bullshit like Steam where I have to have an account, their client program installed, and login just to access something that I OWN. Heh, they're devaluing the concept of ‘ownership’ as well; it's more like a virtual lease. Unfortunately, this is becoming more and more prevalent. I can't say from first hand experience yet since I don't have Starcraft II, but from what I hear it forces you to connect to BattleNet to play an OFFLINE game, makes you authenticate the software once a month, won’t let you spawn the game for LAN, etc.

You really want to know what SERIOUSLY PISSES ME THE HELL OFF. Game developers who cry out their asses  " Our game takes a devalued hit from used game sells" . This is the biggest bullshit thing them morons can say . You sold the damn game you made your money move on  , your not losing a damn thing .

 Trying to milk more money from $10 pass should be illegal , I be damned if I purchase any title with 1 of these codes  in it . You have already lost a sale there i garentee it  . I have a xbox and I also have steam   I dont need the damn console if ur going to try  use extortion to try and make more money from me  .

 Ive seen video game companies try for years to fight to make games IP   and not that they have become IP  they should not be allowed to break the game apart for more profit  this should automatically remove any title thats broken apart in such a way from being a IP  completely  .

 I think every company that starts this type of extortion should be boycotted 100% . I already boycott everythign EA has touched or will ever touch 100%  because they touch it , it becomes useless garbage  .

I also will not be renewing my XBL gold after it expires either  , I am not paying microsft more for them to spam me with crap I dont need nor want or use  .

 IF you want to keep your game titles out of game stop and in the hands of gamers  , make your games worth buying and keeping  stop this cookie cutter assempbly line video game crap you have been selling for the last 10 years in the gaming market .

 dont blame your games value on gamestop or used games  blame yourself for a crappy shabby cheap made rushed out the door game thats not worth keeping  .!!!  u greedy bastards .

If your game was worth a damn it would be in someones collection and not at gamestop being sold second hand . When I find a good game new or used I keep it for ever  . I  never get rid of it unless they suck .