Get a piece of the action every time it is sold?!?
Who do they think they are, the Canadian government?!!

I find it funny how people are comparing this to used car sales when in the piratcy debates, everyone is always like "you cant say that, its not the same as stealing a car"

Those two arguments are in completely different contexts and it isn't hard to see that distinction.

The fact is that regardless of what product it is, the company who originally produced that product doesn't deserve a piece of resale. The video game industry is experiencing double digit growth and is currently swimming in cash. Yes, developers are closing but more are opening than closing and players in every industry close every day. They can't cry that they're losing their shirts on this issue any more than on piracy. I find it hilarious that developers are screaming about losing revenue from used games as if its a new phenomena, particularly when they're trying to restrict how many times we can use our products and also increasingly filling them with context irrelevant dynamic advertising that they certainly don't do for free.

"We're going to tell you how often to use your game, make you look at ads, make the games shorter and say that you can't resell it how you want, all while not lowering the price one cent and still whining that we're going bankrupt." Spare me. All you need to do is look at pictures of offices of a reasonably successful developer to know that they're doing just fine.


This comment was edited on Sep 28, 23:58.

I find it funny how people think piracy debates exist; piracy is stealing. Debate over, there's nothing to debate.

Your post is very out of place here and the connection your brain made is weak at best.

I find it funny how people are comparing this to used car sales when in the piratcy debates, everyone is always like "you cant say that, its not the same as stealing a car"

The principles are similar. If you want something closer, however, look at a second-hand store instead. Does Levi or Abercrombie go after a place like Goodwill or the countless second-hand and variety stores that pop up around universities, claiming they are owed a portion or even all of the revenue from the sale of items belonging to their brand? Or let's look at second-hand bookstores. Why doesn't Del Rey or Harper get their shorts in a wad when I buy a book from Half-Price Books? Hell, Half-Price sells second-hand movies and cds too (and even videogames!). Why isn't the MPAA in an uproar? Why isn't the RIAA's grand army of cash-vampire lawyers beating down their doors? The idea that game companies should get a cut of resold products is simply ludicrous and is two handfuls of greed-ridden proof why the game industry is suffering, as well as the economy in general.


This comment was edited on Sep 28, 14:40.

The game company doesn't lose a sale. If I sell GTAIV to someone, I need to go and buy a copy if I want to play it again. Game companies need to realize they ARE selling a physical product. And as such I can also sell their physical product(not that I ever sell my games, books or movies(I'm a media-whore)).

I don't think you can accurately compare Gamestop to used car salesmen.

The scale is vastly different. You need some kind of certification for used cars. You need someone accountable. If you go private you lose that. Used car dealers instead offer warranties and, at the very least, accountability. Not to mention they're a one-stop place with a great deal of selection, something difficult with a product as large and hard to transfer as cars.

You don't need that with used video games. And Gamestop barely offers it. You don't need the accountability because the transaction is so small and paypal can offer it. You don't have any issues with selection because ebay offers a greater one as discs can be mailed so easily.


They're parasites, nothing more. They add absolutely zero value. All they do is keep reaping money off of the work of everyone else. There's no need for such an awful middleman.

en masse

i agree with the person below that said that online sales with no physical product will educate people as to what they are actualy paying for.

you dont own the game. you dont own the rights to the game, and therefore you have no right to resell that game. what you can do is resell the plastic disc that the game came on, because you do own that.

i would bet most of those click thru's say that you purchased a non-transferable liscense. i cannot say that i know they do, because like you, i dont read those things.

this is an issue that has more to do with people understanding what they are buying than anything else. if you knew that the terms of buying something were restrictive beyond what you are prepared to accept, you may not buy it. if that happens en-mass, that will force the sellers to modify that to taste.

GTAIV is a good game but not a great one -- as the consoles sales indicated. Enormous immediate sales and then a quick tapering off. Word got around. "Wired" should already know this.

I have to disagree. Gamestop is a business much like a used car lot. They may not employ the best or sell the best but I don't think anyone here would argue that used car lots are not legitimate businesses. They're just middlemen. Some people don't want middlemen, yes, but some do. I just spent over 9 months trying to sell a used car myself and I can't count the number of times I was tempted to just dump it on some used car lot for half of what I finally sold it for. Of course, the rates at Gamestop and the like could be more favorable... I don't see how it's an even deal for a guy to bring in a dozen titles and still have to put up a bit of cash to get just one new release. Sure glad used car lots don't work that way. Imagine bringing in a whole fleet of vehicles to trade in for one car!

Legality aside, everyone here has to admit that businesses that pop up exclusively to sell used products are essentially leeches.

Take GameStop. They buy games back for peanuts and resell them far above value. This is their bread and butter, from what I understand. They basically add no value to the market and take lots and lots of money from it. Why? They're completely worthless (I've never understood buying or selling from them when you can just use ebay for better deals on both sides.)

GameStop essentially makes their profit off of everyone else's hard work. And I can see why the people actually doing that work sucks. Hopefully the internet will put GameStop out of business and keep aftermarket sales as consumer-to-consumer instead of putting some congolmerate of inept employees in charge of it.

I paid for that game, it's mine.

You know what happened, when publihsers and devs switched to selling licences online? People started trading account information, people started to make one account per game, they bought online, to circumvent the inability to unlock a game from an account.

People do not care for the details of some EULA they do not understand. For most people, there is no difference between buying a DVD or buying a licence. They paid for it, so it's theirs, so they can resell it. Thats the way people think and the industry WILL lose this battle, if they want to enforce their point of view onto their customers.

This comment was edited on Sep 28, 10:19.

Gonna have to go with general consensus here - I'm not buying a game that's sold under this kind of racket. If I buy a used cd, movie, car, fridge, whatever, I'm paying the guy who bought it, not the guy who made it. You know, maybe GM should get a cut of every used GM car sold. And hell, why don't we give each assembly line worker a cut as well? No, not for me. If a game isn't truly mine, I sure won't buy it, just as I wouldn't buy a fridge if the Maytag guy came and wanted his cut if I resold it.

The video game industry has just somehow gotten the idea in their heads that they're entitled to make money without making a product to earn it. They think that every time their product changes hands they should be paid. Well, time for them to wake up. I paid for that game, it's mine. When I go to resell it, it's my product and my money. And if they think otherwise, my business is going elsewhere. I need a new hobby...

Edit: After a little more thinking, I would be ok with game companies "renting" me their titles as they want to, but only if they gave me a full refund of every cent I paid for it when I want to resell it. I don't care if I paid $50 for it then and it's a $20 bin title now, I want my $50 back. If they're gonna run a racket, I want a piece of the action.


This comment was edited on Sep 28, 10:03.

Thinking they should get a portion of that revenue is not an unreasonable viewpoint to have about their livelihood.

I'm shocked sometimes at the pure vitriole you guys have for people who make games for a living.

So why should they get a cut for second-hand sales when no car manufacturer, music label, movie studio, house builder or computer build does? They just want more money.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Founder of the "I Hate Smiley Fitz" society

Remember: Riley has autism. He has trouble communicating, and in an overstimulating
environment, he can get frightened and run away, leaving his parents frantic. - Auburn

Royalties for used games why not?

Then what about books, movies, CDs, art, ect..
Can you really formulate a logical reason why video games are different then every other product ever created when it comes to second-hand sales?

Why not? The game re-seller is making money off of used games, why shouldn't the people who put the time and effort into actually making the game make money as well?

1 person buys a brand-new game for $60. They play it, take it into Game-Stop, and get $15 for it. Game-Stop turns around and sells it to someone else for $45 dollars. Game-stop has just made a profit of $30 and the developer/publisher of the game has lost 100% of the revenues from a missed new copy sale and gets nothing from the used copy sale. That process can repeat over and over with the same copy of the game. Each time, the re-seller is making money while the developers get nada.

Thinking they should get a portion of that revenue is not an unreasonable viewpoint to have about their livelihood.

I'm shocked sometimes at the pure vitriole you guys have for people who make games for a living.
This comment was edited on Sep 28, 08:03.

the question of value directly affecting sales doesnt always hold true, thats where marketing comes in - playing to the weakness of the human mind, and the manipulation of psychological aspects

at the end of the day, there are certain things you can never take with you - money is one of them.. however the idea of the power that money can give you is always an enticing proposition, especially for those who fail to see the impending cessation of their own little personal sphere

time is precious, its not just money - unless one is willing to trade that ineffable reality for an ephemeral substitute.. and in that case there are those who are willing to pick up all the slack - post no bills and poot no guff - and not to waste it looking at the shiny, shiny things, comparing gold to diamonds and so forth

If he wants to pursue that business model, that's his business, as long as its legal. But every action has a reaction. If the value of the game is less because you can't sell it, then there's less incentive to buy it.

The auto manufacturers often hark on resale value. It helps them over their competitors, if its true. Somewhere i have copy of Alternate Reality for the Atari8bit, which I'm pretty sure is worth much more than what I paid for it (hah, it was a gift!).

yeh! lets add a 700 billion dollars more to the national debt! that will save the day! yeh, thats the ticket!