Extra Credits: Digital Resale

This week, we speculate on the future possibilities of reselling digital copies of games.

Show Notes:

Would you like James to come speak at your school or organization?

For info, contact us at: kate@extra-credits.net

Audio Version:

Recent Comments:

  • EULA agreements are thrown out often in court as are ToS. Those don't supersede the laws. The problem atm is that corporations are trying to claim games are SERVICES even though you buy them and download them and they run off your hardware. Imo, the only "service" part of WoW or SC2 or D3 or whatnot is the use of Bnet and that's prolly part why Blizzard is forcing all their games to connect to Bnet now to be used even for single player, so they can claim it's a service.

    We need to fight this shit. And steam.... oye... steam blatantly says in their EULA you don't own the games on your account. It's bullshit. Fuck corporations. All of them. fucking over our country.

  • Book authors do not get a cut of used book sales.
    Painters do not get a cut of used painting sales.
    Sculptors do not get a cut of used statue sales.
    Car manufacturers do not get a cut of used car sales.
    Musicians do not get a cut of used CD sales.
    ... and that's all good and proper.

    There is a difference in all of these things.
    Movies don't require movies to sell on dvd/blu-ray as much of their sales come from box offices, pay-per-view deals, and cable tv streaming.

    You don't need to sell as many books, paintings, or sculptures to make a profit on their production.
    Car manufacturers allow used car sales because, due to the high price-point of their products, allowing people to sell their cars makes it easier for those same people to purchase a new car.
    Musicians are similar to movies in that they also have concerts, shows, radio deals, and the like to get money for their work regardless, and like books/art/sculpture, it doesn't take as much money to turn a profit on music as it does a video game development.

  • It doesn't take as much money to turn a profit on [insert activity here] as it does a video game development
    I can't disagree with you more. There is no difference in any of these things.

    If they can't turn a profit then video game developers have to make games cheaper or stop betting their entire companies on individual products. They need to rethink their business model. There are plenty of examples of games that are making a profit without changing the basic principles of ownership law. And that's what we are talking about doing if any third party is entitled to a cut of a used property sale. It's a very dangerous and far reaching line of reasoning. It's fundamentally wrong both in a legal and ethical sense. Digital or not, it's irrelevant as property is property regardless of form.

    If you believe developers should get a cut of used sales, explain to yourself why. The only answer I'm hearing is "because they want a cut" or "because if they don't, they won't have enough money." Both of those are (to paraphrase Simpsons); "You got $5. How did you get $5? I want $5." That's not a reason. That's a desire.

    BTW: Car manufacturers do not "allow" used car sales. Used car sales happen with or without the manufacturer's involvement regardless of what manufacturers may or may not want to happen. They are just smart enough to incorporate used sales into their business model and add value as a middleman. If a game company can't add value to a used sale, then they should get nothing.

  • I wonder why nobody brought up the real topic here: prices.

    People pay $40 on a game and then sell it for $20 or something, which make their
    true cost $20. They couldn't play it for the true price, so someone gave them the
    possibility (by selling the last game for a credit) to pay the next one. Some people
    do it, some seem not to care (in a sense of disposable income).

    In a real world, the reaction would be to lower the price to $20, so much many
    people would play it and less people would be inclined to sell the last to get
    the next one. In a sense, F2P is a different way to solve this problem (and
    opening a bunch of new ones).

    But the game/console developers seem not to be working in the real world.
    They simply "ship off" masses of money to the game stores for used sales.
    It seems, that they rather lose money to them, then make it more financially accessible
    to their customers. Why? Because their business models shouldn't change?

    Whats the price you don't want to sell it anymore because you think its some sort
    of "consuming"-cost, like a cinema or musical? Why is there a difference? Is it,
    because we call it a "thing" and not an "experience"? Or because of the high
    price? Because its "possible" and that's 'reason enough'?

    This is quite interesting.

    My friend bought a shell of $1 ebooks for his Kindle. Should he be able to sell
    them for $0.50? Where will this stop? I buy a an game for $0.01 and now I can't
    sell it because the selling tool doesn't allow $0.005 to be type in? I'm screwed ;-)

    These are good questions. But we should not limit ourselves to ask these questions
    with pre-formulated answers and concepts in mind.

  • I think the best way steam could handle digital resale would probably be through a kind of re-purposing of the already existing steamgifts just have contributors earn some kind of benifit for putting their game on there. they could even change the point system so that people still gain 1/10 of the points required for a game each time a new giveaway is added but they could make them do a survey or watch an ad every set amount of points or entries so that they wouldn't lose as much money.

Join The Discussion: