I don't read parent as looking for empathy, but rather explaining why "you like grinding? We hope so, because you're going to grind for that next $PIECE_OF_CHEESE lest you finish the game quickly, turn around and resell it."

I don't know, I personally do feel empathy.

If Company A makes a product people are willing to pay for; and company B makes multiple sales/profit off of it, it does trigger some kind of empathy/moral/something spidey-sense in me.

We are not talking about piracy where we use argument "that 12 years old wouldn't have paid for your game anyway". These customers DID pay for the game! Just not to the developer; that money did not support development of new fun content.

Not to say I disagree with the notion of digital platform stripping away ownership; but I think that specific wrong doesn't make the other situation right :-/

Every video game I have ever bought has been used. Then again I buy all sorts of things used—probably 10x more than I buy new. I don’t see why a good’s manufacturer should expect to skim profit every time one of their goods changes hands, and I resent the lengths (DRM) some of them go through to try to do so. I should be able to buy used and to sell to someone else when I’m done with it.

There's a distinction between physical goods and digital goods. Other than video games, how many other digital goods do you buy and then resell?

None, because digital storefronts are constructed in such a way as to deny the right of first sale. There's no reason this has to be the case; Steam for instance could just revoke your license, turn the game into a giftable copy like any other, and let it be listed on the marketplace.

You must hate used bookstores too

No; and I don't hate used game stores either.

My statement was specific - I feel empathy for the developer. One can feel empathy toward multiple parties, even in situations of conflict or disagreement (I'm kind of with Ender on this one :-). This was in particular a response to the commenter that "felt 0 empathy toward developer" - which I found curious and perhaps unfortunate.

Do you feel these customers own the game?

> new fun content

I would only say that's neccessary if they No man skyed it. (Screwed up the release)

I think the problem isn't being able to resell games. It's the fact that it became "industrialized" reselling. Gamestop grew so big, and incentivized used sales so much (so much that on release day, unopened new copies of the game were opened by employees to sell as used for $5 less), that the sheer volume caught every game publisher off-guard.

Used games stores have been a thing much before it became a problem (I remember selling games at EB Games). But because of Gamestop's growth and their aggressive pursuit of making sure their customers only dabble in the used games section, it became a serious issue.

The 7-9 resales by Gamestop might not translate to 7-9x extra sales, but I would bet it is at least 2x. I know a lot of people that stopped buying their games new, but wouldn't buy them used unless they were from Gamestop (so basically no grey market, e.g. ebay or craigslist), because it was more convenient. In some cities, Gamestop had some many stores, that they had to compete between themselves.

I think it makes sense that video games shouldn't be resold. Do you think you should be able to resell a movie ticket? I don't because I see the purchase of a movie ticket as the right to see a movie once. In the same way I think purchasing a game should give you a right to download a game from your account.

The argument to allow second user sales of computer games is that it drives first user sales.

When a game costs $50 and I can't get any of that money back when I've finished playing the game I need to think really carefully before buying it. If I know I can get some money back by selling the game it makes it easier for me to buy it.

> I don't because I see the purchase of a movie ticket as the right to see a movie once.

So, Netflix should only allow one person to watch the screen at a time, and everyone in the room watching the tv show needs to purchase an account, or maybe a pay-per-view watch?

> The argument to allow second user sales of computer games is that it drives first user sales.

Digital games have their own benefits — sales. If games can be resold, one person may buy a game and then sell it to another person. With non resealable games, both of the people in the above example would buy the game later in a sale. Sales are one of the best uses of price discrimination; practically everyone gets to play a game eventually if they want to, but those who especially want to can pay more.

> So, Netflix should only allow one person to watch the screen at a time, and everyone in the room watching the tv show needs to purchase an account, or maybe a pay-per-view watch?

I don’t see how my statement implies this. Single use tickets and subscriptions services are different things.

I think there are many more counter examples than supportive to your argument here:

- should you be able to resell a book?

- resell a CD?

- board game

- lego

- badminton racket

_ad nauseum_. the idea of a movie ticket, is that it provides a closed-in-time temporal experience. The movie screens at those given times in a theatre and then never there again (be it months or whatever post-release). A video game is an experience made whenever wherever a person wants.

Think of it like buying a movie, like it actually is. Of course you should be able to sell on used copies.

The pricing of games doesn't really work for a transferrable license. In theory you could sell a $60 copy of Grand Theft Auto and then just pass that around to every person in the world. In this scenario Rockstar makes less than <$60 and Gamestop would take a constant % cut of every license exchange. This obviously is an extreme example but my point is to point out the disproportional economics.

> The pricing of games doesn't really work for a transferrable license.

I counter this with the reality that it is working and has worked for decades. As measured by numerous thriving game developers and publishers.

I don’t even think it’s revenue maximizing for game devs to not allow transfers as I suspect that being able to transfer games to friends increases overall sales due to word of mouth, press, etc. Like how shareware increased net sales.

At least for PC games the model has switched to licensing per player. Steam doesn’t allow you to resell games and this has created an explosion of indie games and developers. Especially for small developers imagine how hard it would be if the handful of players just passed around a few copies. It essentially forces everyone to make online multiplayer games.

you could make the same arguments for books or movies on a physical medium.

Yep and that industry has also shifted to a license per viewer/screen model as seen with Netflix et al.

And 35 years ago this argument was made with video rental stores, who also rented video games. As in the same physical copy was played by (gasp!) hundreds of people.

You feel zero empathy? Good, because developers will also feel zero empathy when they strip away your ownership rights.

They're already doing it by pushing digital only consoles. Which I'm not buying. There is no evidence that they intend on protecting the interest of the customer.

Do you want to play games or own them?

Given the growing backlog of unplayed games people have on Steam these days I’m not sure which one is the answer.

Which should be illegal.

This argument is misleading because even if it’s not the full 7-9, it is certainly greater than 0. We can argue what the exact percentage is, but saying there was 0 lost sales is just as wrong as saying 7-9 lost sales.

It is slightly more, yes. However, you're going to have a hard time convincing me that it's as significant as they claim. The people buying used games don't feel that the game is worth risking the new game price. Also, it gives them more freedom to sell if they didn't like it.

The digital platform is about locking the user in no matter what. No chargebacks, no ownership, etc. Do a charge back Sony bans your console and locks you out of the games you "purchased". End of.

The middlemen are just as bad, they'll buy a game for a dollar and turn around and sell it for 20, so I dont really care either way - steam sales are saving me me much more than resales ever paid me back.

Except you can get a refund for a game from GameStop without being banned. You can sell it back for some, non-zero amount of money. If you don't like their price, you can try selling it yourself. That's a huge swath of ownership rights given up for a 15% discount.

I think it’s larger than you claim. If someone is willing to pay for new, but offered a lower price for used, they will likely pick the used copy.

And yea chargebacks aren’t a mechanism for getting a refund. They are essentially a fraud accusation. Try doing a chargeback with amazon on a large purchase and see how long your account stays in good standing.

> Try doing a chargeback with amazon on a large purchase and see how long your account stays in good standing.

That's the problem; when there's a legitimate cause for chargeback you still can't do one, because the big platform is going to retaliate.

Why would a company keep doing business with someone that went to their bank and accused that company of fraud? Making a chargeback is a serious claim of malfeasance by the company that has to then be arbitrated by the third party bank. It’s not a mechanism for getting a refund; it’s an accusation of fraud who’s remedy may include a refund.

The problem is company you bought from through the big platform did fraud, and the platform was too lazy to care.

It's fine being blacklisted from that tiny fraudulent company. It's anti-consumer when a legitimate chargeback can't be filed because some giant company processed the credit card and will bring their wrath upon you.

When you are sold a game that does not work and not refund, there is fraud. (I.e. Cyberpunk PS4) Or how there are only only games that have a really poor effort to make a non-online portion. (Those are dependent upon the PSN subscription).

The only time Sony gives money back is when their reputation is majorly hurt. Amazon from my experience doesn't tend to let it get this far. (Although they are terrible in their own right)

And console game prices already reflect this, it is priced in by design. Everyone in this business collectively chose this model together.

Well, if we put things in perspective, there's a paradox here.

If we take the case of a game that is resold a few times on average (not even 7+ times), users are waiving ownership on their own will - they're effectively renting.

In these specific conditions, a hypothetical (digital) game rental would actually serve best both the producer and the consumers.

Note that I don't make a general statement, but I'm referring to this specific case. I'm also not familiar with game rental, but at least until a few years ago, I've seen a physical shop offering it.

Buying an item, and then selling it later, is not effectively renting. It's buying an item and then selling it later. The fact that they had the option not to sell and could choose to exercise it doesn't disappear when they do choose to sell it.

In this specific case I think it's completely wrong to say that people who sell back physical copies are effectively renters.

As a kid, buying and selling games was the only way I could play most games.

Used to make good money on Prodigy. Then my dad switched us to AOL. It was too competitive for me; I went back to waiting for birthdays and Christmas.

Do you want free-to-play with micro transaction bullshit? Because this attitude is how you get f2p with mtx bullshit.

Software has a marginal cost of zero. In a supply and demand world we add arbitrary restrictions (copyright) to constrain supply to incentivize the creation of new supply.

Be careful what you wish for. You just might get it.

Also, GameStop would sell a used disc for $55 while a new disc was $60. Because they get 100% of $55. Then their associates HEAVILY pushed used on gamers who don’t give a shit and just want to save 5 bucks.

Sony has been making big story heavy games. There’s nothing wrong with a $60 narrative experience that lasts 20 to 30 hours. The Last of Us 2 is exactly that. Some gamers will buy that game on Tuesday and finish by Friday. Should GameStop sell that disc for $55 and collect all the proceeds when the game hasn’t been out for a week? Avoiding the used sale is why devs tack-on all kinds of bullshit the game doesn’t really need.

Fuck GameStop. Garbage company that has caused more harm to gamers than people will ever know.

I don't think you understand my stance. I'm all for used video game retailers. GME happens to be a pretty crappy one. But they are one that has availability of used games when a console isn't fashionable anymore. Got max payne for $4 and vanquish for under 8 a few months ago. (PS3) Sony is stopping their online store for the PS3. (Go figure)

> Also, GameStop would sell a used disc for $55 while a new disc was $60. Because they get 100% of $55. Then their associates HEAVILY pushed used on gamers who don’t give a shit and just want to save 5 bucks.

Where's the harm? Their ability to sell it for $55 is capped at the total stock they have. Dev companies can print near unlimited amounts of copies for a low price.

> If Sony prints and distributed TLOU2 for $5 and sells it at GameStop for $60 they make like $40 give or take.

Game dev company makes a sale.

> GameStop for like $20. GameStop can resell it for $55 and pocket every penny.

Gamestop and previous customer engage in a private transaction. Gamestop accepts that the game may not sell at $55

Gamestop now lists it in their supply in _used_ condition and certifies it's playablity.

> Game developers respond with digital, micro transactions, tack-on half-assed multiplayer, etc.

That has nothing to do with the Gamestop's business decisions after they sold the new copy. The studio is trying to milk it for more money post sale. (Also don't forget season passes/online fees etc)

> GameStop is a middle-man that seeks to prevent as many dollars as possible from going to the actual content creators.

They performed that original sell. I'm not sure how this is preventing content creators from making money.

> Sony can print an infinite number of TLOU2 copies for almost nothing. They could let you download the game for less than a nickel. Obviously you can not make a game like TLOU2 if you only charge a nickel to play it.

But they don't. They'll still charge you $60 (same as in store pricing) for the online download. (Even though it's less valuable and more risky about how they feel about you that day)

I still don't understand your point here. Once the content producer/retailer makes a sale.. _you_ _do_ _not_ _own_ _that_ _copy_ _any_ _more_. That's the entire sales transaction. You can't dictate a private transaction after the fact.

_clap_ _emoji_ _doesn’t_ _improve_ _your_ _argument_

Here’s a slightly amended story:

* Player A pre-orders TLOU2 for $60 from Amazon * Player A beats game, sells to GameStop for $20. * Player B buys “used” disc for $55 * $95 net player dollars have now been split $40 dev / $20 Amazon / $35 GameStop * Bonus! Player B sells game back to GameStop for $20. Who sells it to player C for $55. Repeat a few more times if you like.

You are probably happy with the story. I am not. I want content creators to be rewarded. You want middle men to extract value.

I know what first sale doctrine is and how it works. Thanks for the claps.

> That has nothing to do with the Gamestop's business decisions after they sold the new copy. The studio is trying to milk it for more money post sale.

If you would like to argue that game developers do not alter their business model in the face of used sales go ahead. Anyone who sat in meeting centered on “how can we prevent gamers from selling the disc back to GameStop in the first six months” will laugh at how wrong you are.

The good news for you is that the rise of digital distribution made the debate around used sales moot. Used sales don’t matter and GameStop’s old business model is dead. I hope they fail to pivot and their whole business goes with it.

Would you complain if each user sold directly to the next with near-zero markup?

You mean if every gamer just gave the disc to a friend to play? People do that all the time. It’s fine because it doesn’t scale as large as GameStop.

Let’s consider digital sales. Many people would like “used” sales of digital goods. (Is it really used if you make a new copy from the same, or possibly different, source bits?)

Imagine if digital licenses could be transferred instantly, for free, and infinitely. In such a world there would be a new middleman. Let’s call it WoodStop.

In this world WoodStop would offer a launcher. When you want to play a game it would acquire a license and launch the game. When you stop playing it releases the license. In this world the total number of licenses that EVER need to be sold is the peak concurrent user number. After launch week no new copies of the game ever need to be sold! In fact most games could probably sell 10% of their launch week sales and no player would ever have to wait to launch their game.

This system obviously does not work. Not with the initial licenses being sold for $60 at least.

Digital goods are _weird_. They cost upwards of $100,000,000 to create but cost less than a penny to download. And yet everyone on this HackerNews website earns a very good living producing work that can be infinitely reproduced for effectively free.

Not giving, but selling for maybe $20 average. Which scales just fine, ebay is full of games.

> Imagine if digital licenses could be transferred instantly, for free, and infinitely.

Sure, instant rental would break some things. But this isn't very far from the Netflix (DVD) or library model. If libraries stocked up on video game discs, would you be upset by that? Is everything fine if you have to wait two days between transfers of a copy?

There aren’t many physical releases for short games anymore. Any game in the 2 to 8 range probably costs $15 to $30 and is digital only. Physical releases are largely reserved for full priced titles where the overheard of manufacturing, distribution, and middle-man cut make it still worth while.

eBay has plenty of games if you want them. But as a percentage of the industry it’s not a big deal. GameStop is unique in that it was one of the top sellers of games AND their business was predicated on selling recent games as used. The incentives are perverse.

Honestly I think digital solves pricing relatively well. Everyone knows a brand new $60 game will be $30 in a few months and $20 in a year. Anyone can buy in at the price they deem appropriate. For PC if there’s a DRM-free version either at launch or after a year there’s no major concern about a game disappearing from the world.

There’s a lot of ways you can drawn the line. But they’re all arbitrary and based on what you want to min/max rather than natural or obvious laws.

Digital is weird because we make copies every time we install! Even game discs make a full copy on HDD. Afterwards the only thing a disc does is provide DRM. The game is fully installed and played from a copy on the HDD! (Because reading data from a DVD is slow as shit). And modern games have so many patches the content on a disc is worthless. The disc literally provides no value except DRM.

FWIW I would also change copyright law such that it doesn’t last 50+ years. More content should become public domain far faster. You can dig into my comment history for some recent discussion about that.

I’d like to think I’m pro-consumer and pro-creator. There is a tension there. Tricky balance. But I’m anti-middle men. Especially those who have a moat and use it to extract value while providing little to nothing in return.

They add demonstrable value to the first buyer - he got $20 back, after having gotten all the enjoyment he received from the game! And to the second buyer, who would likely get $10 back. They're more efficient than Craigslist or Kijiji, so they're able to siphon off more value to themselves, but they're popular because they provide lots of value to individual purchasers.