Court ruling could kill used game business

October 14, 2010 By Ryan Fleming

A Federal Appeals court has ruled that software publishers can stop buyers from reselling software to customers.

It is no secret that game publishers are not in love with the idea of reselling used games. They typically do not see any money from those sales, and many gamers prefer to wait for a game they already plan on buying in order to save a few bucks. EA has already begun to institute a charge for gamers that buy their copies used and wish to play online, a tactic that many other companies are considering mimicking, but a new court ruling may make that a moot point.

The Dallas News is reporting that the San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled in the case of Vernor vs. Autodesk that software publishers have the authority to prohibit the resale of their software to another user. The ruling contradicts previous decisions have claimed that software could be resold under the “first sale doctrine.”

“The first sale doctrine has been a major bulwark in providing public access by facilitating the existence of used book and record stores, video rental stores, and, perhaps most significantly, public libraries,” R. Anthony Reese, a University of California law professor said in a 2003 statement.

Although the ruling is specifically related to computer software which has a license agreement explicitly built in and spelled out in no uncertain terms, it could potentially include all electronic equipment that is sold second hand. In other words, everything from garage sales to GameStop could face shut down.

GameStop is a seller of used and new video games, but the company relies on the high margins of used game sales, which make up 31.4-percent of all the company’s sales per quarter, which equates to roughly $565.5 million. Thanks to the higher profit margins, GameStop’s used game sales make up 46-percent of the company’s gross profits, roughly $260 million per quarter.

“We hope people understand that when the game’s bought used, we get cheated,” Cory Ledesma, a creative director at THQ said in an interview with computerandvideogames.com, which was reprinted by the Dallas News.

The court case began when a seller named Timothy Vernor tried to sell copies of Autodesk’s AutoCAD on eBay. Autodesk claimed that the secondhand sale violated the software license and demanded that eBay remove the items. EBay complied, but also filed a brief on behalf of Vernor, claiming that the sale did not violate U.S. copyright laws, and that the sale of used items is vital to the economy.

“Two of the primary effects and public benefits of the first sale doctrine are increased access to, and affordability of, copyrighted works,” eBay said in its brief. “Secondary markets encourage economic efficiency by creating opportunities for buyers and sellers to exchange copies of copyrighted works at mutually satisfactory price points.”

GameStop agrees, and has claimed that the sale of used games has actually increased the purchase of new games as well, by as much as 14-percent, thanks to the in-store credit earned with the trade-ins of used games.

The ruling will face appeal, but as publishers continue to push to digital downloads that are non-transferrable, and additional fees for physical media to connect online and access all the game’s features, it may end up being something of a moot point.

Showing 90 comments

logic at 8:59am 9th November 2010 i think everyone is missing one key to this law... "software publishers have the authority to prohibit the resale of their software to another user." each individual publisher can individually decide to make this move. and any half way intelligent one would not.
greg at 9:53pm 3rd November 2010 Y'know.. they could just make better games and people wouldnt want to sell them back to gamestop in the first place :p
William Shapiro at 4:12am 30th October 2010 Say I take a video game to Gamestop. Its selling at 17.99 used. What percent do I get out of trading in that game? Dermalift
Mason at 8:11pm 29th October 2010 The law isn't to blame here. People who make products have every right to be greedy. You don't have to buy games if you think they aren't worth the money. If this really upset buyers then they would stop buying. It's a moot point because this case has NOTHING to do with games, and the title of the story is just a scared tactic to get you to read it.
Mason at 8:05pm 29th October 2010 The head line here is a scare tactic. This ruling has nothing to do with console games. You can't trade in a PC game anywhere already. This case is about reselling computer software not about games. This ruling will never effect console games the same way.
SmackATard at 8:48am 28th October 2010 9th Circuit = always wrong. If anyone invents a time-traveling DeLorean, please go back and ensure that their parents have abortions. The intelligent will thank you for it, even if we're not exactly aware of it.
Guest at 11:30am 22nd October 2010 hmm just wondering is is legal to swap games with other ppl for lets say 2 weeks?
jon at 9:28am 22nd October 2010 If it goes thru, a lot more people will start pirating games and there will be a lot of people just reselling online. or will the feds start raiding people who resell games?
Dstacks at 1:57am 22nd October 2010 This moment, Splinter Cell: Conviction is $32.99 at Gamestop and $17.00 on half.com, $21 after shipping. Someone explain to me, what do they possibly do to deserve a $10 markup on a used game? They don't even have to ship it to your house. I'm serious, what do they do?
1. Guest at 10:24am 27th October 2010 They pay rent at a mall and employ people?
2. Mason at 8:06pm 29th October 2010 They sell it to you. It is your job to shop around for a better deal. When are people going to grow up?
Matt at 9:47am 21st October 2010 I simply can't understand why this lawsuit exists. If this ruling goes through, the best possible result a software company could expect is maintaining current profit levels. The IP conglomerate can at least muster a semi-coherent argument for how piracy is hurting the industry, but the most basic of logic shows the secondary market helps drive the primary market. If I buy a game for $60 with the intention of reselling it for $20, I've based my purchase decision at the $40 price point while actually giving the industry $60. You remove the ability to resell, and the apparent cost rises to $60. It's basic economics that with rising price comes lower demand. To maintain current sales figures, they'd have to lower the cost of a new piece of software to $40. Guess what that does to profit? Furthermore, I and everyone I know who resells games use that money towards future purchases. It's definitely not 100%, I'd bet the industry DOES see a large proportion of the money from used sales. In the current paradigm, the industry gets $60 from the "new" sale, plus an extra $20 in the customers pocket that will incentivise future "new" purchases. Is there a problem with my logic I'm not seeing? Why doesn't the industry understand this? It's things like this that make me wish our founding fathers didn't think the Right to Property was so fundamental and common-sense that it didn't need to be included in the Constitution.
Jack Storm at 9:40am 21st October 2010 What?!!!! Why do all these insane laws always apply to videogames? Videogames have been the only thing on the market subject to over-restrictive laws recently!!!! People can sell movies used posters used board games used verything used EXCEPT VIDEOGAMES! They are even passing a law(nationwide) that restricts the sale of rated M videogames to children. Yeah so they can still buy rated R movies that have REAL NUDITY/BLOODY VIOLENCE not animated! That is messed up!
1. Mason at 8:12pm 29th October 2010 Did you even read the story? This is about autodesk and PC software, you can't trade in PC games at gamestop and you never could.
faded at 1:01pm 20th October 2010 It's moments like this that I wish the things I learned from copyright and intellectual property law class had stuck with me. Any future rulings will probably take a close look at how it has been applied in past cases, and weigh it against the current standard of what it means to sell something "used." There is a lot of money at stake, for a lot of companies.
Loth at 12:30pm 18th October 2010 So are game company's recommending that people simply pirate the game instead of buying it used? If its $20.00 I might buy it used. If it is $70.00 and new I would not buy it. If no copies were available used then I can get it for free on the internet. Big Business software like AutoCad, Office, Etc are way overpriced. If you can't buy it used then just download it from 3rd world countries for free.
1. Andrew Tomashaska at 6:01pm 2nd February 2011 How do you figure CAD and Office are overpriced? These are not programs designed for Joe Six-pack, these are professional programs. As far as Office goes, there is a free alternative. Also, Office is offered at a discount for college students, as these are the only non-business users who really need access to it.
Orion at 11:46am 18th October 2010 I will never buy a game every again if they do this it is your game once you buy it so you should be able to resell it is yours
Joe Lachiana at 11:39am 18th October 2010 We will see "the videogame crash 2012" if this is enforced. Absolutely no reason to beat up on your customer base like this.
the mel at 5:28am 18th October 2010 I actually think if this passed, banning sales of used games, it would be a big benefit for gamers. Think about it this way: If you want a game, but you're not desperate for it, you wait a few months and buy it at around $45 rather than the initial $60 price tag. Now, the game developers are thinking that by forcing you to buy it at a full retail cost, consumers will just accept the $60 cost to get what they want. Realistically, the opposite will happen. For years, gamers have complained the price of games has continued to increase far too high. Now, with this forced pricing at retail, you'd likely see a big drop off in new game sales. As a result, retailers will work to lower prices faster to liquidate volume. As this continues to happen, and it becomes apparent to retailers that a lower volume is needed, game manufacturers would be asked to lower MSRPs to compete with the reduction in sales, effectively moving price down. Realistically, we could be looking at brand new games coming out at a price closer to $40 within a year of the ban. Of course, this would be similar to the price drops we saw on games for the XBOX and PS2 once next-gen consoles came out, as the newer consoles gave the manufacturers the ability to produce games at a higher quality, albeit a higher price point, which we, as consumers, are guilty of paying, since we wanted the games. On the other hand, demand moving away from more expensive games could hopefully also force a reduction in shovelware, and even more important, hopefully a push to those new consoles.
1. Mason at 8:18pm 29th October 2010 We will never see games from this generation going for the price of a NES game back in the 80s. Also if you ajust for inflation most NES games were going for $80 new. We will see a $10 rise in every generation of console hardware from now on I'm sure. This court ruling has nothing to do with games. It's about PC software and you have never been able to trade in PC games. You'll notice PC games come out at the same price they go for on consoles.
TheGreenBag at 5:04pm 17th October 2010 Next they'll go after used car dealerships. What a greedy society we have become.
Alex at 9:39am 17th October 2010 I agree with 90% of what is being said. Any physical product should be able to be resold without limitations. The leader of this "reform" EA. This is the same company that: 1.) Has put the vise grip on just about any football game by buying the rights to NFL, and since then they have put out a significantly less upgraded game. When they had competition they thought to upgrade the game, not just the players stats. 2.) Lost a ton of money on the SW:KOTOR MMO game so they have to make up some excuse to tax gamers for their stupidity. 3.) Consistant game crashes due to volume of gamers that want to play the game, but refuse to put in more servers, or does it so slow that they alienate most of the core gamers. I could understand this only if, Gamestop was buying the game to reproduce and then resell the game, but this is not the case. Our economy is based upon the ability to buy and sell what we need when we need it. Collectively, the gaming community needs to step forward and strike this down. The same can be said for consoles themselves. I have bought a used console before and that in turn brought in more money for the company, (games, accessories, etc.) Not only should this be overturned, but they should also have EA get rid of the online pass tax. Lower the game price by 10 to 50, then anyone who wants to play the game online then will have to buy the online pass. And, how many millions of dollars are they making on DLC from used games, that would not have been purchased.
DaddyLevon at 9:11am 17th October 2010 Doing this will just make more people sell them to friends/family and take out the middle man. Craig's list (and the like) will just blow up with used games. http://levon.buildblastoffsuccess.com/
Sean at 8:01am 17th October 2010 Just a shot in the dark but if they manage to shut down gamestop. guess what I am opening up a game garage black market game store who wants in at the ground level. lol
transamGUY at 6:47am 17th October 2010 So if I buy a game, don't like it, the only option I have with it now is to throw it out?
The Unknown Soldier at 9:29pm 16th October 2010 I honestly believe that the old legislators that are pushing this law are the same people that don't know what a torrent is.
genedan at 12:01pm 16th October 2010 Gamestop is a publicly traded company on the NYSE. If a game developer wants to earn from the secondary market, all they have to do buy shares/invest in companies like these...there's no need for any cumbersome, expensive, draconian lawmaking.
Josh Alexander at 10:28am 16th October 2010 Just a quick point: I bought MLB The Show 2008 from Gamestop for $20.00. I liked it so much after 2 months I paid $60.00 for MLB The Who 2010 brand new. Point over...
1. Robert at 7:05pm 17th October 2010 How is the point over? You purchased a used game, that the publisher receives nothing from, and then purchased a wholly different game (one that happened to be in the same franchise)? Maybe I'm missing something here, but I don't see a logical flow of events here.
2. The Mel at 5:30am 18th October 2010 MLB "The Who"?
Eve at 8:57am 16th October 2010 The ruling should just be limited to purely digital software, i.e. software I purchase online and download to my computer. Any item that is purchased physically such as, games, homes, phones, etc should be permitted to sell used since the alternative would be waste as countless products would be thrown into landfills. I agree with a previous comment that said that if these companies don't want to support a used market, they should just repurchase these games or software from customers. Then they can give the customers a discount on a new item. Or, how about a trial on game/dvd/software purchases? No one will want to waste money on a game if they know they can't exchange it for something else. The used market actually keeps these buyers interested in new games, thereby supporting the new game market.
Hippo at 2:13am 16th October 2010 Just an FYI according to Canadian, Internation and US copywrite laws it is illegal to sell used books without the expressed consent of the original publisher, in fact you are suppose to pay royalties to the publishing company for every book sold new or used, the used market has been a grey area for many years with strict laws that are thankfully never enforced, even if the court rules in favor of banning used sales it doesn't chnage the fact that used sales will continue to thrive and no one is going to waste money on enforcing the ban.
1. Hippo Is Wrong at 7:31am 16th October 2010 Hippo, you are wrong on so many levels... Grammar, law, etc. The law is this: as a copyright owner, game publishers have the right to, “distribute copies…of the copyrighted item to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending.” 17 U.S.C. §106(3). Furthermore, §602 of the same title, “gives the copyright owner the right to prohibit the unauthorized distribution (e.g. retail sales) in the U.S." With these statutes alone, this ruling would make sense, because they would have the right to decide who sold their game, when they sold it, etc. However, 17 U.S.C. §§106 and 602(a) have exceptions; specifically 17 U.S.C. §109(a), and the “first sale” doctrine. After a legally made sale to an exclusive authorized distributer (e.g. Best Buy selling the game), §109(a) terminates the copyright owner’s authority to interfere with subsequent sales (e.g. me selling it to Gamestop after buying from Best Buy) or distributions of the copyrighted material. Because §106 is subject to §109(a), a “first sale” voids any action for infringement by the copyright owner under §602(a). Sec. 109 is where the court totally rolls over the copyright act, and it's bullshit. Someone made the point earlier in this thread that it could pretty much be extended to all used products and that's right. Might as well close down all used stores. Additionally, the argument that more people will buy new games if the used ones are not on the market is bullshit, because they have no idea if those people will actually buy the new games in the first place... They are so freaking expensive! Not to mention it's contrary to sec. 109(a).
erik at 9:41pm 15th October 2010 If publishers wish to make money on the secondary sale of their products, then they should purchase the game back from the consumer and resell it themselves.
Kyle Johnson at 8:13pm 15th October 2010 If memory serves me, isn't this the Court of Appeals that people don't always take seriously at first because of out-there rulings like this?
1. Andrew Tomashaska at 5:50pm 2nd February 2011 This is also the most overturned court in the country.
Federal Judge at 7:41pm 15th October 2010 EA and Blizzard and just about any publisher are doing the same thing as the movie and music industry are doing. Suing the pant out of you. Instead of trying to find another way to profit. They attack the reseller and consumer. Once you bought the game. It is yours. You can resell it or do whatever you like to it. Dame, I hate these publisher. This will only cause more harm than good if all electronic software cannot be resell. The judge that ruled in favor of publisher must have never studied economic. Secondary market creates jobs. Jobs is what drive the economy.
Dominic at 7:13pm 15th October 2010 That THQ rep is a joke. They are just trying to muscle their way into getting more money. When you buy a car and re-sell it Toyota or Ford or whoever does not get another payment. The product has been sold and is no long their' to profit on short of "DLC". The online card tactic EA is using is underhanded but relatively fair(IF they learned to provide more dedicated servers). Any attempt to deny the sale of used games will not only encourage piracy but the archival of ALL older games for easy access for those that cannot any longer purchase used..All of these software groups are nothing more than thugs in suits and now everyone will soon know it, enjoy your idiocracy.
Guest at 6:43pm 15th October 2010 I don't have the money to buy all the games I want to play new. So I have to wait til they drop to $30 buck at gamestop. If you didn't do this EA, I would never have purchased Battlefield Bad Company. That, in turn, led me to reserve a copy of Battlefield: Bad Co. 2 for full price( huge dissapointment in multiplayer btw, surprisingly great solo). You have just stopped one customer from ever purchasing the new re-hash of Madden '06 for eternity. And your Medal of Honor game is shit worthless. NO ONE BUY NEW MEDAL OF HONOR! Gamestop is 100% percent correct as I just had a conversation with 6 other friends at my home about this article. They feel the same way. So, when there are massive layoffs from you, largest of the greedy game publishers, don't blame anyone but your own dumb asses. You could make them unavailable for 6 months but Im still gona get used games. Just now I have to buy a non- Ea game and trade it for the EA game my friend bought. And Im going to trade in B:BC2 tomorrow! Ha ha ha ha ha! And screw you gov't!
1. Sandy at 6:34pm 17th October 2010 But you don't get it, the Corporation doesn't care about layoffs, they care about bottom line profits which go to Executives and stockholders. They don't care how many employees get canned, and that's the truth. And apparently, neither do the judges. Sad.
hhv at 4:16pm 15th October 2010 This will just cause more piracy.
Jing Hoo at 3:45pm 15th October 2010 Wow, thats relly messed up dude cause used is he ONLy way I will buy them! www.total-privacy.au.tc
NARU at 3:28pm 15th October 2010 Greedy Greedy Greedy. So if I no longer want an old game, my oly option is to trash or give it away as $$$ can not be transfered in the exchange or I am breaking the law. Secondhand sales reduce waste right? Greedy SOBs... They must not fear consumer backlash or karma.
T.Ray at 3:25pm 15th October 2010 you sell a new game with intentions of supplying online service with it until you feel the need to no longer to support the software. it matters not who is using this software as long as it is only being used by one person at a time. the software industries are just wanting to double dip in to the cookie jar.
TeQ at 2:47pm 15th October 2010 The game industry will be hit with undesired losses as a result of this move when people are playing there games less than they were before and are no longer as engaged with the brand.
1. Daddieo at 2:40pm 16th October 2010 MULTIPLAYER IS A GIGANTIC PART of gaming the more players the more games sold because of multiplayer.I will not pay $60 fo any singleplayer game!! Do not even mention that most games are not worth $30 !!
Masermn at 2:22pm 15th October 2010 Can I sell my house?
1. XGuard at 4:32pm 15th October 2010 NO! You're depriving the poor home developer of his hard earned cash.
  1. Robert at 7:00pm 17th October 2010 Along the lines of another comment of mine, a house (and ergo land property) are covered by different legislation and contracts. Ever hear of a deed? That's essentially your EULA (poor parallel, I'm sorry), although this one gives you permission (either indirectly or legally assumed) to transfer.
Andrew Sinclair at 2:12pm 15th October 2010 What some people forget is that there is another unintended side effect: bankruptcy will be significantly affected. How many times have I gone to an auction and saw software of all kinds -- including games -- included in the proceedings. Not to mention that Autodesk's software has been in quite a number of them. So, will Congress have to carve out an exception? How many Sheriff's sales will be affected? Does this mean that software seized by creditors becomes worthless?
1. Drago at 2:31pm 15th October 2010 If a game is sold new once for 60$, if they break it down, maybe the game makersreceives 15$ or less to split among all the employees. That is the end of the track. The used game is re-sold 150 times for 20$ at gamestop, and gamestop makes the profit. Net effect, the game doesn't appear as popular by the game makers, and they stop that series. Imagine if they stopped making sequels to Halo or FF? I am not saying that the method is the best- but here is a different prediction- "Buy your copy of Final Fantasy 18 today in store for 60$, or download a playable version to your hard-drive for only 40$" ...... no resale there
Guest Yo at 2:05pm 15th October 2010 There's only one good option in light of this ruling: Start a free, open-source video game company.
James at 1:56pm 15th October 2010 I guess we the people will organize against these scum and trade on the black market. @$(@($!
Steve at 1:44pm 15th October 2010 Looks like you will be pushing more people to download the game from pirate bay, if they aren't already doing so.
J.Q. Public at 1:29pm 15th October 2010 It stops at the cash register. If a game has a non-resale restriction leave it at the store. Better yet. Take it up to the counter and make it plain and clear: " I am not buying this because I can't resell it later." Please let the software distributor know that I won't buy it, unless I own it. Same goes for CDs and Electronics that may fall under this. We should also push for mandatory non-resale labels that look like the cancer warnings on Cigarette boxes..
1. Robert at 6:55pm 17th October 2010 Ever heard of an End User License Agreement? Sure, console games may not require you to agree before you install, but have you ever read your manual? One example, making plainly clear the nature of the relationship between the buyer and maker, "THIS SOFTWARE IS LICENSED, NOT SOLD." Now, this comment isn't about the legality of contracts overriding "first sale," but from my research, US court precedent is with the maker. YMMV
@parpar2c517 at 1:12pm 15th October 2010 I have five phones that are in great condition so is Verizon worried? __No.__
Deus at 11:16am 15th October 2010 Videogame companies face some fundamental economic problems. They sell high cost semi-durable and completely transferable goods with a high initial value and greatly diminishing returns over time. Theoretically, one person can buy the videogame and, through reselling, the rest of the world can obtain the same entertainment value - for one person's $60. If any reasonable sane person were a game developer, they would feel cheated, having poured millions into a game and only receiving $60 back.
1. Deus at 11:17am 15th October 2010 As a game developer, there are four options for making back your development costs and a reasonable profit: 1) Charge everyone your entire development costs and a reasonable profit. In the extreme case above of only one person buying it and massive reselling, you win. But no one will buy your product in this scenario, so really, you lose.
2. Deus at 11:17am 15th October 2010 2) Divide (development costs + reasonable profit) by the number of people who want to experience your product and charge that as your price. Unfortunately, one of these numbers is unknowable and in any case, people will resell your product and you won't see some of that money, meaning your profit will be less than reasonable at best. At worst, you'll lose money.
  1. guest at 2:40pm 15th October 2010 I don't see the difference between this and reselling DVDs. If I want to watch a movie when it's first out, I can watch it in a movie theater for a premium price. If I want to wait until it comes out on DVD I can buy that and let an unknowable number of my friends watch it. If I want to wait a year I can buy the DVD cheaper or second-hand. The movie companies make money on initial sales of DVDs, like the game development companies. If I am willing to wait a year to play Ratchet & Clank, it should be cheaper because it is no longer a "new" game.
3. Deus at 11:18am 15th October 2010 3) Divide (development costs + reasonable profit) by the number of people who will buy your product from you and charge that price. Unfortunately, one of these numbers is unknowable and in any case, you've raised the price from scenario #2, presumably above what the product is actually worth. Thus fewer people will buy your game than you initially expected, those who do may feel it was overpriced, and you still will see less of a reasonable profit than planned or lose money.
4. Deus at 11:18am 15th October 2010 4) Same as #2 but you put limitations on the transferability of the product. Without reselling, everyone has to buy the product from you, so you can afford to lower the price because you know you'll still be able to make money. Reducing transferability should lower prices to somewhere between new and used prices. Allowing transferability just increases prices. It's just economics, people.
  1. Salt at 1:06pm 15th October 2010 You seem to have a very firm grasp of economics, but that is just one facet of this issue. I think what concerns consumers the most is the slippery slope that we start sliding down when we think about putting restrictions on "first sale" law. I see nothing wrong with a company embedding their software with a one-time user code, or something of the like. However, when scenarios like this occur, where the courts are becoming involved, the issue becomes convoluted. Instead of adjusting themselves to the various dynamics of the market, they are attempting to remove the part of the market they don't like. I don't think I have to enumerate the means by which this is dangerous. Still, I appreciate the economic insight you've brought to the table here.
  2. savaholic at 1:44pm 15th October 2010 If the price is lowered to somewhere between new and used prices, you have actually increased the price for anyone who bought used games. The other question this raises is what is considered a used game? Is it something that is resold? Something that is open and then resold? I can see this easily making it hard for mom and pop shops who can't buy directly from the producer.
  3. Federal Judge at 7:50pm 15th October 2010 It's not economic thinking, it's CEO thinking. Cheap labor can still produce the same great game at a cheap price.
    Robert at 6:45pm 17th October 2010 Cheap labor? Specifically, we're discussing software, so we're trying to find a "cheap" set of programmers and a "cheap" set of artists for any user interface elements? So, we're now trying to find the mix between cheap labor and skilled labor. Turn the project into a game, and you now have the basics set out before plus the possibility of other types of "cheap" artists, "cheap" musicians, "cheap" voice actors. Feel free to find some "cheap" labor to prove your point. OH WAIT, suddenly, this "cheap" labor does an excelling job on the product. Suddenly, this "cheap" labor was offered a well-paying position at Typical Publisher A. Good luck finding a replacement.
  4. DADDIEO at 2:34pm 16th October 2010 BUT THEY WILL NOT LOWER THE COST, THE GREEDY SUCKERS WILL INCREASE PRICE
  5. Sandy at 6:28pm 17th October 2010 Right. Like any price will ever lower when sellers get a bargain deal for them. ha ha ha ha ha
ore masta at 11:05am 15th October 2010 I understand where the buisness is talking about how it loses money, ie sells less of its product, but i also see how its not fair that they would want any profit for selling used games, because they already made the money off of its original sale. To get money for something more than once is unjust, and not allowing people to sell what they dont need anymore is unfair to the person who bought it. "You have bought it, your stuck with it".
Are you Seriuos at 7:40am 15th October 2010 This would be a severe blow to all of those in the same position as me. I have two kids, full time job, and love to play games (360) when I get the chance. That could be an hour a day or an hour a week. So I pick and choose only the absolute best games for me to get that satisfaction for the price I pay. I consider it a premium I pay. To get a chance to test some new titles, I will buy some used ones and throw them in and play. Most of the time I have done this has engrossed me so much that I could not wait for the latest version/title to come out and bought it with open arms. Even my son will try to find chores and save b-day money so he can buy a used game. It is special to him and does not care about the anchor pricing 19.99, 39.99, 59.99. Next step is a socialist game industry. We have the games, you buy from us period. Shame on that judge.
Nuts at 4:49am 15th October 2010 I guess the argument is that if there were no used products, the manufacturer would sell more product. When there are used products, the manufacturer loses that opportunity. EVERY manufacturer would love that rule and it simply isn't that way. Manufacturers price their products to make a profit on the first sale and time and obsolescence takes care of the old product. The software publishers are screaming they are the exception, and they are not. True, software doesn't wear out but it does become obsolescent through time and OS changes, and they price their software accordingly. This ruling is just plain wrong and flies in the face of precedent on everything else - it's a bad ruling, sorry. Don't even get me started on "licensing".
Travis at 10:11pm 14th October 2010 As you may or may not be aware, AutoCAD is a professional-level CAD program ubiquitous to the engineering and design fields. New licenses for the software routinely cost $5,000 or more. While I understand your point about Autodesk making money from tech support, it would be a negligible amount compared to the original price of the software that Autodesk might otherwise have received. Cheers!
@E1337ist at 8:07pm 14th October 2010 Dear Cory Ledesma, creative director @ THQ, When you say that game publishers get cheated when people buy used games, can you please explain how they get cheated. If you can then maybe I will be more inclined to believe you. Sincerely, A confused motherf***er
Bart at 7:13pm 14th October 2010 As a follow up, I checked out Autodesk, and as I suspected, they charge per incident for tech support. So, even if you bought your software used, you would still have to pay Autodesk for any support. They don't have a leg to stand on in my opinion. They would still be making money regardless, it would be totally different if they provided free tech support, then I could see their point in not wanting to support used buyers.
rick at 7:04pm 14th October 2010 it's greed-plain and simple. these idiots have already made millions of these games. they just can't stand the thought of someone else making a few extra bucks.it makes me sick-now i know i won't buy games new. those greedy pricks can shove their games!!!!
Bart at 7:03pm 14th October 2010 Where does this stop? Will we not be able to buy used cars, furniture, appliances, books, etc....etc...etc.... Couldn't any manufacturer claim that people "buying used " is causing them to lose sales? This is a bad precedent to set, and obviously not very well thought out by the judge. Too many conservative, pro big business people in power. Where does it stop?
1. I miss my NES at 10:35am 15th October 2010 Hopefully well be unable to buy as many games so they will waste their money overproducing. Hopefully they'll go out of business and struggle to get a job only after their savings are spent.
2. AlternatePersona at 1:26pm 15th October 2010 Conservative? Last i checked, conservatives subscribe to the ideal of a free market where you can sell whatever you want to, so long as you didn't steal it and it doesn't hurt anyone. And san francisco is one of the most liberal places in the u.s.. As far as the economy goes, they love government regulation interfering with business, big or small. On the main topic though, I couldn't agree more. If you buy something, it should be yours to do with as you please, so long as you didn't steal it and it doesn't hurt anyone. And if we didn't re-sell, a lot of these games would end up in the trash and employers like gamestop would be sending another wave of the unemployed to the unemployment offices. The economy is dicked up enough already without losing more jobs. Bottom line, free the free market and the developers need to put together a better product if they want better revenue.
3. XGuard at 4:30pm 15th October 2010 Actually the 9th Circuit court is VERY liberal. Its a known fact that liberals are huge defenders of intellectual property laws. Each Conservatives and Liberals have their own big business that they cater to.
4. Nick at 7:36am 27th October 2010 Actually, 9th circuit is EXTRAORDINARILY liberal.
George at 5:00pm 14th October 2010 How do the game publishers get cheated out of a used game sale? They got the money from who ever purchased the game new. Thats like saying I cant sell my old cell phone because companies selling new ones will be cheated.
1. CRJ at 2:50pm 15th October 2010 They are cheated because buyers that really want the game but are willing to wait for the availability to buy used, do just that. Think about a game you are totally hyped about coming out but can wait about 2-3 weeks until after it's released so you can buy it used. Now remove that ability, and they instantly just sold 2 copies, instead of technically just 1 (the one that was bought new, sold, and then bought used by yourself). Of course there isn't going to be a 1 to 1 correlation because gamers will be more selective with what titles they buy, if new is the only option. A cell phone is a bit different, more like a car. You are putting continual wear and tear on it and the technology is still moving faster than gaming console technology. Gears of War 2 came out in 2008 and holds up quite well against newer releases. 2 year old cell phones, not so much. I could likely think of a better explanation of my perspective if I had the time, so sorry if I don't make complete sense.
  1. tattoogunman at 3:46pm 15th October 2010 How are they cheated? A software maker is no different than any other maker of a new product - they produce their product in a certain quantity to fill the expected demand of that product. That product is then sold at market (i.e. to distributors/retailers that carry their product) and that's where they get their money. They don't have a right to any secondary sales of their product any more than a car maker, book maker, CD maker, etc. If that's the case, then this ruling could be applied to every product sold on the secondary market and that's pretty much everything. Shut down every used car dealer, every used CD shop, every thrift/consignment shop, bookstore, Amazon, etc. I remember Garth Brooks trying to do this back in the 90's - he went to court trying to stop the sale of his CD's on the secondary market because he wasn't getting a cut. Obviously it didn't work. I really don't see this ruling holding because of the secondary market argument.
  2. XGuard at 4:27pm 15th October 2010 1) Software DOES have "wear" in the sense that it becomes outdated and its features surpassed. Console games are different (see #2 below). People upgrade to the latest software, just like they'll buy the latest car. But MANY, MANY people still use older software and drive older, used cars. 2) Console games "hold up" because console hardware is the same. You're never going to get HUGE leaps in graphics quality once the game has already pushed the hardware to its limits. 3) Used books and DVDs fall in the same category as games. People still watch and read old classics, 10, 20, 50 years old or more. Shall we ban the used sales of those too? I just LOVE how RIAA/MPAA/BSA claim that movies and music and software can be stolen exactly like a physical item, yet turn around in the same breath and claim that their goods are not physical items and shouldn't have the same restrictions.
  3. Haje at 11:35am 16th October 2010 They are not cheated. You are assuming that every person who buys used would automatically buy the game new if there was no other option. That is not true at all. If the only option was buy new or don't play the game, they're just not going to play the game. The developers would still be getting none of that persons money. Its the same argument the music industry tries to make by saying that every album illegally downloaded is a lost sale. Not true at all. Just because someone chooses to download an album, doesn't mean they would have bought if there was no other option. If this actually does hold up, the developers will actually see less sales as gamers will have to be more selective over what they buy because 1) it will be more expensive and 2) they are not going to get any of their money back by selling the game when they're done.
  4. swollentiki at 2:53pm 19th October 2010 The developers/publishers are not cheated. I've purchased about 12 games in the past year and a half used that I would have never bought new. In fact, I waited until the price was lower than $30 because I didn't think the game was going to be anywhere near good enough to garner a $60 price tag. If those game where not available used I would have never have bought them. So your point is flawed. This is the same argument, really, that Hollywood is doing with Netflix and RedBox. So what did they do? They make it to where RedBox and Netflix have to wait an additional 28 days before new releases are available thinking that people will run out and purchase a movie instead of renting it. Just because I have to wait longer isn't going to make me run out and buy something, especially when I perceive the item is not worth the asking price. The cell phone analogy applies. If I buy a product, I have the right to sell it if I no longer use it. And by doing that the company that made the product (whether car, cell phone, or video game) can claim they lost a sale because of it.
2. CRJ at 2:52pm 15th October 2010 But I still think it should be legal to buy used, my explanation below isn't meant to defend the publishers.
tjc360 at 4:50pm 14th October 2010 These game publishers are just plain greedy dirtbags. I would say about 5% are actually worth buying new. 60.00 per game? They should not be able to sell DL content then, it should be included as part of the game shouldnt it?