GameStop Wants to Sell... Pre-Owned Software Keys?
"It’s very interesting," said GameStop CEO Paul Raines in a recent interview. "There are some technologies out there in Europe, and we’ve looked at a couple that are involved. We’re interested; it’s not a meaningful business yet. Right now we’re not seeing that as a huge market, but I think we’re on the leading edge. There are a few companies, a few startups, out there that we’ve talked to that are doing this."
Naturally he wouldn't reveal who those outfits are, only adding that "we wouldn’t want to disclose that and have our competitors rushing in."
The move to selling previously-owned serial numbers isn't surprising as the industry is slowly shifting into a digitally-focused distribution model. Publishers will likely stick with physical media for years to come, but eventually consumers will reach a point where it's easier to purchase and download titles directly to their desktop, console or tablet. Used digital sales will also keep that aspect of GameStop's revenue flowing as physical media begins to fade away.
Earlier this month, a European court ruled that content creators cannot prohibit post-purchase redistribution of work no matter what the end-user license agreement claims (pdf). The ruling stemmed from a case between hardware and software producer Oracle and German company UsedSoft, the latter of which made a living purchasing and reselling software licenses from consumers. Obviously, UsedSoft won.
According to the court's judgment, a software author's exclusive license to distribute a given copy of its product is exhausted in the initial distribution. Thus, owners of the software can sell said copy without the author's consent. The judgment applies both to future end-user license agreements and preexisting ones.
By selling pre-owned digital games, GameStop could be entering new territory in regards to offering non-gaming software on the cheap. What that would include -- whether it's an unused Windows 8 key or a previous owned Office 2013 key -- is mere speculation at this point.
The devs would not get said royalty payment as it would go to the publisher. The publishers are the parasites. Us consumers along with companies such as Gamestop and identify are more like symbiotes in mutually beneficial relationships. The fact that some publishers release trash and refuse to let us sell what we purchased is rediculous.
Here is the the issue. These gaming companies are just like any other tech company, they develop a technology and then use that technology to create a product. When we buy the product it is the product that we own not the technology that was used to create it. Therefor we own the product. As with any product we purchase we own that product and have the right to sell it. In the case of licensing for use of a product......... This should not be allowed unless the purchased software is used to create another product in which the intended creation directly relies on the software licensed. Now since we are not licensing the game engine to create a new game but we are purchasing the end product we should have the right to claim ownership of our individual copy of said purchase. This is not saying that we own the technology or the game itself, but the copy we bought. Just as we purchase a flat screen TV. That individual unit becomes the purchasers property after the exchange of currency. Again we didn't purchase the patent for the technology itself but an individual unit of an end product that becomes the purchasers property, Therefore when the owner sees fit to sell the property that is owned it is legal to do so.
Zynga's burned out it's game-players turned beggars, Blizzard's losing people as people aren't that interested in playing shopping mall in a fantasy RPG, and for years games have been sold as non-returnable even if the customer receives no value from it if it's unplayable.
The devs would not get said royalty payment as it would go to the publisher. The publishers are the parasites. Us consumers along with companies such as Gamestop and identify are more like symbiotes in mutually beneficial relationships. The fact that some publishers release trash and refuse to let us sell what we purchased is rediculous.
Here is the the issue. These gaming companies are just like any other tech company, they develop a technology and then use that technology to create a product. When we buy the product it is the product that we own not the technology that was used to create it. Therefor we own the product. As with any product we purchase we own that product and have the right to sell it. In the case of licensing for use of a product......... This should not be allowed unless the purchased software is used to create another product in which the intended creation directly relies on the software licensed. Now since we are not licensing the game engine to create a new game but we are purchasing the end product we should have the right to claim ownership of our individual copy of said purchase. This is not saying that we own the technology or the game itself, but the copy we bought. Just as we purchase a flat screen TV. That individual unit becomes the purchasers property after the exchange of currency. Again we didn't purchase the patent for the technology itself but an individual unit of an end product that becomes the purchasers property, Therefore when the owner sees fit to sell the property that is owned it is legal to do so.
games on steam go crazy cheap once in a while on steam.
Also, its the stores that make most of the money. Best buy makes crazy markup on games. Also game prices might have to come down due to mobile game prices. How would there be a way to control digital keys? People could then just sell off pirated keys.
THe thing about gamestop is that they sell used copies almost as much as new copies and pay next to nothing for used copies, so they are a parasite company. would be different is gamestops prices where cheaper. So gamestop is just trying to find a way to make more profits and try to cut out the game developers meanwhile screw people over buy paying them next to nothing. Why should gamestop make all the money for doing nothing?
Less money is the hands of developers = less game content / less resources for cool games. Game companies for consoles are already starting to hurt because people are starting to get heap due to 3.99 mobile games. So you think anyone can make money selling games for $3 ? good luck with that one... at cheap prices like that you have to have a whole wave of different games and sell millions of copies and maybe you might have enough to pay your programmers unless you hire all them from india.
Don't tell me you buy into their "license" crap. Once I buy something I own it, end of story. If I resell it, that is on me.
I'm not touching copying and selling stuff, as that is a whole other can of worms.
Or you can wait a few months, pick the game up on sale from Steam for $10 or less and both you and the developer benefit.
Right.....and everything you sell on Craigslist you need to deposit a percentage into the Paypal account of the manufacturer. Or further more, whenever you sell your car, the manufacturer needs to get a percentage of that back, same for your home and whoever built it. Things have a resale value for a reason, things are also sold with the cost of R&D. production, and marketing in mind to make a profit. If every company got reparations for their old products being sold and resold, they'd be doing everything to push for consumers to keep selling and reselling for endless profits.
Actually it's fairly easy for game publishers to push back. Make the games a lease, aka Pay to Play. Make the game free, and thus no product key but charge a set fee per month. They could even require a 3 month initial rent, which would be very close to what the game now costs. Wait this sounds familiar.
Optionally they could make their games suck even more. Bringing out xpac after xpac, for a fee of course, for content that should have been in the game in the first place. Or iffy ports of console games that weren't that good to begin with. Wait that also sounds familiar. It's almost like they know how to suck the maximum amount of money out of us.
^^THIS....
I've always taken issue with developers and publishers trying to dip into the used market. While I understand their issues with the used market, it doesn't mean they get to have special treatment and get extra money back just because a product is resold. Besides, if they were serious about EARNING (instead of asking for a handout of another company's hard work) money in the used market, they'd offer their own trade in programs so that they could repackage and sell a "certified used" or something similar.
GameStop is market driven. If you are trading in "JoeShmoe BullCrap Warfare 3 deluxe edition" that you bought 4 years ago and expect to get 30-40% return on original $60 investment you are entirely delusional. That game is going to sit on the shelf for months on end getting unsold, sometimes years. That is ZERO profit for GameStop. There are fantastic trade promotions from time to time that will net you 50% return in investment. You just have to know when the promotions are and trade-in a game that is popular.
If you think a stack that includes: Fable 2, Forza 2, Overlord, Madden '06, NBA Live 08, FIFA 06, Halo 3, Viva Pinata, and Guitar Hero 3 is worth anything more than $10 - $15 you are batcrap crazy. You trade in Forza 2 and get $0.75 and it gets sold for $2.99. They make minuscule profit and that game will sit on the shelf forever. You win, they lose. Likewise, if you expect to buy a game that is pre-owned and only a month old for less than 60-75% its original retail price, again, you are batcrap crazy and have no understanding of economics. MARKET DRIVEN PRICING OHMERGERD