This could be very bad news for used games!

biron_w

biron_w

biron_w

Soldato
Joined
10 Apr 2009
Posts
8,935
Location
Super Leeds
http://uk.games.ign.com/articles/112/1120315p1.html

Following a protracted case involving the sale of second-hand software on eBay, the US Courts of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has upheld the right of software companies to deny their customers the right to resell their products.

Although the court case revolved around AutoCAD, software for computer aided design, the knock-on effect could have huge implications for the used game market, as the judge reiterated that – "A software user is a licensee rather than an owner."

As video games are also subject to license agreements, the court ruling could potentially prevent users reselling their used games in the future, as well as putting rental companies under draconian restrictions.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure if this will affect us in the uk,or if it will apply to actual video games. But if it does then it means people who like to trade in old games to get money towards a new are screwed.
 
Course it will, they have took every other action to try and lock gamers into contracts they never signed (this means there will be an extra page on those already too long EULA's).
 
It doesnt bother me to much, its already in effect with Steam and Ubisoft and rarely buy a game on release day and fall for the hype unless its something I really want and sensibly priced, AvP I paid £22 retail on release day. Otherwise, i'll just wait for a sale and get a digital copy, boxes are annoying anyway

Edit : Damn, console section, I fail
 
the greed continues...

i personally never sell my games, but i have brought a few pre-owned.

they are talking about adding codes to games, for them to be online-enabled. so when you sell it pre-owned buyers will still have to buy that code to enable online play.
 
Relentless81 said:
It doesnt bother me to much, its already in effect with Steam and Ubisoft and rarely buy a game on release day and fall for the hype unless its something I really want and sensibly priced, AvP I paid £22 retail on release day. Otherwise, i'll just wait for a sale and get a digital copy, boxes are annoying anyway
Click to expand...

i like boxes,and decent manuals.

but im all for saving the planet where we can, but it is getting a bit stupid with game devs/companys etc etc. trying to squeeze every penny out of the people who actually play games
 
Aeleys said:
they are talking about adding codes to games, for them to be online-enabled. so when you sell it pre-owned buyers will still have to buy that code to enable online play.
Click to expand...
Some games already have that. I don't agree with paying to play online,I do agree with the practice of a code that gives you some sort of bonus DLC if you buy the game new but then you'd have to pay to get the DLC if you bought second hand.
 
I don't think they will go to great lengths to stop people trading/selling games. If they are serious about this then they should just make the next generation of consoles download only. The PSP go only flopped because buyers had a choice. Pay £20 to download an old game or pick up the UMD verison filling up the corners or game shops for peanuts. A PS4 that was download only would make them more money than if the games came on disc, even if some people boycotted it.
 
mame said:
I don't think they will go to great lengths to stop people trading/selling games.
Click to expand...

I think you are wrong there. The big game companies(ea,activision,ubisoft) have said on quite a few occasions that they don't like the 2nd hand market and they are trying their very best to get rid of it.
 
biron_w said:
I think you are wrong there. The big game companies(ea,activision,ubisoft) have said on quite a few occasions that they don't like the 2nd hand market and they are trying their very best to get rid of it.
Click to expand...

I don't think that they will split the userbase and make enemies of customers. It's a half-cocked measure too far into this generation of console. It would be far easier and cause less resentment to just make the next generation download only.
 
They don't seem to see it like that. They see it as them losing money because they don't get any money from the 2nd market. And they're all about money these days!
 
I'd rather be recognized as owning the games, being able to sell them on and having to pay a small sum to access certain features on second hand copies.

This licensee nonsense is going way too far.
 
The case turns on the terms of the licence. Autocad is apparently available under a variety of different licences, and the cheaper ones impose more restrictions and are indeed more like a rental model. The licence in question even required that on receiving upgrade discs for a newer version of the software, the user had to destroy the old discs and - if asked - provide proof of destruction to Autocad. This isn't your standard EULA here.

The upshot is that games producers would have to go a fair way to justify that their games are merely rented by their customers.

In any case, you're still left with the issue of whether anyone bothers reading a licence agreement and whether such a thing can be said to be legally binding. You'd also find it harder work on a console, as there isn't even a point at which you can attempt to make someone read a licence agreement in the same way that there is with a PC title which has the whole install routine going on.

I imagine there are also some undesirable consequences to games being rented by customers rather than purchased.
 
Last edited:
When will software companies realise that all they will succeed in doing is pushing people away from legitimately buying games etc with their DRM, limiting resales etc etc?

Valve
 
valve90210 said:
When will software companies realise that all they will succeed in doing is pushing people away from legitimately buying games etc with their DRM, limiting resales etc etc?

Valve
Click to expand...
They are just too scared to stop doing that, the biggest positive example is Oblivion, that had no protection and still sold millions.
 
as the judge reiterated that – "A software user is a licensee rather than an owner."
Click to expand...


Hrmm. Thats fair enough if they really want to go hardline on this. Because if we dont own the product then it must be some kind of lease or contract or service we agree to pay to be provided with. The door swings both ways with that. e.g. the service provider has to maintain the service they are providing (clearest example of that is the functionality and useability of online features)

Or is this a case of the consumer/user just having to bend over and take whatever **** EA/Ubisoft etc want to shovel in.... in order to "play" their game.

Can see this issue and the defining of these parameters becoming more prominent in the future....as long as user rights are protected. (which atm i dont think they are)


I forget but what was the argument against comparing Videogames favourably with DVDs(movies)? Both are entertainment experiences yet you can own and sell a film on dvd but perhaps not a game? (in future)
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom