Used Games No More?

I'm a big fan of used games. Especially near the end of a system's life because you can get all that overstock at retailers for really cheap (they're starting to liquidate PS2 games so you can snag so many for a 1USD-3USD) but it looks like Sony might put an end to this.

http://www.computerandvideogames.com/384922/sony-patents-pre-owned-games-block/

Thoughts?

 

Articles headline is misleading.

Many games already have locked out content unless they were purchased new, this patent could merely be an extension of that. Think of the online passes we see now but instead of of the need for a one time use code the information would be right there on the disc.

No one knows how Sony intend to follow up on this, if at all but they would have to be tremendously brave/stupid to outright block used games on their consoles.

Edit: Also PS Vita games already use technology like this to see if games have already been used on another account and it doesn't block the games use if it has.

 

An easy compromise would be to enable stores (or users via PSN) to unlock a second-hand game for a price. Shops like Gamestop would pay, say, $5 per game, and that would remove the 'tag' from the disc. The $5 goes to the developers/producers/whoever it is that's butthurt about used-game sales, and then GS just sells their disc for a few dollars more than usual. Alternatively, the consumer can just go online, buy a 'tag removal' code for their game, which then allows them to play the game. Keeps games circulating, allows consumers to buy used games still cheaper than the full price of new, and allows the corporations to get their piece of the pie in the process.

 

Hmmmmm it's hard to say but I don't think any console company can lockout used games completely without losing tons of customers, because the used game market is so damn huge, they would be stupid to lock out a chunk of their market share

The only thing I see coming is online pass codes being the norm as a deterant to stop used games sales. Hell it's already been here!

 

So the solution is to buy the game twice if it's used? That would definitely deter me from buying a used game. Would rather just pay once and depending on the price of the game + unlock pass, it'd be smarter to just buy a brand new copy anyway. If it will work like this, I can't see used games lasting very long, especially if it goes into effect on PS4 as the article speculates. They have, for content creation software (such as audio editors) license transfer fees requests that the distributor normally doesn't have a problem transferring when selling software second hand. They don't account for profits beyond initial sales so if the license is transferred over, it's no big deal for them because that was all they accounted for in the original business plan and the action of transferring the license is simply 'customer support' to uphold the license terms for the item already sold. Your first suggestion would make more sense to simply throw money back at publishers (it's not the developer that gets angry, it's the publisher because it's their investment money...they usually have nothing to do with a game and are generally just suits anyway) via extra fee for a reseller to unlock the game. However, this opens up a can of worms as the ID of the person doing the trade in is required in order to unlock that specific copy to pass through hands to which it's not necessary...I'm sure the retailer/reseller would definitely use that for specific marketing and against the will of the person doing business with them. It's bad enough gamestop tries to sell you ever piece of merchandise in their store when you simply want to buy a used PS2 game, even after you just told them you don't even own a PS3 and they then ask right afterwards if you want to preorder a DIFFERENT PS2 game...

Anyway, this locking down of consumer rights is kinda chilling in a way. Maybe it's time to start reading EULA's closer on your software...

 

However, this all could be false alarm if all it will affect is DLC stored on pre-owned systems...THAT is understandable. DLC is an important revenue generating concept for lots of new games...however at the same time, it's still only a single purchase exchanging hands post initial purchase...

 

Who's software?

And yeah, there's no locking down of consumer rights here, this patent is for a method to detect whether the games is used or not or if it's tied to another account. Like I mentioned in my previous post, Vita games already do this! ...it causes no problems whatsoever and it definitely doesn't infringe our consumer rights.

Could you imagine the backlash if Sony did actually prevent the use of used videogames on the PS4? Not just from consumers but it'd affect videogame stores and rental services massively too, the console would be dead on arrival.

Somewhere deep down i'd love to see the Playstation brand die but I doubt Sony would just nuke themselves out of the hardware business in a stupid move like that.

 

New = $60
Used = $30 + $5 'unlock fee' = $35.

You're still saving about 40% by buying used, which, to us paupers, is a lot of money. Also, I don't see how you'd need the ID of the first user in order to allow a second user to access it. I'm assuming it'd go like this:

User one buys the game, plays it, and the game gets 'tagged' as used.
User one sells the game to User two (either directly or via a medium such as GS).
User two puts the game in, gets told the game is tagged, and is directed to PSN store.
User two buys an 'untag' code/thing that removes the tag from the game.
User two reloads the game, plays it, and the game gets 'tagged' as used (now to User two).

That's just what I had envisioned.

 

^ and that's just a more robust version of what we see now with online passes and the like. I can't say i'm for or against these kind of methods, they don't really affect me as I always buy new.

 

Feck the Rich?

 

Not at all, my spending was quite bad when I was younger and I didn't have bills and shit but I don't buy games much these days and when I do i'll wait till they go down in price. I only pay full price on release day if it's something i'm really looking forward to playing.

Here's why I don't buy used...

From my local retail store GAME

DmC New = £35.99
DmC Preowned = £32.99
Cash they give you for selling DmC to them = £18.50

And if I go look at amazon.co.uk, it's actually more expensive used than it is new, awesome!

Hey look, here's the same game brand new and cheaper than I can find a used copy anywhere else, free shipping too!

I can see why people buy used but i'm avoiding that shit.

 

Yeah, for three quid less, I'd obviously buy new, but that's just because DMC is so new. Once it's been out for, I dunno, three months or so, used will be at least £5-£10 less than a new copy. It's only 'cos the demand is so high right now that they keep the price up.

 

From my experience it's exactly the same even with older games.

Can't be arsed to look around but here's DoA5 on amazon.co.uk, £23 new and £21 used that's a massive saving of £2 ...oh wait the guys selling the used copies are charging £2 shipping making it exactly the same price :/

And here's shopto.net selling new copies six - seven pounds cheaper than I can find preowned ones :/

 

Hmm, maybe it's different in the UK (where I was back there, I didn't really pay attention to prices since I had a lot of surplus cash), but in the US, used games, once the initial 'release hype' has died down, are usually a fair amount cheaper.

 

FS is one of the very few games since the late eighties that I paid full price for, because, er, I had to, and obviously it's awesome. I generally buy 'retro', import stuff via eBay, and have done most of this century. All my physical 360 games were 2nd hand, but great shape. Maybe some of the Rising Star shooters were sealed, but Amazon do them cheap anyway.
In the 90s, I used to buy SNES games from car boot sales, and trade PS1 games back and forth at independent retailers. Guess I grew up in a pretty low income family looking back. Some kids at school back then were getting like a new £60 Nintendo game every week. I remember someone bought a Saturn for £500 with that Xmen 2D fighter. Mine cost me like £120 delivered from Japan at the end of the decade.
Paying money to Sony? Um, no thanks. When PS3s cost like 30 quid in cash converters I might get one, just to play that SEGA RPG that I don't think is on Xbox (Valkry wotsit or summat).

If it all becomes too pricey, people will just turn their back on online play, and pirate the f*ck out of everything offline. VF is really the only game now that keeps me in touch with the modern gaming world. Indeed, if it wasn't for the fantastic gameplay and smooth graphics of the Model 3 and NAOMI titles, and of course, Rare's majestic Goldeneye, I doubt I would ever really touch 3D games. Most of the guys I know in the real world still playing games have never moved beyond low-res N64 or PS2 on a small, 'big' telly. If VF3 was emulated on the PC well, like many of the 2D Capcom games, I'd probably just play that for nowt.

 

I've seen fairly manky copies of DOA5 in Blockbuster for around the 12 pound mark, but then of course, that may be because they're about to do a Jessops. Heaven knows what the situation in HMV is with games right now. Barely been in one since the Dreamcast days, and by the state of their books, looks like I'm not the only one.
What is sad is when you go back to your hometown and see the dude who ran the small, family business gaming shop (think Japanese preview copies of Starfox, and Lunar boxsets) in the 90s, working as a drone in GAME this century, hawking 40 quid generic FPS tosh with a plastic smile, and then seeing him getting the axe, as all that crumbles away to make way for whatever comes next.

 

You get extra points for bringing back the word 'manky'.

 

@genzen the reason they'd need id for the person selling their game to be cleared at the store is because they'd have to clear the id associated with that specific purchase. *Someone* will know your buying habits/selling habits when they have to clear your name, likely to be associate with a serial number since commercial discs aren't writeable...

 

Why can't it just be a 'clear all IDs' thing when the 'tag removal code' thing is entered? First user uses the game and their ID is put on the game (thus preventing anyone other than the first user accessing the game), then when the first user sells to the second user and the second user does the removal thing, the removal thing is just a blanket 'remove all IDs' thing, that just recognises that there is 'ID data' on the game, and removes it. Then it's back to being an 'IDless game' (like how it was before the first user bought it) and the next user to use it has their ID tagged to the game.

No idea if that makes sense or if that's how the technology could/would work, but it's how I'd see it going.

 

EDGE magazine trolling hard on this now. Could end up seeing a race to the bottom from Sony or MS to see who can dare roll out 'always online' locked DRM, effectively obliterating the traditional pre-owned market.
Most of us here by default have paid for a fixed price DLC game, but imagine never being able to buy some cheaper physical games a few months after release, or indeed, many years down the line?
I'm still buying Xbox1 games off eBay: hard to see how that could work bidding on bargains, say 5 years after next gen becomes old gen.

What happens if you live in a place with flaky internet? Or can't afford unlimited high speed broadband? Seems it could really widen the gaps between the gaming haves and have-nots. Ultimately though, what choice do gaming addicts really have in the face of these huge companies? Maybe, like Apple, they have already calculated how many casual customers they can lose to maintain profits from core users.
Interesting times.
I have to say, I would really miss the fantastic cover art of many of the Japanese games I've handled over the last 25 years. I'm not really sure how popular DLC style arrangements even are over there...