Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Sony patents pre-owned games block

Options
13»

Comments

  • Options
    #62
    gizmo
    Registered Users Posts: 8,405 ✭✭✭gizmo


    johnwd wrote: »
    When I buy the right to play a game its mine - including all online rights. If I sell that game then I give up everything to do with that game and confer the property rights onto someone else - just like anything else that I'm done with and wish to sell. What's the problem? If there is a middle man involved in the deal then what of it - are Ford pissed off because car dealers sell second hand cars? Have Ford patented a system that will prevent 2nd owners from driving their cars??
    There is no problem with your example at all, on paper they're exactly the same thing. The problem with games is they aren't being treated the same at retail so many would argue that the same rules don't (or at least shouldn't) apply.

    You don't, for instance, buy a car or a piece of furniture for their retail price, enjoy it for a week or two and then bring it back to the retailer where you trade it in for a different model getting more than 80%+ of the purchase price back. The retailer then doesn't resell that product for 90%+ of the new price with minimal overheads in front of any new stock in their stores. Sure it may happen in some circumstances but it doesn't happen on the scale we're seeing with games and it certainly doesn't result in such massive profits for the stores which many regard as money being taken aware from publishers and/or developers and, as a result, affecting the games they make.
    johnwd wrote: »
    The days of buying a disc are numbered - if I buy online I'm not going to be able to resell the game - surely then it's going to be a lot cheaper to buy online than via disc isn't it ;)
    Not if people continue to shun alternative digital distribution services since the middle man taking their cut is just switching from a bricks and mortar retailer to an online one. Sure, manufacturing costs will be eliminated but they only represent a tiny percentage of the cost of a game.


  • Options
    #63
    hellboy99
    Registered Users Posts: 6,219 ✭✭✭hellboy99


    PickledLime wrote: »
    If Sony did do this, could you imagine what would happen with Gamestop
    not to mention the games rental in Xtra-Vision


  • Options
    #64
    Varik
    Registered Users Posts: 12,502 ✭✭✭✭Varik


    hellboy99 wrote: »
    not to mention the games rental in Xtra-Vision

    In the US a rental shop can just buy some games off amazon and rent them out, In the EU there's already a directive that give the copyright holder more control so this won't change much as if xtravision can get the games in the first place then they can make a deal if anything does change.


  • Options
    #65
    Pacing Mule
    Registered Users Posts: 5,057 ✭✭✭Pacing Mule


    TheDoc wrote: »
    There is a common misconception here. The issue is not with all second hand trading. A publisher and studio has no issue with someone buying an old title second hand. EA arn't worried about you going out and picking up Fifa09 for €5.

    The issue is with the increased marketing, pushing second hand sales. This is typically noticable everywhere, when a new game is released, the store will offer you a "good"trade in value, should you return the back , trade it in, within a certain timeframe. This is what irks publishers.

    So you buy a game for €50, and the offer is if you trade it in within 2 weeks, you'll get €40 voucher for that store. Sounds a blinder for you, but not for the publisher.

    While the publisher will get a cut from the original RRP, the retailer will give you a voucher for between €35-40 during the trade in offer. They then re-list this game, on the shelf, for possibly €45.

    When a game is fresh in the mind, people pick it up. Retailers are quiet aware that a lot of consumers won't rush to buy first release day, but wait a week or two, to read reviews and feedback, but also to try pickup the game cheaper second hand.

    So while the original game is sold at €50 on launch day, by week three, that one copy has probably generated €95 for the retailer, with €45 of that being their profit, entirely, thanks to the second hand sale.

    This is what has the publishers raging, and that is why one of the talked about controls is a timing license, which I personally think is much better. A game will come with a timing license, so that once activated on your console, it will be linked to your console alone for a set amount of time, to which after that can then be released into the second hand market.

    I never traded in console games because I was aware of how the profiteering of second hand games works from my time in the industry, and how the consumer gains little benefit. I prefer to trade my games through personal second hand sales through ebay, adverts etc.

    I'm not going to back the retailers here, I'm backing the publishers. The retailers have employed a bit of a sneaky tac to generate massive revenue from titles, whilst only paying a fraction of the worth. If publishers were entitled to a fraction of a second hand sale, you'd see second hand sales in retailers dissapear overnight.

    So dont kid yourself thinking that the issue is with older titles, its pretty much JUST the marketing campaigns that offer trade in specials on new titles, and this is where Publishers are losing out on massive revenue for new titles.

    I'm going to question the maths on this.

    You're forgetting that the €35 - €40 voucher given to the customer is then spent on goods that have cost the retailer money in the first place. The pre owned title that is sold for €45 in your example did not generate €40 in profit.

    When you throw VAT into the mix (the sale price of the pre owned title has 23% VAT in it) there is every chance a retailer would be losing money on those 2 transactions.

    That kind of offer is actually close to a loss leader but stimulates new game sales. Where the retailer makes money on pre owned titles is away from those offers and in the middle ground - not the very latest games but games that they can still sell for a reasonably high price but get away with offering less as it's out a few weeks / months.


  • Options
    #66
    gizmo
    Registered Users Posts: 8,405 ✭✭✭gizmo


    Pageant Messiah wrote: »
    I'm going to question the maths on this.

    You're forgetting that the €35 - €40 voucher given to the customer is then spent on goods that have cost the retailer money in the first place. The pre owned title that is sold for €45 in your example did not generate €40 in profit.

    When you throw VAT into the mix (the sale price of the pre owned title has 23% VAT in it) there is every chance a retailer would be losing money on those 2 transactions.

    That kind of offer is actually close to a loss leader but stimulates new game sales. Where the retailer makes money on pre owned titles is away from those offers and in the middle ground - not the very latest games but games that they can still sell for a reasonably high price but get away with offering less as it's out a few weeks / months.
    TheDoc mistook sales for profits in his above figures. The retailers are still making some pretty hefty profits on the back of second hand sales, just not as much as he postulated above. :)


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #67
    SillyIrish
    Registered Users Posts: 14 ✭SillyIrish


    I love buying second hand games by trading in I mean once a games fully complete it's just lying there really,so why not trade in? On the other hand gamestop are just dreadful with their trade in offers I mean they have the cheek to see second hand games for 3€ less than buying it brand new which is a load of *****.....On a totally different note I came across a shop in town over Christmas that's definitely worth a gander for anyone who buys or trades in games,don't know the name of it but it's on Liffey Street Upper and it has some really decent prices for second hand games and accessories seriously worth a look in!


  • Options
    #68
    jill_valentine
    Registered Users Posts: 7,090 ✭✭✭jill_valentine


    SillyIrish wrote: »
    On a totally different note I came across a shop in town over Christmas that's definitely worth a gander for anyone who buys or trades in games,don't know the name of it but it's on Liffey Street Upper and it has some really decent prices for second hand games and accessories seriously worth a look in!

    CEX. And it actually is pretty great for gamey nerd types - so long as you're getting credit rather than cash, you get really good value on older games, and they have a really good range of great older titles for very reasonable prices.

    They also trade in gadgets and doodads. I tend to pick up a lot of weird computery stuff just out of curiosity, and they've helpfully relieved me of a lot of it once I get bored with it, so I'm a fan.


  • Options
    #69
    dorkacle
    Closed Accounts Posts: 346 ✭✭dorkacle


    OP, wouldn't the 'Steam' console be digital purchases only anyway?

    Not that I'm for it, but I don't see how PS4 blocking pre owned games would affect your decision in that case. :o


  • Options
    #70
    hooradiation
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,922 ✭✭✭hooradiation


    PickledLime wrote: »
    A patent is far away from something that's actually being implemented.

    Also, as a matter of course, companies patent stuff all the time that they have no real intention of pursuing, simply to stop someone else from doing it.

    Some of our less addled contributors might remember this patent from Sony and the short "laughing man" meme it spawned.

    Guess we should expect the PS4 to activate only when both a laugh and a smile are detected.


  • Options
    #71
    GerardKeating
    Registered Users Posts: 7,542 ✭✭✭GerardKeating


    the_syco wrote: »
    2nd hand trading is legal pirating; the game devs don't get the money, but some dodgy middleman does.


    But they got the money ftom the origional sale?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #72
    TheDoc
    Registered Users Posts: 23,137 ✭✭✭✭TheDoc


    gizmo wrote: »
    TheDoc mistook sales for profits in his above figures. The retailers are still making some pretty hefty profits on the back of second hand sales, just not as much as he postulated above. :)

    No I'm not....(although maybe i cant remember my original post)

    A second hand game sale is marked as pure profit by the retailer, that is a fact.....

    A games first sale covers its costs, and every sale of that same item from there on, through second hand, is 100% profit, as marked out in their finances.


  • Options
    #73
    gizmo
    Registered Users Posts: 8,405 ✭✭✭gizmo


    TheDoc wrote: »
    No I'm not....(although maybe i cant remember my original post)

    A second hand game sale is marked as pure profit by the retailer, that is a fact.....

    A games first sale covers its costs, and every sale of that same item from there on, through second hand, is 100% profit, as marked out in their finances.
    That's where I'm confused, how can every second hand sale be marked as 100% profit when they need to pay the customer each time for the trade-in?

    The original comment I was referring to was this...
    Game was retailed at €30 second hand, with 10+ resales.

    One copy made €300+, profit, for the retailer.

    There was over 90 instances of this, which generated €27,000+ of profit for the retailer, within the first 30 days of launch. On a game that was a marvellous flop.


  • Options
    #74
    Pacing Mule
    Registered Users Posts: 5,057 ✭✭✭Pacing Mule


    TheDoc wrote: »
    No I'm not....(although maybe i cant remember my original post)

    A second hand game sale is marked as pure profit by the retailer, that is a fact.....

    A games first sale covers its costs, and every sale of that same item from there on, through second hand, is 100% profit, as marked out in their finances.

    It's not a clear cut fact though.

    A games first sale may cover it's costs (some times it is a loss leader)
    If it is then traded in by a customer that customer is given credit for that item. They spend the credit on another item which will have cost the retailer money somewhere along the line.

    Simple example using your own figures:

    A buys a game for €50 - let's just say for arguments sake the retailer had paid €45 for it. In this example they made €5 on that sale.

    A them comes back in and trades in the game getting €35 credit for it. He puts that credit towards a new game selling for €50 - Retailer gets €15 cash for a game they have bought for €45 - a loss of €30

    B comes in and buys the pre owned game A trade in for €45

    From an accounting point of view you could in theory say that this €45 is pure profit but you would be ignoring the €30 loss on the other transaction - and that transaction has to happen for the second transaction to happen.

    So overall the profit for the two sales is €5 + €45 - €30 which is €20. When you then factor in that the €45 for the second game is actually €36.60 (VAT at 23% taken off) it could be argued that the profit on both transactions is circa €11 Your post stated it was €45 profit.


Advertisement