

Could we have "Fair Trade" games? - paulgerhardt
http://www.gamasutra.com/blogs/LukePearce/20090923/3171/Could_we_have_quotFair_Tradequot_games.php

======
Periodic
The used game market already gives the developers money, because a market for
used goods increases the value of new goods. It comes into play whenever an
item retains at least some of its value after being used by the primary
consumer.

For example, take home prices. If there were no market for used homes (say
there was some strange DRM on houses) very few of us would be willing to put
down the huge sums of money required to buy a house, but we do because we know
that we can recover a lot of that value later if necessary. Additionally,
houses loose very little value over time and land rarely loses value, making
it worth buying a $100k house even if $90k is just tied up as value that you
can get back when you sell it.

Video games, now that we're beyond the days of cartridges, never actually
degrade. There should be a perfect market for used games, though popularity
and time take their tolls. I'm willing to copies of good year-old games for
$30. If you buy a $60 game and then find me a year later it is almost like you
only paid $30 making that other $30 more like an investment required to get
the game earlier.

If developers continue to try to restrict games to single systems or other
ways of limiting the amount of resale, that makes the game worth LESS to me,
as I lose the ability to resell or loan out the game. A healthy used market
actually incrases the first-sale market.

Perhaps someone else can provide a citation, as I'm unable to find a relevant
link via Google.

~~~
paulgerhardt
The "Fair Trade" approach seems irrelevant in the retail model of distribution
(trading cartridges and discs - much like used books), but takes on vastly
different implications in the service model (Xbox Live, Steam, Appstore).

I would be more comfortable with the downloadable platforms (as a curator at
an archeological media lab) if it were possible to maintain the same kind of
liquidity associated with the physical media by trading them in public markets
(given that most game vendors prohibit or discourage transferring game
licenses), even if it meant paying a royalty to an existing corporation to do
so until such a time as the work enters the public domain.

What scares me is not being able to access these works in a hundred years.
Would a royalty system enable one to open the markets by fostering greater
income much like how the traditional used game market in brick-and-mortar
"allows" for higher prices on new games.

Related: "Valve: Are Games Too Expensive?" <http://tr.im/zEJW> or
[http://www.edge-online.com/features/valve-are-games-too-
expe...](http://www.edge-online.com/features/valve-are-games-too-expensive)

~~~
Periodic
Similar to the digital music industry, it seems that the publishers are trying
to spin software as something you have licensed instead of something you own.
This can be seen very readily in the MDY v Blizzard case that's going on right
now. Blizzard claims that they only license the game to you, even though you
bought a physical copy at a store front. Because they own the game and you
only license it they can say that you don't have the right to modify the
memory. You would essentially be bound to anything they want to put in their
EULA/ToS in this case.

This does have a very chilling effect on archival systems. When you aren't
able to format-shift a piece of media or it is bound to only one player then
eventually you will loose access to that media, either through hardware
failure or obsolescence.

Copyright law section 117 gives you a lot of rights for software you've
purchased and owned, but treating it as a license circumvents that clause and
gives the publisher full control.

[http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2009/09/you-bought-it-you-
own-i...](http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2009/09/you-bought-it-you-own-it-mdy-v-
blizzard-appealed)

------
pmichaud
Why should a game developer get to profit from the resale of the game? That
flies in the face of every other after-market. Do the engineers at Ford get a
bump every time an old mustang changes hands?

------
jerf
This is not necessary. Games prices factor in the value they bring to the
first purchaser for their ability to resell it. Blocking reselling (whether by
making it harder or flat out banning it) will result in either lowering the
price the game can sell for, or, more realistically, lowering the number of
games sold. Making reselling more expensive lowers the value of the game to
the customer, and this won't be made up for in any other way. (If the used
game purchasers were willing to pay full price, they already would be; they
are demonstrating their price consciousness by not doing so.)

This plan won't result in raised profits for game makers; it will lower them.

------
robotron
If anything, there should be attention and pressure brought on these companies
for their abhorrent practices during crunch time and worse post-crunch ("oh
you just gave up months of your life to line our pockets - here's your pink
slip. We'll call if we're hiring again").

------
hughprime
I'm not sure what this guy's problem is. If this is what he wants then every
time he buys a used game he can just send a one-pound cheque to Electronic
Arts or whoever.

