What our good friends at Ubi$oft are doing...

[TheEditor]

http://www.tomshardware.com/news/DRI...ing,13091.html

[Troll2k]

I think that is for console games.

[nearmiss]

Originally Posted by TheEditor

http://www.tomshardware.com/news/DRI...ing,13091.html

Ha Ha the way to solve this we all know it. Don't buy any game that has it.

When they hurt in the wallet they'll change their twist on things.

Otherwise... if people accept it, that's what Ubi wants and we'll get more of "their success".

There is always some ferret thinking on ways to put it to your. Don't matter what you do. Cell phones in USA are a good example. Everyone of the cell companies has their own encoder, and the same phone used by different companies will not crossover.

Cell phone contract is another biggy for them. 2 year contracts are a joke, anyone that checks around will find you can get every feature you need with a pay as you go phone.

The practice would end when people don't buy their deal. As it is, they'll keep their nasty practice.

So... just don't buy their deal

[jimbop]

How is it different from steam? Can't sell steam games either you know...

[AndyJWest]

A dumb question (well, it isn't really, because I know the answer): what is a 'used game'? And why would anyone expect to be able to sell it at all? As much as I dislike the general attitude of most games suppliers, I think that they are entitled to suggest that when someone buys 'a game', they are purchasing the right to use the software, not the right to resell it. This is normally explicitly stated in the terms of sale, and for a very good reason - a 'used' game is no different (unless there are specific restrictions) from a new one - it is just binary data after all. I'm sure that games suppliers could figure out an appropriate price for flog it afterwards if you like' software, but if you buy something with the normal restrictions, you can't really complain about them enforcing it - unless you are willing to engage in a more protracted struggle against capitalism, the profit motive, Mammon, etc - which I'd not advise against (I still have the odd skirmish myself), though I don't think the PC games field is exactly the focus of Class Struggle right now. Otherwise, accept that PC games are like beer - you don't buy it, you rent it, and after you've used it, you can't sell it to someone else.

[Phazon]

Its been like this for PC gaming for quite a while now. A game that requires an account + an associated CD-key is effectively the same thing.

[ATAG_Doc]

hahaha you guys are a trip. complaining about a few bucks. me giggles @ every1

[addman]

Good morning everyone! EA has had the same system for like 2 years already. The big publishers wants to kill the second hand market because they seem to think that they are loosing money from it.

[klem]

Originally Posted by addman

Good morning everyone! EA has had the same system for like 2 years already. The big publishers wants to kill the second hand market because they seem to think that they are loosing money from it.

Its a tricky one.

If you buy a second hand car the manufacturer doesn't getting anything out of it and no-one expects it to be any different, including the manufacturer. In fact their design/reliability concerns in part address the second hand market as it partly influences a potential buyer's re-sale possiblities.

However, this is the software world, usually one of licensing rather than selling and software doesn't deteriorate and need replacing except through eventual boredom. If a game is sold-on cheaply then understandably the distributor/developer is going to feel cheated out if a 'new' sale/revenue and you could hardly blame them for protecting themselves from what they might see as a form of piracy. The alternative might be to increase the original sell price to compensate for that.

I suppose one question is are you buying the software package with the right to re-sell or are you only buying a licence for your personal use?

I never bother with second-hand PC games because I buy so few. I don't use consoles but I can see that market has a high game turnover as those games seem limited in play-life and that's where I think most re-sale takes place.

I can see a reasonable argument for re-charge providing it is done carefully with no risk to the original buyer. How that is achieved is down to the distributors who will lose their business if they get it wrong.

I understand that most people want the most they can get for the lowest cost but the argument persists that if you cut off the hand that feeds you...........

The only other point I can think of is that if console games sales are prolific and high-return, two arguments present themselves:
The companies can afford to live with re-sale
or
The companies can enforce re-charge but could afford to reduce the original price and might be forced to by competition.

So, recharging could possibly reduce game prices.

Of course re-charging may drive down the price of a re-sold game, who would pay £15 and a £10 re-charge for a game they can buy new for the same overall price? But if the new game price is £40 and the second hand one is £15 + £10, they will still buy it. So perhaps there's a balance that will be found.

[Seeker]

Not so sure I agree, Klem.

In both company cars and enterprise hardware, resell value is an important factor in making the purchasing decision.

No fleet manager will buy Italian, regardless of how much the sales reps fancy an Alfa, as the fleet manager knows that he'll get nothing in three years time when the warranty runs out, while if he specifies German he'll get back a significant proportion.

The same with hardware. We're changing from P5 AIX machines to virtual Linux on x86 precisely because we'll be able to sell the x86 blades when they're written off as assets in three years, while the Power architecture second hand market has tanked (and a new machine is 15 mil D. Kroner).

So it's a marketing issue.

Can you imagine buying a car with non transferable ownership?