Money For Old Code – Why Can’t We Trade Digital Games?

"We can trade physical games. So if digital games are going to continue to cost the same price, we should expect the same rights of ownership."

Asa from Gameondaily discusses having the ability to trade digital games

[rosscoffx]

I agree it should be something the companies look at BUT it would really harm retailers so I can also see why it's not favoured yet... it's a tough one but it will happen eventually.

Also, there should be a gift option too! If someone is my friend and I want to give them a game I have played I can do that with a physical copy but not digitally. Seems very unfair.

[Dir_en_grey]

You absolutely can give and sell your used digital games. Just give them your account and password.

[Volkama]

Using this method it is even possible to share digital games you don't own. Just leave your payment details attached to the account.

It's a flawless solution!

[hay]

There's no money in maintaining the project for digital game exchange for parties that serve digital distribution and the idea that it can feed used games market scares the hell out of publishers.
Also there's no real point in doing all that when noDRM works well in civilised environment.

[Dir_en_grey]

No you just sell your account.
I don't get why people are so dense in the head about this. Like they want to get money and keep the games or something.

[Volkama]

@Hay gotta disagree with you there. There is plenty of money to be had in maintaining and controlling a digital exchange. In just the same way as Gamestop make plenty of money from the physical 2nd hand market.

I agree in so far as it is scary talk for publishers though. But even if trading, digital would still be more lucrative for them than physical. They get more money out of a digital sale than a physical one, and they could potentially get some money on a second hand sale. That's a pretty big step up from physical, but some way off their dream of all digital, no trading.

@Dir_en_grey you set up a new account for every game you buy? Or you're an "all-in or fold" kinda guy?

[Dir_en_grey]

@Volkama
People are complaining not being able to sell digital games, which is not true, it was just people are too dumb to figure out not all media is delivered and transferred the same way.
How you want to market your goods is up to you just like anything else.
Sell your account with games in bulk or whatever.
If you are getting games w/ intention to sell them then create different accounts or however suits how you want to liquidate your property in the future. Don't make it like it's somebody else's fault just because you are a bad planner or too dumb to figure out how things work.

Of course everybody wants more then what we paid for and everything handed free to us, but seriously at least think about how the rest of the world needs to work to keep functioning instead thinking like a kid leaching off their parents in the first place.

[darthv72]

Wasn't MS working on something like this?

[Clunkyd]

@Dir

LOL thats no where close to a solution.

This is one of the reasons why physical copies are superior in every way.

[Grown Folks Talk]

Yes darthv, they were. And had they not scrapped their original plans, would probably already have it implemented. Still plan on a digital exchange however.

[rainslacker]

@darth

Yes. And if they hadn't tried to make retail purchases part of the same trade/sell deal, they probably would have been praised for the idea. A lot of the hate for their DRM restrictions was that they were applied to the retail market.

[Eonjay]

I didn't even consider the retail effect but you are absolutely right about that.\

And another thing... if we could trade digital licenses, it better be free. Also, the fact that DLC exists makes everything much more complex.

And then of course there is teh issue like with The Elder Scrolls Online. Wouldn't you have to trade your digital game license and the online play licence?

[Volkama]

Is protecting retailers a valid reason to rip off digital customers?

Gifting games should be free. Directly trading games could have a fee in much the same way as using Paypal has a fee. A proper second hand marketplace would definitely have a markup (just like a retail second hand marketplace), and ideally some of that would go to the publisher but that's a battle for them to fight lol.

DLC isn't that hard to address, as it's all controlled with the same DRM as a base game. Why not sell/trade that as well? Again, something you can't really achieve with physical trading.

For something like TESO or Final Fantasy you'd just sell the game. You aren't selling the account or subscription time.

[Spotie]

It may sound anti consumer, but we can't really have the retailers suffering. That means job loss, and eventually prices will go up as availability goes down. If retailers can't make money on software or something outside of gaming (which is why GameStop needs used games and has gotten into a lot of other stuff besides), they'll stop carrying the hardware that they don't make enough on to justify stocking.

Not trying to side with corporations, really, but come on.

[Crazay]

It woudl most certainly hurt retail sales in a big way if they were to undercut them with digital delivery, however, I can't see why they (MS/Sony/Nintendo) can't offer the ability to trade in your digital license for credit towards another digital title. If nothing else, allow people to make offers/bid and if the person who owns the license is ok with what person b offers them then let then do the trade that way.

[Volkama]

Digital prices need to go down, or trading needs to be possible. I would probably prefer prices to come down as I don't really trade anyway, but either approach is fair.

[Gazondaily]

Well you can actually account share and essentially get a digital game for half price already. That's pretty good as it is no?

[Volkama]

That is a grey area that helps take the sting a bit, but an officially supported change would beat a shady trick that an inner circle of hardcore gamers are aware of.

Besides, what about people that actually use the home console function as it is intended (ie so their family can use the console when the primary account isn't signed in)?

[Gazondaily]

Yeah fair enough, it is a bit of an unorthodox move. MS alluded to some sort of trading back when the digital vision was alive but then again, with Mattrick at the helm, this could have all been complete BS.

I don't think anyone is going to make this a priority until gamers really start demanding being able to trade their digital libraries to be honest.

[Volkama]

Yeah but I think a lot of people are very aware that digital downloads are too expensive though, and a lot of people are aware that you can sell and trade discs. So even if people aren't demanding digital trading as much as they could be, announcing a change would get a pretty big response.

It'd go a pretty long way toward getting people to shift to digital, which is still in the publishers' best interests. I think the biggest hold up is that shifting people to digital without making any concessions on pricing or ownership is even better, so if MS/Sony/whoever think that's still realistic then then will shoot for it. Which is why gamers probably should demand changes that work in our favour.

[rainslacker]

Publishers will never go for outright trading or individual selling on digital unless they get a cut. They don't even want retail trading as is. I'd imagine their cut would have to be about the same they'd make for a new purchase, or at least pretty close. There are just too many parties which have an interest in the whole idea to really be something that will happen without some sort of compromise or concession or one party being unhappy with it.

MS itself had a good idea in being able to trade/sell digital in some sort of marketplace, likely one they controlled. Unfortunately, it's hard to justify them having control over the retail trade/sell market, so people never gave them the chance to implement it, or at least MS decided to scrap the idea because they couldn't control the retail market as well.

There's actually nothing stopping MS from implementing it's original vision, whatever it was, with their digital market, but they wanted to take their toys and go home when they couldn't get their way.

They could still come out ahead should they decide to do something like this, and it would make digital much more appealing, and remove one more reason why many people do not go digital in the first place.

I haven't heard anything about it in a while, but in the EU, Steam is required to allow users to trade their digital copies. Anyone know how that's going?

[hasamalaha]

Agreed, one of the two has to happen. I will never go digital otherwise (unless forced to). $60 for a game is ridiculous when you can generally get it for half price on PC. I always wait for a sale as I refuse to pay full price. Plus, I sell my games immediately when I'm done with them. After all is said and done I probably pay anywhere from $10 to $20 for the experience. You can't come anywhere close to that digital wise on consoles.

[asad197]

If a digital and physical copy costs the same then I should be able to trade in a digital game just like physical disk.

[StrayaKNT]

This is a good idea actually, these companies should let us do that but I doubt they're kind enough lol

[Takwin]

I have over 650 games in my Steam account, and about 20 in Origin, uPlay, and GOG. The only digital games I have for my PS4, PS3, Wii U, and 3DS are indie or digital-only titles.

I can always find a better deal on physical games AND I can sell or trade them afterwards. It's insane that digital is worse on both fronts.

[gosukyomomma]

Agreed the only digital games I own are the free ps plus downloads i get each month everything else is physical for the exact same reasons you mentioned above.

This is why I will never go full digital because I believe if i buy something I own it and can do what the hell I like with it after I have no use for it

[isarai]

I honestly don't understand how anyone with a brain and the ability of thought can even suggest this, it makes absolutely no sense. The point of used item sales is that it's an answer for "what to do with the object that is now worn & torn now that your done with it besides make more trash" this allows the seller to rid themselves of the object and the task of properly disposing of it, and gives the buyer something they wanted at a cheaper price, it's a trade. Digital doesn't ware or tear, it doesnt take up space, and it's not a limited supply, so how can you sell it "used" when it's absolutely no different than new?

[Erik7357]

Because, maybe we don't want the software anymore? We bought it we should have the right to sell it just like we can with physical items. No one sells used physical copies of games for the reasons you mentioned. We sell it because we are done using it not because its old or because of wear or tear or because it takes up a few inches of space in a room!

I have thought long and hard of a system that would work.
In my system, you can only sell a specific copy ONE time and that copy that is re sold will be marked USED....the person who get's that USED game can not sell it again and you can not sell games that have been marked with USED. Now granted, this is kinda hypocritical to what I said on how we have a right to sell it if we own it....but if we could sell something unlimited amount of times from friend to friend game developers would get no sales and would become broke.

Also, I feel like you would have to sell it at a certain percentage of what it sells digitally for brand new. You would have to sell it at at-least 50% (or half) the price of what its going for...so $60 would go for at least $30 if you sold it to a friend. Also publisher would get around 15% and the market provider (Valve,Sony, Microsoft) would get around 10%. This leaves a generous 75% too the seller. This makes it that if a person sold a game for $50 dollars he would get $38 dollars...

So why do this even if you think its stupid? IT cuts out the middle man retail which allows more money to be made for the Publisher and Console Maker. Also, if done my way, the seller would get higher rates than the horrible rates at Game-stop. This will be the final Catalyst to getting rid of the retail market for games.

This system will initially hurt profit/sales for publisher but in the long run will help them make more money once digital taps the market of used games because they can now get a LITTLE money for a used copy.

[isarai]

So you want to make money off of it but not the person you give it too even though its in the exact same state as when you bought it? It just sounds like people want easy money, if you're so worried about making money off a used item then buy the cheaper physical copy. Also the product would still have to be downloaded and authenticated through the publishers/marketplace servers so to them its the same method as a newly purchased digital item, why would they then do that for 15% less than what they are doing now? The whole thing only benefits the seller leaving everyone else kinda at a loss

[Soldierone]

The answer is in the digital stores. Look at "sales" or look up old games and look at the price.

Now go to your retailer and look at the price.

Now factor in that those copies at retail were already paid for, but the stores paid maybe 10 bucks a copy. Those digital sales have a higher percentage going to the publisher (not developer, publisher) and the publisher has more direct control over that price, yet it remains higher, why?

Only way "used games" digitally take off is if the store and/or publishers can stick their hand in and take a percentage.

[Why o why]

That last paragraph sounds similar to what ms were proposing. Unfair restriction of trade in my opinion as there were remits.

I'm not sure why ms couldn't keep the better evolutionary facets of their bodged plans. Some actually blamed the removal of these features on the drm reversals. More fool them if they actually believed that.

[Erik7357]

I have thought long and hard of a system that would work.
In my system, you can only sell a specific copy ONE time and that copy that is re sold will be marked USED....the person who get's that USED game can not sell it again and you can not sell games that have been marked with USED. Now granted, this is kinda hypocritical to what I said on how we have a right to sell it if we own it....but if we could sell something unlimited amount of times from friend to friend game developers would get no sales and would become broke.

Also, I feel like you would have to sell it at a certain percentage of what it sells digitally for brand new. You would have to sell it at at-least 50% (or half) the price of what its going for...so $60 would go for at least $30 if you sold it to a friend. Also publisher would get around 15% and the market provider (Valve,Sony, Microsoft) would get around 10%. This leaves a generous 75% too the seller. This makes it that if a person sold a game for $50 dollars he would get $38 dollars...

So why do this even if you think its stupid? IT cuts out the middle man retail which allows more money to be made for the Publisher and Console Maker. Also, if done my way, the seller would get higher rates than the horrible rates at Game-stop. This will be the final Catalyst to getting rid of the retail market for games.

This system will initially hurt profit/sales for publisher but in the long run will help them make more money once digital taps the market of used games because they can now get a LITTLE money for a used copy.

If we are never able to sell games digitally we will never see the retail market go away.

[Soldierone]

It's a good plan in my books. Right now if you go to GameStop and trade in a game and another person buys that copy, the publishers get ZERO from it.

One thing I'd add is that "used games" can't be sold until say 30 days after launch. That way the publisher can still push new sales.

If you create a system digitally where the publishers squeezes their hand in there, they at least get something.

They need to face facts and realize there is a group of people that simply will not buy games at full retail price. Especially today when season passes and whatever push games over 100 bucks. If they want to get rid of retail, they need to find a way to still keep these buyers in the market. A person buying a game at 30 dollars, possibly buying DLC, and getting introduced to the franchise is better than the person walking away.

Plus they always overlook one simple fact. People that sell used games utilize that money to buy NEW games. 60 dollars is a huge chunk of money, then we tack on season passes, other DLC, other games, etc... Not only is someone buying the old game for 30 dollars, but the person that sold it is buying a NEW game for 30 dollars (to them it's 30 dollars)

[Erik7357]

If its done Steam will be the first to do it.

[Donnywho]

I like that we have options right now. The article and most of the comments, in the long run, would limit our options.

[Jamaicangmr]

This is why i am so anti digital because i felt robbed after i sold my PS3 and was left wtih nothing all my games just sit there on my account as usless icons now.

[StormLegend]

All Digital games need to be $40 on release. I see no reason to pay $60 for a game I can't trade or do anything with it..

Prices of old Digital games need to go down as well.
Why would I pay $60 for an game that's $20-$30 used? Even brand new are like $30-$40.

[ziggurcat]

frankly that's the sacrifice you have to make when you purchase digital... want to trade the game? buy the physical copy. that's it.

[Mrveryodd]

I find digitial are more expencive ,project cars $99 dig $79 at target .That is in Australia anyway .Now our gov wants to charge another %10,thay call it "the netflix tax".
I wouldn't mind so much if thay were the same price,thay should be cheaper .But sadly there not.

[MilkMan]

This is the wild west of gaming right now.
Convenience, right there at your fingertips but this is maximum profit for publishers. With almost no loss to them. No third market reselling or trading. Still they sell at FULL retail pricing. It would be a small matter to sell your digital rights from one owner to the next but this is box no publisher wishes to open but I tell you what and mark these words in fact tattoo them on your eyelids,
THIS WILL BE OPENED AND THIS WILL BE DISCUSSED AND LITIGATION WILL ENSUE.
Why?
Because this is bigger than just gaming.
Lots of digital media is being bought by the bucket loads. Games, music, books, movies and just like physical cousins when we die would have amassed thousands of these and would wish to pass these on to our kin. There is no way in God's green Earth that will essentially be giving away free money to companies and have zero rights to the media itself.
This will be fought and the courts will make a determination.
Its a fact of modern day living.
So you see, you cant swept this under the rug and close your eyes and hope it goes away.
The simple answer, this is MUCH bigger than games and sooner or later it will need to be addressed (and it will be).