Death To Used-Game Sales

Discussion in 'NZ Computing' started by Lawrence D'Oliveiro, Dec 14, 2008.

  1. Atari is the latest game publisher to complain that sales of used games are "hurting the industry" <http://arstechnica.com/journals/thumbs.ars/2008/12/04/atari-calls-used-game-sales-extremely-painful>.
     
    Lawrence D'Oliveiro, Dec 14, 2008
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    Guest

    On Dec 14, 10:26 pm, Lawrence D'Oliveiro <l...@geek-
    central.gen.new_zealand> wrote:
    > Atari is the latest game publisher to complain that sales of used games are "hurting the industry" <http://arstechnica.com/journals/thumbs.ars/2008/12/04/atari-calls-use...>.


    A highly profitable business so lots of people have moved in, so lots
    to choose from...so the companies now complain about "lost
    profits"...yet from what I have seen its usually older games get
    swapped in and the money gets used to buy new...

    regards

    Thing
     
    , Dec 14, 2008
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    Peter M Guest

    On Sun, 14 Dec 2008 22:26:51 +1300, Lawrence D'Oliveiro
    <_zealand> wrote:

    >Atari is the latest game publisher to complain that sales of used games are "hurting the industry" <http://arstechnica.com/journals/thumbs.ars/2008/12/04/atari-calls-used-game-sales-extremely-painful>.




    You still don't know how to Rap lines..??


    The Music industry has tried to stop the selling of Used Audio CD's


    Its not hurting the Industry, its the Industry is far to Greedy
     
    Peter M, Dec 14, 2008
    #3
  4. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    Nik Coughlin Guest

    "Peter M" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    >
    > You still don't know how to Rap lines..??
    >


    What's brown and rhymes with snoop?

    ....

    Dr Dre.
     
    Nik Coughlin, Dec 14, 2008
    #4
  5. On Mon, 15 Dec 2008 11:45:29 +1300, Allistar <> wrote:

    >Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
    >
    >> Atari is the latest game publisher to complain that sales of used games
    >> are "hurting the industry"
    >>

    ><http://arstechnica.com/journals/thumbs.ars/2008/12/04/atari-calls-used-game-sales-extremely-painful>.
    >
    >Then the companies that make the games should have a "no resale" clause in
    >the licensing agreement on the game packaging.


    That would have to be visible from the outside and it would have to be
    pointed out by the sales person to be valid in NZ. Here, when you buy
    something, the contract is made when the sale takes place. Nothing
    inside the packet or likely not to be noticed by someone buying it can
    change the contract made when the money was handed over.
     
    Stephen Worthington, Dec 15, 2008
    #5
  6. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    Guest

    On Dec 14, 10:26 pm, Lawrence D'Oliveiro <l...@geek-
    central.gen.new_zealand> wrote:
    > Atari is the latest game publisher to complain that sales of used games are "hurting the industry" <http://arstechnica.com/journals/thumbs.ars/2008/12/04/atari-calls-use...>.


    The CGA says you have the right to sell it....

    regards

    Thing
     
    , Dec 15, 2008
    #6
  7. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    richms Guest

    On Dec 15, 3:48 pm, wrote:
    > On Dec 14, 10:26 pm, Lawrence D'Oliveiro <l...@geek-
    >
    > central.gen.new_zealand> wrote:
    > > Atari is the latest game publisher to complain that sales of used games are "hurting the industry" <http://arstechnica.com/journals/thumbs.ars/2008/12/04/atari-calls-use...>.

    >
    > The CGA says you have the right to sell it....
    >
    > regards
    >
    > Thing


    You have the right to sell it, the purchaser may not end up with the
    right to use the software without paying an additional license however.
     
    richms, Dec 15, 2008
    #7
  8. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    Guest

    On Dec 15, 11:45 am, Allistar <> wrote:
    > Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
    > > Atari is the latest game publisher to complain that sales of used games
    > > are "hurting the industry"

    >
    > <http://arstechnica.com/journals/thumbs.ars/2008/12/04/atari-calls-use...>.
    >
    > Then the companies that make the games should have a "no resale" clause in
    > the licensing agreement on the game packaging.
    > --
    > A.


    They cant....CGA.

    regards

    Thing
     
    , Dec 15, 2008
    #8
  9. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    Guest

    On Dec 15, 11:03 pm, richms <> wrote:
    > On Dec 15, 3:48 pm, wrote:
    >
    > > On Dec 14, 10:26 pm, Lawrence D'Oliveiro <l...@geek-

    >
    > > central.gen.new_zealand> wrote:
    > > > Atari is the latest game publisher to complain that sales of used games are "hurting the industry" <http://arstechnica.com/journals/thumbs.ars/2008/12/04/atari-calls-use...>.

    >
    > > The CGA says you have the right to sell it....

    >
    > > regards

    >
    > > Thing

    >
    > You have the right to sell it, the purchaser may not end up with the
    > right to use the software without paying an additional license however.


    In which case you dont have the right to sell it un-
    emcumbered....which is what the CGA effectively says you do have.

    regards

    Thing
     
    , Dec 15, 2008
    #9
  10. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    Mutlley Guest

    Stephen Worthington <34.nz56.remove_numbers> wrote:

    >On Mon, 15 Dec 2008 11:45:29 +1300, Allistar <> wrote:
    >
    >>Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
    >>
    >>> Atari is the latest game publisher to complain that sales of used games
    >>> are "hurting the industry"
    >>>

    >><http://arstechnica.com/journals/thumbs.ars/2008/12/04/atari-calls-used-game-sales-extremely-painful>.
    >>
    >>Then the companies that make the games should have a "no resale" clause in
    >>the licensing agreement on the game packaging.

    >
    >That would have to be visible from the outside and it would have to be
    >pointed out by the sales person to be valid in NZ. Here, when you buy
    >something, the contract is made when the sale takes place. Nothing
    >inside the packet or likely not to be noticed by someone buying it can
    >change the contract made when the money was handed over.


    Bet the RIAA and MPAA are kicking themselves for not having the same
    clause on the outside of CDs and DVDs etc..
     
    Mutlley, Dec 15, 2008
    #10
  11. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    oneofus Guest

    Mutlley wrote:
    > Stephen Worthington <34.nz56.remove_numbers> wrote:
    >
    >> On Mon, 15 Dec 2008 11:45:29 +1300, Allistar <> wrote:
    >>
    >>> Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> Atari is the latest game publisher to complain that sales of used games
    >>>> are "hurting the industry"
    >>>>
    >>> <http://arstechnica.com/journals/thumbs.ars/2008/12/04/atari-calls-used-game-sales-extremely-painful>.
    >>>
    >>> Then the companies that make the games should have a "no resale" clause in
    >>> the licensing agreement on the game packaging.

    >> That would have to be visible from the outside and it would have to be
    >> pointed out by the sales person to be valid in NZ. Here, when you buy
    >> something, the contract is made when the sale takes place. Nothing
    >> inside the packet or likely not to be noticed by someone buying it can
    >> change the contract made when the money was handed over.

    >
    > Bet the RIAA and MPAA are kicking themselves for not having the same
    > clause on the outside of CDs and DVDs etc..


    Doesn't matter
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_sale
     
    oneofus, Dec 15, 2008
    #11
  12. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    Guest

    On Dec 16, 8:56 am, Allistar <> wrote:
    > wrote:
    > > On Dec 15, 11:45 am, Allistar <> wrote:
    > >> Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
    > >> > Atari is the latest game publisher to complain that sales of used games
    > >> > are "hurting the industry"

    >
    > <http://arstechnica.com/journals/thumbs.ars/2008/12/04/atari-calls-use...>.
    >
    >
    >
    > >> Then the companies that make the games should have a "no resale" clause
    > >> in the licensing agreement on the game packaging.

    >
    > > They cant....CGA.

    >
    > Really? Wow, I'm surprised NZ law is so draconian.
    > --
    > A.


    but why should you not have the right to sell something after you have
    finished with it? What would happen to say second hand cars?

    Sorry you have to buy a new car....
     
    , Dec 15, 2008
    #12
  13. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    Peter M Guest

    On Tue, 16 Dec 2008 12:06:44 +1300, Allistar <> wrote:

    > wrote:
    >
    >> On Dec 16, 8:56 am, Allistar <> wrote:
    >>> wrote:
    >>> > On Dec 15, 11:45 am, Allistar <> wrote:
    >>> >> Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
    >>> >> > Atari is the latest game publisher to complain that sales of used
    >>> >> > games are "hurting the industry"
    >>>
    >>>

    ><http://arstechnica.com/journals/thumbs.ars/2008/12/04/atari-calls-use...>.
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> >> Then the companies that make the games should have a "no resale"
    >>> >> clause in the licensing agreement on the game packaging.
    >>>
    >>> > They cant....CGA.
    >>>
    >>> Really? Wow, I'm surprised NZ law is so draconian.
    >>> --
    >>> A.

    >>
    >> but why should you not have the right to sell something after you have
    >> finished with it? What would happen to say second hand cars?

    >
    >I think preventing someone from reselling something is silly, but then if a
    >buyer agrees to a license with those terms then they only have themselves
    >to blame. I think such an agreement should be between the buyer and the
    >seller, and not the government. Personally I wouldn't buy anything with
    >such a clause, but I don't think having such a clause should be against the
    >law.
    >
    >> Sorry you have to buy a new car....




    You can't place restrictions that are not legal under NZ laws, its the same
    with the CGA, your legal rights still stand what ever the dealer tries to
    place on it.


    Like DSE with there short warranties, they state you have to go to the
    manufacturer to get the full warranty, this is Not legal as the contract of
    sale was between you and the shop.

    Far to may dealers here are not passing on full Manufactures warranties.

    I remember a Computer Fan maker had a 6 Year warrantee but dealers here were
    offering only 6 months..


    I have a PC PSU and the box has printed 3 years on it, but the dealer here
    is only offering 12 months, I contacted the Commerce Commission about this,
    they have to honer the warrantee that is printed on the box..
     
    Peter M, Dec 15, 2008
    #13
  14. On Tue, 16 Dec 2008 12:06:44 +1300, Allistar <> wrote:

    > wrote:
    >
    >> On Dec 16, 8:56 am, Allistar <> wrote:
    >>> wrote:
    >>> > On Dec 15, 11:45 am, Allistar <> wrote:
    >>> >> Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
    >>> >> > Atari is the latest game publisher to complain that sales of used
    >>> >> > games are "hurting the industry"
    >>>
    >>>

    ><http://arstechnica.com/journals/thumbs.ars/2008/12/04/atari-calls-use...>.
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> >> Then the companies that make the games should have a "no resale"
    >>> >> clause in the licensing agreement on the game packaging.
    >>>
    >>> > They cant....CGA.
    >>>
    >>> Really? Wow, I'm surprised NZ law is so draconian.
    >>> --
    >>> A.

    >>
    >> but why should you not have the right to sell something after you have
    >> finished with it? What would happen to say second hand cars?

    >
    >I think preventing someone from reselling something is silly, but then if a
    >buyer agrees to a license with those terms then they only have themselves
    >to blame. I think such an agreement should be between the buyer and the
    >seller, and not the government. Personally I wouldn't buy anything with
    >such a clause, but I don't think having such a clause should be against the
    >law.


    The laws are there to protect the weak from the strong. If you are in
    a situation where you need a job to buy food to live and feed your
    family, you can be forced to sign any contract you like. Which allows
    the employer to effectively make you a slave. The employment laws
    prevent that. Similarly, the laws about selling things prevent the
    extreme excesses that sellers would otherwise write into the sales
    contract. What retailer would not want a clause that said "We are not
    obliged to provide an warranty or after sales service whatsoever. We
    may choose to provide service if we feel like it.". Without
    appropriate laws, you would not be able to buy anything at all without
    being forced into silly contracts like that. So yes, clauses that
    prevent people from reselling things really do need to be illegal,
    otherwise pretty much all product would need to be bought new because
    everyone would have such a clause in the sales contract. There is a
    *long* history of people trying to get away with anything they can,
    unless prevented by law.

    >> Sorry you have to buy a new car....
     
    Stephen Worthington, Dec 16, 2008
    #14
  15. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    Nik Coughlin Guest

    "Stephen Worthington" <34.nz56.remove_numbers> wrote in
    message news:...
    > On Tue, 16 Dec 2008 12:06:44 +1300, Allistar <> wrote:
    >> wrote:
    >>> On Dec 16, 8:56 am, Allistar <> wrote:
    >>>> wrote:
    >>>> > On Dec 15, 11:45 am, Allistar <> wrote:
    >>>> >> Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
    >>>> >> >
    >>>> >> > Atari is the latest game publisher to complain that sales of used
    >>>> >> > games are "hurting the industry"

    >><http://arstechnica.com/journals/thumbs.ars/2008/12/04/atari-calls-use...>.
    >>>>
    >>>> >> Then the companies that make the games should have a "no resale"
    >>>> >> clause in the licensing agreement on the game packaging.
    >>>>
    >>>> > They cant....CGA.
    >>>>
    >>>> Really? Wow, I'm surprised NZ law is so draconian.
    >>>
    >>> but why should you not have the right to sell something after you have
    >>> finished with it? What would happen to say second hand cars?

    >>
    >>I think preventing someone from reselling something is silly, but then if
    >>a
    >>buyer agrees to a license with those terms then they only have themselves
    >>to blame. I think such an agreement should be between the buyer and the
    >>seller, and not the government. Personally I wouldn't buy anything with
    >>such a clause, but I don't think having such a clause should be against
    >>the
    >>law.

    >
    > The laws are there to protect the weak from the strong. If you are in
    > a situation where you need a job to buy food to live and feed your
    > family, you can be forced to sign any contract you like. Which allows
    > the employer to effectively make you a slave. The employment laws
    > prevent that. Similarly, the laws about selling things prevent the
    > extreme excesses that sellers would otherwise write into the sales
    > contract. What retailer would not want a clause that said "We are not
    > obliged to provide an warranty or after sales service whatsoever. We
    > may choose to provide service if we feel like it.". Without
    > appropriate laws, you would not be able to buy anything at all without
    > being forced into silly contracts like that. So yes, clauses that
    > prevent people from reselling things really do need to be illegal,
    > otherwise pretty much all product would need to be bought new because
    > everyone would have such a clause in the sales contract. There is a
    > *long* history of people trying to get away with anything they can,
    > unless prevented by law.


    "No government intervention! The free market will take care of it! People
    will vote with their wallets and charlatans such as these will soon go out
    of business!"

    Do you think Tui will hire me to write their billboards?
     
    Nik Coughlin, Dec 16, 2008
    #15
  16. On Tue, 16 Dec 2008 15:47:37 +1300, "Nik Coughlin"
    <> wrote:

    >"Stephen Worthington" <34.nz56.remove_numbers> wrote in
    >message news:...
    >> On Tue, 16 Dec 2008 12:06:44 +1300, Allistar <> wrote:
    >>> wrote:
    >>>> On Dec 16, 8:56 am, Allistar <> wrote:
    >>>>> wrote:
    >>>>> > On Dec 15, 11:45 am, Allistar <> wrote:
    >>>>> >> Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
    >>>>> >> >
    >>>>> >> > Atari is the latest game publisher to complain that sales of used
    >>>>> >> > games are "hurting the industry"
    >>><http://arstechnica.com/journals/thumbs.ars/2008/12/04/atari-calls-use...>.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> >> Then the companies that make the games should have a "no resale"
    >>>>> >> clause in the licensing agreement on the game packaging.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> > They cant....CGA.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Really? Wow, I'm surprised NZ law is so draconian.
    >>>>
    >>>> but why should you not have the right to sell something after you have
    >>>> finished with it? What would happen to say second hand cars?
    >>>
    >>>I think preventing someone from reselling something is silly, but then if
    >>>a
    >>>buyer agrees to a license with those terms then they only have themselves
    >>>to blame. I think such an agreement should be between the buyer and the
    >>>seller, and not the government. Personally I wouldn't buy anything with
    >>>such a clause, but I don't think having such a clause should be against
    >>>the
    >>>law.

    >>
    >> The laws are there to protect the weak from the strong. If you are in
    >> a situation where you need a job to buy food to live and feed your
    >> family, you can be forced to sign any contract you like. Which allows
    >> the employer to effectively make you a slave. The employment laws
    >> prevent that. Similarly, the laws about selling things prevent the
    >> extreme excesses that sellers would otherwise write into the sales
    >> contract. What retailer would not want a clause that said "We are not
    >> obliged to provide an warranty or after sales service whatsoever. We
    >> may choose to provide service if we feel like it.". Without
    >> appropriate laws, you would not be able to buy anything at all without
    >> being forced into silly contracts like that. So yes, clauses that
    >> prevent people from reselling things really do need to be illegal,
    >> otherwise pretty much all product would need to be bought new because
    >> everyone would have such a clause in the sales contract. There is a
    >> *long* history of people trying to get away with anything they can,
    >> unless prevented by law.

    >
    >"No government intervention! The free market will take care of it! People
    >will vote with their wallets and charlatans such as these will soon go out
    >of business!"


    It is amazing how often people spout that cant and actually believe
    it, despite it being proven long ago to be a failed policy. They
    often then go on to quote the US as being a shining example of a free
    market, despite heavy government intervention there in all sorts of
    ways, not the least being huge subsidies to the farmers. In fact, it
    appears that NZ is far closer to being a "free market" than the US is.

    >Do you think Tui will hire me to write their billboards?
     
    Stephen Worthington, Dec 16, 2008
    #16
  17. In article <gi2jgr$phu$>, ldo@geek-
    central.gen.new_zealand says...
    > Atari is the latest game publisher to complain that sales of used games are
    > "hurting the industry"
    >


    I am starting to think of the Games (and Music) Publishers as 'being
    worse than Federated Farmers'.

    i.e.
    "whinge whinge whinge
    whine whine whine
    moan moan moan"
    da capo ad infinitum.

    [sighs] -P.
     
    Peter Huebner, Dec 16, 2008
    #17
  18. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    Nik Coughlin Guest

    "Stephen Worthington" <34.nz56.remove_numbers> wrote in
    message news:...
    > On Tue, 16 Dec 2008 15:47:37 +1300, "Nik Coughlin"
    > <> wrote:
    >>
    >>"No government intervention! The free market will take care of it!
    >>People
    >>will vote with their wallets and charlatans such as these will soon go out
    >>of business!"

    >
    > It is amazing how often people spout that cant and actually believe
    > it, despite it being proven long ago to be a failed policy.


    It's not so much that laissez faire capitalism is a failed policy (a lot of
    very smart people have put a lot of thought into it, and there are a lot of
    good things that can be taken from it) as that it's too short sighted and
    simplistic be a be-all-and-end-all governing philosophy. But people are
    happiest subscribing to simplistic theories that wrap things up nicely.

    > They
    > often then go on to quote the US as being a shining example of a free
    > market, despite heavy government intervention there in all sorts of
    > ways, not the least being huge subsidies to the farmers.


    I believe what you meant to say was huge subsidies to agricultural
    conglomerates :)

    "For instance, in the United States, agricultural subsidies are usually
    portrayed as helping honest, hardworking independent farmers stay afloat.
    However, the majority of income gained from commodity support programs
    actually goes to large agribusiness corporations such as Archer Daniels
    Midland, as they own a considerably larger percentage of production."[1]

    > In fact, it
    > appears that NZ is far closer to being a "free market" than the US is.


    Hong Kong is probably the best example of a "free market".

    [1]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_welfare
     
    Nik Coughlin, Dec 16, 2008
    #18
  19. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    Peter M Guest

    On Wed, 17 Dec 2008 12:53:02 +1300, Allistar <> wrote:

    >Nik Coughlin wrote:
    >
    >> "Stephen Worthington" <34.nz56.remove_numbers> wrote in
    >> message news:...
    >>> On Tue, 16 Dec 2008 15:47:37 +1300, "Nik Coughlin"
    >>> <> wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>"No government intervention! The free market will take care of it!
    >>>>People
    >>>>will vote with their wallets and charlatans such as these will soon go
    >>>>out of business!"
    >>>
    >>> It is amazing how often people spout that cant and actually believe
    >>> it, despite it being proven long ago to be a failed policy.

    >>
    >> It's not so much that laissez faire capitalism is a failed policy (a lot
    >> of very smart people have put a lot of thought into it, and there are a
    >> lot of good things that can be taken from it) as that it's too short
    >> sighted and
    >> simplistic be a be-all-and-end-all governing philosophy. But people are
    >> happiest subscribing to simplistic theories that wrap things up nicely.

    >
    >The problem with this is that some people think that laissez faire
    >capitalism is a "governing philosophy" (as you put it). It's not. It has
    >nothing to do with the government or the state and the sooner people
    >realise that a free market is one *without* state interference, the better.
    >
    >Capitalism is not a form of government. It a way people can agree on trade
    >WITHOUT interference from the state.




    What a load of Crap you preach, you must be a ACT supporter..


    Capitalism is totally corrupt, many things of late prove that, there is No
    Free market and even less here.
     
    Peter M, Dec 17, 2008
    #19
  20. Allistar <> wrote:

    > wrote:
    >
    > > On Dec 16, 8:56 am, Allistar <> wrote:
    > >> wrote:
    > >> > On Dec 15, 11:45 am, Allistar <> wrote:
    > >> >> Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
    > >> >> > Atari is the latest game publisher to complain that sales of used
    > >> >> > games are "hurting the industry"
    > >>
    > >>

    > <http://arstechnica.com/journals/thumbs.ars/2008/12/04/atari-calls-use...>.
    > >>
    > >>
    > >>
    > >> >> Then the companies that make the games should have a "no resale"
    > >> >> clause in the licensing agreement on the game packaging.
    > >>
    > >> > They cant....CGA.
    > >>
    > >> Really? Wow, I'm surprised NZ law is so draconian.
    > >> --
    > >> A.

    > >
    > > but why should you not have the right to sell something after you have
    > > finished with it? What would happen to say second hand cars?

    >
    > I think preventing someone from reselling something is silly, but then if a
    > buyer agrees to a license with those terms then they only have themselves
    > to blame. I think such an agreement should be between the buyer and the
    > seller, and not the government. Personally I wouldn't buy anything with
    > such a clause, but I don't think having such a clause should be against the
    > law.


    Wow - you actually believe companies should be able to prevent you from
    selling used goods? That's malformed thinking (is the nicest way I can
    think to say it) from both an economic and environmental (1) point of
    view.

    Did they not teach courses in logic where you studied?

    Regards,
    Jamie Kahn Genet

    (1) If someone's only option is to give away an item without profiting
    or at least breaking even (the cost of time and energy invested in
    finding it a home) exactly how many people do you think will take the
    time to recycle used goods? Not very many is my bet.
    --
    If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate.
     
    Jamie Kahn Genet, Dec 17, 2008
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. DVD Verdict
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    926
    DVD Verdict
    Jun 11, 2004
  2. Allan
    Replies:
    15
    Views:
    920
    Tim V.
    May 1, 2006
  3. Mikey
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    3,634
    Tonester
    Sep 14, 2006
  4. Rich
    Replies:
    61
    Views:
    2,392
    Bob Larter
    Jul 13, 2009
  5. Rich

    Cruddy P&S sales drop for Sony, DSLR sales jump

    Rich, Aug 1, 2009, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    483
Loading...

Share This Page