1080°

Bethesda blocks resale of a secondhand game (update)

Legal move could have far-reaching consequences for used game sales

coolbeans2106d ago

"Bethesda’s letter claims that Hupp’s sale is not protected by the First Sale Doctrine, because he is not selling the game in its original form, which would include a warranty. The letter says this lack of warranty renders the game “materially different from genuine products” that are sold through official channels."

BREAKING NEWS: Bethesda has just discovered the used game market?

arkard2106d ago

Almost no product allows the warranty to carry over. This is such a reach out deserves its own definition.

NewMonday2106d ago

Bethesda could be the 1st publisher to go fully digital. there games are popular enough for them to risk it.

uptownsoul2106d ago (Edited 2106d ago )

Bethesda's side won't hold up in court…Their argument that the game is materially different b/c of a warranty preposterous.

BUT if Bethesda were to win in court, that wouldn't just change used video games…that would change used EVERYTHING…

If a company can claim that a product is materially different based on a warranty…that would apply to cars, TVs, laptops, computers, cell phones…Heck, you could probably apply this argument to a house…EVERY consumer product would be affected…

I dont see our courts in the USA opening up that rabbit hole

kneon2105d ago

@uptownsoul

Except that software has always been different from physical products. When you buy software you only own the medium on which it is delivered, plus a license to use that software. That license may or may not be transferable, depending on the terms of the license and local laws which may override parts of the license.

So while I think Bethesda are overreaching here, a win for them likely wouldn't have broad consequences outside of software.

Skull5212105d ago

Not gonna be an issue when we go all digital in the next few years.

UltraNova2105d ago

If Bethesda wins this, prepare for the end of used physical games. This is bad.

rainslacker2105d ago (Edited 2105d ago )

@uptown

Bethesda wouldn't want this to go to court, They know they is a weak argument. And the last thing that publishers want is for the courts to finally rule that the customer has the right to resell games. They want it to be judged without precedent outside of court...likely hoping whoever they make the claim against will acquiesce and just do what they want.

Personally, I think it's long overdue for such a matter to go to court. The publishers have been fighting the consumer and retailers over this for too long, and it's about time the consumers get the chance to push back. They did so once with MS, and MS backed off so there was no market or legal test for the matter at hand.

@kneon

A TOS does not remove one's ownership of the actual license. As such, since the license is attached to a physical medium, that license is transferable. It doesn't really matter what the TOS say. If it did, the publishers could have stopped used games long ago without having to worry about legal consequence. But again, they don't want it tested in court, which tends to take a dim view of overbearing TOS which strip away consumer rights.

In short, the license itself is transferable, because it is itself a physical product.

conanlifts2105d ago (Edited 2105d ago )

It depends on the country. In Australia for example a warranty is on the goods, not the buyer. Therefore if you sell an electrical item or car etc then the warranty transfers to the new owner. The same could be applied to games. In this case as Video game companies claim they own the licence then any warranty would be on this and should therefore be transferable as the ownership has supposedly not changed. Regardless this move would not be allowable in some countries because warranty laws are much stricter. We also have implied warranties in Australia, which supercede manufacturers warranties. So for example a top of the range tv should be expected to last a number of years and should it break after the manufacturers warranty has ended you could still get them to repair the item as it would be implied that a tv, fridge, cooker etc should last a reasonable number of years prior to failing.

+ Show (4) more repliesLast reply 2105d ago
agnosticgamer2105d ago

Incorrect... Bethesda wants to end the used game market.

coolbeans2105d ago

You're kinda dulling the sarcastic tone of my first comment. :P

agnosticgamer2105d ago (Edited 2105d ago )

@coolbeans... yeah, kind of does suck after all these years... Now they want to end used game sales...If you can't trade in games physical games lose some luster... after all if you can't trade them in for credit... Can you still sell them used legally anyway? Of course... That all hinges on this court case... and damn... after reading the article... they are going after anyone trying to sell used copies... Not just gamestop… Only benefit for physical media at that point would be it doesn't count against download cap-space… Because, if Bethesda wins you know other companies will follow suit.

CyberSentinel2105d ago

All the seller has to do is remove the plastic wrap, and sell the game in "Like New" condition. Problem solved.

letsa_go2105d ago (Edited 2105d ago )

Yep, turns out the seller is just a liar, trying to sell an opened game as new. This is a non-story! Who does he think he is, Gamestop?

coolbeans2104d ago

@Cyber

The question then becomes: why should the seller be forced--by the potential of financial ruin--to intentionally devalue his own property to appease Bethesda? It's not a tough cookie to crack for anyone familiar with the second-hand market: unopened by seller qualifies as "New" to the vast majority of people b/c that's the condition it's in.

@letsa_go

"Yep, turns out the seller is just a liar, trying to sell an opened game as new."

All of seeing suggests the game was never opened.

CyberSentinel2104d ago

@Coolbeans

I agree it’s silly that he has to remove and sometimes devalue his own property to resell it. He can always describe the game as “never used”, “like new” or “mint condition” and still get full value for it. Technically, he doesn’t even have to disclose that it’s still in the original wrapper. As long as he doesn’t list it as “New”, that seems to satisfy the lawyer’s.

rainslacker2105d ago (Edited 2105d ago )

Games have a warranty? What kind of warranty is there? Do they replace the game if it doesn't work properly out of the box? That'd be fun to call in through a Bethesda game wouldn't it? Imagine if they got tens of thousands of warranty claims for their buggy releases. Honestly, GameStop has a better warranty if something goes wrong with the disc, and it only cost $2.

Otherwise, I don't see how a game is materially different if it doesn't have a warranty, because I can think of a single instance of anyone, ever, in almost 40 years of gaming, calling in a warranty on a video game.

Also, every other product that has a warranty is still covered under the first sale doctrine.

I really hope this matter eventually goes to court, or at least through some other publisher, to finally settle the issue of ownership, and to settle the matter of if a TOS actually is a binding contract which prevents resale.

Profchaos2105d ago (Edited 2105d ago )

Yeah games do have a warranty if you listen to the game stop employees they would rather you purchuse their disc protection plans but in reality you have a 90 day warranty that entitled you to return and repair a game that has a physical defect Ie the disc won't read.

Trust me i got into a huge argument over my brand new mass effect 2 game which could not be read when I first brought it eb games or game stop stood there trying to tell me I was out of luck until I pulled out the instruction manual flipped to the last page and read the warranty statement out loud

Things can happen on production lines and in shipping games can pop out of cases and scratch along the spindle holding them in place

coolbeans2105d ago

In truth, you should be able to spot the fine print about a warranty on the back of the box, the manual, or elsewhere when purchasing new. The issue is the absurdity of claiming it being purchased w/out warranty makes it somehow "materially unoriginal" (or whatever legalese they want to employ).

"Such purchases without said warranty aren't under the First Sale Doctrine"

Casual response to Bethesda: Ummm...the ENTIRE premise of used games is underpinned with that risk of not having a warranty. Part of the reason why they're cheaper since time immemorial.

rainslacker2105d ago (Edited 2105d ago )

@Chaos

My original comment wasn't really meant to say that I wasn't aware of the warranty. it was to highlight the real lack of substance to that warranty.

When it comes to a defect in manufacturing, I'd consider that a defective product. I don't go through warranty service for something defective like that, I take it back to the store and get a replacement or my money back. That isn't warranty service, that is simply something that retailers offer because they can return the product back to the distributor and get credit or a replacement.

Personally, I'd give up the offering of a warranty to have the right to resell my game as new if I hadn't opened it. I have never once exercised warranty service on a game, but I have many sealed games which I have or may resell one day. In the gaming market, new is considered something that's shrink wrapped.

@cool

Yeah, I've read these warranties before, although I recall that was back when we had instruction manuals.
They're pretty standard boilerplate. I also think that at some point, someone has had to exercise that warranty service, but a defective product like this is usually defective out of the box, and the more natural way to remedy the situation is to take it back to the retailer.

But I get what you're saying. The material substance of the game isn't the warranty. It never was. Warranties are a service to give the consumer confidence in the product they're buying, and since that material aspect of it I'd imagine is rarely exercised through the manufacturer itself, claiming it material to the purchase is laughable at best.

I actually wouldn't mind this going to court. Not that it'd be productive for the seller in this case, but it would actually finally settle this at a precedent level, because I think even a court would laugh at the argument, and in cases like this, the courts tend to side with the consumer and their rights.

A nice extension to this is looking at the Terms of Service. When does warranty service start on a video game? When it's first purchased, or when the user first agrees to the TOS when they open and play the game? Since the user can't agree to the TOS without starting the game(its implied), and they likely can't tell if it requires warranty service without playing it, then do these companies not have to honor event he first sale of the game if the user decides to throw it in their back log for a year or more before realizing that its defective?

On a side note, I had a copy of Skyrim VR handy, and there is nothing on the box about there being a warranty attached. It might be in the TOS which I'm sure is available somewhere hidden away so no one ever sees it. I looked at a couple other games I had on the table near me, and none of them listed any kind of warranty claim either. So I asked my wife, and she said that if the warranty isn't explicitly stated, implied, or expected at large, that such things aren't considered as materialistic to the purchase of said product. However, she said that that's not her area of legal expertise, so she isn't sure that's 100% correct.

steven83r2105d ago (Edited 2105d ago )

I don't think you understood. You're claiming this is the used game market right? But in fact it isn't. I never buy games from a random dude claiming unopened at full price. Unopened or not you get a used price. what Bethesda is saying is to stop trying to pass a game you left the store with as new. I believe to do any form of a warranty claim you need a receipt

coolbeans2105d ago (Edited 2105d ago )

-Well...yes and no. Your response did make me double-back to realize Polygon had updated the article twice since I recall seeing it (which I do appreciate). Mentally speaking? I just splashed "used game market" to reflect the initial title whereas my mind's placing this under the umbrella of the second-hand market in general. The two are just interchangeable to me.

-"I never buy games from a random dude claiming unopened at full price."

I don't recall the article specifying this guy sold it at full price. Considering how recent this is, The Evil Within 2 has had several sales for $20 (new) since release.

-"Unopened or not you get a used price. what Bethesda is saying is to stop trying to pass a game you left the store with as new."

Speaking as someone who peruses Amazon, ebay, etc. too much, it's been commonplace for over a decade to describe an unopened copy of a game as "New." The vast majority of buyers + sellers operate under the mentality that new translates to "never being touched by human hands after being wrapped from the assembly line." Bethesda shouldn't have any say on the matter. This is between the buyer & the seller looking to make a trade--and the website should conflict arise.

+ Show (2) more repliesLast reply 2104d ago
2106d ago Replies(1)
Show all comments (117)
50°

There are no "thoughtful" ads in video games, EA

There are no thoughtful ads in Video Games, EA. Leave them be.

Read Full Story >>
videogamer.com
180°

Bungie CTO Leaves Company After 14 Years, Joins Sony PlayStation

Bungie veteran and current CTO, Luis Villegas, has left the company after fourteen years and has joined Sony PlayStation as its new Head of Technology.

Read Full Story >>
thegamepost.com
Sonic188118h ago

"I feel incredibly lucky because as part of my new role I get to still work closely with my Bungie family."

New role and more pay and still can work closely with Bungie

14h ago
fr0sty3h ago

Yeah, he basically just got a big promotion within the same parent company.

14h ago
S2Killinit2h ago

Seems logical for him and probably for PlayStation

140°

Square Enix Is Going Multiplatform; The Layoffs & Its Past Don't Inspire Confidence

After its latest games didn't meet sales targets, Square Enix is going multiplatform but the company's track record isn't convincing.

Scissorman17h ago

Square Enix been multiplatform for decades, a few exclusively-deals doesn't make them any less multiplatform.

fr0sty17h ago

Nor is selling their games on a console with only 25 million install base going to bring their sales to where they hope they will be... Unless they somehow manage to dumb down FF7 trilogy to work on switch, they aren't going to have much luck. They already released it on PC, after all.

anast5h ago

Where are you getting that number?

SegaSaturn66917h ago

It kind of does, giving preference to a certain platform by timed exclusivity. Console ports generally feel superior. Legend of mana PC port extremely broken

neutralgamer199216h ago

Sega

It doesn’t when square themselves didn’t want to fund the development of remake. It’s only after the success of the 1st they realized their mistake but now contract is signed. If it wasn’t for Sony there would be no FF7 remakes. Same goes for silent hill 2 with Konami. They don’t want to fund AAA budget. Companies like PlayStation and Nintendo get blamed when in reality they are saving some of these franchises

Remember sega didn’t want to fund bayonetta and epic games didn’t want to fund another gears of war. It’s easy to blame console makers but they are the ones taking the risk and paying huge upfront costs without seeing the final product. FF7 remake trilogy won’t be coming to Xbox now or in the future. PlayStation and PC is what square signed up for. Sony paid them more than they would make from Xbox sales.

ravens5216h ago

I just wonder when everyone is going to demand that the Square Enix exclusives with Nintendo come to PS and Xbox. Or it's just the PS exclusives that matter lol

phoenixwing16h ago(Edited 16h ago)

I'd love for the nintendo exclusives to come to pc or ps5. They'd actually be playable then.

neutralgamer199216h ago

Raven

Exactly and that’s where square enix does more exclusive than any other platform. Gaming is square has always been very unrealistic with their sales expectations. Remember when tomb raider reboot sold 7.5 million and square said it wasn’t enough. They need to spend less on development and have more realistic expectations from sales.

And those thinking games being not on Xbox makes a difference don’t understand we have a decade plus of data showing square enix games having less than 20% of their multiplatform sales on Xbox (final fantasy series) and Nintendo consoles aren’t strong enough to run any current games. Nintendo switch should be as strong as Xbox one x atleast but we all know that’s most likely won’t happen

RoadRacer15h ago

@raven

thing is, as neutral said in their comm, the switch isn't strong enough to run flagship SE games
i think what SE does is, it makes unique games for switch only so that it has something for that console too. Thats where all the "underlined sans" rpgs go to mostly

maybe things will change when Swtich 2 drops cuz that's gonna be as strong as ps4 afaik from the rumors flying around

TheGamingHounds16h ago

@Scissorman

Your point is valid enough but when the icon of this company is limited to one console in timed-exclusivity, it means the company has crossed the line. By some degree at least

All things aside, Square itself stated "aggressive multiplatform strategies" so we all know what it's talking about

Scissorman13h ago(Edited 13h ago)

Then the headline should read "Square To Drop Exclusively Deals in Pursuit of A Sweeping Multiplatform Strategy". I don't recall this argument when Square Enix released Bravely Default, Octopath Traveler, and Triangle Strategy on one platform. And even if FF is the icon, not all of its titles have gone to one platform. We're talking about three games, one of which is already on PC. Did Square suddenly go 'multiplatform' after it released subsequent Tomb Raider sequels on more than just the Xbox? It's just a silly way of putting it.

+ Show (1) more replyLast reply 5h ago
TheGamingHounds16h ago(Edited 16h ago)

SE needs to go all in optimization. Broken PC ports won't help its case, especially with big releases like mainline Final Fantasy

Asterphoenix15h ago

It's actually simple. What doesn't inspire confidence is Square allocating their budgets on the wrong projects such as Forspoken, Avengers, Babylons Fall and Foamstars.

Square has always been multiplatform since PS3/360 days which 80 % of their games are. People kick up a fuss over PS exclusivity but not Nintendo which has more exclusive projects console exclusive from Square.

FF16 has done ok but not enough to fix the blunders that the past mistakes Square has made with some of their projects. FF7 Rebirth is unclear we'll see a PC release for sure so it's hard to say so far not as good as they would of liked.

Then again unrealistic expectations. If it weren't for Sony these games would at least had another 2 years development time. So some people need to be realistic in that regard.

Scissorman13h ago(Edited 13h ago)

It's the blunders that set those expectations so high. If you remove those from the equation, I bet the sales numbers would be more than stellar. Square believes it's okay to release a pile of risky, middling, garbage because the big boys will ultimately subsidize the cost. Don't worry if Forspoken sells poorly, FF16 will surely sell 10 million copies to balance that right out. Oh wait, it only sold like 4 million. Well that's a disaster. Meanwhile games that sell 2 million units with comparable budgets are deemed successful.

thorstein8h ago

I would also add that FFXVI, which I loved has a hint to one of their biggest problems: the number 16.

It's a great franchise, but that's all they've become known for. Dragon Quest is my favorite all time series but it's like they don't know what to do outside of those two IPs.

Valve never makes trilogies. The idea is that they don't want to become stagnant. Gabe Newell hates the number 3.

I can't imagine their talent wouldn't want to try a new RPG.

RoadRacer15h ago

Square Enix just really need to revise its expectations. Maybe consider a change in strategy on dev end as well. Multiplat will help for sure but only good games that are marketed well will sell

Show all comments (18)