A Court of Appeal ruling could render the pre-owned software market illegal in the US - and have wider implications for video games in the future.

The case involves defendant Timothy Vernor and Autodesk, the developer behind AutoCAD (a design package).

Autodesk successfully prevented Vernor from selling his copy of AutoCAD - complete with serial number - on the basis that the software's End User License Agreement states that the package is licensed, and that the licence itself is non-transferable.

The court gave the following ruling:

"We hold today that a software user is a licensee rather than an owner of a copy where the copyright owner specifies that the user is granted a license, significantly restricts the user's ability to transfer the software and imposes notable use restrictions."

The ruling sets a precedent, in the US at least, that would mean games developers could take a similar approach with licensing agreements on their own software that would effectively render the re-sale of games illegal.

As Gamasutra points out, EA's standard End User Licensing Agreement doesn't mention resale policy but explicitly states: "This Software is licensed to you, not sold."

Call of Duty: Black Ops developer Treyarch has a better idea when it comes to combating the pre-owned market - Make better games.

http://www.computerandvideogames.com/ar ... ?id=264541

You could see that coming about, couldn't you?

Though they'd have some bad PR selling that to the mainstream along the lines of, 'Aye, away and...'

Its coming. The publishers want it badly. Personally I think it will have a negative effect on sales (as some people sell older games to fund new ones) but what do I now.

On a related subject I went passed a game shop yesterday (independent I think, cant remember what it is called) and 99% of the stock in-store is preowned.

Actually, it wasn't "his copy" of AutoCAD, it was copies of AutoCAD he bought from a company (bankrupt stock?), which he then tried to sell on eBay.


As does pretty much all software, worldwide, since the early 80s... Same goes for music and video, with a CD or DVD, you are given a licence to listen/watch it in your home, you don't own it...

In effect, the court has just agreed with software makers, that the user never actually buys the product, just a licence to use it and that licence is usually non-transferable. If they tried it, the music and video industry could also use that, to stop the resale of CDs and DVDs.

The same restrictions apply in the UK (and most of the rest of the world), so it will be interesting to see if the courts in the UK etc. agree with the American view, that a user cannot resell their non-transferable licence.

And make people pay for dedicated servers and not allow them to host their own.....

It will happen but it will not help the industry at all. Those who are first time buyers and who sell on the games to buy new games will probably find that their funds for new games is seriously curtailed. They will be forced to be more selective. They might by a fraction of the games that they previously bought, because they do not have the income to buy more. Those who only buy the second hand games will be even more selective if they have to pay full price. Again they may cut purchases. The end result will be a drop in sales as people will want to be sure that they will get their monies worth from the game. If it fails that test then they will not buy.

What will the publishers learn from this? Probably that franchises mean more sales as people will probably stick with what they know. That will kill any originality in games. Probably signalling a long term decline as people switch their entertainment needs elsewhere.

Yep, we'll all be playing COD7 having downloaded the 500th map pack and paying 200 MS points per clip of ammo.

I tend to sell games once I've completed them or are bored of them (whichever comes first) but use that money exclusively to fund a new purchase. It's not that I can't afford a new game otherwise, it just makes the purchase more justifiable given the relative high cost of some games and the sometimes ridiculously short play time. I see it like a natural cycle. If that cycle is broken I'll probably purchase less games.

Agree with the above comments. It's all just getting frikkin' ridiculous.

Here's hoping the EU Commission sides with consumers on this.

Licenses should be transferable one way or another. If not then the limitations should be clearly marked. I cant see bankruptcy practitioners at an architects being happy that all the copies of AutoCad are worthless.

Surely second hand purchasers buying new games selectively is a win for the industry - their buying second hand games doesn't bring the industry any revenue, their main bone of contention with the second hand market... The question is, will that outweigh those who bought new games, and selling, them buying fewer games?

That said, I've never sold on a game. But I don't play games any more. The last game I bought was NFS:Underground in 2006...

I have never sold a game either, but if I cant trade a game if it is crap then I will be much more reluctant to buy a game on the off chance that it is good. The industry is clearly hoping that those who buy new games do not cut back if they cannot sell on, and if those who were buying pre owned switching to new games. Though the same problem applies. Will the game be worth them actually be worth them trying to buy? If the games do not fill that criteria then they will suffer. If the game does not have any long term playability for the buyer they will look elsewhere. They might switch to companies where they can trade old games.