Moral rights of copyright and software ownership *spawn [Archive]

eastmen

02-Jan-2011, 05:01

The problem isn't with used game buyers, it's with new game buyers. New game buyers will buy less because they won't be able to sell their games. Some new game buyers may even resort to piracy. I personally will NEVER pay full release day price for a game I can't sell later on, even if it's for 10 bucks 2 years down the road.

My game buying habbits wont change. I only buy new and not being able to trade games into gamestop or sell them online wont change my buying habits. I will still buy the same amount of games a month.

DD is also horrible for consumers because at least with retail, Amazon, Walmart, Target, Best Buy, etc. compete with each other and you get at least 10 bucks off for most new games, even on release day. With DD, you're at the mercy of one entity, and you wouldn't get much discounts if XBL and PSN are any indicators.

I like that you leave out Steam , Games for windows live and other DD services which have sales. YOu also have claimed in the past that the only way to sell DD content is to discount it heavly

I personally would only buy games that are worth keeping and Activision, Sony Santa Monica, etc. would have had 1 fewer new game sale this year because of me. I also know I'm not in the minority with this one. I like buying my stuff new, so I don't buy used games, buy I do exchange a couple games with my friends, and I sure sell any games I don't intend to play again.

Does it matter ? how many people are buying the games your selling back ? How many times does each game you buy pass into another persons hands ?

corduroygt

02-Jan-2011, 05:09

My game buying habbits wont change. I only buy new and not being able to trade games into gamestop or sell them online wont change my buying habits. I will still buy the same amount of games a month.

You are not the majority judging by Gamestop profits and how many games you see for sale on ebay, craigslist, etc, or judging by how many people actually rent video games.

I like that you leave out Steam , Games for windows live and other DD services which have sales. YOu also have claimed in the past that the only way to sell DD content is to discount it heavly

Yeah, and when they discount heavily, they won't make as much money, will they? They won't be able to move 8 million copies of COD without used sales at $60. Maybe at $30, they will be able to. Or maybe they'll keep the price at $60 and only sell 4 million, which will be bad for the consumer.

Does it matter ? how many people are buying the games your selling back ? How many times does each game you buy pass into another persons hands ?
How do you know those people would have instead paid full price for the game in the first place? If the cheaper used copy wasn't available, maybe they just wouldn't buy it, or they'd pirate it?

Xenus

02-Jan-2011, 05:17

You are far over estimating the value of the used market. COD will still sell 8 million copies because none of those 8 million are used sales. Plus honestly the makers could care less if they lost 50 million used sales if they gained 1 million new sales. The used market makes them nothing. There is the slight argument that people who resell their games can buy more new games but even that is weak as long as their remains a rental market people won't care whether they spend 5-10 on a rental or spend 5-10 dollars net on a buy and resale of a game.

eastmen

02-Jan-2011, 06:22

You are not the majority judging by Gamestop profits and how many games you see for sale on ebay, craigslist, etc, or judging by how many people actually rent video games. What are the numbers. Ebay , craigslist and others aren't accurate measures of whats being sold used. Gamestop also has profits on new games and other items. Rentals for video games are dieing blockbuster is going bye bye and gamefly and other online services are not seeing the type of growth that will replace retail rentals

Yeah, and when they discount heavily, they won't make as much money, will they? They won't be able to move 8 million copies of COD without used sales at $60. Maybe at $30, they will be able to. Or maybe they'll keep the price at $60 and only sell 4 million, which will be bad for the consumer. They just sold 8 million copies of COD and they are all new games. Will they be able to move 8 million copies if people can't sell thier old games ? mabye not , but alot of gamers wont be willing to pass up playing a game as large as the new cods .

Mabye instead of how it is today we can actually see real price movements. Right now we only ever realyl see $60 and $20 . Thats because the used titles hit every price point between them. Perhaps in the future we can see them add steps that will make the developer monet cause the title hasn't been at those price points used for months before hand. We could see a game come out at $60 and then 4-5 months later we can see it at $40 and then down to $20

How do you know those people would have instead paid full price for the game in the first place? If the cheaper used copy wasn't available, maybe they just wouldn't buy it, or they'd pirate it?

This doesn't affect publishers/developers at all. It only affects gamers. If they want to pirate it well they may end up with bricked consoles or not being able to play online. If they want to wait for the game to drop in price then they will wait.

I don't think you understand that right now the used game market isn't helping developers/publishers. Its just as bad if not worse for the industry in comparison to piracy.

1) A % of people may sell games to fund new game purchases. However the games they sold are now lost new sales of those titles and those titles can be sold over and over again costing more and more new sales.

2) The biggest Retailer for new video games in the united states is also the biggest pusher of used video games. They sit and sell games that are a week old for $5 less than the new copy sitting next to it. They then entice buyers with discount clubs to feed the cycle. 10% off used games 10% more trade in credit plus 12 issues of gameinformer for $15 a year. They push used games.

If a new platformwas able to get rid of used games on the system some might be upset , but they wouldn't stop buying the games they want. They will simply adjust their buying habits. Perhaps gamers will wait for reviews , or wait a few months to buy games. But gamers wont stop buying games.

corduroygt

02-Jan-2011, 16:05

You are far over estimating the value of the used market.

They just sold 8 million copies of COD and they are all new games. Will they be able to move 8 million copies if people can't sell thier old games ? mabye not , but alot of gamers wont be willing to pass up playing a game as large as the new cods .

Bobby Kotick disagrees...
"We're not doing anything to suppress used games today," he said. "What we've tried to do is to really support our audiences and, you know, when you talk to players, they like the idea of having a currency. They like the idea of being able to take a game they no longer want to play and use it to get a credit to buy new games.

"We can do some of these things that EA and others have done," said Kotick, referring to EA's Project Ten Dollar which allowed you to download content only if you have a new copy. "We actually don't think its in the best interest of the gamer, and so we've chosen not to."

eastmen

02-Jan-2011, 18:13

Yes and one person does not change the way the industry is moving. it also helps that cod has a highly replayable multiplayer portion that keeps people holding on to the game for months at the time.

I wonder how he would feel if they made an extremely great single player game like bioshock and people would play through 20-30 hours of game play and start trading it in days after the game released.

Xenus

03-Jan-2011, 02:05

Once again you are focusing way too much on what benefits you and not the market as whole. The market benefits far more for a steam style system then they do from a used system in which they get no profits on those games sold. As long as there is still some sort of rental system and the prices fall after release in a normal way the end user really isn't hurt all that much while the game companies are happy as well as they will get more profit even if it's a little. The only major people hurt here are the gamestops of the world that make so much profit off of used games.

aaronspink

07-Jan-2011, 08:39

Your posts are not facts, you know that right?
http://store.steampowered.com

Only full priced game I see there is Black Ops at number 13. There are only about 20K users playing it concurrently at any time.

Now that we are out of the holiday discount silly season, I suggest you take a look at the current top sellers...

-tkf-

08-Jan-2011, 18:27

The used market doesn't help the video game industry at the very least its has a netrual effect , but i doubt anyone here actually believes even that. Even if they are only able to covert back a third of the used market to buying only new games it will be a huge win for them. Even if two thirds go over to piracy .

Well they will loose something that might not count for alot in pure money but the support from the customers should be smaller, for example, i consider it pretty shitty that i can buy a game, but in reality i am buying a one of short lived experience. They can do it, but i will think less of them.

Note, i have never sold a used game, i always keep them since i am a collector. But the idea that i can´t give a game to a friend that i am done with is just to greedy. If they do that, i don´t consider it wrong to give him the game and tell him how to break the copy protection. Since i don´t have the game anymore he aint stealing in my book, the theif is the company that took away a basic right from me.

I understand the mechanics of DD and that i ain´t able to give away games but i do consider it wrong.

Hey, you can´t sell your DVD´s they are locked to your person, your books? forget it, they are only yours to read, cars? noway, you drive the car you bought until it falls apart. Used CD´s, forget it... clothes? what! you expect us to accept that others can use the clothes you bought?

It´s purely profit optimizing from a industry that never has been able to build a healthy market but still produces way to many bad games.

eastmen

09-Jan-2011, 09:43

Well they will loose something that might not count for alot in pure money but the support from the customers should be smaller, for example, i consider it pretty shitty that i can buy a game, but in reality i am buying a one of short lived experience. They can do it, but i will think less of them. its really the consumers that are responsible to make sure its a sound purchase. Instead of buying the day it comes out , you can simply wait for reviews . You could also simply wait months before buying the game so the price drops.

Note, i have never sold a used game, i always keep them since i am a collector. But the idea that i can´t give a game to a friend that i am done with is just to greedy. If they do that, i don´t consider it wrong to give him the game and tell him how to break the copy protection. Since i don´t have the game anymore he aint stealing in my book, the theif is the company that took away a basic right from me.

What country lists that as a basic right ? You have the option of buying or not buying. That is your right , if you buy then you live by the rules the company set. You get to see those rules before buying.

I understand the mechanics of DD and that i ain´t able to give away games but i do consider it wrong. I consider taxes wrong. However in the long run it really doesn't matter what i believe. If i don't pay my taxes the goverment will come after me and throw me in jail. With video games if you don't like DD then don't buy it. If its the only option then don't play games anymore

Hey, you can´t sell your DVD´s they are locked to your person, your books? forget it, they are only yours to read, cars? noway, you drive the car you bought until it falls apart. Used CD´s, forget it... clothes? what! you expect us to accept that others can use the clothes you bought?

This is how things are , you are right. What your wrong about is that the industry would in a heart beat lock these things to only you if they could.

I think if you look at all the things you listed except mabye clothes , that the companys have done a good job of making the used verisons unattractive or offering thier own verisons.

A Car wears down . A 5 year old car is not the same as a brand new car right out of the factory. The 5 year old car may have stains , may leak oil , the air may not cool as well , it could go at anytime. So its not ideal to buy used. To make it worse the car companys have started certified used programs in which their dealers are able to get the cars and sell them again after getting them for a song and a dance from customers who wnat to trade up .

Even dvds and cds wear and scratch and break. Aside from that both of these markets are secondary to the main way they make money. A movie on a dvd has already made its money in thearters , it will make money on dvd , it will make money when a pay channel pays for the right , when rental places pay for the right , when basic cable pays for the right , when broad cast pays for the right. It has a ton of way of making money. Even cds have the primary source of concerts. They can also liscense the music to comercials and tv shows and movies and a slew of other things to make money.

With video games you only normaly get your first sale. If your lucky some point down the line you might be able to launch it as a classic on a newer system.

I think you should compare similar industrys.

It´s purely profit optimizing from a industry that never has been able to build a healthy market but still produces way to many bad games.

Every single industry produces some bad things. There are bad cars , would u buy a ford pinto ? There is bad music (rap ,hip hop , r and b ) there are even bad movies , tons of them. Heck there are even bad clothes.

I don't see the video game industry being any diffrent in that regard

Becareful what you wish for. I wouldn't put it past the industry to make a disc that destroys itself as you play it just like a car. Would you be happy with that senario. Oh i can't play call of mario war anymore cause the disc wore out , guess its time to rebuy

corduroygt

09-Jan-2011, 09:53

Yes but the ntake into account the actual money going to the developer and steam.

http://news.bigdownload.com/2010/10/04/interview-we-chat-with-outerlights-co-founder-about-bloody-goo/

So even if a game is selling for $20 on steam vs $50 at gamestop the developer will make alot more on steam. They'd get $5 from retail and $14 on steam.

You've deliberately confused publisher/developer to make your argument sound good. Not everyone can be their own publisher, especially on consoles. So let's take that publisher cut out of the way and let's see how much the publisher sees, regardless of who they are.

Retailer markup is about 35% on video games. DD markup is 30%. Of course there's disc pressing and shipping costs with physical, but they can't be more than 5-6% at most. So it's more like a 40% cut vs. 30% going with DD. Does not make up for the fact that DD volume for big titles is less than ten percent of physical volume, due to people buying with cash, not sufficient internet connection, technically more difficult to do , etc.

-tkf-

09-Jan-2011, 10:37

its really the consumers that are responsible to make sure its a sound purchase. Instead of buying the day it comes out , you can simply wait for reviews . You could also simply wait months before buying the game so the price drops.

What country lists that as a basic right ? You have the option of buying or not buying. That is your right , if you buy then you live by the rules the company set. You get to see those rules before buying.

I consider taxes wrong. However in the long run it really doesn't matter what i believe. If i don't pay my taxes the goverment will come after me and throw me in jail. With video games if you don't like DD then don't buy it. If its the only option then don't play games anymore

This is how things are , you are right. What your wrong about is that the industry would in a heart beat lock these things to only you if they could.

I think if you look at all the things you listed except mabye clothes , that the companys have done a good job of making the used verisons unattractive or offering thier own verisons.

A Car wears down . A 5 year old car is not the same as a brand new car right out of the factory. The 5 year old car may have stains , may leak oil , the air may not cool as well , it could go at anytime. So its not ideal to buy used. To make it worse the car companys have started certified used programs in which their dealers are able to get the cars and sell them again after getting them for a song and a dance from customers who wnat to trade up .

Even dvds and cds wear and scratch and break. Aside from that both of these markets are secondary to the main way they make money. A movie on a dvd has already made its money in thearters , it will make money on dvd , it will make money when a pay channel pays for the right , when rental places pay for the right , when basic cable pays for the right , when broad cast pays for the right. It has a ton of way of making money. Even cds have the primary source of concerts. They can also liscense the music to comercials and tv shows and movies and a slew of other things to make money.

With video games you only normaly get your first sale. If your lucky some point down the line you might be able to launch it as a classic on a newer system.

I think you should compare similar industrys.

Every single industry produces some bad things. There are bad cars , would u buy a ford pinto ? There is bad music (rap ,hip hop , r and b ) there are even bad movies , tons of them. Heck there are even bad clothes.

I don't see the video game industry being any diffrent in that regard

Becareful what you wish for. I wouldn't put it past the industry to make a disc that destroys itself as you play it just like a car. Would you be happy with that senario. Oh i can't play call of mario war anymore cause the disc wore out , guess its time to rebuy

The gaming industry has a history of not taking care of their customers, and they get to pay for that.
Lots of people hate them and don´t give a fuck about stealing their games, it´s not just people getting free games, it´s also people being pissed off by what the industry is doing to them. Want to play this game? Sure, but you can only play it when you are online, and it only installs 3 times...
What a big surprise that people prefer cracked games that give them less hassle and sets them "free" instead of paying 50$ for a game, they can´t even sell when they are done playing it.

And do you really think that games would go down in price if the used market isn´t there? They would milk us for all they could. And that is just fine, because that is how capitalism works, but lucky for us we can fight back, even if it´s wrong i am not convinced it´s morally wrong.

If you take away the option to sell used goods, you will see a backlash in any markets, there was a DVD that tried it, it didn´t have a chance. The industry might have wanted it but the backlash would have been so big it wasn´t worth it. And in all my examples people do buy used CD´s they do buy used cars, books etc. instead of new stuff. And the industry in those examples have learned to live with it. In some cases it´s a way to charge premium for a car, a WV Golf around these parts, is one of the good cars to buy, both used and new, because it "holds it´s price" as a used car. That makes a Golf an attractive new car.

The problem for the gaming industry is that they make some games that costs a fortune, entertains for a short time and isn´t able to provide long term entertainment. Those games get on the used shelf fast, and people are able to play "almost" new games a week after they came out at a reduced price. The solution is to make the games worth keeping, not making it impossible to sell them used.

I believe that a true hardware protection on the PC platform would be the best solution to money issues, kill piracy, earn more money. But after reading these posts i think it would be extremely bad to the consumer. Since the industry really just want to milk every last cent out of it´s customers i would fear the protection would be used to kill the 2nd hand market :)

Note. I practically buy all my games on Steam today where i have a collection of 115 games, since i collect it´s a non issue for me. But i can see the problem for others that just play the games and then never returns.

eastmen

09-Jan-2011, 20:05

You've deliberately confused publisher/developer to make your argument sound good. Not everyone can be their own publisher, especially on consoles. So let's take that publisher cut out of the way and let's see how much the publisher sees, regardless of who they are.

Retailer markup is about 35% on video games. DD markup is 30%. Of course there's disc pressing and shipping costs with physical, but they can't be more than 5-6% at most. So it's more like a 40% cut vs. 30% going with DD. Does not make up for the fact that DD volume for big titles is less than ten percent of physical volume, due to people buying with cash, not sufficient internet connection, technically more difficult to do , etc.

I haven't confused anything.

Simple fact is that the developer on steam can be quite small , can make games for much less and then make more money dispite lower average selling prices.

When you have a publisher like EA your paying for alot of people , buildings , electricity and other things that have nothing to do with your project. However with pyhsical retail developers need a publisher like EA to front the money.

You should read the interview its very good.

I also don't know where your getting your DD volume numbers. What platform besides PC is DD even a viable option for big named games ?

eastmen

09-Jan-2011, 20:26

The gaming industry has a history of not taking care of their customers, and they get to pay for that.
Lots of people hate them and don´t give a fuck about stealing their games, it´s not just people getting free games, it´s also people being pissed off by what the industry is doing to them. Want to play this game? Sure, but you can only play it when you are online, and it only installs 3 times... People don't dislike the movie industry and the music industry for the same reasons ? WTF dude at least make valid arguements. I bought an ipod and bought itunes music and then apple wouldn't let me use it on my zune. What I did was find a service that was open to me , but for a little while i simply stoped buying music.

I bought evil dead on dvd when it first came out and since then about 8 other verisons came out that were each more complete than the first , I didn't bitch and steal cause of it. I simply stoped buying dvds when they first came out and started to only buy $5 titles. It worked out great , i was able to buy 4 dvds for every one that i bought before changing my buying habits.

There is never an excuse to steal

What a big surprise that people prefer cracked games that give them less hassle and sets them "free" instead of paying 50$ for a game, they can´t even sell when they are done playing it. Whats this have to do with anything. Whats the hassle when you buy an xbox 360 game ? Doesn't it just work on your 360 ? Or are you upset you can't make 15 copies and give them to your friends ?

I understand on the pc side that its a hassle but look at what happened to humble pie bundle. They were trying to do something for charity and you could pay anything from the bundle even $1 if you wanted and within hours of the bundle being offered with no DRM it was on torrent sites for free and people were downloading it. Its obvious that people don't care about DRM or noble causes that you want to believe in , they just wnat free shit .

And do you really think that games would go down in price if the used market isn´t there? They would milk us for all they could. And that is just fine, because that is how capitalism works, but lucky for us we can fight back, even if it´s wrong i am not convinced it´s morally wrong.

I have proof that they will go down. The pc market hasn'thad a used market in over 10 years and games continue going down. I bought the first assasins creed for $7 bucks on steam last week. I bought the witcher for $10. I got bioshock 2 for $10 also. The titles go down in price. I don't think you understand how long it takes even now with the used market for titles to go down in price. Cod mw 2 is still $60 bucks new.

If there was no used market devs would have room to lower prices because at $60 there is x amount of people who will buy it , but at $50 thee is x + y amount. All those who bought at $60 and then new people who buy at $50 and it continues that way all down the pipe as people find a price they feel is justified. With used games they are already at those prices there is no reason for devs to drop the price. Game stop has a sliding over head with nothing to repay when it sells a game or very little. The value of what it sells is based on what the new game is selling for. If the developer drops to $40 then gamestop can drop to $30 and instead of paying $25 for the game they can now pay $15. If the developer drops to $20 then gamestop can sell for $15 and pay $5 .

If you take away the option to sell used goods, you will see a backlash in any markets, there was a DVD that tried it, it didn´t have a chance. The industry might have wanted it but the backlash would have been so big it wasn´t worth it. And in all my examples people do buy used CD´s they do buy used cars, books etc. instead of new stuff. And the industry in those examples have learned to live with it. In some cases it´s a way to charge premium for a car, a WV Golf around these parts, is one of the good cars to buy, both used and new, because it "holds it´s price" as a used car. That makes a Golf an attractive new car.

The problem with your examples is the sheer scope. Tell me what B&M store sells used cds or used movies. The biggest retailers that push new movies and cd sales do not sell them used. Best buy , Walmart , Target don't sell used dvds or used cds.

The biggest new game seller is also the biggest used game seller.

The problem for the gaming industry is that they make some games that costs a fortune, entertains for a short time and isn´t able to provide long term entertainment. Those games get on the used shelf fast, and people are able to play "almost" new games a week after they came out at a reduced price. The solution is to make the games worth keeping, not making it impossible to sell them used. The problem is they allow this to happen because of an acient system. Once they switch to DD this problem goes away.

Aside from that , COD BO has tons of replayability , i still saw used copies at gamestop days after release.

I believe that a true hardware protection on the PC platform would be the best solution to money issues, kill piracy, earn more money. But after reading these posts i think it would be extremely bad to the consumer. Since the industry really just want to milk every last cent out of it´s customers i would fear the protection would be used to kill the 2nd hand market :)

If they were able to get rid of piracy on the pc then game sales would go up , there is no used market for pc games.

If on the console side they got rid of used games then new game sales would go up.

Note. I practically buy all my games on Steam today where i have a collection of 115 games, since i collect it´s a non issue for me. But i can see the problem for others that just play the games and then never returns.

I don't see a problem for them. They just have to be smarter with their money. There are few games i buy launch day anymore. I now wait for reviews and then wait on a steam sale. There are plenty of games out there that I haven't played that are ripe for going on sale.

Like i said , I bought assasians creed for $7 bucks. Yes their is a part 3 , but part 1 is just as good and I've never played it , next i will buy part 2 whe nit dorps that low and then part 3 and by then a part 4 and 5 will be out.

Gamers can't have this both ways . They can't expect better and better graphics and games with larger and larger budgets while devs recoup less and less moeny from sales due to the used market.

Either the used market goes or both the new and used market go. Just look at the market , its harder and harder to make new games that sell , all the big sellers are sequals of sequals . IF it wasn't for the DD market on consoles and steam on pc which has no used games then new and innovative titles wouldn't come out . We have more and more developers going bankrupt and closing down

corduroygt

09-Jan-2011, 21:21

When you have a publisher like EA your paying for alot of people , buildings , electricity and other things that have nothing to do with your project. However with pyhsical retail developers need a publisher like EA to front the money.

Regardless of the method of distribution, all you're going to get are small games like Limbo or Joe Danger, or Torchlight without a publisher. You are not going to get Call of Duty, Battlefield or GTA without a publisher. Those buildings and electricity are used by people who make games who work there.

-tkf-

09-Jan-2011, 21:22

People don't dislike the movie industry and the music industry for the same reasons ? WTF dude at least make valid arguements. I bought an ipod and bought itunes music and then apple wouldn't let me use it on my zune. What I did was find a service that was open to me , but for a little while i simply stoped buying music.
Of course they do, and they copy all they want as well. But at least my DVD collection can be sold to someone else. Which is only fair since it´s mine and i chose what i want to do with it.

IThere is never an excuse to steal

There always is one, it´s just not always valid. But i don´t consider giving someone my game and a crack stealing.

Whats this have to do with anything. Whats the hassle when you buy an xbox 360 game ? Doesn't it just work on your 360 ? Or are you upset you can't make 15 copies and give them to your friends ?

Uhh?

I understand on the pc side that its a hassle but look at what happened to humble pie bundle. They were trying to do something for charity and you could pay anything from the bundle even $1 if you wanted and within hours of the bundle being offered with no DRM it was on torrent sites for free and people were downloading it. Its obvious that people don't care about DRM or noble causes that you want to believe in , they just wnat free shit .
Humble made millions and of course the games were spread, many didn´t know how cheap they were anyway.

I have proof that they will go down. The pc market hasn'thad a used market in over 10 years and games continue going down. I bought the first assasins creed for $7 bucks on steam last week. I bought the witcher for $10. I got bioshock 2 for $10 also. The titles go down in price. I don't think you understand how long it takes even now with the used market for titles to go down in price. Cod mw 2 is still $60 bucks new. The only used PC market i know of is real 2nd hand , not in stores.

If there was no used market devs would have room to lower prices because at $60 there is x amount of people who will buy it , but at $50 thee is x + y amount. All those who bought at $60 and then new people who buy at $50 and it continues that way all down the pipe as people find a price they feel is justified. With used games they are already at those prices there is no reason for devs to drop the price. Game stop has a sliding over head with nothing to repay when it sells a game or very little. The value of what it sells is based on what the new game is selling for. If the developer drops to $40 then gamestop can drop to $30 and instead of paying $25 for the game they can now pay $15. If the developer drops to $20 then gamestop can sell for $15 and pay $5 .
If the developers were able to make every game great they didn´t have to worry about used market, they lose money on bad games not good games being sold used.

The problem with your examples is the sheer scope. Tell me what B&M store sells used cds or used movies. The biggest retailers that push new movies and cd sales do not sell them used. Best buy , Walmart , Target don't sell used dvds or used cds.

We have specialized shops in my town that sell used CD´s, of course since the MP3 came, they market is a lot smaller.

Either the used market goes or both the new and used market go. Just look at the market , its harder and harder to make new games that sell , all the big sellers are sequals of sequals . IF it wasn't for the DD market on consoles and steam on pc which has no used games then new and innovative titles wouldn't come out . We have more and more developers going bankrupt and closing down

As i said, i pay all my PC games on steam , i am confident that Steam will support the PC for a long time, DD on the Consoles, no thanks, i don´t expect to be able to play it on my next console, so that isn´t a market for me.

It´s pretty easy, i support used markets, you don´t. Lets let it rest there :-)

Rotmm

09-Jan-2011, 22:53

Please explain to me how these to statements are not mutually exclusive?

As i said, i pay all my PC games on steam...

and...

It´s pretty easy, i support used markets, you don´t. Lets let it rest there :-)

Last time I checked, the 40 or so games that I've bought over Steam I can neither lend, give or resell. Does that mean that I also support used markets?

eastmen

10-Jan-2011, 05:28

Of course they do, and they copy all they want as well. But at least my DVD collection can be sold to someone else. Which is only fair since it´s mine and i chose what i want to do with it. so what your saying is they hate this companys and steal and thats okay cause you can sell your collection ?

Let me ask you what happens when you buy a video on psn , can you sell that ? OR when you buy a movie on itunes can you sell that ?

There always is one, it´s just not always valid. But i don´t consider giving someone my game and a crack stealing. Of course it is , but thats if you believe with a DD system there will be cracks.

Uhh?

Humble made millions and of course the games were spread, many didn´t know how cheap they were anyway. It goes to show you the problem , people will steal no matter how cheap it is , it doesn't matter that it made millions , what matters is that there were still people who stole the games even tho they could set thier own price and there was no drm.

The only used PC market i know of is real 2nd hand , not in stores. And so the numbers will be so tinny its not valid and doesn't compare to whats going on with console games

If the developers were able to make every game great they didn´t have to worry about used market, they lose money on bad games not good games being sold used. It doesn't matter how great games are , people will still buy them and blow through them and sell them and once a copy is sold back it can be sold a dozen times costing them a dozen sales.

We have specialized shops in my town that sell used CD´s, of course since the MP3 came, they market is a lot smaller. I don't know where you are. Here in the states in the 90s there were more but now there is only coconuts which i think is fyi now , but they closed 6 stores in my area and now there is only one left. They certianly aren't anywhere near the size of gamestop

As i said, i pay all my PC games on steam , i am confident that Steam will support the PC for a long time, DD on the Consoles, no thanks, i don´t expect to be able to play it on my next console, so that isn´t a market for me.

Its okay for you to buy on a DD only platform that doesn't allow you to sell your games on your pc but not okay to do the same on a console ?

It´s pretty easy, i support used markets, you don´t. Lets let it rest there :-)

Seems to me that your willing to give up used markets quite easily , you are on steam buying all your pc games on steam , its DD only and has no selling of games once you buy them. It seems to me that if thats the way the industry goes you will go with it.

Quite frankly this is how it will work for everyone. They may be upset at the start of the generation when used games are phasedo ut and you can't sell them back anymore , but people wont stop thier fav hobby /pass time and so they will continue to buy games

-tkf-

10-Jan-2011, 05:58

Please explain to me how these to statements are not mutually exclusive?
and...
Last time I checked, the 40 or so games that I've bought over Steam I can neither lend, give or resell. Does that mean that I also support used markets?
As i posted

Note, i have never sold a used game, i always keep them since i am a collector. But the idea that i can´t give a game to a friend that i am done with is just to greedy.
I understand the mechanics of DD and that i ain´t able to give away games but i do consider it wrong.

and

Note. I practically buy all my games on Steam today where i have a collection of 115 games, since i collect it´s a non issue for me. But i can see the problem for others that just play the games and then never returns.

So i support the principle and i have taken advantage of them as well. I buy the occasional used PS3 game and Blu-Ray movie. I try to avoid DD purchases on the PS3 since i have no idea of their used in the future.

-tkf-

11-Jan-2011, 08:13

so what your saying is they hate this companys and steal and thats okay cause you can sell your collection ?

Let me ask you what happens when you buy a video on psn , can you sell that ? OR when you buy a movie on itunes can you sell that ?

Of course it is , but thats if you believe with a DD system there will be cracks.

It goes to show you the problem , people will steal no matter how cheap it is , it doesn't matter that it made millions , what matters is that there were still people who stole the games even tho they could set thier own price and there was no drm.

And so the numbers will be so tinny its not valid and doesn't compare to whats going on with console games

It doesn't matter how great games are , people will still buy them and blow through them and sell them and once a copy is sold back it can be sold a dozen times costing them a dozen sales.

I don't know where you are. Here in the states in the 90s there were more but now there is only coconuts which i think is fyi now , but they closed 6 stores in my area and now there is only one left. They certianly aren't anywhere near the size of gamestop

Its okay for you to buy on a DD only platform that doesn't allow you to sell your games on your pc but not okay to do the same on a console ?

Seems to me that your willing to give up used markets quite easily , you are on steam buying all your pc games on steam , its DD only and has no selling of games once you buy them. It seems to me that if thats the way the industry goes you will go with it.

Quite frankly this is how it will work for everyone. They may be upset at the start of the generation when used games are phasedo ut and you can't sell them back anymore , but people wont stop thier fav hobby /pass time and so they will continue to buy games

It seems you chose to ignore what i say.. so let me try again, i buy my games on Steam, and since i COLLECT it´s not an issue for me that i can´t give them away. I STILL CONSIDER IT WRONG THOUGH, AS I SAID BEFORE. Let me repeat that so you understand, i should be able to give my steam games to a friend, if i don´t play them anymore then it´s not stealing, it´s a used game being handed to someone else.

On the Console it´s a different issue, i do not buy DD games on the PS3, i considered to do it, but the bad (the greedy industry) would take away to many of my basic rights. Will i be able to download it again in 5 years? Will i be able to play it on the next gen console? History shows that greed comes before customers, so no thanks.

It´s the same reason i don´t buy DD movies, they suck in so many ways besides the quality i don´t really own them. Why would i want to pay for that when i can buy a Disc with the ultimate quality and but that in my Blu-Ray player of pure ownage?

The idea that something you purchase isn´t really yours is utterly wrong in my world and while the change may be unavoidable i will do my outmost to bitch about this way of long rental and avoid it.

baten

11-Jan-2011, 09:05

The gaming industry would love to get rid of used games, of sharing and of course, especially get rid of "piracy". By "piracy" they mean "illegal" copying of the games.

Of course, anyone with a little common sense can tell that "copying" does not equal stealing. If you have a bicycle and I steal it from you, you dont have it anymore. If you have a bicycle and I copy it from you, you have a bicycle and I have a bicycle. The same is true also for software. Copying is not diminishig anyones property - unless you distort the reality and the comon sense and declare that "intelectual property" is also property of some sort. Of course, to do that, you need the government to reinforce this by means of coercion - since otherwise people naturally view copying as a legitimate practice.

In fact, what the industry would like - and quite legitimately in my opinion - is to get paid for the entertainment it provides to people. If you want to get entertained, you should pay for it - and most people would be willing to do so. If you buy from second-hand or play rented games, you paid for your entertainment, but the money does not go in the pocket of the developer/publisher. If you play borrowed of "copyed" games, you have not paid for anything, but most people are OK with this, since it is in the human nature to try to get as much as possible whith as little effort as possible.

However, selling games/software is not the same thing as selling gameplay/entertainment.

I am working on a small text that I will publish here that goes more in depth on this issue, and will offer a solution to this dilema.

-tkf-

11-Jan-2011, 09:44

If you buy from second-hand or play rented games, you paid for your entertainment, but the money does not go in the pocket of the developer/publisher.

The exact same argument goes for pretty much every used item/goods you can buy, CD´s, DVD´s, Funiture, Clothes, Cars, Books, Comic Books, Educational Books, Audio Books etc etc..

pcchen

11-Jan-2011, 10:03

The problem is, manufacturing is getting more and more "routine." Therefore, the importance of design is getting more and more important. Compare the two: cooking and software writing. Generally cooks don't "copyright" or "patent" their recipes (partly because you can't do that with recipes), and some even share them with fellow cooks. The reason behind this is, the "manufacturing" part of cooking is actually very important, probably more than the recipe itself. So cooks are confidence of their own skills, and don't really care about the recipes being known by others (although some still do).

On the other hand, software is the other extreme. Softwares are very easy to "manufacture," you simply copy that. The hard part is to write the software. The techniques in writing a software, on the other hand, is much more like cooking recipes. Many programmers like to share their ideas, tricks, and techniques, (Although this is also changing, see software patents) but they don't necessarily want to share their works.

So if you don't have copyright to protect your software, there will only be two possible outcomes: one is that since softwares are not very profitable, no one is going to write them (or write them well), so we are all going to have sub-par softwares. The other possible outcome (which IMHO is more likely) is that all softwares will become proprietary to avoid copying. People will try to sell hardwares with their softwares buried deeply inside, so it's very difficult to copy them (or you can copy them but you can't run them elsewhere anyway), thus open systems will die. Which one do you like?

If you see it this way, it's probably more clear that why a reasonable DRM scheme is actually a good thing. It allows a semi-open system which everyone can develop something on it, while protecting the profitability of writing a software.

baten

11-Jan-2011, 11:04

So if you don't have copyright to protect your software, there will only be two possible outcomes: one is that since softwares are not very profitable, no one is going to write them (or write them well), so we are all going to have sub-par softwares. The other possible outcome (which IMHO is more likely) is that all softwares will become proprietary to avoid copying. People will try to sell hardwares with their softwares buried deeply inside, so it's very difficult to copy them (or you can copy them but you can't run them elsewhere anyway), thus open systems will die. Which one do you like?

If you see it this way, it's probably more clear that why a reasonable DRM scheme is actually a good thing. It allows a semi-open system which everyone can develop something on it, while protecting the profitability of writing a software.

I like better the solution where the box is closed, and you pay for using it. The software is free to copy, but of course you cannot use it outside the box. This takes care of all the problems - including copying , sharing, rentals and secondhand.

Blazkowicz

11-Jan-2011, 11:37

but will you be able to run your piece of software ten years from now?
I would be pissed if the original half-life couldn't run (the good'old one with the quake-style console and a real version of counterstrike). or doom 2 for that matter - on the contrary here's a game that runs on everything down to random hacked embedded platforms and digital cameras.

or worse, where will your book collection go?
I have a book that's just turned 200-year-old, which is a collection of lots of little moralistic anonymous stories (some suck, sure). I like being able to just being able to flip pages and read some of the little fables, historical anecdotes or legends from centuries ago sometimes coming from various parts of the world. I like how all the pages aren't blank unless I report to some Imperial authorities which don't exist any longer.

baten

11-Jan-2011, 12:58

First let's remember that the 200 years old book was printed when there was no copywright.

Second, closed boxes can also run emulators, or could be conceived as backward compatible - since it is in the interest of the platform holder to provide it's customers with whatever they want.

Third, the box is closed only in terms of "pay for gameplay". If you dont pay to the platform owner, the box is not working. As long a you pay, the box is "open" to any software writer or publiser. Of course, to make money you have to have a contract with the platform holder, who will in turn give you a cut of the revenue (for instance, Activision will get 2/3 and Sony/MS 1/3 of the revenue). But the so called "homebrew" would be wellcomed be the platform owner, since it will bring a revenue that does not have to be shared with a developer.

pcchen

11-Jan-2011, 14:17

First let's remember that the 200 years old book was printed when there was no copywright.

Actually, copyright laws existed well before 200 years ago.

Second, closed boxes can also run emulators, or could be conceived as backward compatible - since it is in the interest of the platform holder to provide it's customers with whatever they want.

Third, the box is closed only in terms of "pay for gameplay". If you dont pay to the platform owner, the box is not working. As long a you pay, the box is "open" to any software writer or publiser. Of course, to make money you have to have a contract with the platform holder, who will in turn give you a cut of the revenue (for instance, Activision will get 2/3 and Sony/MS 1/3 of the revenue). But the so called "homebrew" would be wellcomed be the platform owner, since it will bring a revenue that does not have to be shared with a developer.

If you have a closed system like this, why not just go for the iPhone app store model? If your system is secure, there is no need to worry about copying, as long as the license allows an user to run applications they bought on a reasonable amount of devices. If your system is not secure, it's not going to help anyway.

Personally I don't object to rental system. Actually I think it's probably better for many games to use a rental system. However, a good rental system needs a secure closed system with on-line authentication system, otherwise it's not going to work well.

Shifty Geezer

11-Jan-2011, 14:52

Actually, copyright laws existed well before 200 years ago.Indeedy. The problems of protecting intellectual property were recognised whenever a copy was contested, going back centures, with offical copying rights awarded in the 15th century, and Britain getting it's first printing rules in 1709. Somewhere this discussion has got sidetracked!

I made the move of this discussion to this ethics thread, as copyright and ownership isn't console tech related. ;)

eastmen

11-Jan-2011, 16:16

It seems you chose to ignore what i say.. so let me try again, i buy my games on Steam, and since i COLLECT it´s not an issue for me that i can´t give them away. I STILL CONSIDER IT WRONG THOUGH, AS I SAID BEFORE. Let me repeat that so you understand, i should be able to give my steam games to a friend, if i don´t play them anymore then it´s not stealing, it´s a used game being handed to someone else.

On the Console it´s a different issue, i do not buy DD games on the PS3, i considered to do it, but the bad (the greedy industry) would take away to many of my basic rights. Will i be able to download it again in 5 years? Will i be able to play it on the next gen console? History shows that greed comes before customers, so no thanks.

It´s the same reason i don´t buy DD movies, they suck in so many ways besides the quality i don´t really own them. Why would i want to pay for that when i can buy a Disc with the ultimate quality and but that in my Blu-Ray player of pure ownage?

The idea that something you purchase isn´t really yours is utterly wrong in my world and while the change may be unavoidable i will do my outmost to bitch about this way of long rental and avoid it.

I think you don't understand what your saying. You say you support used games but yet you don't because you buy your pc games exclusively from a service that stops used game sales (not to mention that supporting the pc in the first place means uspporting a format that stops used game sales)

As for the ps3 and if you will ever be able to play the game again in 5 years or what have you , can you play your ps1 and ps2 discs on your ps3 ? Can you play your nes carts on your wii ?

The industry is already against this and is already trying to get you to buy products over and over again . What do you do with your disc based games when the ps4 doesn't play them ?

I don't know why you'd want dd over bluray. I know why I want it and its because instead of using it on one device i can view it across all my devices. How well does that bluray disc work on my zune hd ? How well does that bluray disc work in my dvd palyer or in my car or in my pc with no optical drive.

The reason for DD is just that , it allows me to not be hindered by any one format.

Anyway your not bitching at all , your gladly going that way already with steam which is why none of your arguement makes any sense

Shifty Geezer

11-Jan-2011, 17:02

I think you don't understand what your saying. You say you support used games but yet you don't because you buy your pc games exclusively from a service that stops used game sales (not to mention that supporting the pc in the first place means uspporting a format that stops used game sales)I think -tkf- supports the idea of used games even if he doesn't use the service itself, which would show his support of the idea is based on principles and not personal gain, so can be considered a little more neutral than those who use the 2nd hand market and have a vested interest in it.

As for the ps3 and if you will ever be able to play the game again in 5 years or what have you , can you play your ps1 and ps2 discs on your ps3 ? Can you play your nes carts on your wii ? If I own the disk and hardware, yes. -tkf-'s point was explicitly "could I download it again" and chances are you won't be able to. Personally I don't mind, because I rarely care to play old games. Fire up something like Driver on PS3 and the old games rarely age well IMO. I'd rather have new creations of favourite games. But certainly for the concept of ownership, a license from a server is not equivalent to a bought hard distribution mechanism, which will last as long as the hardware does. Yes, you can play Intellivision games bought 30 years ago where you own them, with no need to pay anyone again for the rights. But as Wiiware shows, you can still maange to resell games to people who have moved on from their old hardware, so it's not like durability kills of completely the resale market, although that really isn't the issue here.

-tkf-

11-Jan-2011, 19:02

As for the ps3 and if you will ever be able to play the game again in 5 years or what have you , can you play your ps1 and ps2 discs on your ps3 ? Can you play your nes carts on your wii ?

The industry is already against this and is already trying to get you to buy products over and over again . What do you do with your disc based games when the ps4 doesn't play them ?

I don't know why you'd want dd over bluray. I know why I want it and its because instead of using it on one device i can view it across all my devices. How well does that bluray disc work on my zune hd ? How well does that bluray disc work in my dvd palyer or in my car or in my pc with no optical drive.

The reason for DD is just that , it allows me to not be hindered by any one format.

Anyway your not bitching at all , your gladly going that way already with steam which is why none of your arguement makes any sense

I can play my PS1 games on my PS1 and (afaik) on my PS3 or one of my, 3! PS2´s, just as i can play my PS2 games on my old PS2´s and PS3 to some extent.

Had my PS1 games been DD, i would have to rely on Sony to provide the DD platform on the PS1 today. Same goes for PS2 or PS3.

My son is playing Gamecube games and N64 games, had those platforms been DD based i doubt i would have seen him enjoy starfox :)

With a physical disc i OWN the games and the movies, in the PS3´s case it´s a bit more muddy at least until they crack it 100% since i only own a encrypted copy :)
Same goes for Blu-Rays, i own the disc, i don´t have to rely on some DRM platform where i might have a player that isn´t supported. With Blu-Rays i buy the Combo packs and have a DVD ripe for ripping (lol!) and a Blu-Ray for High-End movie watching like no other format can deliver.

Thanks to shifty for pointing out what i was trying to say. In the case of Steam i think it´s a gamble , but it´s a fair gamble. They give the impression of understanding their customers. My main gripe with Steam is the bans. If you get caught cheating in one game, you can effectively be banned from all games. And they consider themselves flawless (no one is!). But that is how DD games work. Your online world is essentially owned by the company that provides the service.

eastmen

12-Jan-2011, 01:50

I can play my PS1 games on my PS1 and (afaik) on my PS3 or one of my, 3! PS2´s, just as i can play my PS2 games on my old PS2´s and PS3 to some extent.

Had my PS1 games been DD, i would have to rely on Sony to provide the DD platform on the PS1 today. Same goes for PS2 or PS3.

My son is playing Gamecube games and N64 games, had those platforms been DD based i doubt i would have seen him enjoy starfox :)

I'm playing games i bought DD only back in 2003 as well. Thats 7 years going on 8 years that i'm able to play DD games.

What do you do once your hardware breaks ? What worth do those discs have ? Everything you buy has a shelf life , once that life is over thats it be it digital or other.

With a physical disc i OWN the games and the movies, in the PS3´s case it´s a bit more muddy at least until they crack it 100% since i only own a encrypted copy :)
Same goes for Blu-Rays, i own the disc, i don´t have to rely on some DRM platform where i might have a player that isn´t supported. With Blu-Rays i buy the Combo packs and have a DVD ripe for ripping (lol!) and a Blu-Ray for High-End movie watching like no other format can deliver. I own the movies i bought also. I downloaded all my zune movies and i can play them over all my devices. I've had purchased music dd for the last 10 years or so and it all works on my devices to this day.

Thanks to shifty for pointing out what i was trying to say. In the case of Steam i think it´s a gamble , but it´s a fair gamble. They give the impression of understanding their customers. My main gripe with Steam is the bans. If you get caught cheating in one game, you can effectively be banned from all games. And they consider themselves flawless (no one is!). But that is how DD games work. Your online world is essentially owned by the company that provides the service.

Ya thank god both psn and xbox live don't ban you from the service............ oh wait they do

-tkf-

12-Jan-2011, 05:54

I'm playing games i bought DD only back in 2003 as well. Thats 7 years going on 8 years that i'm able to play DD games.
What games are those? PC games? or games from the original XBOX?

What do you do once your hardware breaks ? What worth do those discs have ? Everything you buy has a shelf life , once that life is over thats it be it digital or other.
Yes, when all hardware in the world that can play my games is gone i am in trouble, that is your point, and it´s pretty far out :-)

I own the movies i bought also. I downloaded all my zune movies and i can play them over all my devices. I've had purchased music dd for the last 10 years or so and it all works on my devices to this day.
As long as your movies have DRM you basicly rent them for a unlimited time, you have locked yourself to whatever platform that supports the DRM in your movies.
DRM free music is a non issue, at least if it´s MP3, if it´s WMA then you are platform locked again.

Ya thank god both psn and xbox live don't ban you from the service............ oh wait they do
Yep the exact same issue, thanks for pointing out another DD flaw on consoles.

Shifty Geezer

12-Jan-2011, 10:09

What games are those? PC games? or games from the original XBOX?

As long as your movies have DRM you basicly rent them for a unlimited time, you have locked yourself to whatever platform that supports the DRM in your movies.
DRM free music is a non issue, at least if it´s MP3, if it´s WMA then you are platform locked again.These two points are the same thing but in software, I think. eastmen is clearly talking about PC games when he says he can download a game and still play it 7 years later. That's obviously not an option with consoles as you point out, if they lack BC. But then your argument about DRM applies to the consoles, in that in buying into a hardware platform, you are locked into their DRM. If you chose PC instead, you could still be playing games you downloaded 10 years ago, or 20 or 30 in the future. Theoretically anyhow, often dependent on emulators at least for the pre DirectX stuff. Still going forwards DD could be considered 'safe' for persistent platforms like PC, where the only concern is if the company supplying the game goes under and you can't download it any more.

-tkf-

12-Jan-2011, 10:50

These two points are the same thing but in software, I think. eastmen is clearly talking about PC games when he says he can download a game and still play it 7 years later. That's obviously not an option with consoles as you point out, if they lack BC. But then your argument about DRM applies to the consoles, in that in buying into a hardware platform, you are locked into their DRM. If you chose PC instead, you could still be playing games you downloaded 10 years ago, or 20 or 30 in the future. Theoretically anyhow, often dependent on emulators at least for the pre DirectX stuff. Still going forwards DD could be considered 'safe' for persistent platforms like PC, where the only concern is if the company supplying the game goes under and you can't download it any more.

PC games as you say, is not really a problem, DD on consoles are a real issue.
Extra cars for a game, more levels, Qore, movies bought on Mubi, PSN games, Home items, Themes...

I expect all those items to be locked down to the PS3 with a few exceptions like Mubi. And the clock flaw on the PS3 showed us that even PSN items on the harddrive can break from either software flaws, or simply have a timer that runs out at some point..

I think the issues that DD raises on consoles are so major that it´s just to risky to invest to much money in.

-tkf-

02-Oct-2011, 16:53

PSN Pass required for Uncharted 3

http://www.digitaltrends.com/gaming/uncharted-3-to-make-use-of-psn-pass-for-online-play/

What does a pass cost?

Shifty Geezer

02-Oct-2011, 18:40

Dunno, but if you check on the PSN Store, it should be there. I'm thinknig $15, but don't know why.

-tkf-

02-Oct-2011, 19:13

Dunno, but if you check on the PSN Store, it should be there. I'm thinknig $15, but don't know why.

Because you were right :)

liolio

29-Mar-2012, 17:30

It might be best to move on from the used-game market. There's at least one other thread for that somewhere. How Sony might implement that has some merit. Plus the rest of the rumour, which is very rumourish.

Who here really believes in 2 GBs RAM?
2 GB is the least disturbing part of all of this imho.

Clearly I support DD but if you buy something physical you should be able to resell it. It's not like reselling a copy of it.

Cars also have IP backed in them still we can resell them, through all this bullshit they are creating a dangerous precedent. If they achieve theirs means with games, well who knows what would be the corporations next big move...

Capitalists or so called capitalists (more undercover socialists) are clearly giving a ago at redefining private property in the name of "intellectual property"... that smells really bad, like pretty much anything sensible about the state of our decaying society...

Sigfried1977

29-Mar-2012, 17:49

joker454

29-Mar-2012, 17:52

Do you honestly believe that killing used games will see cheaper games?

You may end up actually spending less due to changing your buying habits. I have to say blocking used games doesn't bother me at all since I've basically switched to digital downloads having switched to Steam for all of 2011. I thought it might cost me more, switching to 100% pc gaming...but it actually saved me a lot of money. My buying habits basically automatically adjusted. Rather than buy a game on day 1, I would just add it to my wishlist then I would buy it and download it when it was on sale. Result is I got Medal of Honor for $5, Bulletstorm for $5, Dungeon Siege 3 for $7, Darksiders $10, Splinter Cell $7, Dead Island $20, Rage $15, etc, etc, the list goes on and on. Ironically in the end totally ditching discs and going dd only not only saved me tons of money but I'm also playing more games because Game != $60 to me anymore, a game to me is now mentally in the $5 to $20 range with the occaisional exception like Skyrim.

So heck I welcome baning used game sales, the sooner it all shifts to digital downloads only the better, it saves me a lot of money :) On the next Xbox I likely will not buy any games on disc at all, I'll be dd only.

liolio

29-Mar-2012, 17:57

As an after though it's possible that in this "let's pretend everything is right and stats are legit, so let's print" economy that MS and Sony and the games editors are clearly over estimating the lasting impact of second hand market... Game is bankrupt mostly, Best Buy is closing stores (I know they don't sell second hand), many retailers are closing stores in fact... or are going to soon enough...

Well with second hands retailers going belly up... I wonder how much of threat second hand market is...
That's sacarsm but I could not restrain my self on that one :(

Scott_Arm

29-Mar-2012, 18:26

I support the model where devs and publishers get a cut from the used games sales. Comparisons to other type of products are invalid. Games are an unique situation. There aren't other products that have the same combination of typically having as short selling window, production costs are as high and revenue streams are as limited in number. Games are risky business even without the risk of losing huge portions of the revenue from people that are enjoying your product. I understand people being upset about this, but idealism and theories wont hold against the practicality of the situation. Manufactures and publishers will take action against other entities selling their creation, because they can and it will benefit them, maybe not as much as they think, but it will benefit them.

Any company that designs, manufactures and sells any product is taking a financial risk. There is no reason that selling a game on a disc is any different than selling a bicycle. If you sold your bicycle, would you be prepared to cut a cheque for the bicycle manufacturer, in fairness to the financial risks they took? No. It's their job and their responsibility to market a good product that is desirable to consumers at a reasonable price that will allow them to recoup their expenses and turn a profit. If they can't do that on initial sales, that does not entitle them to money from the secondary used market. That means they misjudged their product and/or pricing. If a game company can't recoup the money they spent on developing and advertising a game, that is their fault.

Scott_Arm

29-Mar-2012, 18:30

Unless, fully activating a used copy is a responsibility thats accepted by the used game retailers.

Given that every owner will not have an internet connected console, it would be advantageous to have the activation mechanism to be handled by the retailer versus the buyer. Retailers like GameStop might not be too thrilled with sharing profits might benefit because they will offer a more streamlined experience than gamer to gamer sales.

So, that's even worse, because then I'm forced to sell through an intermediary, like Gamestop, where I'm not going to get the same return I would selling privately. Plus, whatever money Gamestop had to pass onward to the publishers they'd cut from whatever they paid out to people selling used games.

You may end up actually spending less due to changing your buying habits. I have to say blocking used games doesn't bother me at all since I've basically switched to digital downloads having switched to Steam for all of 2011. I thought it might cost me more, switching to 100% pc gaming...but it actually saved me a lot of money. My buying habits basically automatically adjusted. Rather than buy a game on day 1, I would just add it to my wishlist then I would buy it and download it when it was on sale. Result is I got Medal of Honor for $5, Bulletstorm for $5, Dungeon Siege 3 for $7, Darksiders $10, Splinter Cell $7, Dead Island $20, Rage $15, etc, etc, the list goes on and on. Ironically in the end totally ditching discs and going dd only not only saved me tons of money but I'm also playing more games because Game != $60 to me anymore, a game to me is now mentally in the $5 to $20 range with the occaisional exception like Skyrim.

So heck I welcome baning used game sales, the sooner it all shifts to digital downloads only the better, it saves me a lot of money :) On the next Xbox I likely will not buy any games on disc at all, I'll be dd only.

If games become incredibly cheap, which they won't, I'd be ok with direct download. Basically, if the price is so low that there is no reasonable expectation that I could get money selling a used copy.

liolio

29-Mar-2012, 18:37

Any company that designs, manufactures and sells any product is taking a financial risk. There is no reason that selling a game on a disc is any different than selling a bicycle. If you sold your bicycle, would you be prepared to cut a cheque for the bicycle manufacturer, in fairness to the financial risks they took? No. It's their job and their responsibility to market a good product that is desirable to consumers at a reasonable price that will allow them to recoup their expenses and turn a profit. If they can't do that on initial sales, that does not entitle them to money from the secondary used market. That means they misjudged their product and/or pricing. If a game company can't recoup the money they spent on developing and advertising a game, that is their fault.
No that's capitalism, our world is corporation based, free market rules bending is the name of the game. It's getting closer and closer of socialism (ie absolute monopoly) but we are already in the mega cartel /corporations/ trusts/ whatever you call it age well backed by out of control states... (I mean not out of control for everybody but for us that's pretty clear to be biblical " the marking is on the wall" a modernized version could be "maktub" which means it's written")

Your first sentence is wrong, you could say that it's only false for the financial institutions ie the too big too fail, but look at GM.
The same would happen to any big US corporation (or any big country basically), it's even a safer bet for anything that related to national security, which include information (so OS, hardware company like INtel, etc.).

I were to point to a Metallica song called "Sad but true" but that I would hae been unwize, by doing so I would have b3d a mean for accessing illegal content as such... I guess we all really well know what the "law" allows without trial if that were to happen :)

Now I want to point to another vid... "welcome to a cruel world" from Ben Harper but... same issue... :lol:

EDIT
#dillentante, you mean Maktub? I know it's a different for " the marking is on the wall" ( in face of those that were discarding the obvious, it's a miracle of some sort), it means it was set to happens (by Allah) in the proper context (if memory serves right that's it). It still a fit, the result of a century a adverse selection can't be anything sexy. I were bending that saying my self... fail :lol:

3dilettante

29-Mar-2012, 18:44

I don't think that word means what you think it means.
Nevertheless, that would be dragging the discussion even further from the PS4 rumors.

3dilettante

29-Mar-2012, 19:07

The cool part is where they stop having BC, but then can opt to nuke the verification functionality on the previous generation.
$$$$$$!!!!

Dr Evil

29-Mar-2012, 19:16

Any company that designs, manufactures and sells any product is taking a financial risk. There is no reason that selling a game on a disc is any different than selling a bicycle.

It is different. A single player video game has a short selling window and limited usage after shortish play through (this often get's us tacked on multiplayer modes...). Used copies can thus easily crow to be disproportionately large piece of the total market, especially when pushed by companies like Gamestop.

If you sold your bicycle, would you be prepared to cut a cheque for the bicycle manufacturer, in fairness to the financial risks they took? No. It's their job and their responsibility to market a good product that is desirable to consumers at a reasonable price that will allow them to recoup their expenses and turn a profit.

How many people sells their bicycle after a few weeks of usage? It's almost impossible to make a story driven single player game to have a long lasting appeal that would make majority of people to want to keep the game. Games are often single serving entertainment, not all games of course, but many are. We still want those games, but after one play through, they'r not worth much to us.

If a game company can't recoup the money they spent on developing and advertising a game, that is their fault.

Sometimes the system is broken, just because the system works for 99.5 % of the cases, don't mean that the system is perfect. The current system is broken for video games and it's going to be changed. The current system has enabled the money spent on used games to be way larger than in any other product example one can come up with. Games just are a different beast and this situation has grown out of control like a cancer.

I understand your disagreement, but ultimately our opinions matter little. To me it seems like it is going to be somewhat trivial for them to implement a feature that will enable them to control this. PC-gaming is already there pretty much. I don't even think that the end user is going to be harmed that much. Just buy more games from the bargain bin. I never buy used games, but games come down in price pretty fast, at least over here.

schmuck

29-Mar-2012, 19:25

the used market would cease to exist over night if new games cost 30 euros.

there is no used market for dvds or blurays like there is for games. The only reason there is one for games is the 50-60 euro price.

3dilettante

29-Mar-2012, 19:27

It doesn't just end used games.

The consumer's ability to use the product they buy when they want, where they want, and for how long is now at the mercy of the publisher/develope's profit motive/competence.

They can stop validating game installs whenever they want, they are not required to maintain very high uptime or accuracy, and can and have made games virtually unusable by doing either of the prior ones, single-player or not.

-tkf-

29-Mar-2012, 19:37

But that's happening with the publishers anyway, via activation codes. MS and Sony supporting it in the systems is only helping the publishers out with what they want. If MS and Sony don't do anything, used games are still going to get increasingly gimped. And if you give up console gaming, the PCs only going to offer draconian DRM!

It's just the way things will go. Selling a game, you'll get much less than you bought it new for, and buying a used game, you'll need to add $10-15 activation price on the asking price. C'est la vie.

There is a hell of a lot more to this than just used games. You pay $60 dollars, ok fine you can´t sell it as used game, so far i have done that Zero times anyway and so far i have bought 2 used in this gen one which wasn't available as new (yes that to), big deal, but not for me. But that is not enough, this is about the basic rights of me as a consumer, if the publishers also go the "license" route and you are required to be online to actually play the game you are basically paying $60 for the right to play a game as long as they see fit. That is complete and utter bullshit.

The games i bought for my old console will work as long as the consoles does and the media doesn´t break down. That is fair enough. But having to rely on a industry that is pretty much the same as music and movie industry gives me a bad feeling. And if they do this i so dearly hope they get to pay for it like the greedy music industry did.

jonabbey

29-Mar-2012, 21:00

I wonder if PlayStation Orbis will allow games to be played off of a Blu-Ray disc, or whether they'll have to be installed. I could see the anti-used games stuff preventing installation on the hard drive unless you have a network connection. More of a 'one digital copy per disc' system rather than a strict 'no used games' one.

That, at least, would work with systems that aren't on the Internet.

Otherwise, the GSM/SIM card approach in Orbis might be the answer.

-tkf-

29-Mar-2012, 21:04

Quote from Jim Sterling (a response to Denis Dyacks bi-anual used games rant):

"An industry dies when those running it respond to competition by dumping burdens on the shoulders of consumers and acting like victims, rather than working to encourage customer loyalty.
Right now, we have publishers inspiring outrage and anger from its fans, we have incompetent DRM, online passes, and excessive DLC turning people off, and the mouthpieces of the market are throwing little pity party for themselves. If this industry does die, it'll have only itself to blame..

I could not agree more, those that pay your rent should be treated as such, with out most respect, tender care and love. We used to call that the consumer, now we are cows with money instead of milk.

The publishers that have the great games tend to be much more consumer oriented and less milking obsessed. Useless anecdote, whenever i see assassins in steam i am tempted, but it´s a Ubisoft game and they treat paying customers like shit. So they won´t get my money, they have to come full circle, down on their knees and beg for forgiveness before i invest in them again. I might buy a cheap used PS3 game though :-|

On the other hand, Valve just have to ask me for money and i am almost paying before seeing what i get.

My bet is that the bad "apples" would sell just as much with a positive customer attitude and maybe even more (at least 2 more games to me) there is nothing to win by fighting your customer. Sadly the gaming press and the industry is pretty much the same thing these days, so we can't expect them to fight the good fight for gamers. They are in it for the money as well, and a lot of that comes from publishers advertising on the same websites that is supposed to be critical. If they could man up and take a stand things might change.

29-Mar-2012, 22:54

I take issue with the idea that developers are entitled to, or deserving of, a piece of secondary sales. If they can't afford to support their games, at the price they charge for them, that is not my problem. They should price their games appropriately. They should not devalue the product I'm reselling. They are essentially taking the money from me, not from Gamestop or the person I choose to sell to. If this goes through, people won't want to pay the same prices for used games, which means I have to sell it for less. Gamestop will give me less, because they know they want be able to sell it for the same price they used to. An average person will give me less because they know they'll have to activate it when they get home.

Most of the arguments about multiplayer as a service don't make any sense. If I have a game, that's one player to support. If I give it to someone else, they still only have one player to support, not two. Trading hands should not make any difference to the developer. This is just a money grab, plain and simple.

Then you get the "my hard work, I deserve money" argument, and it's bogus. If I buy a book, the author/publisher doesn't get a cut my reselling of that book, and they shouldn't. If I buy a bicycle, same thing. I don't believe games are any different. Don't tell me I don't own the things I bought and paid for.

I do buy direct download titles from Live Arcade, but they are cheap and I wouldn't be able to get much for them if I were able to sell them. I'm not a fan of switching the industry to a direct download system unless I am able to pass my games on to someone else. Either that or they have to massively reduce the price of games, which they won't do.

Well games are different, you don't own it like a bike. You own their crappy license to play the game. It's been always like that.

Jedi2016

30-Mar-2012, 04:50

I got into an argument at work today about this very topic, with a person who, for the most part, refuses to buy games new. He figures why should he, since he can get it used for cheaper. He was specifically railing against the idea of the Online Pass.

He viewed it as being a "punishment" for people who buy games used (because that's the group he's in). But at the same time, he said the solution to the problem was to provide an incentive for users to buy games new. When I pointed out that the Online Pass is exactly what he was describing, he disagreed. It all depends on the viewpoint of the person who's making their argument. He was seeing it from the other side of the coin from where I was, even though we were actually talking about the same thing.

I agree with the publishers and developers on this, especially as I've gotten more informed on how this whole industry works over the years. In the early days I bought games new simply because most used games I'd seen were in incredibly poor condition. Dirty, scratched discs, no manual, cracked case, etc. Only by buying a game new and caring for it myself would I always be assured that the game would be fully functional, forever (I'm one of those crazy people who takes care of their games.. even my oldest games are in like-new condition).

If I don't feel a game is worth the full price at launch, I simply don't buy it. The price will go down eventually. It'll be a Greatest Hits game, Steam will have a sale, etc. My friend from work was pointing out that MW2 is still a forty-dollar game (but much cheaper used, and without an Online Pass), and he dismissed the idea of actually watching for sales on games (I picked up MW2 a couple months ago as a download for five bucks, I'm sure a lot of people here did, too). A good chunk of my game collection, especially on PC, are from sales, and some of them were damn cheap, too. But they're all "new" sales, and the devs and publishers see a cut of that. Maybe not as big a cut as if I'd bought the game on launch day, but at least they're getting something.

Dr Evil

30-Mar-2012, 06:18

I agree with the publishers and developers on this, especially as I've gotten more informed on how this whole industry works over the years.

Well said (the whole post). It would be fun to know how many would support the current used games market model if they themselves worked as a game developer or publisher. Most people are only after their own short term interests and don't give a crap about the ecosystem and it's balance (regardless of the issue at hand), and are very creative when defending themselves.

Consumer is seen as some sort of frigging angel. How hard it is for one to get a hold of 40-60$ and buy a game and compare that to how hard it's to make a triple A game? yet consumer side, rights and well being is the only one that matters. Used games business in it's current form is nothing but an ugly giant tapeworm, which needs a solution*. 10$ activation fee sounds about right to me for used physical copies.

DRM, always online, harmful piracy countermeasures etc. are annoying issues that hopefully will find a customer friendly solution.

*I just figured out a perfect solutionI think we need to kill of the gaming industry, so that gaming industry don't create a giant tapeworm to kill of the gaming industry!1

-tkf-

30-Mar-2012, 06:19

Dr Evil

30-Mar-2012, 06:46

"used anything" hasn't created such a colossal dollar sucking black hole around the other products.

pcchen

30-Mar-2012, 06:51

Why is it wrong for him to buy used games, the industry is cashing in when he/you want to play online, even though that whoever owned the game before isn't even taking up space on servers.

As i said earlier, what is the difference between used anything and games?

Well, nothing, and the first-sale doctrine should protect the right of selling your legally purchased games (but this only works in the US AFAIK, and EU has different laws).

The problem is, of course, game developers/publishers don't really like used games because they don't really get anything from that, so they want to prevent it, or maybe in a more positive light, they want to create an incentive for people to buy games new. One way is to give you something when you buy it new. That is, it's a gift, so you don't "legally" purchase it. This gift is only eligible when you buy it new. So if you buy one second hand, you don't get that gift.

Of course, people tend to see these as "I lost something when I buy it second hand! That's outrageous!" but sometimes this just depends on how you see things (or more correctly, how publishers should market things).

-tkf-

30-Mar-2012, 07:36

"used anything" hasn't created such a colossal dollar sucking black hole around the other products.

http://www.ebay.com/

Who draws the limit on how much "dollar sucking" is allowed before it´s the same as "piracy" or stealing?

-tkf-

30-Mar-2012, 07:48

Well, nothing, and the first-sale doctrine should protect the right of selling your legally purchased games (but this only works in the US AFAIK, and EU has different laws).

The problem is, of course, game developers/publishers don't really like used games because they don't really get anything from that, so they want to prevent it, or maybe in a more positive light, they want to create an incentive for people to buy games new. One way is to give you something when you buy it new. That is, it's a gift, so you don't "legally" purchase it. This gift is only eligible when you buy it new. So if you buy one second hand, you don't get that gift.

Of course, people tend to see these as "I lost something when I buy it second hand! That's outrageous!" but sometimes this just depends on how you see things (or more correctly, how publishers should market things).

Imho there is a easy way for publishers, keep on adding value to the games, i usually pull out Burnout Paradise: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burnout_Paradise to prove and make a point. 3 updates that added content plus several pay DLC kept that game alive for a long time, i am sure there was used copies for sale, but those that buy a game, plays it and drops it never got the full value of the game, they would have to buy it after it was almost 1 years old to get all the new and free content.

Dr Evil

30-Mar-2012, 08:12

Who draws the limit on how much "dollar sucking" is allowed before it´s the same as "piracy" or stealing?

usually the drawing is done by those who can, but more importantly when your pet hamster has turned in to an elephant, you'll know that a line has been crossed. Gamestop's current margins/size of the used business are too high relatively to the risk they carry, when compared to the creator side. They need to find a better balance point and a 10$ activation fee sounds good to me. it wouldn't kill Gamestop's business, but it would direct more dollars to the creator side.

hoho

30-Mar-2012, 08:22

"used anything" hasn't created such a colossal dollar sucking black hole around the other products.What other products loose half their value in a couple of months?

Dr Evil

30-Mar-2012, 08:55

What other products loose half their value in a couple of months?

Do you mean that resale value drops in half compared to a new game? or that the retail price halves for older new games? Gamestop usually sells used games for something like 5$ less than the new game.

In any case one of my argument's is that games are unique products and lumping them together with other products isn't relevant. Most games have relatively short shelf life for getting the sales and they cost a lot to make. However manufacturing costs of the package containing the game data is low and can be replicated cheaply, this allows fast moves in the pricing.

entity279

30-Mar-2012, 13:07

A used game never deteriorates; it never wears off..

A used car is less and less a good car as years go by. The car manufacturers may profit indirectly off the used cars market. For example, If I buy a new car each year and sell my previous one, I get part of the money to buy the new car. The manufactures will be pleased on the other hand that I buy new cars often.

So i guess this is the big difference.

hoho

30-Mar-2012, 13:27

A used car is less and less a good car as years go by. The car manufacturers may profit indirectly off the used cars market. For example, If I buy a new car each year and sell my previous one, I get part of the money to buy the new car. The manufactures will be pleased on the other hand that I buy new cars often.In addition with a car you get to pay for "online activation" and "DLC" through paying for parts when repairing your used car :)

Grall

30-Mar-2012, 17:07

he said the solution to the problem was to provide an incentive for users to buy games new. When I pointed out that the Online Pass is exactly what he was describing, he disagreed.
Online pass isn't a true incentive, it's more along the lines of "buy new, or else you get a brick dropped on your head" kind of deal.

But yeah, it's the kind of incentives big business publishers like Bobby Kotick like to come up with. But that doesn't mean customers find them particularly enticing...

Shifty Geezer

30-Mar-2012, 17:44

Carrot and stick are both incentives. And some perceptions will skew the intentions anyway. A publisher offering bonus content for free for the new game buyer only gets slagged off by some parties.

Scott_Arm

30-Mar-2012, 21:52

Davros

30-Mar-2012, 23:32

Have to agree with scot people often complain that gamers have this unfair sense of entitlement, It's nothing compared to the sense of entitlement the publishers have.

the gamers have 1 right left
"thats terrible how dare gamers have a right, we must put a stop to it even though all other products can be re-sold these are games and they're special the normal rules dont apply
you have to commit to an agreement, but your not allowed to see what you must agree to until your bought it and if you dont agree tough we wont refund your money"
we can put anything we want in our eula including waving your legal rights. id (around q1 / q2 time had an eula that told you how you must plead in a legal case if you were sued over an id product.
we can sell the product in any condition we see fit
we can prevent you playing you game anytime we want (in the case of games that require a net connection)

my software never contained an eula why would it need one its protected under law I dont need anything else

edit: Apart from this little lottery number picking prog I wrote many years ago
true story while making it my gf said "pick us some numbers" so i did and they came up - except she didnt do them :(
for the best actually as she was the type to just dissapear with the cash and give me nothing...
http://img546.imageshack.us/img546/9018/prodm.jpg (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/546/prodm.jpg/)

Shifty Geezer

31-Mar-2012, 11:23

Every publisher peddles games that are 100% guaranteed to end up on the used market, just like any other good that is produced. They know about it. It is legal and operates in broad daylight. The financial implications should not be unknown to them. So why aren't they being responsible with their investments in a high-risk market? I'm sorry, but I have absolutely no sympathy for these companies dumping millions of dollars into products where they're unlikely to make their money back. No one forced them to mismanage their own money. Sometimes you're going to have a miss and take a loss on a game. If you bankrupt yourself on a single title, that's your own fault. You invested too heavily in one product. If you have a series of misses, then you're systemically doing something wrong.That's absolutely true - and yet if these companies stuck to financially safe games, we wouldn't have the quality AAA titles that we love as gamers. So we want them to take risks, and yet we don't want to have to pay for it, basically.

I've just been playing some Android games on my new smart phone, seeing what thy're like, and they paint a bleak future. Could be games turn free, soliving the resale market, but you have to pay $15 every few hours to get the resources needed to play the game properly. "COD 5 free to play. Get 50 bullets every hour. Buy new bullets, $2 for 100, $5 for 600, $10 for 1500!" If that financial model works, then it's good sense for the game companies to go that way, but it'll bad for the game experience.

Personally, rather than side with one polarised view over the other, I'd rather a mutually-benefical system be created. Instead of each side trying to get as much as they can (companies get as much money as possible, gamers try to get everything as cheap as possible), that both come to understand the other's requirements and pitch themselves at a compromise that works for pretty much everyone. Of course, I'd like to see the whole world run that way but it'll never happen. As such, I don't really care whether anti-resale measures appear or not. Whatever happens, it'll be one selfish party screwing over the other selfish party.

Scott_Arm

31-Mar-2012, 17:09

It isn't selfish for consumers to want to be able to sell the products they own. That's a pretty basic right in a society where you can own private property. It's a slippery slope when you start allowing industries to chip away at your consumer rights. Maybe that'll mean less fancy games. Oh well.

Shifty Geezer

31-Mar-2012, 18:08

It isn't selfish for consumers to want to be able to sell the products they own.The thinking is selfish. 'I want to be able to sell the product on to get money for myself.' Consider a hypothetical scenario where an amazing game is made that lasts only one hour. Everyone who buys it passes it immediately on to someone else. In a week, 150 thousand people play this game, but only 1000 actually paid for it. If the purpose of paying for the game is to reward the creator for their effort, than those that don't pay can be argued as missing an ethical obligation, even if one not enforced by our existing economic structures.

Bare in mind that our understanding of possession is founded of thousands of years of only having what you hold in your hands (and then what you could get other people to enforce physically, like land ownership). Up until the 1700s-ish, it was migh impossible to have a complex entertainment experience without the people making the effort of creating that performance standing right in front of you. Now it's possible for someone to create an experience and distribute it in ways that don't require you to pay them cash and get a ticket from their own hands, but the thinking about ownership and renumeration hasn't evolved. If the thinking behind entertainments was 'these creators deserve to be reimbursed for my personal entertainment,' then people wouldn't care about the distribution method. But the thinking is instead one of ownership. It doesn't help that the companies aren't considering giving people a fair experience for their money, but looking for ways to make as much cash as possible. Thus sides form, and everyone argues against the wrongs of the other side, instead of the needs of the other side.

I'm damned certain that every single person who complains about the idea of resale limits would be arguing the other side if they were in a development team who had worked long, hard hours to give a great experience that was well received, but found the money wasn't coming because people were getting that experience from the 2nd hand market. And I'm damned certain that every developer or publisher who wants resale controls would be arguing about civil liberties being impinged and ownership rights trampled upon if they were only game consumers instead. People always argue from their side of the fence. If they didn't, there wouldn't be arguments - only discussion followed my mutual compromise. ;)

In this case, I dare say if the publishers, console companies, and consumers (not sure how'd they be represented as they're a diverse, opinionated bunch) were to talk things out, it could be agreed upon a suitable price that games would release at that would result in however-much-returns, plus an amount of resale value that was considered fair but not too obtrusive, and the publishers would then know more accurately how much they could get for a game, and gamers wouldn't have to worry about being fleeced. We might find that $30 a game new, $5 per resale, is pretty amicable and sees much better returns for the publishers and console companies, and less instability in tbe business.

As it is, I'll just go with the flow. No resale costs? I'll sell on my games then. Excessive resale costs? I'll probably hang onto them. really cheap games with nickle-and-diming? I'll give up gaming! (really loathing the Android experience so far. Wish there were more trials of properly purchaseable games).

Davros

31-Mar-2012, 18:16

In this case, I dare say if the publishers, console companies, and consumers (not sure how'd they be represented as they're a diverse, opinionated bunch) were to talk things out, it could be agreed upon a suitable price that games would release at that would result in however-much-returns, plus an amount of resale value that was considered fair but not too obtrusive, and the publishers would then know more accurately how much they could get for a game, and gamers wouldn't have to worry about being fleeced. We might find that $30 a game new, $5 per resale, is pretty amicable and sees much better returns for the publishers and console companies, and less instability in tbe business.

No... publishers have no sense of fairness

Shifty Geezer

31-Mar-2012, 18:17

No publishers have no sense of fairnessI know. Because they're made up of people. ;)

Scott_Arm

31-Mar-2012, 18:32

-tkf-

31-Mar-2012, 19:55

The solution is very easy and it´s right there on the table for the publishers.

Digital Download version cheaper than full retail version. Which by all accounts, or at least from the idea that "used games are like stealing" would be totally financial acceptable and 100% fair.

BUT lets face it, the publishers are either to greedy to try it or, they expect a backlash from the same people that sell used games?

I think VITA is using this model?

Shifty Geezer

31-Mar-2012, 19:56

Should the company that made my car not receive some money from me, because I bought it used?Perhaps; perhaps not. If the market is willing to pay enough to cover the costs of making the car, then they won't need resale money (cars are basically essential, so can be priced higher). If the games market won't pay what it actually costs to make the games people want, then surely it makes sense to offer an alternative model. Why has it got to be a one-size-fits-all solution when the nature of products and services vary so widely?
If you make a 1 hour game, you'd better come up with a pricing model that's financially viable. DD only so there's no resale?

Dr Evil

31-Mar-2012, 20:09

Should the company that made my car not receive some money from me, because I bought it used? They invested a lot of time and money into the design and production. What about used clothes, stereo equipment, fish Tanks, sports equipment, furniture, homes, books, paintings and kitchen appliances? Do games developers and publishers think they work harder than everyone else on Earth, entitling them to a special-case second-hand market?

If you make a 1 hour game, you'd better come up with a pricing model that's financially viable.

Why can't I sell used tickets for movie theaters, amusement parks, trains, airplanes? I'd also like to resell my university semester fees, when I'm done with it... Perhaps I should start a new business called Harvardstop that buys used semester fees for 40% of their value and I'll sell them for 80% value to new students. Harvard would lose quite a bit on their semester fees, but who cares I bought it so I can sell it and Harward better honor that and just find another way to pay their professors and staff.

Why can't I sell or loan my Disney World annual pass as many times I want? Wouldn't it be great if me and 100 friends of mine could use only one pass on our visits? Just pass it on.

In any case your examples aren't nearly as disruptive as used games business is in games, some of them are pretty good examples like books, but I don't think the used business in them is as powerful/tapewormish as in games, but even that is diminishing due to Kindle and other e-book services.

Used cars deteriorate, offering a second tier experience and their ownership times are very different among all the other differences that makes these comparisons irrelevant. Note I don't think that your stance is totally wrong, there are good arguments for it, But I disagree with it and imo in practical terms it's more destructive than correcting for the gaming industry, and in cold business sense the publishers bigger leverage and means are going to outmuscle Gamestop in this. I think it's inevitable.

PC-gamers have already accepted this with Steam (even before) and console gamers will too. I don't know how things will turn out exactly, but I will be very surprised if in the next gen Gamestop can still do what they do today. I think it's guaranteed that digital distribution will grow and more if not all publishers will implement some type of first purchaser code etc.

Scott_Arm

31-Mar-2012, 20:35

Shifty Geezer

31-Mar-2012, 21:31

Well, for one, I'm talking about buying goods and owning property, in which case none of your examples apply.

What about used goods that increase in value? Artwork, classic cars, homes, collectables etc? The idea of property ownership and resale has nothing to do with whether the good appreciates or depreciates in value.IMO, this is the sort of constrained reasoning (trying to find existing parallels) that results in the same old arguments and no solutions. Technically, if you own the property, that's just the plastic disc. You are free to sell the plastic disc. Someone else is free to buy it and stick it in their console. If it doesn't work because that plastic disk interacts with another software interface on the end of a network connection, nothing has been done to adversely affect your plastic disc. You know the arguments; you've heard them all before.

But we shouldn't be looking for existing parallels and deciding to copy one or other existing commerce structure. Why pick 'it's like a cinema ticket' or 'it's like a car' instead of discussing the creation and content and intentions of both producer and consumer?

Following that reasoning, as asked in my above post, do you think a digital distribution only approach to that hypothetical one-hour game, with no resale opportunity, is perfectly acceptable?

Dr Evil

31-Mar-2012, 21:34

Well, for one, I'm talking about buying goods and owning property, in which case none of your examples apply.

Well I think those annual passes come in a card or some such form, you can sell the card, but others wont be able to use it.

What about used goods that increase in value? Artwork, classic cars, homes, collectables etc? The idea of property ownership and resale has nothing to do with whether the good appreciates or depreciates in value.

The comment about cars deteriorating was just to show that the second or third owner is no longer getting the same product as the first owner and one car cannot satisfy the demand for ten people in a similar way a game can. The difference is that in other industries used sales are either helping the industry or at worse are about neutral, but in games, what Gamestop is doing, is closer to a cancer. They are not just taking used games to be traded for new games, but they actively encourage their customers to buy used games instead.

Sometimes practice goes before ideals/theory. If killing a cancer requires also harmful kemotherapy you'll do it, even if you lose your hair. If it was just friends swapping games every now and then or selling them to each other to fund new game purchases, there wouldn't be a big problem, but Gamestop etc. are exploiting the system.

The ownership and resale issue is not simple. I think you can always sell the physical portion of game, but expecting the IP owner to honor and grant access to it is something else. License model is not preposterous for digital games imo, especially if it's complemented with some type of compromise like the $10 activation fee. Eventually all of it will be digitally distributed and transferring of ownership will probably disappear altogether.

edit: my point with the tickets/passes was only to show that list wars will not solve this :)

edit2 Just wanted to add that I greatly enjoy high production value single player story heavy games, but these are the short of games that are most easily traded, since the replay value is low and thus are the ones people will want to trade in and are the ones that used games business hurts the most. These type of games are in the front line of being unsustainable if people can play them without paying to the creator. Unsustainable like the Harvard example.

hoho

31-Mar-2012, 21:58

It isn't selfish for consumers to want to be able to sell the products they own.Do I have the right to sell the cable or cellphone connection I'm paying for?

Davros

31-Mar-2012, 22:42

These type of games are in the front line of being unsustainable if people can play them without paying to the creator and Unsustainable like the Harvard example.

no they are not, used game sales have been around as long as games themselves and the creator has already been paid for the copy why do you think they should be paid multiple times for a single product. "home taping is killing music" - that was a lie wasnt it

Do I have the right to sell the cable or cellphone connection I'm paying for?

yes you do if you sold your house and you still have 1 month on your cable connection the new buyer can use it until it runs out as for cellphone you just need to change the bank account details to their account or if its a pay as you go with a load of credit on it you can just sell it.

Acceptance I understand but actively defending publishers (and I do think its publishers not devs who are the evil here) who treat you with nothing but contempt and disdain I dont get.
ps I also think gamestop are leaches as well but not all places that buy/sell secondhand games try to screw you

Shifty Geezer

31-Mar-2012, 23:42

no they are not, used game sales have been around as long as games themselves and the creator has already been paid for the copy why do you think they should be paid multiple times for a single product.But they're not selling a product - they're selling an experience.

So...Naughty Dog give up making games and instead make a musical. Every person who wants to experience that musical has to turn up to the theatre and buy a ticket. You're not allowed to sneak in the back and watch for free - that'd be unfair. You're also not allowed to reuse your ticket, so it has no resale value. Otherwise the musical would only make money the first night or two and then all subsequent viewings would be reused tickets. That's just untennable (you can't expect to charge $1000 per ticket as the market isn't there for it) and would result in the end of the musical. People are happy with this and consider it fair. They pay an amount they are willing to pay to the creators of the experience. Those who don't feel the experience is worth the asking price don't get to experience it.

Now Naughty Dog change the medium from being present in person (which is limited to however many people a night within commuting distance) to a DVD so that people all over the world can see their musical. It's exactly the same intent to provide an experience, for which everyone is perfectly happy to buy a ticket as fair renumeration for their efforts. Only now the experience can be passed on, so it's just like reusable tickets. Is it wrong to ask that those who see the musical pay ND for the experience just as they would at the theatre? 'Ah,' you say. 'But at the theatre you are seeing their work then and there. Once recorded, ND can sit down in an evening, so no longer need paying'. 'Ah,' says I, 'but 99% of the work of a musical goes into its production; the writing and art and rehearsing. You don't pay for the two hours they are on stage, but the thosuands of hours invested behind stage.' Of course, if ND can now reach millions of customers instead of thousands, then it seems fair that they don't need to charge as much. Though whether they do or not doesn't change the intrinsic fairness of everyone who experiences the creation paying towards it.

Plus a lot of opinion is just a side effect of the medium. What if instead of being reusable, the invention of distributable, recordable mediums saw them as read-once only; perhaps a pigmet based system where the pigment is destroyed on reading. Then you'd buy your DVD, watch it, and it'd be a dead bit of cardboard at the end. No resale value, just like a ticket. Well, you could sell it as a piece of cardboard; you own the physical medium. If that's what we were used to, no-one would think anything of it. You'd pay to see the movie, just like going to the cinema, and everyone would be comfortable with that. And by extension, they'd be comfortable with single-owner games. For games, perhaps they'd be installed to HDD. So you'd buy your game, install it, and the disc is now useless. If that was how technology had developed, we wouldn't be having this debate. Well then, if instead the durable plastic DVD played once and then was inactivated by a network connection, and you had to return to the publisher so they could reactivate it to sell to another person, that's fundamentally no different to use-once cardboard discs. But because everyone is used to one way of doing things, they think along the lines of what they know, and expect accordingly.

This discussion, like pretty much all non-technical discussions, is fundamentally a waste of time beyond people getting to say how they feel, which they like doing a lot (discussion boards are mostly opinon boards). It won't identify changes or solutions. It'll repeat ad nauseum the unshakable opinions of individuals who will keep finding existing similarities from their side of the fence that match their viewpoint, despite the fact the other side has their own set of existing similarites to counter with. Similies will be traded back and forth; no-one will change their mind; no-one will learn to even see from another vantage point, let alone contemplate changing their position.

Davros

01-Apr-2012, 10:31

But they're not selling a product - they're selling an experience.

no its a product.

3dilettante

01-Apr-2012, 10:48

But they're not selling a product - they're selling an experience.

That's one way to spin it, but the actual transactions between consumer and point of sale are those of a product.
The disks that one can play Uncharted on, or the PSN downloadable packages are marketed and sold as products. The disks especially are boxed, shipped, shelved, advertised, and sold in the exact same manner as a set of tube socks in a different department of the store.
They're selling a gameplay experience as much as the sock maker is selling a warm toes experience.
I'd still like the option to sell my socks, hand them down, or maybe wear them six years from now after the verification servers are shut off.

So...Naughty Dog give up making games and instead make a musical. Every person who wants to experience that musical has to turn up to the theatre and buy a ticket. You're not allowed to sneak in the back and watch for free - that'd be unfair. You're also not allowed to reuse your ticket, so it has no resale value. Otherwise the musical would only make money the first night or two and then all subsequent viewings would be reused tickets.

How much harder does Naughty Dog work if 5,000 or 5,000,000 people are to see its musical?
Probably three orders of magnitude harder.
How much more work does it go through if 5,000 or 5,000,000 people play its single player campaign?
There can be an incremental increase in investment on the multiplayer side, however that must be balanced against what work would be done just to satisfy obligations for all the players who bought the game new. If not cheating those customers essentially covers those who bought used copies, it doesn't provide an avenue for Naughty Dog or Sony to demand further renumeration.

Now Naughty Dog change the medium from being present in person (which is limited to however many people a night within commuting distance) to a DVD so that people all over the world can see their musical. It's exactly the same intent to provide an experience, for which everyone is perfectly happy to buy a ticket as fair renumeration for their efforts. Only now the experience can be passed on, so it's just like reusable tickets. Is it wrong to ask that those who see the musical pay ND for the experience just as they would at the theatre? 'Ah,' you say. 'But at the theatre you are seeing their work then and there. Once recorded, ND can sit down in an evening, so no longer need paying'. 'Ah,' says I, 'but 99% of the work of a musical goes into its production; the writing and art and rehearsing. You don't pay for the two hours they are on stage, but the thosuands of hours invested behind stage.' Of course, if ND can now reach millions of customers instead of thousands, then it seems fair that they don't need to charge as much. Though whether they do or not doesn't change the intrinsic fairness of everyone who experiences the creation paying towards it.

The writing and art are the part that mostly work themselves out in the early parts of a play's life. For many long-lived plays, the bulk of the writing was done once and reused for generations.
The rest of the effort outlined is as you said, production. The disk pressing plants and microprocessors in the consoles do that for Naught Dog. The cost of the disk is paid for in the initial purchase of a new game. It doesn't need to be paid again if the same disk is resold.
The microprocessors, and all the sundry necessities of the chip, like the electricity are not Naught Dog's burden. The customer has already paid for it, independent of the game's being purchased new or used.

To make the analogy fit, Naught Dog has made a musical, and it doesn't feel like that owners of the theater its musical is housed in are obligated enough. They are certainly free to practice outside.

Plus a lot of opinion is just a side effect of the medium. What if instead of being reusable, the invention of distributable, recordable mediums saw them as read-once only; perhaps a pigmet based system where the pigment is destroyed on reading. Then you'd buy your DVD, watch it, and it'd be a dead bit of cardboard at the end.

If that had happened, mass-distributed media may have had a much harder time competing with standard performances. The longevity of the item granted convenience and monetary savings.
There is some value in being able to have a performance start when you wish, but the value is hurt by sharing similar inflexibility and risk as a live or broadcast performance.
At least a bad or interrupted performance at a theater may allow for a refund.

No resale value, just like a ticket. Well, you could sell it as a piece of cardboard; you own the physical medium. If that's what we were used to, no-one would think anything of it. You'd pay to see the movie, just like going to the cinema, and everyone would be comfortable with that.

It would be torn apart by a competitor that removed the arbitrary restriction.

And by extension, they'd be comfortable with single-owner games. For games, perhaps they'd be installed to HDD. So you'd buy your game, install it, and the disc is now useless. If that was how technology had developed, we wouldn't be having this debate.

No, the entire human population of the world couldn't be that ignorant for all time.
Somebody would realize that there was no physical reason that the media should become useless.
Which leads to the next segment:

Well then, if instead the durable plastic DVD played once and then was inactivated by a network connection, and you had to return to the publisher so they could reactivate it to sell to another person, that's fundamentally no different to use-once cardboard discs. But because everyone is used to one way of doing things, they think along the lines of what they know, and expect accordingly.

What happens when someone creates a scheme that doesn't need this? Where you pay money for a disk or file, and it isn't remotely controlled by a faceless party that does not believe it has an obligation to be timely, reliable, and for whom any problems are your fault and you have amost no right of redress?

Should the existing media companies stamp out the upstart?

Should the existing media companies own up to their half of the service bargain? By giving themselves this level of control, are they marketing their product as such, and are they owning up to their increased responsibilities? A foulup on a remotely activated/deactivated product places as much onus on the provider of the "experience" as an acting troupe.
Are they going to live up to their end of the service at the same time that customer has given their money and ownership rights, or is this scenario as one-sided as the current EULAs insist?

Shifty Geezer

01-Apr-2012, 11:33

no its a product.Wow. Good argument. Well reasoned. You've got me there.

(discussion boards are mostly opinon boards)

Shifty Geezer

01-Apr-2012, 11:59

That's one way to spin itIt's not a spin, but an open consideration of an alternative view. I'm not saying it's the right one or not. Just trying to get peolpe to think about this in other ways beyond "this is how business is done and business is infallable and should never be questioned or changed".

but the actual transactions between consumer and point of sale are those of a product.That's just a quirk of the evolution of our commerce systems. It doesn't mean that the transaction format is ideal for the business of distributed experiences. If humanity were to sit down with a clean-slate design of the whole world of commerce, perhaps they'd identify different business types with different types of commerce contract.

How much harder does Naughty Dog work if 5,000 or 5,000,000 people are to see its musical?
Probably three orders of magnitude harder.
How much more work does it go through if 5,000 or 5,000,000 people play its single player campaign?So if they drop their price to 1/1000th the asking price, they'll have the same reimbursement for their efforts, preserving the fairness of the relationship between producer and consumer.

It would be torn apart by a competitor that removed the arbitrary restriction.

No, the entire human population of the world couldn't be that ignorant for all time.
Somebody would realize that there was no physical reason that the media should become useless.

What happens when someone creates a scheme that doesn't need this?And we come back to the same old argument. There's no philosophy of the real intents held free from legacy thinking; only a reference to the world as it is and is expected to be rather than explore the true nature if things through consideration of possiblities. With your responses, this argument comes to its logical, inevitable end (which I suggested earlier): Competition will decide.

If use-once paper DVDs will be replaced by reusable ones (and that is taken as a fact such that the philosophical consideration of the nature of the trade can be ignored), so the idea of individuals paying for the individual experience becomes destroyed by a technology that supports free experience. We just accept that technology has led the way. DVDs enable us to pass the same musical experience to someone else, so we should be allowed to. Fair enough - that's a valid philosophy. But then technology now allows game developers to limit the experience to one person per purchase, so if the companies want to do that, they can. It's the same philosophy. Competition will then ensure that the market becomes what the people want, because if people don't want limited resales, they won't buy into those consoles and technology.

At which point, there should be no complaints. What will be will be. Just as the musical performers had to go find new jobs because the introduction of the plastic, reusable disc saw their business changed, so the gamers will have to adapt to whatever the technology becomes.

Davros

01-Apr-2012, 13:25

Wow. Good argument. Well reasoned. You've got me there.
discussion boards are mostly opinon boards

http://img692.imageshack.us/img692/5369/menssocks.jpg (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/692/menssocks.jpg/)

Its a sock, not a sock in my opinion, not a warm toe experience, a sock do I need to go into details ?

3dilettante

02-Apr-2012, 05:00

That's just a quirk of the evolution of our commerce systems. It doesn't mean that the transaction format is ideal for the business of distributed experiences. If humanity were to sit down with a clean-slate design of the whole world of commerce, perhaps they'd identify different business types with different types of commerce contract.

I pointed out some alternative models, which publishers and developers have not pursued. Many seem content to sell the game as a product with the money an owned product deserves, while stripping ownership rights and and refusing to accept the obligations entailed by implicitely becoming service providers.
It's an asymmetry that wouldn't come about with a clean-sheet world of commerce unless the paying consumer was kept off the drafting committee.

So if they drop their price to 1/1000th the asking price, they'll have the same reimbursement for their efforts, preserving the fairness of the relationship between producer and consumer.

They'd be free to price the product for what the market will bear, or free to content themselves with a specific amount of revenue by slashing prices with volume. What they do not have is a justification for asserting further rights over the product or consumers' money based on what happens to the product in transactions that have no connection to them, and so are none of their business.

If their business model is so unsustainable that they need to control the independent actions of consumers, it doesn't mean they deserve to get that level of control.

And we come back to the same old argument. There's no philosophy of the real intents held free from legacy thinking; only a reference to the world as it is and is expected to be rather than explore the true nature if things through consideration of possiblities. With your responses, this argument comes to its logical, inevitable end (which I suggested earlier): Competition will decide.

There's no physical or material reason for the restriction. It would be contested because there isn't a law of physics saying a DVD can only be read once.
A read-once medium would be impractical for the publishers and developers because consistency of the product and quality of service would become a millionfold more difficult, since they would be on the hook for events and problems that can be fixed with a replay button.

Saying competition will decide ignores the fundamental objection to the destruction of the rights of the consumer and the establishment of a postiive claim of ownership by publishers and developers over every human being's hypothetical spending.
Competition is not a cure-all when one side has an incredible asymmetry in influence, legal capability, and a self-avowed freedom from reciprocity and responsibility.

But then technology now allows game developers to limit the experience to one person per purchase, so if the companies want to do that, they can. It's the same philosophy. Competition will then ensure that the market becomes what the people want, because if people don't want limited resales, they won't buy into those consoles and technology.

They should do so while selling and marketing the product in the same way. They are adding these restrictions and asking users to sign away legal rights after the fact.
They do so while taking the same amount of money and assuming the same amount of liability as if they were selling independent product.

At which point, there should be no complaints. What will be will be. Just as the musical performers had to go find new jobs because the introduction of the plastic, reusable disc saw their business changed, so the gamers will have to adapt to whatever the technology becomes.
Consumers are allowed other options.
Just as publishers and developers have created whole reams of legal reasoning stating they can receive payment but have no additional responisibility, gamers are allowed to defend themselves legally.
They can press for compensation for when the publishers fail to maintain equivalent quality of service, and there are other ways aside from piracy to make those publishers lose sales.

hoho

02-Apr-2012, 11:17

yes you do if you sold your house and you still have 1 month on your cable connection the new buyer can use it until it runs out as for cellphone you just need to change the bank account details to their account or if its a pay as you go with a load of credit on it you can just sell it.I meant when I live in an apartment and want to share my connection with neighbors. E.g I have a 150M connection from the ISP. When I drag a cable from the router to neighbors may I charge them for half the price or maybe even more than that?

Davros

02-Apr-2012, 12:20

dont see why not, you can certainly set up a wifi hotspot and give everyone free access

hoho

02-Apr-2012, 12:44

dont see why notIt would be against the EULA of pretty much every ISP in Estonia. Some even say you can't have more than one device attached to the connection though I think this has changed in past few years.

Basically what I tried to reach with this comparison is that games should not be considered as a physical property and people shouldn't be thinking them as one. Software and pretty much anything that is distributed digitally works by different rules than e.g socks or cars, you can't just use the same rules for them and digital goods.

Scott_Arm

02-Apr-2012, 14:41

It would be against the EULA of pretty much every ISP in Estonia. Some even say you can't have more than one device attached to the connection though I think this has changed in past few years.

Basically what I tried to reach with this comparison is that games should not be considered as a physical property and people shouldn't be thinking them as one. Software and pretty much anything that is distributed digitally works by different rules than e.g socks or cars, you can't just use the same rules for them and digital goods.

I don't really understand the comparison between paying for Internet service and buying a game disc. A game disc is information imprinted on a plastic disc. It's not a service. It's a disc, with information on it.

Davros

02-Apr-2012, 15:27

Exactly as scot says, they are a product, just as books, records, and dvd's are
they dont have eula's non of my software had an eula - they should be banned imho
I dont buy this viewpoint its software its special.

It would be against the EULA of pretty much every ISP in Estonia.

Really my isp encourages it
https://www.bt.com/wifi/secure/index.do;JSESSIONID_btv=hwgbP53VmC8YLXymBVBjgsJm6N Pv2HCf2RZtHGzWQQBZC6tjQpD4!-801900389?s_cid=con_FURL_wificommunity

ps: you really have a 150mb connection ?

Mize

02-Apr-2012, 23:16

Wow. Five pages of this?
There are really people who don't see the difference between rent and own?
Digital or physical doesn't matter. Only rent and own. If I own a movie or a game I own it. Restricting my ability to resell it makes it a rental and they should just come out and say that...and put a time limit on it and everything.

Other than video games, what else digital can I buy and yet not own eastmen?

The best "physical product" analog is not a bicycle either, it has to be a consumable as games and movies are consumed. So let's use books...but a book can be either digital or physical.

Nobody doubts my right to buy a book, read it, then give it away or sell it. We even have a national chain (Half-priced books) that buys them back. No arguments of legality there.

But now you're saying if I buy the digital version I should lose this ownership status? That's clearly making digital transactions of consumables a "rental"

So basically digital consumables can only ever be rented? Fine, just come out and say it then.

Dr Evil

03-Apr-2012, 04:53

When was the last time you sold something you bought from Steam?

-tkf-

03-Apr-2012, 10:45

It's not a spin, but an open consideration of an alternative view. I'm not saying it's the right one or not. Just trying to get peolpe to think about this in other ways beyond "this is how business is done and business is infallable and should never be questioned or changed"..

It's an interesting view. But i think it's like this whole discussion, something that is made to fit a problem that wasn't there before. I don't think it's fair to take away something that was considered a basic right because someone came up with a business plan that takes advantage of the way games have turned out to be.

I consider the used market a by-product of expensive short lived games and there is a wealth of alternatives for publishers that is just waiting to get used, there is no need to change games from a purchased good into a "experience".

And the comparison between movie tickets, season cards etc that is used is wrong. You buy a license to visit a park for a certain amount of time, you buy a service that provides one movie showing, including one seat.

In the games world we have something called an internet café. You pay for a certain amount of time with games.

hoho

03-Apr-2012, 10:58

Exactly as scot says, they are a product, just as books, records, and dvd's are
they dont have eula's non of my software had an eula - they should be banned imho
I dont buy this viewpoint its software its special.Well, then we have to agree to disagree :)

Reason why I consider them different is that normal products age and with enough use they become too damaged to be used. With digital stuff that pretty much can't happen. To me buying software is more like going to cinema than buying a brick or other physical item.
Really my isp encourages it
https://www.bt.com/wifi/secure/index.do;JSESSIONID_btv=hwgbP53VmC8YLXymBVBjgsJm6N Pv2HCf2RZtHGzWQQBZC6tjQpD4!-801900389?s_cid=con_FURL_wificommunityI wasn't able to figure out from that site if they have bandwidth caps? If they do then I can understand why they'd want you to share it.
ps: you really have a 150mb connection ?Yes, uncapped and costs me ~27€/mo with basic TV and phone line. I'd ditch the last two but they are "free" anyway. High-speed connections are relatively cheap and easily available around here, at least as long as you live in the higher population-density areas. Also only connections that have data caps are for 3/4G. ADSL/cable are all uncapped.

Mize

03-Apr-2012, 11:51

When was the last time you sold something you bought from Steam?

Anecdotal at best and a clear, up-front condition of Steam subscriptions. I can, however, have my Steam games installed on any number of computers so long as I only login to one at a time.

On the other hand, I sell applications using dlls and runtimes every day. Virtually every piece of anything I own that has electronics contains digital products that I can resell - DVD players, cars, toasters, refrigerators.

Why not just say the console itself can never be resold since the OS on it is digital? Same for computers?

Where is your line for appropriate non-ownership of digital content?

Dr Evil

03-Apr-2012, 12:51

Anecdotal at best and a clear, up-front condition of Steam subscriptions. I can, however, have my Steam games installed on any number of computers so long as I only login to one at a time.

But you can't sell them... Such up-front conditions can be brought to other ecosystems as well. People seem to be fine with them on Steam.

Where is your line for appropriate non-ownership of digital content?

When the industry and my favourite genres are at a risk of becoming the dinosaur (evolve into something lesser),not because there aren't people wanting to play those games, but because there are so many people thinking through their actions that content creators don't deserve a pay, either pirating or buying used, and when an actual industry (Gamestop) has born to further fuel that inbalance.

Alternatively I guess for me it's enough that I can use something for as long as I want, as many times as I want and whenever I want to feel that I own it. I guess I'm willing to trade the last bit of ownership for helping to ensure the proper functioning of the gaming ecosystem.

We've already done the list wars to hell and back. There are many examples, where the resell ability has been taken away and likewise most physical goods you can resell. High cost single player games have bigger risks compared to most other examples you can come up with. Very high production costs (vs books, music), Limited income streams (vs movies, artists), short time to gather sales, hard competition from other publishers and cancerous piracy/used games, so that even "customers" don't bring in money.

That's a recipe for a dinosaur. By using your "born from the constitution unified ownership rules" to all form of goods, games will become even more homogenised and risk aversed they are today with tacked on multiplayer, DLC and so on. Higher risks need something to balance that out. 10$ activation fee for used copies would be just fine.

Davros

03-Apr-2012, 12:52

Mize

03-Apr-2012, 12:56

Evil, I have no problem with game rental/licensing schemes, but it has to be obvious and up-front and the vendors have to know they're risking a lot and that collusion will be prosecuted.

I see nothing illegal with telling someone the software in their console/car/refridgerator/etc. cannot be resold by them and that any transfer of ownership will require the buyer to buy a full price all over from the original seller. In the case of an automobile I'm certain nobody will buy this product. In the case of a console, some will. The trick is it can be retroactive or hidden and it cannot be coordinated such that the entire industry changes at once - that's basically a loose trust and anti-competitive.

Don't forget that you may protect one thing but you'll put brick and mortar out of business along with all those jobs...

pcchen

03-Apr-2012, 13:02

@ hoho so its non degradation that makes software special.
Is there a time limit on this? do you think people who sell diamonds are wrong
not really a concept that exists in the u.s but how about titles they dont degrade
chris eubank former super middle weight boxing champion is now lord of the manor of brightion. He bought that title, but you believe he has no right to sell it ?

But this is not important, no?
I mean, if I have a very nice Ferrari which I love very much, but someone really wants to buy that car and since I believe he genuinely like that car (instead of, for example, just trying to sell it later at a higher price), I can make a contract with him that he is not allowed to sell that car to anyone else. I'm pretty sure this is legal.

So arguing whether something is like something so it must be handled like something is meaningless. What's worth more discussion is actually the consequences of these 'rules,' for example, what will happen if most game companies go for this "forbid used games" rule and is that generally better or worse for gamers (you may think it's "obviously" worse for gamers, but if it leads to better games, then may be it's still better).

Mize

03-Apr-2012, 13:09

Dr Evil

03-Apr-2012, 13:17

Don't forget that you may protect one thing but you'll put brick and mortar out of business along with all those jobs...

The 10$ activation fee is a solution for that. it still leaves Gamestop room to run that business it just wouldn't be such a golden egg business anymore. Other models such as full DD would be more problematic for them though. Lot's of challenges in many sectors that's for sure.

Mize

03-Apr-2012, 13:20

Personally I think video games, television and the movie industry need an entirely new income stream to ward off the negative effects of piracy (and DVRs for TV). Product placement seems the best route off the top of my head.

pcchen

03-Apr-2012, 13:26

Isn't that akin to the argument that subsidizing oil companies and allowing them to trade in secret markets to maximize their profits will result in more R&D and exploration to lower the cost of oil? You're assuming that padding EA's profit margin will necessarily mean they will reinvest into newer and better games, but that's entirely naive in my opinion. Most likely they will hold those costs about constant and take the profits for dividends and acquisitions as any good, shareholder-focused, company would.

Note: I'm not saying any of this is illegal unless their is coordination and collusion. I just think people are being amazingly naive to think that maximizing publisher profit will lead to better games. It certainly didn't lead to better OSes from Microsoft year after year (until W7) and it sure as shit hasn't led to new energy sources or lower gas prices in the oil industry.

No, I'm just saying that many things have non-obvious consequences, and that's what worth discussion.

For example, in current model, game developers are less likely to develop "short-run" games, that is, games with short play time and little replay value. Games like this are not necessarily bad, they can be very good. However, it's generally not a good idea to invest a lot of money into such projects, because, even if the game is very good, you can't make that many sales (compared to long games and games with high replay value) because people can simply buy them used.

Now, some may argue that it's completely sensible as longer games should be valued higher than shorter games. But this is not necessarily "better." Game developers may be forced to prolong their games in order to make their games look more "valuable." This is not necessarily good for gamers.

So the point is not about giving them more money. It's about giving them money for an incentive. For example, a lot of people say they love DRM-less games. But how many actually bought the DRM-less version of The Witcher 2 from GOG, compared to DRMed version from Steam? To my understanding, Steam sold much more copies. What do you think this tells the publishers about DRM?

hoho

03-Apr-2012, 13:43

@ hoho so its non degradation that makes software special.That's only part of the "problem" with digital goods. Being able to produce extra copies with pretty much zero resource usage is another thing and there are more.
Is there a time limit on this?I'd say that with games/software should be more like "single-buy" thing that you don't resell. Ever. Just like movie tickets.
do you think people who sell diamonds are wrongThe whole diamond business is a scam anyway but I don't say it's similar to digital goods :)
not really a concept that exists in the u.s but how about titles they dont degrade
chris eubank former super middle weight boxing champion is now lord of the manor of brightion. He bought that title, but you believe he has no right to sell it ?Sorry but I'm not quite sure what is this. Care to give a link?
Patents too dont degrade, your the first person ive met who thinks patents should not be soldWait, what? How on Earth did you reach this conclusion from my text?

Patents, digital goods, physical goods and services are all very different "products" and you can't use exact same rules for all of them but have to take each one individually and consider their properties.

Davros

03-Apr-2012, 13:45

steam has many more users and a nicer ecosystem (for lack of a better word) than gog
I have seen people say many times "if its not available via steam i'm not buying"

Davros

03-Apr-2012, 15:18

That's only part of the "problem" with digital goods. Being able to produce extra copies with pretty much zero resource usage is another thing and there are more.
nobodys mentioning extra copies if I have 1 game I should be able to sell it once, not sell 2 copies or 3 copies

I'd say that with games/software should be more like "single-buy" thing that you don't resell. Ever. Just like movie tickets.
movie tickets can be sold more than once mind you, just like concert tickets and theater tickets. Its just there isnt really a market for them, "that movie ticket you've just bought for $7 will you sell it for $5"and conversely "would you like to buy a $7 ticket for $8 ? Er no I'll just wait in the queue and buy one for $7" there isnt really a market, there is though for concert tickets, and theater tickets"
http://www.ticketmaster.co.uk/ ps: this company has been in a hell of a lot of of trouble for things like extortionate prices, mis-representing tickets and selling tickets they dont have.

The whole diamond business is a scam anyway but I don't say it's similar to digital goods :)
no but you did say its the non degradation that makes software different, diamonds dont degrade
ps: I have games I can no longer play because they have degraded, I have have game manuals that are a bit tatty and therefore less desirable to me than a game in mint condition.

Sorry but I'm not quite sure what is this. Care to give a link?
sure I aim to please ;)
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/4474461/Buy-a-title-and-lord-it-over-everyone.html

Wait, what? How on Earth did you reach this conclusion from my text?
because you said "Reason why I consider them different is that normal products age and with enough use they become too damaged to be used."
patents dont become damaged when used

Davros

03-Apr-2012, 15:24

sure I aim to please ;)
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/4474461/Buy-a-title-and-lord-it-over-everyone.html

What have I done...
within a month it will be Hoho Lord of Cock (its in Cornwall) and he'll be demanding our virgins :D
edit: now theres a thing that degrades with use ;)

I'd say that with games/software should be more like "single-buy" thing that you don't resell. Ever. Just like movie tickets.
Movie tickets are also single use. do you think software should be single use ? should I have to re-buy my game if I wish to play it again ?
ps: If you say no, then you are saying games are not "Just like movie tickets"

-tkf-

03-Apr-2012, 17:55

I have seen people say many times "if its not available via steam i'm not buying"

I am in that boat, tried my hand on MW3, yes the hype got to me and i wanted to try origin so i at least could form a real life opinion of it. Not going back to Origin again, any game in the future that requires Origin is just not worth it for me. Blizzard imho does it better, they simply add the sign in to their games so when you purchase the digital copy it doesn't run from some software launcher that you have to install on the side.

Xmas

07-Apr-2012, 17:19

Evil, I have no problem with game rental/licensing schemes, but it has to be obvious and up-front and the vendors have to know they're risking a lot and that collusion will be prosecuted.
It seems to me that most gamers using those services are aware of the implications of DD and buying licenses. What kind of collusion did you have in mind?

Don't forget that you may protect one thing but you'll put brick and mortar out of business along with all those jobs...
As DD becomes more widespread, the value that brick and mortar stores provide diminishes. To be worthwhile, a job needs to create added value. It may not be pleasant to see those jobs go, but trying to protect them would be worse.

Blazkowicz

10-Apr-2012, 08:24

Yes, uncapped and costs me ~27€/mo with basic TV and phone line. I'd ditch the last two but they are "free" anyway. High-speed connections are relatively cheap and easily available around here, at least as long as you live in the higher population-density areas. Also only connections that have data caps are for 3/4G. ADSL/cable are all uncapped.

I will have the same, uncapped and unfiltered. it's 36 per month but with unlimited calls to mobile phones included, and now a SIM card with 1 hour voice per month + some SMS (no data). TV but I don't use it.

still waiting for fiber, I thought I would have it by now. so I'm stuck with a 15/1 megabit connexion, enough for the web and fast torrenting but not great for accessing the files from outside.
I have a VIA C7 based PC, 24/7 powered on. I merely use its ssh server to control it and to get to the files, with sshfs, scp or filezilla.
(I've even switched to accessing the files through ssh when I'm on the lan. it's fast :razz:. tonight I've even begun using ssh localhost to get a local user account's file and group permissions)

I've already tried watching a movie from a remote host which has a symetrical connexion.
directory is mounted seamlessly just like a local folder, with sshfs. double-click and it opens in your usual video player.

it did work flawlessly (at least that time, when there was no load on the host or its network)
this is in essence what I will do with a 100+Mb symetrical link at home!
from anywhere I can work with the storage that sits in the corner of my flat, just as if it were LAN or even local storage.

-tkf-

04-Jan-2013, 10:20

Ethatron

05-Jan-2013, 01:42

That's excellent news, if it's patented nobody except Sony will^H^H^Hcan use it! LOL

Davros

05-Jan-2013, 05:20

except they will license it out. Dont sony own macrovision
edit: they dont

Acert93

06-Jan-2013, 23:54

Here we go..

"Sony has been working on new technology for limiting used game sales, and has applied for a patent. The patent was filed 09/12/2012 by SCEJ."

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=506560

The big players will move toward digital distributions and licensing anyways so it will happen across the board, be it through license restrictions or technology like the above.

Inuhanyou

28-Feb-2013, 16:27

Eastmen....are you actually trying to defend a companies right to take rights away from the people? I guess that's why they think they can get away with it(and have been getting away with it). What works for you doesn't work automatically for every other person with separate circumstances. I have terrible internet most of the time. My infrastructure is terrible, and i have a bandwidth cap on top of that, i am not in a situation where it is feasible to jump to DD only like millions of other people who don't have that kind of privileged set up. You have no solution to my issue.

Davros

28-Feb-2013, 16:41

yes of course he is (he just did so) its all part of this "software is special" mentality that some people have

AlphaWolf

28-Feb-2013, 17:07

yes of course he is (he just did so) its all part of this "software is special" mentality that some people have

It is special. Digital media doesn't degrade. New digital files offer no advantage over used ones. So the publishers need to either add those features (online pass, exclusive content) so they can offset the damage of the used market or they need to curtail the used market with DRM.

Davros

28-Feb-2013, 17:19

Nonsense publishers have survived with used games sales almost since the industry began,
diamonds dont degrade do jewlers try and prevent the sales of second hand diamonds, no.

AlphaWolf

28-Feb-2013, 17:22

Nonsense publishers have survived with used games sales almost since the industry began,
diamonds dont degrade do jewlers try and prevent the sales of second hand diamonds, no.

We're down to 3 publishers pretty much, lots of them have not survived. EA's financials aren't glowing.

1 company pretty much controls the flow of diamonds and they are massively over priced at retail. Bad example.

MrFox

28-Feb-2013, 17:22

liolio

28-Feb-2013, 17:28

It is special. Digital media doesn't degrade. New digital files offer no advantage over used ones. So the publishers need to either add those features (online pass, exclusive content) so they can offset the damage of the used market or they need to curtail the used market with DRM.
Well how that is an answer when building crap that doesn't last is already an issue nobody in any business wants to hear about?

I'm sorry when have the gamers ever wanted more for less?
We want at least more for the same. That is the issue with entertainment but with pretty much everything else. Consumerism is not satisfying enough, you need more and more and more often. It is more of an addiction whereas people are more in search of a sense of achievement (and entertainment should only be recreative and a lot more occasional).

It is an escalation ultimately the production costs raises to unsustainable level.
The quest for the "new thing", is a race toward a dead end.

Without going into the details about why we over consume entertainment (/ot) the effect is that we are getting bored of the new "new thing" extremely fast, and will in turn be bored of the next new "new thing" even faster. We are locked into race to the bottom on one side and exponential type growth on the other... or as old wisdom states it: between a rock and a hard place :(

joker454

28-Feb-2013, 18:07

Zaphod

28-Feb-2013, 18:44

I mean if you and your neighbor were having a garage sale at the same time, and he came over to your side, sold one of your items and kept all the money, would you be happy? That's basically what happens to developers every day right now.
What if your neighbor buys one of your two lamps after a spirited sales pitch from you, on closer inspection figures out it's not as great as you made it out to be, and promptly puts it back up for sale at a lower price than you're trying to sell your remaining lamp for?

Would you be OK with that?

That's basically what happens to developers every day right now.

Nevertheless, I don't really understand why consumers entertain the Gamestop model as long as they offer a pittance and hardly discount the used stuff compared to new. Just doesn't seem worth the bother.

Still doesn't mean I think used sales should be outlawed or even discouraged. Initiatives DRM-like in spirit have existed ever since the music publishing industry tried to outlaw the player piano, and they have always been bad for consumers, society, business and artists alike.

Personally, I think the best solution would probably be a small, mandatory, automatic license (say, $1) for when a commercial third party sells a copyrighted work it has acquired for resale purposes (in practice a fixed transaction tax, except going to copyright holders rather than the government). Similar schemes have worked well enough previously.

liolio

28-Feb-2013, 18:48

I can understand why they are doing it, they are probably fed up with others making money of the products them spend millions to create. I mean if you and your neighbor were having a garage sale at the same time, and he came over to your side, sold one of your items and kept all the money, would you be happy? That's basically what happens to developers every day right now. I can totally understand them being pissed.
Well if I sell some random stuff to my neighbors and they resale it, I see no point in being pissed off, they bought it to me in the first place.

The problem is that games lose value really fast, outside of a few games with lot of replayability (either SP or MP), they are really fast off the radar. If you want to be competitive you have to price the games right so lower the price fast.
say publisher X spend millions to develop a game with at best 50 hours of gameplay (including going through the game twice or more), they have an issue.
That game is going to hit the second hand market fast. I think lot of Sony exclusive suffered from that for example (not attractive enough MP if at all vs other power house IP, gamers play a few times and ultimately jumps to the new thing).
There is to way around it, either you try to prevent people to own their copy of the game or you realize that for that kind of games there is no viable market, having on one side hundred of people working after hours for two years for one people enjoying their production for only 50 hours is obviously wasteful.

Another thing is how that different from cars, CPUs, /anything based on IP? I mean Ford could say we have been developing engine for a century there are a lot of IPs and efforts that go into our cars, etc. and then you sell my cookies to somebody without me having my share (again as they got it when you buy the car)?

One should be really careful about what is happening in the entertainment business wrt to ownership and intellectual properties. They attack us on a weak spot, we need entertainment (I won't get intp the ugly reasons behind that matter of fact / OT) but we don't think that it is that important in the gran scheme of thing. But once the entertainment industry will have won its case the other industries will have the legal ground to match their policies and to claim the same (exorbitant) advantages. Legal matter are legal matter depending on how this fight on IP ends it will affect everything IP based (so pretty much everything manufactured), dura lex sed lex...

Kind of make me think of the exorbitant advantage private banks were granted when they were allowed to stamp/create money instead of the States.

On the other hand the only way this can work is if they have both pricing like Steam, and backward compatibility like Steam. On Steam I buy tons of games even though I can't resell them and it's not a big deal to me because I know when I change my laptop, pc or whatever I'll still be able to play my digital product. Also I'm fine with it because I get most of my games in the $2 to $20 range thanks for Steam's frequent sales. So it's no big deal to me, it's worth the tradeoff for all the convenience Steam brings.Well it is no less of an issue because of the price is lower, it is just less of a bother. Still there are lawsuit on the matter in Germany (depending on the out come EU could be next) I think. (not that I think that the people will win, lobbyists have their guys in charge...).

If Consoles on the other hand don't let you resell your old games and at the same time render them worthless by not offering backward compatibility on future hardware, and if their digital pricing remains completely retarded as it is right now (compared to Steam) then I can't imagine there wouldn't be massive ramifications. It would be interesting to see how many people just outright stop buying games at $60.Well I don't think people are to stop buying games at 60$ or more, but they are going to be a lot more picky about the game they buy, anything but the "sure buy" AAA is going to go belly up, and even within the AAA there can be only that much winner, within that business model and raising cost even big publishers would be hurt by a few failures.

Zaphod

28-Feb-2013, 19:05

Another thing is how that different from cars, CPUs, /anything based on IP? I mean Ford could say we have been developing engine for a century there are a lot of IPs and efforts that go into our cars, etc.
Actually, allowing the software industry the right to limit resale on copyright grounds would probably mean you couldn't resell a modern car either. That is, without disabling the power steering, satnav, reverse camera, automatic gearbox, parking assist, etc. etc. That goes for pretty much everything with a computer in it.

eastmen

28-Feb-2013, 19:07

joker454

28-Feb-2013, 19:41

Well it is no less of an issue because of the price is lower, it is just less of a bother.

What if I argued that the inability to resell digital content is exactly what has allowed Steam to offer games so cheap? Right now the game companies have to build in buffers into their game pricing to deal with the used market, because they know they will lose a mass amount of sales to it. One could argue that is what keeps leading to game prices going up on consoles. I'll use what Zaphod just posted as an example this:

Actually, allowing the software industry the right to limit resale on copyright grounds would probably mean you couldn't resell a modern car either. That is, without disabling the power steering, satnav, reverse camera, automatic gearbox, parking assist, etc. etc. That goes for pretty much everything with a computer in it.

The car companies solve this by having car parts be so expensive. So sure they lose money on used car sales, but they make it back on selling parts to those cars at ridiculous prices, or on labor costs when people bring in used cars to the dealer to get fixed. So they have a way to deal with the loss of sales to the used market. The console game makers only recoup method right now is dlc. But then again if the person that buys the used game never buys dlc then it's still a total loss.

So maybe the reason Steam can offer me all my favorite games in the $2 to $20 range is because there is no used market to worry about. Perhaps that is also exactly what allowed the $1 app store market to emerge as well. What I would be curious to see is if the law forced Steam to allow digital content to be sold used, would that put an end to the amazing Steam sales we're all so used to now? Because after all why would I bother buying a $60 game for $15 on a Steam sale when I can just wait a bit more and buy it for $7 later from someone else?

Silent_Buddha

28-Feb-2013, 21:48

Actually, allowing the software industry the right to limit resale on copyright grounds would probably mean you couldn't resell a modern car either. That is, without disabling the power steering, satnav, reverse camera, automatic gearbox, parking assist, etc. etc. That goes for pretty much everything with a computer in it.

Physical objects degrade. There's a finite life to them unless handled with extreme care (IE - never used).

In order to maintain "like new" quality, money must be invested into maintenance, upkeep, repairs, and potentially overhauls.

Do you think any vintange 1920's car is resold in "new" condition without some serious money invested into restoring it?

Now take the digital goods side of this. If digital software existed back in the 1920's that product would be exactly the same and in exactly the same condition now as it was back then.

In other words, there's no reason to buy a new version of it because it never degrades.

Right now as soon as a drive a new car off a new car lot the value degrades because you are already putting wear and tear on the machine and the clock is ticking until the car eventually breaks down.

Go and buy a game and it never degrades. The value and contents are exactly the same as a brand new copy. So, what is the incentive to buy a new copy of the game?

Including new purchase only content is one way of replicating New Car -> Used Cars sales.

When you buy a Used Car it will never be in as good condition as a New Car. So, by having new purchase only content, buying a used copy would mean that it is never in as good condition as a new copy of the same game.

I'd expect that should be a win/win for everyone involved. As it would make used game sales much more similar to used car (or whatever physical product) sales.

Pay money for the content you are missing. Just like paying money to repair anything that goes wrong with a used car (like if the Aircon wasn't working - missing new content feature).

People just have to come to grasp with the fact that digital product sales are nothing like traditional physical product sales. With physical products there's always a reason to buy new versus used. With digital products there is no reason to buy new versus used.

Hence, companies that rely on digital products will always lose significantly more money to used sales than companies selling physical products.

Regards,
SB

Zaphod

28-Feb-2013, 22:16

None of that negates the fact that if you can't resell software on copyright grounds, you can't sell your new Lexus (or whatever) either. (But you could sell your vintage 1920s car.)

I don't actually disagree with you on the effects of software resale, but going down the path of more control and more technological strangling can't possibly benefit anyone in the long term.

Davros

28-Feb-2013, 22:41

A lot of industries have that so I dunno what your trying to say.

Really ? I can name 2 industries that have multiple revenue streams from the same product
the film and tv industry and the music industry against the thousands that dont

Originally Posted by eastmen
Gamers want more each generation and with each new game. They allways want more features / more maps / better graphics and so on and they want it at lower and lower prices.
they got better gfx. more maps debatable, more features debatable, lower prices hell no.

Originally Posted by eastmen
Customers shouldn't be buying faulty games.
what choice do they have you certainly buy and have bought faulty games.

Hence, companies that rely on digital products will always lose significantly more money to used sales than companies selling physical products
you have a point here, but weigh that against the advantages they have
1. practically zero manufacturing costs.
2. the ability to sell products in any condition they so please.
3. exemption from nearly all consumer protection laws.
4. the ability to remove customers right to legal protection.

Sonic

01-Mar-2013, 01:43

What right ? You have the right to take your money where you want too. If the xbox doesnt offer used games then your able to go to the playstation and do it. Thats your right as a customer

You're a fascist. You're just like this dickhead boss that got fired because he kept telling employees that if the employees didn't want to be there they could go find another job. That might be cool in your book, but employees deserve better treatment than that. Pissed off and miserable employees make for terrible service, and since the problem isn't the employees then it's the boss that needs to go.

In the same sense, if MS wants to adopt your shitty attitude then it can happily see their beloved customers go to the competition, or when piracy runs rampant then pursue that as an alternative to buying the software to begin with. Hopefully MS pursues a system where after a certain period of time the price goes down ten or so dollars. That would keep me there as a gamer because I'd happily buy a few titles (even being DD) a few years after release because I missed out on them earlier. I'd get more value for my money and the dev/pub can still make a few bucks out of someone who wouldn't have spent that money otherwise.

Xmas

01-Mar-2013, 02:03

Including new purchase only content is one way of replicating New Car -> Used Cars sales.

When you buy a Used Car it will never be in as good condition as a New Car. So, by having new purchase only content, buying a used copy would mean that it is never in as good condition as a new copy of the same game.

I'd expect that should be a win/win for everyone involved. As it would make used game sales much more similar to used car (or whatever physical product) sales.
That almost sounds like you're describing the fact that cars degrade as a good thing. :D

I'm not convinced that trying to emulate the weaknesses of physical goods in digital products is a good idea.

pcchen

01-Mar-2013, 07:09

I'm not convinced that trying to emulate the weaknesses of physical goods in digital products is a good idea.

I think the problem here is, while software do not "degrade" like physical goods, they "degrade" in other ways.

The most obvious problem for software is maintenance. Software need maintenance, no matter how good they are. Some people might say, but it's natural that software should be bug free. But this is just like saying "but it's natural for a car to be as good as new after 40 years." It's just unrealistic.

There are also maintenance issues other than bug fixes. New hardware may require modifications to existing software for compatibility. Or small updates to improve user experiences.

Now, people seem to be happy paying money to service their cars regularly (which is usually required by law, and even if the car is completely fine), but if one talks about "software renting model" people seem to be very agitated. I really don't understand why.

tongue_of_colicab

02-Mar-2013, 08:15

The problem is that wherever you go you can BUY software, companies SELL software. They dont RENT or LICENSE it to you. And yes I expect software to be updated to fix problems in the same way we all expect car companies to issue recalls if it turns out there is an issue with your car.

Also while people seem happy to pay for having their car serviced, it doesnt necessarily mean that the manufacturer is earning money on that. A lot of people have their cars serviced at independed garages and these days a lot of garages also use junkyard parts instead of brand new parts as a car that is likely going to be scrapped in a couple of years doesn't need brand new parts and can often work fine with junkyard parts that are still in good (enough) condition.

The point is, there is no practical way to prevent you from selling your car, house, tv, washingmachine etc. However there are tons of practical ways for software companies to make it impossible for you to sell your software. Thats the only thing. Software companies know they can make everybody full price because they can prevent you from selling your software that you BOUGHT and they SOLD to you (not rented or licenced) and thats what they want.

Software isn't any different from other products you buy. You should be able to do whatever you want with the software you bought. This includes reselling it (withouth the buyer having to buy online passes etc).

I honestly don't see why software should be different.

dagamer

02-Mar-2013, 08:48

tongue_of_colicab

02-Mar-2013, 11:12

EULA's dont mean shit. In the civilized world laws are above what a company decides what is or isnt allowed.

Anyway when you go to gamestop to buy Fifa 2013, do they sell you a game or are they telling you they are selling you a license to use the software? Right. They are selling you a game. Not a license.

pcchen

02-Mar-2013, 15:15

EULA's dont mean shit. In the civilized world laws are above what a company decides what is or isnt allowed.

Exactly. Selling you a license to use a software is supported by most countries' (and international) copyright laws.

If you really want to buy a software instead of to license a software, you have very few choices. Most of these choices are open source software. Realistically, if you want to buy a commercial software and use them as you "own" them, you'll have to pay a lot more than what you pay for licensing one. Since very few people actually want to pay that much money for comparably little advantage, most software companies don't bother to provide such option. If you really think that's important, maybe you can start one such company, and see how successful such options will be.

Blazkowicz

02-Mar-2013, 18:57

Even then there's much debate or flamewars about open source licenses. GPL is said to protect more the user and BSD protects more the developer but you have to read some stuff to work out a good explanation for yourself.

Basically the GPL likes "contaminating" derivating software which all has to be GPL and sharing all your contributions is mandatory, so as much as using a GPL library will make your program GPL. Unless the library uses the linking exception : that's the LGPL license, and it allows a proprietary program to dynamically link to a LGPL library (on Windows, that's a program that uses a .dll)

But the GNU/FSF now has a policy of writing GPL libraries, so it's open source software but you can't have it if you don't accept all the terms. GPLv3 vs GPLv2 is another hot debate, it adds other, semi-political restrictions that can drive away e.g. embedded hardware vendors (linux kernel is still GPLv2)

BSD-style licenses allow you more freedom to do what you want with the code you've written (including making OS X with the FreeBSD userland)

Still the GPL (at least v2) has lead to enormous successses : linux, GCC, and a lot of other stuff (but a lot isn't GPL, too)
GPL can lead to debacles, such as a useful kernel feature that proprietary drivers are banned from using - nvidia is legally barred from providng Optimus support, basically (or everyone that needs the kernel feature and doesn't do GPL-compatible drivers)
http://linux.slashdot.org/story/12/10/11/1918251/alan-cox-to-nvidia-you-cant-use-dma-buf

Just to say that software licenses are "serious bizness" and to say "just get rid of them", well.. let's say it's shit we have to live with for lack of something better..
At least, depending on your local laws, there are rights that you can't sign away so some terms can't apply to you. Such as a term banning reverse engineering? "Clean room" reverse engineering should always be legal, probably?. Sometimes a license or "terms of agreement" may be kind to you and say "this doesn't apply if you live in the EU", or else let yourself figure out it's bunk.

The big can of worms is software patents but that's a separate issue. That software is covered by both copyright (a special, strong regime of it) and patents is ridiculous but just get rid of patents, I'm sure the software you use to come here to read and comment (loads of it : kernel, OS, drivers, browser, the stuff in all routers all along) infringes 15,000 or so patents and maybe I'm far from the truth. No one can even know.

-tkf-

25-May-2013, 08:38

The guy's the founder of Quantic Dreams, maker of Sony exclusive Heavy rain:

"Guillaume de Fondaumiere: I would say that the impact that the recession had, that the most important impact especially on AAA games on console, was the rise of second hand gaming. And I think this is one of the number one problems right now in the industry. I can take just one example of Heavy Rain. We basically sold to date approximately two million units, we know from the trophy system that probably more than three million people bought this game and played it. On my small level it's a million people playing my game without giving me one cent. And my calculation is, as Quantic Dream, I lost between €5 and €10 million worth of royalties because of second hand gaming."

http://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/2011-09-09-guillaume-de-fondaumiere

Holy time machine?
Rehash of old arguments.. The money that people get from selling used games usually goes back into .. games.
Does "Guillaume de Fondaumiere" require everyone in my household to pay for their own copy?
What about my friends that might borrow my game?
How far would he like his like money straw to reach?
If i only complete 80% of the game would he reimburse me 20% of the almost $100 his game would cost me in denmark?

If he wants his game to stay away from the used shelfs he would release constant free DLC updates to his game and make sure it was a game worth keeping.

Needless to say, that this dude is all about money, including Tax breaks.

-tkf-

26-May-2013, 09:35

So really this is a vague moral issue that is placated by marginal differences in price and your gut feelings about whether a company is "evil"?

Nope this is big corporations that doesn't give a f*ck about anything else but their profit, that is pure evil in my world. They don't care at all about their customers unless it makes them money or costs them money. And for some strange reason many people thinks it's "allright" because money makes the world go around and nothing else matters. Nintendo is actually one of the few companies that has principles that cost them money but matters to them because of moral issues, at least from the outside. Sony and Microsoft couldn't care less, as long as it's within the law they will milk every last penny from their beloved customers.

But, as a customer and purchaser of a game i am entitled to owning that game and doing whatever the hell i want with it, including selling it to gamestop. Now just because Gamestop made a business on used games the world shouldn't stop. In capitalistic sense they should applauded for building a business on other peoples work, it's all about money after all and they did something smart.. right?
It would be the easiest thing in the world for Sony and Microsoft to compete with Gamestop.

But because someone made a smart move the consumer has to pay with time limited games that can't always be played and has very low resale value?

No thanks, then rather spend money on a platform where i can just "take my games" that i am perfectly entitled to own. And about steam, i have 2 PC's in offline mode so that the kid can play his Lego games even if i am logged in. I guess that is wrong if you ask the same people that wants to ban used games.. but it works, and it's been offline for a long time. That is sensible Online DRM. What Microsoft is suggesting is crap compared to that. In 5 years some people will own many games, maybe 30 games.. but if something happens, unpaid bill, internet down, hacker attack (it's bound to happen) then there is no way that person can play his collection because ET can't phone home. In 20 years every XBOX One game could potentially be useless. And to take it to the extreme, from this generation on there will be no cultural history kept for the next generations when it comes to games (there goes the tax break). If ONE and FOUR does this, so will the next generation. I would say we need the lawmakers to protect our cultural history, including the games.

But hey, when everyone just eats whatever it's served and even defends stupid consumer limiting technologies like this we can just wait for the next step. Games that only works for a limited number of days, how could anyone expect to buy(license) a game and just keep on enjoying it for months. It costs millions to create that game and in order to recoup the costs gamers that enjoy the experience should obviously pay for the second playthrough. It's not like it was meant to be used for unlimited hours.

Davros

26-May-2013, 09:47

How about this method of dealing with used games
Live with it...
Just like nearly every other industry lives with its product being resold

kots

26-May-2013, 13:40

When i pay good money for a game , i want to play it however i want.
If i desire to play it with the cord unplugged , that's my right , i shouldn't ask for MS's permission .
And no , the 24h thing doesn't work with me . No checks at all , that's a deal breaker . I don't trust them and if let's say after 5 years they exit the console business (i believe they will) then what , my collection won't function ? Get the **** out ...

This scenario seems just fine by me : let me install my games on the HDD so i don't need to change discs and demand an online connection for checking , that's understandable . Or put a serial Nr inside the disc, validate it once and then no check at all.
Should i put the disc in the tray , no checks ever .

dagamer

26-May-2013, 14:15

ninzel

26-May-2013, 14:35

Software 101: you don't own a game, you own a license to it according to their rules. Sorry.

Maybe so but obviously we as consumer also have some rights of ownership otherwise there wouldn't be a legal used game market to begin with..
Are you suggesting that the used game market is an illegal activity and MS is just sitting back and letting it happen?

dagamer

26-May-2013, 14:41

Maybe so but obviously we as consumer also have some rights of ownership otherwise there wouldn't be a legal used game market to begin with..

You have plenty of rights to the physical disc, doesn't mean you'll be able to play a game elsewhere. The disc is just a distribution medium. It is not "the game".

Lets put it this way, you have a boxed copy of Windows. A naive person says you can only take either the key or the install disc and he'll take the other one. Which do you take? Which is valuable?

I'm not saying its right or wrong, just point out how it is.

ninzel

26-May-2013, 14:55

You have plenty of rights to the physical disc, doesn't mean you'll be able to play a game elsewhere. The disc is just a distribution medium. It is not "the game".

Lets put it this way, you have a boxed copy of Windows. A naive person says you can only take either the key or the install disc and he'll take the other one. Which do you take? Which is valuable?

I'm not saying its right or wrong, just point out how it is.

And I understand all and the fair use doctrine, my post was to suggest that ownership and rights can be murky,not so simple. There needs to more clarity.
I mentioned this in another post, if the disk itself is not important and the license is the key why would a gamer loose the right to the game if they surrender the disk?
If person 1 buys the game at full price then gives the disk to person 2 and that person pays a full price fee to use the disk why should the first person loose the right to play the game?
If GETTING the disk itself does not GIVE ownership, why should SURRENDERING the disk REPEAL ownership.
It seems that they are trying to have it both ways. The disk holds no value(except for distribution of data) when you get it,but when you give it all of a sudden it's so valuable that it causes you to loose ownership?

dagamer

26-May-2013, 15:17

And I understand all and the fair use doctrine, my post was to suggest that ownership and rights can be murky,not so simple. There needs to more clarity.
I mentioned this in another post, if the disk itself is not important and the license is the key why would a gamer loose the right to the game if they surrender the disk?
If person 1 buys the game at full price then gives the disk to person 2 and that person pays a full price fee to use the disk why should the first person loose the right to play the game?
If GETTING the disk itself does not GIVE ownership, why should SURRENDERING the disk REPEAL ownership.
It seems that they are trying to have it both ways. The disk holds no value(except for distribution of data) when you get it,but when you give it all of a sudden it's so valuable that it causes you to loose ownership?

They are stuck between a rock and a hard place. They are indeed trying to have their cake and eat it too. Otherwise everyone knows what the simple answer is: make it like Steam with no used games. And I can't imagine what the Internet would look like if Microsoft announced "no used games".

expletive

26-May-2013, 16:01

Game developers are selling a license to an 'interactive experience' right? Can we at least agree that every time a new person has that 'experience' the developers should be compensated? (the amount for each person is secondary, this is the basics for now) The problem that game developers have is that their medium for delivering these 'interactive experiences' is digital, reproducible, portable, and completely lossless. People selling Pizza for example, don't have this problem because when you split a pizza with a friend, you each get 4 slices, not the full 8 a piece.

If we can't agree on the basics of when developers should get paid, this conversation will remain circular throughout its number of representative threads.

Scott_Arm

26-May-2013, 16:06

Nope this is big corporations that doesn't give a f*ck about anything else but their profit, that is pure evil in my world. They don't care at all about their customers unless it makes them money or costs them money. And for some strange reason many people thinks it's "allright" because money makes the world go around and nothing else matters. Nintendo is actually one of the few companies that has principles that cost them money but matters to them because of moral issues, at least from the outside. Sony and Microsoft couldn't care less, as long as it's within the law they will milk every last penny from their beloved customers.

But, as a customer and purchaser of a game i am entitled to owning that game and doing whatever the hell i want with it, including selling it to gamestop. Now just because Gamestop made a business on used games the world shouldn't stop. In capitalistic sense they should applauded for building a business on other peoples work, it's all about money after all and they did something smart.. right?
It would be the easiest thing in the world for Sony and Microsoft to compete with Gamestop.

But because someone made a smart move the consumer has to pay with time limited games that can't always be played and has very low resale value?

No thanks, then rather spend money on a platform where i can just "take my games" that i am perfectly entitled to own. And about steam, i have 2 PC's in offline mode so that the kid can play his Lego games even if i am logged in. I guess that is wrong if you ask the same people that wants to ban used games.. but it works, and it's been offline for a long time. That is sensible Online DRM. What Microsoft is suggesting is crap compared to that. In 5 years some people will own many games, maybe 30 games.. but if something happens, unpaid bill, internet down, hacker attack (it's bound to happen) then there is no way that person can play his collection because ET can't phone home. In 20 years every XBOX One game could potentially be useless. And to take it to the extreme, from this generation on there will be no cultural history kept for the next generations when it comes to games (there goes the tax break). If ONE and FOUR does this, so will the next generation. I would say we need the lawmakers to protect our cultural history, including the games.

But hey, when everyone just eats whatever it's served and even defends stupid consumer limiting technologies like this we can just wait for the next step. Games that only works for a limited number of days, how could anyone expect to buy(license) a game and just keep on enjoying it for months. It costs millions to create that game and in order to recoup the costs gamers that enjoy the experience should obviously pay for the second playthrough. It's not like it was meant to be used for unlimited hours.

Lawmakers to protect the cultural history of gaming? You're joking right? I, like you, feel I should be able to sell a used game like I would sell a bike, for example. IF I'm not able to do that it changes the value of the product for me. That may mean not buying a console. Here's the thing. You have absolutely no right to be able to play multimillion dollar games. That's not an entitlement anyone actually has. You want to play, buy in. Don't pay, do something else with your time. Game companies are not "evil" for trying to make money, especially not if they tell you the conditions of your purchase up front. There is no special right that entitles you to play videogames. They're not jacking up prices on a necessity or life-saving medication. This is entertainment. This should be your disposable income. And to call anyone evil for applying DRM while buying games on Steam doesn't make any sense. You trust valve but not ms or Sony? Why?

expletive

26-May-2013, 16:12

Lawmakers to protect the cultural history of gaming? You're joking right? I, like you, feel I should be able to sell a used game like I would sell a bike, for example. IF I'm not able to do that it changes the value of the product for me. That may mean not buying a console. Here's the thing. You have absolutely no right to be able to play multimillion dollar games. That's not an entitlement anyone actually has. You want to play, buy in. Don't pay, do something else with your time. Game companies are not "evil" for trying to make money, especially not if they tell you the conditions of your purchase up front. There is no special right that entitles you to play videogames. They're not jacking up prices on a necessity or life-saving medication. This is entertainment. This should be your disposable income. And to call anyone evil for applying DRM while buying games on Steam doesn't make any sense. You trust valve but not ms or Sony? Why?

There's a lot of differences between selling a bike used, and selling a license to an interactive experience to someone else. They all take this thread off-topic though so i started the conversation in Brits other used games thread.

ninzel

26-May-2013, 16:52

There's a lot of differences between selling a bike used, and selling a license to an interactive experience to someone else. They all take this thread off-topic though so i started the conversation in Brits other used games thread.

Just because a game is a lossless experience doesn't mean it automatically retains the same worth or value as time goes on. That should be left up tot he consumer to determine.
Many hard items retain good value over time some even increase in value over time yet those other companies aren't trying to take a second cut. Guitars cars,playing cards etc. Value fluctuates and is all over the place and is very personal in nature.
We are now moving fast into an era where we are willing to let the company determine the value of a used product indefinitely?

Nesh

26-May-2013, 16:58

Software 101: you don't own a game, you own a license to it according to their rules. Sorry.
If thats how things are evolving thats a lot of bullocks

UniversalTruth

26-May-2013, 18:01

Game companies are not "evil" for trying to make money, especially not if they tell you the conditions of your purchase up front

Actually, they are evil because of two things
First is that they don't value people's hard efforts to make money. This means- those companies are rich as shit, and even despite this, they are always hungry for more.
While humans are perhaps the only creatures on this planet who suffer, are real slaves and get very tired in those hard efforts to get this money.

Those corporations don't value this fact- in many cases people can't even enjoy life itself

And second is that they don't even care about people's opinion prior to telling you the conditions

-tkf-

26-May-2013, 19:10

Lawmakers to protect the cultural history of gaming? You're joking right? Not really, i think there should be a law that protects the original works of movies, music, books, games, paintings you name it. With games it should simply be done by protection the buyers right to play his game as he wants, when he wants as long as he paid for the game and the machine.

I, like you, feel I should be able to sell a used game like I would sell a bike, for example. IF I'm not able to do that it changes the value of the product for me. That may mean not buying a console. Here's the thing. You have absolutely no right to be able to play multimillion dollar games. That's not an entitlement anyone actually has. You want to play, buy in. Don't pay, do something else with your time. Game companies are not "evil" for trying to make money, especially not if they tell you the conditions of your purchase up front. There is no special right that entitles you to play videogames. They're not jacking up prices on a necessity or life-saving medication. This is entertainment. This should be your disposable income. And to call anyone evil for applying DRM while buying games on Steam doesn't make any sense. You trust valve but not ms or Sony? Why?

Valve has so far not shown one single example of being evil, Sony and Microsoft do it for a living. And if steam should choose to close my account down i can still get the games i am entitled to.
But it really has nothing to do with being entitled to videogames, it has everything to do with basic rights as a consumer.

And since you keep on using my Steam purchases as an argument against me calling Sony and Microsoft evil. Just because i use the Steam service doesn't mean i think they are "awesome".

expletive

26-May-2013, 20:00

Just because a game is a lossless experience doesn't mean it automatically retains the same worth or value as time goes on. That should be left up tot he consumer to determine.
Many hard items retain good value over time some even increase in value over time yet those other companies aren't trying to take a second cut. Guitars cars,playing cards etc. Value fluctuates and is all over the place and is very personal in nature.
We are now moving fast into an era where we are willing to let the company determine the value of a used product indefinitely?

The things you mention as gaining price over time is due to their scarcity and the demand for them, not for any other reason.

Demand ultimately always determines price. Just because companies charge $60 for a 12 month old game does not mean people will pay it. Companies will not determine the price the public will. (see: steam sales)

ninzel

26-May-2013, 21:32

T
Demand ultimately always determines price. Just because companies charge $60 for a 12 month old game does not mean people will pay it. Companies will not determine the price the public will. (see: steam sales)

Exactly,and if MS understands this as well why even go down this path,why play this game?
If this is just about them wanting their cut I'm fine with that. I really don"care where my money goes in the end.
But if this is about trying to artificially force a value,then that will not be good for us or them.
Judging by some of the prices you see for games on demand that are out of wack with what people are paying at retail for used games,I'm not so clear as to what exactly they want out of this.

Davros

26-May-2013, 21:50

In 5 years some people will own many games, maybe 30 games..

What no never.....

expletive

26-May-2013, 21:54

Exactly,and if MS understands this as well why even go down this path,why play this game?
If this is just about them wanting their cut I'm fine with that. I really don"care where my money goes in the end.
But if this is about trying to artificially force a value,then that will not be good for us or them.
Judging by some of the prices you see for games on demand that are out of wack with what people are paying at retail for used games,I'm not so clear as to what exactly they want out of this.

Its about putting a system in place where intermediaries aren't the ones making profit off of console games. MS as a publisher has something to gain as well as their critical content partners. They all want a better system. The reality is there are no "used" or "second hand" games in the traditional sense, the games are as good the second time played as they are the first, so why should gamestop make all the money off of a re-sale of a game? All they are doing is moving around the delivery medium. Shouldn't a majority of that go to the developer? Without some sort of digital license management, how can this be enforced?

Davros

26-May-2013, 22:35

Why should gamestop make all the money off of a re-sale of a game?
because they are the ones doing the reselling
If i buy a product and sell it at a later date for a profit who should get the profit I think i should. Do you disagree ??

ninzel

26-May-2013, 23:55

Its about putting a system in place where intermediaries aren't the ones making profit off of console games. MS as a publisher has something to gain as well as their critical content partners. They all want a better system. The reality is there are no "used" or "second hand" games in the traditional sense, the games are as good the second time played as they are the first, so why should gamestop make all the money off of a re-sale of a game? All they are doing is moving around the delivery medium. Shouldn't a majority of that go to the developer? Without some sort of digital license management, how can this be enforced?

They want to make more money, lets not try and sugar coat it or pretend like one side has a moral high ground. Both sides are trying to legally make more profit.
But as the consumer in the middle my specific concern is not who gets what slice of the pie,but how will used game prices be changed.
And I don't agree that just because a game the same the second time that it should remain the same as a new price indefinitely. Like I said before the consumer determines the price and value for their own personal reasons. Maybe I never felt that new game was worth $60 to begin with? Maybe a better looking, better playing version of the game comes along and the first version doesn't seem as attractive.who knows.

expletive

26-May-2013, 23:58

because they are the ones doing the reselling
If i buy a product and sell it at a later date for a profit who should get the profit I think i should. Do you disagree ??

Of course I do. You think developers should get nothing when some 3rd party transfers a digital interactive entertainment license from one user to another?

Moving discs around to transfer licenses only exists because there was no appropriate delivery method in the past, not because EA (for example) was actually in the business of selling 4.7" plastic discs.

They want to make more money, lets not try and sugar coat it or pretend like one side has a moral high ground. Both sides are trying to legally make more profit.
But as the consumer in the middle my specific concern is not who gets what slice of the pie,but how will used game prices be changed.
And I don't agree that just because a game the same the second time that it should remain the same as a new price indefinitely. Like I said before the consumer determines the price and value for their own personal reasons. Maybe I never felt that new game was worth $60 to begin with? Maybe a better looking, better playing version of the game comes along and the first version doesn't seem as attractive.who knows.

Of course they are trying to make more money but i feel they are trying to make money they are *entitled* to. Pricing is a seperate topic imo. What the price of new games should be, "family licenses", transfers, etc should recalibrate in some fashion, i don't know exactly how.

ninzel

26-May-2013, 23:59

Of course I do. You think developers should get nothing when some 3rd party transfers a digital interactive entertainment license from one user to another?

Moving discs around to transfer licenses only exists because there was no appropriate delivery method in the past, not because EA (for example) was actually in the business of selling 4.7" plastic discs.

Great so in the new reality the disk is purely a method for content delivery and both purchaser 1 ,2 3 and so on.. use one disk but each pay a fee to MS,should anyone loose the right to play the game when they give away the disk? I'm not giving away a bike that I cant ride anymore. The game is installed on my HDD I have a license that I paid for why should I ever loose the right to play the game? When I give away the disk I'm not transferring ownership because the next person has to also buy a license as well.
As Phil Harrison said think of it as each is a new game.

Davros

27-May-2013, 04:13

You think developers should get nothing when some 3rd party transfers a digital interactive entertainment license from one user to another?

Yes i do, not a cent they have allready been paid for their work, why should they be paid multiple times.
should ford track vehicle ownership and ask for money from everyone who's sold one of their cars
If I sell at a loss should they compensate me, if they expect a cut of the profit shouldnt they shoulder some of the burden of a loss.

If e.a or whoever want to profit from used games sales they should set up a shop, buy games from people and sell them on just like gamestop has to.

You sell me a copy of crysis 3 you think e.a deserves some of the money why ? what have they done to deserve any?

Daozang

27-May-2013, 12:17

Does "Guillaume de Fondaumiere" require everyone in my household to pay for their own copy?

Or what about someone not included in the household!
Can I bring a few friends over and play a SP game in turns?
(We actually do that with every GoW game)
I guess they should pay a fee for those two hours of gameplay each!

Now, with the new kinect, he might actually get his wish!
Bullshit.
It seems that somehow software is a special case compared to anything else.

Next time I'll watch season one DVD of Game of Thrones at a friends house, I'll send a paycheck at HBO.

-tkf-

27-May-2013, 13:18

Shouldn't a majority of that go to the developer?

That is actually the real question should developers/publishers/sony/microsoft get a cut of a used sale.

If i have to give up my ownership of my game, then no thanks.

expletive

27-May-2013, 16:59

Yes i do, not a cent they have allready been paid for their work, why should they be paid multiple times.
should ford track vehicle ownership and ask for money from everyone who's sold one of their cars
If I sell at a loss should they compensate me, if they expect a cut of the profit shouldnt they shoulder some of the burden of a loss.

If e.a or whoever want to profit from used games sales they should set up a shop, buy games from people and sell them on just like gamestop has to.

You sell me a copy of crysis 3 you think e.a deserves some of the money why ? what have they done to deserve any?

The difference here is that the product is not a disc, its a license, its an experience, its a memory. Its not like a car who's second-hand experience is inferior to the first. You sell a car second hand, its not as good as when it was new, it doesn't have a warranty. With a game, the 1's and 0's are identical. I don't see what gives Gamestop the right to "transfer" a license that they don't control.

Daozang

27-May-2013, 18:28

The difference here is that the product is not a disc, its a license, its an experience, its a memory. Its not like a car who's second-hand experience is inferior to the first. You sell a car second hand, its not as good as when it was new, it doesn't have a warranty. With a game, the 1's and 0's are identical. I don't see what gives Gamestop the right to "transfer" a license that they don't control.

I always knew that when I buy a game I essentially buy a ticket to the circus.
An experience, a memory...
It's like going on a trip to Rome, with no antialiasing and poor texturing. /s

Same with a DVD or a CD I guess.
Of course I can re-sell those, and the ones and zeroes remain the same despite all the hand changing.

Anyway, I'm curious...
How are they going to stop me from calling half my neighborhood at my house to play (or watch someone playing) a game?
Are we going to eventually have a game police?

Edit
If I buy a car today, and sell it tomorrow, should Ford ask the next buyer for license fees?
It's in no way an inferior product, since I never even used it.
Of course, we can name my Ford, a memory or an experience, and see where that takes us.

The problem here, is not the quality or the age of the product.
It's the fact that with enough spin, some people can sell the same thing as many times as they can.
I sincerely hope, that if and when this happens, the consumer will decide that the only way he'll buy the product, is from the bargain bin.
You know, the place were all things go, when their value has deteriorated.

Know any bargain bins for memories or experiences?

-tkf-

27-May-2013, 20:05

The difference here is that the product is not a disc, its a license, its an experience, its a memory. Its not like a car who's second-hand experience is inferior to the first. You sell a car second hand, its not as good as when it was new, it doesn't have a warranty. With a game, the 1's and 0's are identical. I don't see what gives Gamestop the right to "transfer" a license that they don't control.

If we pretend that what you say is true, then the game should hold it's value for years instead of days.

But lets try this for size.. books, music, dvd's, things that have been bought by accident and is sold as new (this can be everything), second hand sales is stealing. Antique items, why shouldn't heirs after the death of artists get a cut when a painting is sold? Hell why shouldn't they get a cut while they live every time someone profits from their work?

Just because the industry wants to paint a picture (pun intended) of second hand sellers and buyers as "pirates" doesn't mean it's true. If we buy into that the world is filled with batards stealing other peoples work on a daily basis.

It's profit maximising, and nothing else. And i will personally do my outmost to educated everyone i know of how Sony and Microsoft are the "thieves" when it comes to it.

BRiT

27-May-2013, 21:29

It's profit maximising, and nothing else. And i will personally do my outmost to educated everyone i know of how Sony and Microsoft are the "thieves" when it comes to it.

You're forgetting to mention the real thieves pushing for it, the publishers and the developers. The likes of Sony and MS are merely the technology enablers.

expletive

27-May-2013, 21:43

Just because the industry wants to paint a picture (pun intended) of second hand sellers and buyers as "pirates" doesn't mean it's true. If we buy into that the world is filled with batards stealing other peoples work on a daily basis.

I havent characterized anyone as thieves, only that i think the game creators should get compensated (in some fashion) for every sale or *transfer* of a license of their game. I'm just imagining if i were a developer and (e.g. quantic dream) i was compensated for 2 million copies of my game and technically somewhere around 3 million were 'consumed.'

I think anyone who loves games should want them to be paid for every sale and transfer. It is far better for the industry and gamers if a larger share of the money goes to the talent, instead of the intermediaries (i.e. gamestop.) The middle men add very little to the equation long term.

Davros

27-May-2013, 21:56

1 I don't see what gives Gamestop the right to "transfer" a license that they don't control.

They do control it they paid money to own that license

pcchen

27-May-2013, 22:01

I havent characterized anyone as thieves, only that i think the game creators should get compensated (in some fashion) for every sale or *transfer* of a license of their game. I'm just imagining if i were a developer and (e.g. quantic dream) i was compensated for 2 million copies of my game and technically somewhere around 3 million were 'consumed.'

To be honest, if you want to do that, you probably should go for a subscription model. Actually, with current trend, I suspect that more developers are likely to go this route than not.

The question of whether the "first sale doctrine" should apply to digital good has been debated for quite some time (We have a thread (http://forum.beyond3d.com/showthread.php?t=62118) about this too). Generally the US copyright office tend to believe that it should apply to licenses with physical goods only, while the EU decided that it should apply to digital goods too.

expletive

27-May-2013, 22:03

They do control it they paid money to own that license

I don't really care what they did to get it, it's just another license transfer absent of the content creator, which I've said i do not agree with.

-tkf-

27-May-2013, 22:41

You're forgetting to mention the real thieves pushing for it, the publishers and the developers. The likes of Sony and MS are merely the technology enablers.

True, except where they are the publishers :-\

-tkf-

27-May-2013, 22:46

I havent characterized anyone as thieves, only that i think the game creators should get compensated (in some fashion) for every sale or *transfer* of a license of their game. I'm just imagining if i were a developer and (e.g. quantic dream) i was compensated for 2 million copies of my game and technically somewhere around 3 million were 'consumed.'

I think anyone who loves games should want them to be paid for every sale and transfer. It is far better for the industry and gamers if a larger share of the money goes to the talent, instead of the intermediaries (i.e. gamestop.) The middle men add very little to the equation long term.

Then tell us where this would end? Consumables would be the only products where selling it on a second hand market would be free of licenses?

Books music movies cars furniture clothes etc would require a license fee if ever sold on a second hand market...?

expletive

27-May-2013, 23:36

Then tell us where this would end? Consumables would be the only products where selling it on a second hand market would be free of licenses?

Books music movies cars furniture clothes etc would require a license fee if ever sold on a second hand market...?

Traditional durable goods have never had licenses,they don't need them, but that's not what we are discussing here. This thread is about software (more specifically-digital interactive media), its different, and afaik they have always been based on licenses.

-tkf-

28-May-2013, 04:56

Traditional durable goods have never had licenses,they don't need them, but that's not what we are discussing here. This thread is about software (more specifically-digital interactive media), its different, and afaik they have always been based on licenses.

True but you seem worried about loss of money, not the legal aspect of licenses:

I I'm just imagining if i were a developer and (e.g. quantic dream) i was compensated for 2 million copies of my game and technically somewhere around 3 million were 'consumed.' .

So you think it's fair that book authors doesn't get a cut when someone buys a new book, reads it in two days and sells it as "practically new" and recoups 80% of his investment . The author still misses a good chunck of money on a "new sale". Same goes for music and movies. It may be a legal thing, but the loss of money is just as great on other goods than software.

If you accept that every second hand sale should give the original publishers a cut when it's games, you would have a hard time arguing it shouldn't be the case elsewhere..

And at least in the EU there has been examples of used licenses been resold and it's legal as well.

Daozang

28-May-2013, 09:37

i was compensated for 2 million copies of my game and technically somewhere around 3 million were 'consumed.

Not even technically.
You sold two million copies. Out of those two million, one million was re-sold.
You either rent me the game, at the appropriate price, since I own nothing, or sell it to me, so I can do whatever I like with it.
You can't have both.

What is the next step? Having a camera in the living room counting how many people are watching your interactive movie?
They can easily argue, that every person that watches as you play is a potential sale gone to waste...

Snyder

28-May-2013, 10:30

I don't really care what they did to get it, it's just another license transfer absent of the content creator, which I've said i do not agree with.

You are aware of the first sale doctrine? (which e.g. has been explicitly upheld even for pure software licenses/"digital copies" in the EuGH/ECJ last year)

Blazkowicz

28-May-2013, 10:48

What is the next step? Having a camera in the living room counting how many people are watching your interactive movie?
They can easily argue, that every person that watches as you play is a potential sale gone to waste...

Microsoft patented just that, actually.
http://www.google.com/patents/US20120278904

With the new Xbox and Kinect 2.0, they do have the ability to bring such a scheme, though even some people at Microsoft might find that gross and I doubt it will happen.

Davros

28-May-2013, 12:47

What is the next step? Having a camera in the living room counting how many people are watching your interactive movie?.

According to Extreme Tech, via Evil Avatar, it’s that straight forward. The abstract states, “The users consuming the content on a display device are monitored so that if the number of user-views licensed is exceeded, remedial action may be taken.”
http://www.vg247.com/2013/05/24/microsofts-kinect-patent-suggest-they-will-be-always-be-watching/

Davros

28-May-2013, 12:48

bugger ninja edited by blazkowiz :D

Daozang

28-May-2013, 13:27

Ok!
The only thing missing is the Game Police and we are set!

Blazkowicz

28-May-2013, 14:22

My software did an illegal operation, will I go to jail?

Daozang

28-May-2013, 14:35

My software did an illegal operation, will I go to jail?

gamepolice.exe has encountered an error and needs to close.
We are sorry for the inconvenience.

:lol:

eastmen

01-Jun-2013, 19:34

I always knew that when I buy a game I essentially buy a ticket to the circus.
An experience, a memory...
It's like going on a trip to Rome, with no antialiasing and poor texturing. /s

Same with a DVD or a CD I guess.
Of course I can re-sell those, and the ones and zeroes remain the same despite all the hand changing.

Anyway, I'm curious...
How are they going to stop me from calling half my neighborhood at my house to play (or watch someone playing) a game?
Are we going to eventually have a game police?

Edit
If I buy a car today, and sell it tomorrow, should Ford ask the next buyer for license fees?
It's in no way an inferior product, since I never even used it.
Of course, we can name my Ford, a memory or an experience, and see where that takes us.

The problem here, is not the quality or the age of the product.
It's the fact that with enough spin, some people can sell the same thing as many times as they can.
I sincerely hope, that if and when this happens, the consumer will decide that the only way he'll buy the product, is from the bargain bin.
You know, the place were all things go, when their value has deteriorated.

Know any bargain bins for memories or experiences?

The car would loose a huge chunk of its value and the warranty . so good luck selling it for what you paid for it.

What your describing with the car is akin to online passes. Which everyone complained about last gen.

-tkf-

01-Jun-2013, 20:40

The car would loose a huge chunk of its value and the warranty . so good luck selling it for what you paid for it.

that is not his point, the guy that buys his car will NOT pay a cent to the original maker of the car, just like used games.

Davros

01-Jun-2013, 21:09

Traditional durable goods have never had licenses,they don't need them,

And software doesnt need a license either, my software never had a license can you explain why I needed one ?

mrcorbo

02-Jun-2013, 02:35

Sorry it's just that I think "you'll have to learn to live with DD" is condescending. It's just YOUR preference, and a large part of the population doesn't have the same preference as you do. Both will continue to coexist, like all other media, as long as there's a market for it.

I still don't get where condescending comes from. I really think disk-based sales are going to continue to lose favor among consumers wherever digital options are able to offer comparable quantity and quality of content. We'll see, I guess.

The flaw in your method is that it still doesn't provide ownership, they are dependent on a remote server, the ongoing maintenance and security of these servers, and the good will of the company which WILL pull the plug eventually (if you doubt any of these points are impactful, look up Microsoft music DRM servers, or the mess they did with Danger Hiptop in 2009, or Sony being hacked and had extreme downtime). It can only be considered long term renting, but legally they don't have to keep your games working beyond the warranty period. It has a remote kill switch. It's a "planned obsolescence" implementation. It also becomes the biggest hacking and DDoS target in the history of gaming (imo), making at least some downtime a real possibility. I won't have any of this.

My method specifically doesn't require the servers for you to access your content except to validate disk-installs when you don't have the disk. Once content is on your machine, it would no longer require online validation to work.

The rest is all your speculation of what could happen. You know what else could happen? Your house could burn down destroying all your media. In that situation, you'd have been better off if all of your games were digital downloads as recovering them would be much easier.

Music:
In the early days, Apple, Sony and Microsoft were selling DRM music in encrypted AAC, ATRAC and WMA. It needed a server connection to move you files around (which is what you're proposing for games). We started a campaign against that, I fought for this and I'm very proud of what we accomplished. We killed it, and now we enjoy non-DRM music everywhere.

Even then, after all this time, people like me can still buy CDs. Download version are becoming much more popular, but that wouldn't have happened with a DRM'd format. Still every single one of my albums are available on CD.

I doubt "you" had any major influence on this. CDs and mp3s already being established formats with broad device support did. As I said, it always comes down to use cases and how DRM impacts them. In this case, the various DRM schemes all tied you to specific hardware and kept people from using their purchased music everywhere they wanted. Given this, it's actually more surprising that Apple have been able to get as many people to buy in as they have. And it doesn't support your notions of significant numbers of people being against DRM.

Movies:
In the early days of DVD, there was an attempt at creating a DRM format called DIVX, which needed a phone line to give you permission to do what you want with your purchase. Once again, we fought it, and we won.

No one had to fight it, it was still-born. It failed because it was a bad idea that was worse than the existing options that everyone was already using.

Renting physical films basically died, it's obsolete because we have streaming services like netflix. Physical media ownership didn't die. Bluray sales are still rising 2011 to 2012, new releases are $30 and they still sell like crazy. The "ownership" sales are collectors, and they aren't going anywhere in the DD realm. Who the heck would buy films on the playstation store? We only rent them, because online DRM means no ownership, it's a short term consumption which works extremely great for renting, but not buying.

There is no digital option that offers universal access. Again, they are all tied to specific hardware. When there is, it will make a huge difference. As it is Apple again is doing quite well selling movies though the Itunes store. I'm holding out for a system that allows me to access my movies on phone, console and PC no matter where I am. Unitl then I will continue to buy BluRays and rip them to my NAS as Matroska files which allows me that access.

Ultraviolet is about to become the best of both worlds. Collectors buy a bluray at a high price, and it comes with an Ultraviolet code. People like you who prefer DD exclusively, will only buy the Ultraviolet version, no clutter. We all get what we want, and I strongly support this because it's studio agnostic and hardware agnostic, just like the bluray forum.

Ultraviolet is half-assed and suffers from many of the same concerns you've raised about other forms of DD. I'm shocked that you think it's worth supporting given your prior statements.

eBooks:
Tor Books released their eBooks in non-DRM format, and their sales went UP. I'm glad we have a good guy in this field, and we favor their books. This is an ongoing battle but we're about to win.
I will still be able to buy all my books in hard cover for a long long time (which I do). eBooks are not killing books, they will continue to be a preference.

Yeah, get back to me when "you" win that one. Amazon were smart to create Kindle apps for many different platforms and they are reaping the rewards of that decision and will continue to do so.

Games:
We fought them all, and this games DRM is just another one of those.

Well I wish "you" good luck with all your "fights". I hope consumer behavior doesn't disappoint you too much.

Sorry about calling out your use of the "we fought against..." phrasing. It just struck me as funny. On the plus side, I can't really take issue with you accusing me of being condescending now.

MrFox

02-Jun-2013, 03:48

Don't take it too personal. I'm also condescending when I'm having a hissy fit.
Thank you for wishing me luck.

mrcorbo

02-Jun-2013, 04:51

Don't take it too personal. I'm also condescending when I'm having a hissy fit.
Thank you for wishing me luck.

You're going to use "U Mad" now? Really?

Well now I am upset that I tried to have a rational debate with you and wasted my time.

MrFox

02-Jun-2013, 05:11

You're going to use "U Mad" now? Really?

Well now I am upset that I tried to have a rational debate with you and wasted my time.
No, I'm dropping out, because if it has to continue in the political forum, it means I made a mistake. I don't want to continue on this path.

Let's agree to disagree.

eastmen

02-Jun-2013, 06:01

that is not his point, the guy that buys his car will NOT pay a cent to the original maker of the car, just like used games.

Unless the guy needs parts . \

When was the last time you needed to buy a new cadalitic converter for your copy of uncharted ? New head gasket for your gears of war ?

-tkf-

02-Jun-2013, 06:25

Unless the guy needs parts . \

When was the last time you needed to buy a new cadalitic converter for your copy of uncharted ? New head gasket for your gears of war ?

When i need parts i usually get 3rd party parts, or whatever it's called. But I sometimes buy dlc for my car games :-) and there is no 3rd party supplier when it's games.

eastmen

03-Jun-2013, 01:24

When i need parts i usually get 3rd party parts, or whatever it's called. But I sometimes buy dlc for my car games :-) and there is no 3rd party supplier when it's games.

Sure , hess , shell , BP all 3rd party suppliers :-)

Cars and games aren't comparable in the least

Daozang

03-Jun-2013, 10:52

You can spin this all you want...
I can provide an example using books, but you will argue that nothing is comparable with games.

I'll just say, again, that publishers can either rent us their games, or sell them to us.

-tkf-

03-Jun-2013, 21:38

Sure , hess , shell , BP all 3rd party suppliers :-)

Cars and games aren't comparable in the least

Of course they are, the same logic applies everywhere where something used is sold instead of a new item.

I can (and do) buy a used car, the original car maker doesn't earn a cent on me.

Blazkowicz

04-Jun-2013, 14:50

Rights holders are used to receiving money on creaky old stuff. If you sing "happy birthday to you" in public you're supposed to pay royalties to some company, based on a copyright registration decades after the song was invented (does that mean the original rights holders stole it?)

Even Mein Kampf is waiting for the 70th anniversary of its author's death.

eastmen

04-Jun-2013, 16:26

Of course they are, the same logic applies everywhere where something used is sold instead of a new item.

I can (and do) buy a used car, the original car maker doesn't earn a cent on me.

and yet there are many ways they do earn money off used cars. Certified pre owned , parts and the like.

I guess your more found of having a console that constantly breaks down as the way for these companies to offset the used market and discs that can only be played x amount of times before they break apart while spinning.

expletive

04-Jun-2013, 18:35

Of course they are, the same logic applies everywhere where something used is sold instead of a new item.

I can (and do) buy a used car, the original car maker doesn't earn a cent on me.

Ah but they are trying to, that's where the whole "Certified Pre-Owned" cars concept came from.

EDIT:Not that i feel the same about traditional "durable" goods as i do about digital entertainment.

-tkf-

06-Jun-2013, 22:27

and yet there are many ways they do earn money off used cars. Certified pre owned , parts and the like.

I guess your more found of having a console that constantly breaks down as the way for these companies to offset the used market and discs that can only be played x amount of times before they break apart while spinning.

And there is extra controllers, battery chargers, heaphones, harddrives, memory cards, dlc's and lots of other stuff on consoles.

I haven't bought a single original part for my car.

And please drop the condescending tone, it's not needed.

-tkf-

06-Jun-2013, 22:29

Ah but they are trying to, that's where the whole "Certified Pre-Owned" cars concept came from.

EDIT:Not that i feel the same about traditional "durable" goods as i do about digital entertainment.

Everyone is trying to make more money, and i see nothing wrong with providing some kind of service, added value or whatever when i buy something used from a company that produced the the product to begin with.

Sony, Nintendo and Microsoft can just open a shop for used games if it is so profitable.

Scott_Arm

08-Jun-2013, 18:12

I'm firm in my believe that buying a game is no different than buying any other good, and I should be able to trade, sell or gift it.

But here's the thing. Games have become incredibly expensive to make. Some games lose money selling less than 3-5 million copies. That's insane. Game sales for individual titles do not seem to be going up. Game budgets should be shrinking. Games should be getting shorter. Not every game should be cutting edge. They should be selling more add-ons and microtransactions. How well will that go over with gamers? NOT WELL. Probably worse than the DRM scheme that's being pushed.

Who wants to buy a $60 game that is 5 hours and doesn't have cutting edge graphics, animation, sound and multiplayer features? Pretty much nobody. So what's the solution? Try to get more money out of each customer while trying to keep pushing the hardware and features as hard as possible. And here we are, with DRM schemes and all that crap.

This is really a no win situation for developers and publishers. Regardless, I think we're going to see the number of developers pushing cutting edge games will shrink. These measures will at best delay the inevitable collapse of many more game studios

Billy Idol

08-Jun-2013, 18:21

Scott_Arm

08-Jun-2013, 18:34

I do not believe that a game that sells 5 million copies makes negative profit. I guess 'does not meet expectations' is the right thing to say.

http://www.psu.com/a018894/Analyst--Tomb-Raider-must-sell-5-10-million-to-profit?page=0

Billy Idol

08-Jun-2013, 19:04

http://www.psu.com/a018894/Analyst--Tomb-Raider-must-sell-5-10-million-to-profit?page=0

Thanks for the link. Interesting.

Billy Idol

08-Jun-2013, 19:15

Scott_Arm

08-Jun-2013, 19:31

Thinking about it: doesn't this point towards a serious problem in the game business?

Tomb Raider was a great game, but not substantial better than other single player games as e.g. Bioshock Infinite. In this sense, the 100 million were not good spend on this one. And I am not sure if used game sales or other related things are the reason for this.

That's what I was saying in my post. The cost of making so-called blockbuster titles that are cutting edge is so high that realistically they are destined to fail in the majority of cases. To pay those games you need to make more money off each person that plays it, or you need to somehow get more people to pay for it. I imagine they think DRM will help with the latter. They see the used game industry as a negative (I disagree), even though it's a known quantity, when they should be shrinking their budgets instead. The problem with shrinking budgets is gamers will not accept less (content, technology) for the same price. Personally, I think the industry is basically f'ed, because they can't make gamers happy no matter what they try to do. You'll just see more devs go out of business, and there will be a shift to smaller downloadable titles from smaller studios. The incentive to push the hardware and make huge elaborate games is going to disappear.

Billy Idol

08-Jun-2013, 19:57

That's what I was saying in my post. The cost of making so-called blockbuster titles that are cutting edge is so high that realistically they are destined to fail in the majority of cases. To pay those games you need to make more money off each person that plays it, or you need to somehow get more people to pay for it. I imagine they think DRM will help with the latter. They see the used game industry as a negative (I disagree), even though it's a known quantity, when they should be shrinking their budgets instead. The problem with shrinking budgets is gamers will not accept less (content, technology) for the same price. Personally, I think the industry is basically f'ed, because they can't make gamers happy no matter what they try to do. You'll just see more devs go out of business, and there will be a shift to smaller downloadable titles from smaller studios. The incentive to push the hardware and make huge elaborate games is going to disappear.

I agree with your opinion.

Do you think that episodic content might be a remedy? Or maybe shorter games that they can sell for a small amount of money. I am thinking about Blood Dragon for instance, it offered roughly 6hours great content, high quality and a lot of fun..but costed only 15 Euros new. Same is true in my opinion for the game Gunslinger.

Scott_Arm

08-Jun-2013, 20:52

I agree with your opinion.

Do you think that episodic content might be a remedy? Or maybe shorter games that they can sell for a small amount of money. I am thinking about Blood Dragon for instance, it offered roughly 6hours great content, high quality and a lot of fun..but costed only 15 Euros new. Same is true in my opinion for the game Gunslinger.

Who knows. I have no insight as to how profitable the $10-20 games industry is. I know some Live Arcade games and PSN games have made a ton of money. What percentage of the releases make their money back, I have no idea. I have a feeling those are rough waters as well.

In their case, with direct download and self-publishing (on PS4 at least), I imagine a heavy DRM model is probably preferable. They figure the game is cheap enough that people will be averse to buying it if there is no way to pirate, rent instead.

brasnial

13-Jun-2013, 09:09

spelling again the bane of my life can you guess why ?e ......Sony has chosen to not embrace DRM now but they will in the future of that I have no doult .

We have no chose people the future for gaming is code on the internet not a physical disk holding that code .......DRM will exist in the future .

Microsoft are not the first to embrace this smart phones tablets already have and now look how successful they are with no used game market ...so far Microsoft are taking about still being able to sell your games you brought or if you wish give them to a friend .
Name one smart phone company that allows your to give away or sell your digital games .......now its not a fair comparison a know games on consoles cost so much more but still its coming digital is the future all us gamers can do is to try and make sure we still have the right to sell our digital copy which Microsoft seems to be allowing us to do .:-) *

Davros

13-Jun-2013, 09:13

Er Incase you hadnt noticed we already have the right to sell our games ms is trying to limit that right, they are limiting who can buy and sell they are also limiting the amount of money i would get by selling.

ps: you never answered
A creative mind also makes a coffee table a creative mind also makes a statue so you believe everytime a coffee table is resold the carpenter should get a cut the sculptor ??

-tkf-

13-Jun-2013, 09:27

brasnial

13-Jun-2013, 09:31

A creative mind also makes a coffee table a creative mind also makes a statue so you believe everytime a coffee table is resold the carpenter should get a cut the sculptor ??

so what they are all products of a creative mind (your criteria)

ps: you are against a free market you cannot shop around for the best price if you sell your game it must be to an authorized reseller ms are restricting who can buy and sell used games and you think thats a good thing..

I see games as a invention of a creative mind so I have no qualms about giving a cut of all money make by that creation to those who created it in the first place .
Its about giving back a fair cut to all ....a game is not a disk its the code on that disk ....the disk is just a delivery system that's all the value is in the code as far as I'm concerned .

The future is digital I'm sorry but it is in my opinion ......we are discussing he death of game disks here and what the future will hold for us as gamers .

Now code has a value in the future hell its here now what's a DVD dusk really worth nothing without the code on it .
View it as selling a licence to use a code because like it or not that's what's or ready happening with smart phones .

Us as games should be thinking OK but let's us still sell our licences to others .........we are at a cross other point in my opinion .

Fighting against change is a waste of energy in my opinion fighting for rights with in that new order is not ......as long as you can still sell or give your licences to use code still exist where's the problem .

I'm not looking to change anyone else's opinion I'm just looking to debate a future where we all can still enjoy the hobby we all love :-)

MrFloopy

13-Jun-2013, 09:48

You should really go to the correct thread about used games, moral, life and everything.

Games are not special, but special people are trying to make the case that they are special.

Games are not special when compared to other copyright material. They are special if you want to compare it to a piece of furniture.

Just curious, can you sell your theatre ticket after you have used it, and expect that the person you sold it to should get to go to the theatre and watch the next show?

Assuming you don't think that's "not special" either, then we can agree, not all purchasable items grant you the same rights as others.

-tkf-

13-Jun-2013, 10:15

Games are not special when compared to other copyright material. They are special if you want to compare it to a piece of furniture.

Just curious, can you sell your theatre ticket after you have used it, and expect that the person you sold it to should get to go to the theatre and watch the next show?

Assuming you don't think that's "not special" either, then we can agree, not all purchasable items grant you the same rights as others.

Nope, but i expect to be able to sell my Theater Ticket to someone else if i can't make it.

Can you sell a book after you read it?

The idea that has been presented is that the reason we want to protect developers and publishers is that they are special because.. why? Other industries lose money on second hand sales so just because they aren't copyrighted works it's ok?

MrFloopy

13-Jun-2013, 10:22

Nope, but i expect to be able to sell my Theater Ticket to someone else if i can't make it.

Can you sell a book after you read it?

The idea that has been presented is that the reason we want to protect developers and publishers is that they are special because.. why? Other industries lose money on second hand sales so just because they aren't copyrighted works it's ok?

Who says you can't resell your game before you use it?

Yes you can sell a book after you read it. Only point I'm making is that not all products have the same resale opportunities. It appears you are making the case that nothing is special and should be treated the same. I'm just calling out what is a painfully obvious untruth.

I like my chances of successfully arguing a game is like a trip to the theatre a lot more than your chances of arguing a game is like a chair. :D

-tkf-

13-Jun-2013, 11:11

Who says you can't resell your game before you use it?

Yes you can sell a book after you read it. Only point I'm making is that not all products have the same resale opportunities. It appears you are making the case that nothing is special and should be treated the same. I'm just calling out what is a painfully obvious untruth.

I like my chances of successfully arguing a game is like a trip to the theatre a lot more than your chances of arguing a game is like a chair. :D

Of course it differs what resale value a product can have.. just as it differs with games, right?

The people that cry over used games do it because they think it's "unfair", do you agree?

They cry because the original makes/publishers doesn't get a cut on 2nd hand sales.

But if it's unfair towards games there is a good list of other products that can join that list.

Just because i say chair and you think it's very funny "haha" doesn't mean i don't have a point. Whoever makes chairs will in principle lose sales when people buy second hand chairs. The difference is the amount and chair fanboys ready to back up chair resellers :)

My point was, try to draw a line, if you accept the death of used games why stop there.

MrFloopy

13-Jun-2013, 11:36

Of course it differs what resale value a product can have.. just as it differs with games, right?

The people that cry over used games do it because they think it's "unfair", do you agree?

They cry because the original makes/publishers doesn't get a cut on 2nd hand sales.

But if it's unfair towards games there is a good list of other products that can join that list.

Just because i say chair and you think it's very funny "haha" doesn't mean i don't have a point. Whoever makes chairs will in principle lose sales when people buy second hand chairs. The difference is the amount and chair fanboys ready to back up chair resellers :)

My point was, try to draw a line, if you accept the death of used games why stop there.

I never said you didn't have a point, I just don't agree with it.

To me it's quite simple. If I create something, I should be able to sell it under any terms I want. There is nothing stopping a theatre company from saying tickets are reusable if they wish. I can for example buy a season pass to the footy, and I can pass that on to anyone I like.

If I make a chair I SHOULD be able to sell it under any conditions I like. Why shouldn't I be able to say, "He mate, I built this chair for you. When you are finished with it, return it to me, so that I may sell it to another".

I believe the maker of that chair should have every right to make that deal. On the flip side, I believe that a customer has every right in the world to say, "Thanks for making me the chair, but you know what, if I can't resell it, I'd rather not take it thanks."

See the difference.

A seller should have the right to set any terms they wish, as consumers have every right to refuse them.

I have a very real problem with the EU saying that you cannot do that.

-tkf-

13-Jun-2013, 11:59

I never said you didn't have a point, I just don't agree with it.

To me it's quite simple. If I create something, I should be able to sell it under any terms I want. There is nothing stopping a theatre company from saying tickets are reusable if they wish. I can for example buy a season pass to the footy, and I can pass that on to anyone I like.

If I make a chair I SHOULD be able to sell it under any conditions I like. Why shouldn't I be able to say, "He mate, I built this chair for you. When you are finished with it, return it to me, so that I may sell it to another".

I believe the maker of that chair should have every right to make that deal. On the flip side, I believe that a customer has every right in the world to say, "Thanks for making me the chair, but you know what, if I can't resell it, I'd rather not take it thanks."

See the difference.

A seller should have the right to set any terms they wish, as consumers have every right to refuse them.

I have a very real problem with the EU saying that you cannot do that.

You can sell a chair and do like you say, it's called rental.

But if you sell me something you have to accept that i can resell it.

MrFloopy

13-Jun-2013, 12:25

You can sell a chair and do like you say, it's called rental.

But if you sell me something you have to accept that i can resell it.

Ah, except sale and rental have certain enforced legal consequences that are bundled with those contracts which may not suit the purpose of either seller or buyer. Time limits, responsibility for maintenance, liability for lost, stolen or damaged items, etc etc. A buyer and seller should have the right to make the contract of their choice.

Davros

13-Jun-2013, 12:30

To me it's quite simple. If I create something, I should be able to sell it under any terms I want.

Any terms ?
even unfair terms ? (like the software industry does already)
terms that deny me my consumer rights ? (like the software industry does already)
how about terms that you can change at any time even after the sale has been made? (like the software industry does already)
how about terms that you don't disclose until after the sale (like the software industry does already)

Hows are these for terms
" you agree the paint on this chair is illegal and causes cancer and thats ok"

" within 6 months of buying the chair you agree to murder -tkf-
Do you think you should be allowed to sell under those terms ?

MrFloopy

13-Jun-2013, 13:00

Any terms ?
even unfair terms ? (like the software industry does already)
terms that deny me my consumer rights ? (like the software industry does already)
how about terms that you can change at any time even after the sale has been made? (like the software industry does already)
how about terms that you don't disclose until after the sale (like the software industry does already)

Hows are these for terms
" you agree the paint on this chair is illegal and causes cancer and thats ok"

" within 6 months of buying the chair you agree to murder -tkf-
Do you think you should be allowed to sell under those terms ?

Yes I do think they should be able to make those terms you suggested. As you have the right to say no.

With regards to your cancer and murder points, your use of hyperbole is truly masterful.

RacVic

13-Jun-2013, 13:50

Pugger

13-Jun-2013, 14:02

I have a question for everyone.

You have designed a game on your own which when released has sold 100,000 copies via disk based media. After it's release and final accounting you have made a profit. One year after your game has sold it's last in store disk you receive confirmed information that your game has been sold an additional 100,000 times via the used game market.

Would you as the sole person responsible for the creation of said game feel entitled some percentage of the additional sales or would you be content with your take and move on to your next creation?

I'd be surprised if many developers didn't feel like they deserved a cut of the 2nd hand market.

Jwm

13-Jun-2013, 14:08

I have a question for everyone.

You have designed a game on your own which when released has sold 100,000 copies via disk based media. After it's release and final accounting you have made a profit. One year after your game has sold it's last in store disk you receive confirmed information that your game has been sold an additional 100,000 times via the used game market.

Would you as the sole person responsible for the creation of said game feel entitled some percentage of the additional sales or would you be content with your take and move on to your next creation?

I choose Steam or XBLA where I would not sell on disc. :wink:

Yes I would be upset, but since I allowed it to happen I would have to be only upset with myself. If I had entered into a contract with a publisher excluding them the rights of second hand sales then I would be upset with them.

brasnial

13-Jun-2013, 14:59

I have a question for everyone.

You have designed a game on your own which when released has sold 100,000 copies via disk based media. After it's release and final accounting you have made a profit. One year after your game has sold it's last in store disk you receive confirmed information that your game has been sold an additional 100,000 times via the used game market.

Would you as the sole person responsible for the creation of said game feel entitled some percentage of the additional sales or would you be content with your take and move on to your next creation?

I coder creatates a experience and there for should have a small cut from all who profit from his creation unless he waves his rights to his creation .:-)

brasnial

13-Jun-2013, 15:14

A game is a code created by a artist to express his vision for us all to enjoy in my eyes the problem is that he's not selling you the code but licence to use his code and enjoy his vision ......if you choose to sell his vision on in my opinion the artist who created the vision is due a small cut from the sell on fee.
Much like a royalty :-)

nutball

13-Jun-2013, 16:10

pMax

13-Jun-2013, 17:08

problem is - they should explicitly ask to change any "buy" button for videogames in "rent".

It would show the truth to customers. Problem is, customers would enrage and pretend much, much lower prices...

Because you do not 'buy' games like you buy telephones.

Davros

13-Jun-2013, 17:20

Yes I do think they should be able to make those terms you suggested. As you have the right to say no.

With regards to your cancer and murder points, your use of hyperbole is truly masterful.
Why thank you, I'm sure tkf will be overjoyed you think its fine to kill him because I could of refused.
your in the any practice is fine, because you dont have to buy camp..

Would you as the sole person responsible for the creation of said game feel entitled some percentage of the additional sales or would you be content with your take and move on to your next creation?

I'd move on, many people make things to sell as i have. I do not believe that I should get a cut every time something I've made is resold.

most goods go from manufacturer to wholesaler to retailers how would retailers feel having to give a cut of every sale to the manufacturer.
so the manufacturer sells to wholesaler makes money. gets a cut when the wholesaler sells to the retailer. Gets a cut when the retailer sells to the public. if the public then sells they get another cut ect, ect, ect

Davros

13-Jun-2013, 17:38

Much like a royalty :-)

Developers already are paid royalties from the publisher - you do like this idea of developers being paid many times over, only developers though because its software and software is somehow special

MrFloopy

14-Jun-2013, 02:01

Why thank you, I'm sure tkf will be overjoyed you think its fine to kill him because I could of refused.
your in the any practice is fine, because you dont have to buy camp..

I'd move on, many people make things to sell as i have. I do not believe that I should get a cut every time something I've made is resold.

most goods go from manufacturer to wholesaler to retailers how would retailers feel having to give a cut of every sale to the manufacturer.
so the manufacturer sells to wholesaler makes money. gets a cut when the wholesaler sells to the retailer. Gets a cut when the retailer sells to the public. if the public then sells they get another cut ect, ect, ect

Perhaps I wasn't clear. I was fine with your first set of statements. Your second set of statements with regards to cancer and murder were clear hyperbole which obviously didn't need answering.

To bring this conversation back to games, and the issue at hand, games are an experience, as are movies, books and music. If there is a way to do so, why shouldn't a creator be able to charge per experience?

pMax

14-Jun-2013, 15:30

If there is a way to do so, why shouldn't a creator be able to charge per experience?

Because I bought it.
If I buy a DVD, I pay a full price and I can resell it.
if I rent a DVD, I pay a fraction of the cost of buying it. And then it's ok to not resell it.

Davros

14-Jun-2013, 19:50

Practically everything is an experience, riding a bike is an experience
And now your suggesting every time i play my game I should have to pay
A game is just a set of instructions and the things those instructions operate on
exactly like this
http://img835.imageshack.us/img835/3263/wtyd.jpg (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/835/wtyd.jpg/)
You really think every time I rebuild it lego deserve a fee ?

AlphaWolf

14-Jun-2013, 20:03

I really think that if you want games to continue to improve in asset quality you will need to pay for it. If you cannot afford to buy into their program you should probably find something else to do. If they find they cannot sustain high quality games development it will die and we can all eagerly await the next edition of knock over the pigs.

Davros

14-Jun-2013, 23:28

bkilian

15-Jun-2013, 00:59

Silent_Buddha

15-Jun-2013, 01:28

And that can only be done, by removing practically the last right gamers have left.
Here's an idea
How about E.A use some of that 1.2 billion dollars net revenue they made in the last 3 months, that should buy some quality assets
another idea why dont they build up a library of high quality assets.

the greed of the software industry is simply staggering, they have the most favorable operating conditions of any industry ever and are they happy no
"we only made 1.2 billion in 3 months - its all the fault of those evil people who sell their games"
If used games disappear one day we will have publishers complaining
"millions of people didnt buy our games, thats millions of lost sales, not buying our games is like stealing food from the mouths of developers, we need to lobby congress to outlaw not buying our games"

Eh? Out of that 1.2 billion revenus they only had a net profit of 323 million. Which sounds like a lot but isn't when you considering that in the previous quarter they LOST 45 million and in the quarter before that they LOST 381 million.

For FY 2013 they made a relatively paltry 98 million USD for a company of their size. FY 2012 they only made 76 million USD in net profit. All of that doesn't even cover the money they lost from FY 2011 where they LOST 276 million USD.

EA are certainly not a shining beacon of a company making money hand over fist. They are barely making money and when they lose money, they lose more than they make in multiple years.

EA is a perfect example of how fragile the game development business is. All it takes is one high budget AAA game absolutely tanking to have EA possibly enter bankruptcy court like THQ and many other publishers before them. One benefit that EA has, however, is that due to their size and relatively stable performance over the years, their creditors are far more lenient and less likely to deny credit when they are losing money.

Take away creditor good will towards EA and they are just a single bad title away from potentially going out of business.

Regards,
SB