Erm am I being forced to buy these games ? If no then the last and only right I have is to fact to buy or not to buy the game.
DRM Implications *spin*
- Thread starter -tkf-
- Start date
Erm am I being forced to buy these games ? If no then the last and only right I have is to fact to buy or not to buy the game.
I used "to profit" as in "to gain/earn/benefit".
Now to answer you question let me set some points straight.
1)The value of every game, book, CD, DVD is not in the object itself it's all in the the content, is in the "software" not in the hardware. We can't deny this.
2)We no doubt have ownership on the object/hardware itself (book/game/DVD) but we legally have no right of ownership on the content on that object.
3)Since content and container are inseparable in books/dvd/games our ownership of the object is at all effects extended also on the content even if legally speaking we have no right over the content at all.
Now given these points and the fact that that we can't separate content and container, the only solution I see is to give for every used book/game/DVD sold a percentage to the owner of the content/IP/copyright .
This way the income obtained from re-selling used games/books/DVD will be divided between all parts/beneficiaries: the customers, the retailer (the intermediary), and the owner of the the IP/content/copyright which for video game is usually game the developer and/or the publisher.
We will thus keep our right to re-sell games but at the same time we do not deny a dev/publisher what is rightfully due to him.
Last edited by a moderator:
Isn't there a somewhat bigger issue here around IP and the validity of a EULA?
Surely the real question is can I charge someone for something (note I didn't say buy) and limit what they can do with it.
Rentals of just about everything seem to do exactly that.
It's interesting to note that none of the big 3 sell you a devkit, they "lease" you one with terms that it reverts ownership to them if your license is revoked.
There are lots of ways around the legal if you buy something you should be able to resell it mantra.
Ethically I don't see an issue IF the terms of the transaction are clear, you always have the choice to purchase or not purchase.
Distribution will move online overtime and I predict when it does used sales will be a thing of the past.
AFAIK I can't sell my app store purchases or my ITunes purchases or my Steam purchases and no one seems to have an issue with that.
Surely the real question is can I charge someone for something (note I didn't say buy) and limit what they can do with it.
Rentals of just about everything seem to do exactly that.
It's interesting to note that none of the big 3 sell you a devkit, they "lease" you one with terms that it reverts ownership to them if your license is revoked.
There are lots of ways around the legal if you buy something you should be able to resell it mantra.
Ethically I don't see an issue IF the terms of the transaction are clear, you always have the choice to purchase or not purchase.
Distribution will move online overtime and I predict when it does used sales will be a thing of the past.
AFAIK I can't sell my app store purchases or my ITunes purchases or my Steam purchases and no one seems to have an issue with that.
Most don't have a problem with it on other platforms for a couple of reasons: 1) They were never given the choice to start with or 2) There are other platforms they use that still allow for used purchases. So why do they care? Guess what happens when there are no longer any new platforms that allow used purchases? Yeah, all hell will break loose, but by then it will be too late to complain.
Personally I can go either way. As long as the games I like still get made I will also find ways to buy them. Hopefully they come up with other ways for customers to pay at lower price points. I'm open to rentals, timed demos, micro-transactions, trade-ins, etc. If they keep with the buy or nothing with a high price tag at launch & only drop the price until later on, then I'll have a problem with it. There has to be more options than that. Steam has shown some willingness to change that model.
Tommy McClain
Personally I can go either way. As long as the games I like still get made I will also find ways to buy them. Hopefully they come up with other ways for customers to pay at lower price points. I'm open to rentals, timed demos, micro-transactions, trade-ins, etc. If they keep with the buy or nothing with a high price tag at launch & only drop the price until later on, then I'll have a problem with it. There has to be more options than that. Steam has shown some willingness to change that model.
Tommy McClain
To say we disagree would be an understatement.
The value of a dumbell, a chair, a car, clothes well anything is not in the hardware either, but how it's shaped, build or made. It's basicly still someones idea and work that we buy. If i buy a chair and sell it the day after to someone who was just about to buy a new chair, but got mine for 80% of the value did i not just "gain/earn/benefit" on someones elses behalf? So i guess you want me to pay a percentage of my used chair "gain/earn/benefit" to the original manufacturer of the chair?
Wrong, i own the content on the CD/DVD/BOOK/CARTRIDGE whatever you can come up with, i did not pay the big bucks for the paper or the plastic that makes up the container for my content.
All this used games is piracy is an industry doing a napster styled stupid move again. When i sell my used items i do not have them anymore if i pirate a game i just take it without buying.The industry have had a choice since forever, embrace used games and start earning on second hand sales or make your games last longer. And they chose to call anyone who buys a used game a pirate, naturally i can only hope that they get to pay big bucks for that mistake.
Simcity not sold to me because of DRM, i have the money buy no way i am putting money in that direction. And i have plenty of dollars not being spend.
The value of a dumbell, a chair, a car, clothes well anything is not in the hardware either, but how it's shaped, build or made. It's basicly still someones idea and work that we buy. If i buy a chair and sell it the day after to someone who was just about to buy a new chair, but got mine for 80% of the value did i not just "gain/earn/benefit" on someones elses behalf? So i guess you want me to pay a percentage of my used chair "gain/earn/benefit" to the original manufacturer of the chair?
Wrong, i own the content on the CD/DVD/BOOK/CARTRIDGE whatever you can come up with, i did not pay the big bucks for the paper or the plastic that makes up the container for my content.
All this used games is piracy is an industry doing a napster styled stupid move again. When i sell my used items i do not have them anymore if i pirate a game i just take it without buying.The industry have had a choice since forever, embrace used games and start earning on second hand sales or make your games last longer. And they chose to call anyone who buys a used game a pirate, naturally i can only hope that they get to pay big bucks for that mistake.
Simcity not sold to me because of DRM, i have the money buy no way i am putting money in that direction. And i have plenty of dollars not being spend.
True and the EU is looking into that: http://rt.com/news/europe-court-used-software-resale-354/
And within the digital domain of Steam,iTunes and App Store resales should be very very easy.
Disclaimer i own lots of steam games but as i have said before i am trying to quit my Steam habit because of the stupid DRM limitations.
Yeah I'm aware of the European ruling, I think all that will happen is that publishers will turn purchases into something else that isn't covered by the law. Rental, Lease whatever.
Clearly I pay to rent a video (online or otherwise), but I don't own it and can't resell it, and I don't believe the EU ruling changes that.
We'll see what happens with ITunes/Steam in the EU.
Clearly I pay to rent a video (online or otherwise), but I don't own it and can't resell it, and I don't believe the EU ruling changes that.
We'll see what happens with ITunes/Steam in the EU.
Oh thats fine then as long as we arnt forced to buy a product companies should be able to get away with anything. I guess you use that reason to justify the selling of goods that dont work "well you dont have to buy it so its ok"
ps: about European Union Laws
From the Crysis 3 Eula
The courtroom
Defense Lawyer "This case of attempted murder should be dismissed because both my client and the victim agreed that the laws on murder dont apply to them"
No.
The value of an object is in the hardware, in the material used to build it + the industrial design rights.
The value of Vg is in the software, in the IP
And really the law already makes a distinction between tangible goods (a chair) and intangible ones (a software) and treats them differently.
Simply the laws about intangible goods are inadequate, dated.
No.
You own the right to USE that software/game but the owner of the software is the developer/publisher that made it.
There is a big difference between usfruct and ownership.
Sorry pal I if sound pedantic but if they turn purchase into something not covered by the law they will do something illegal.
Every economic transaction is covered by the law; when it's not then it's illegal.
Now I am going off topic, sorry.
What I can say, staying on topic, is that the implication for customers will be minimal if used games will be locked.
We surely won't be able to sell/buy used games, be them in digital of physical form, but at the same time we will probably never need to.
There will be benefits as well and the main and most obvious one should be a reduction in the price.
Also the quality of game and services will improve: developers and publishers will have a far higher income with used market gone which will allow them to destine more money/resources on development, services and infrastructures with benefit for us customers.
Last edited by a moderator:
Apple have patented tech for reselling and sharing content including eBooks.
I doubt it will be taken up though, publishers want their cake and to eat it too as always
all these systems like steam and origin ect could of enabled used game sales if they wanted to
Of course what they really want is pay for play.
people are playing our games more than once and we arnt getting paid how can we survive its not fair.
all these systems like steam and origin ect could of enabled used game sales if they wanted to
Of course what they really want is pay for play.
people are playing our games more than once and we arnt getting paid how can we survive its not fair.
At least your positive, bordeline naive positive but positive should never be a bad thing
There is no way that i believe anything of the above to be true, the only reason used games are being hunted down is to lift profits. World of Warcraft and other MMO's sell for the same price as games that have a used market. Diablo 3 Simcity 5 etc does the same. Steam games cost more than the disc counterparts.
You have nothing to backup your positive thoughts.
And you completely ignore the history of video games, imagine if your positive thinking started during the NES days. There would be no way to play games older than the current generation.
Tell me, how do i go around playing music when i am not home alone, the music i purchased wasn't meant for other ears than my own? I rent a movie, if i watch it with a couple of friends i am stealing from the movie studio, money they could use to produce even bigger explosions in the next movie. Sorry you can't borrow my book, that is stealing!
^^^
The only reason why used games are being hunted is because they "take revenue away" form developers and and publishers which is a FACT.
Quantic Dream co-founder Guillaume de Fondaumiere said:
"We basically sold to date approximately two million units. (Heavy Rain)
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.
Also he concludes saying that:
"Because when developers and publishers alike are going to see that they can't make a living out of producing games that are sold through retail channels, because of second-hand gaming, they will simply stop making these games,"
This statement above is the why used game are being hunted.
So which outcome do you prefer you prefer?
1) No more used games, lower prices, an other benefits for customers.
2) Second hand market alive and well but less games being developed, less developers and a slow death of the medium.
The only reason why used games are being hunted is because they "take revenue away" form developers and and publishers which is a FACT.
Quantic Dream co-founder Guillaume de Fondaumiere said:
"We basically sold to date approximately two million units. (Heavy Rain)
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.
Also he concludes saying that:
"Because when developers and publishers alike are going to see that they can't make a living out of producing games that are sold through retail channels, because of second-hand gaming, they will simply stop making these games,"
This statement above is the why used game are being hunted.
So which outcome do you prefer you prefer?
1) No more used games, lower prices, an other benefits for customers.
2) Second hand market alive and well but less games being developed, less developers and a slow death of the medium.
Last edited by a moderator:
Not Fact, revenue can only be taken from them if it was theirs in the first place
You know before digital distribution became a reality A lot of people were saying that because of almost no distribution costs, no manufacturing costs, no packaging costs and no retailer cut games would get cheaper
I remember thinking you poor naive fools do you really think publishers (one of the most scumbag-ish industries ever) would ever pass on the saving to the consumer. Turned out they kept them for themselves. What a surprise...
^^^
Digital distribution is not a strong reality; the main distribution system is still physical distribution.
We should expect a change in prices for digital distribution only when it will become the main distribution.
No surprise indeed that prices are still high: when the demand is low prices are always high.
Digital distribution is not a strong reality; the main distribution system is still physical distribution.
We should expect a change in prices for digital distribution only when it will become the main distribution.
No surprise indeed that prices are still high: when the demand is low prices are always high.
Last edited by a moderator:
What!!!!
The physical retail channel has the same demand and massive overheads compared to digital yet they can still undercut digital.
your argument is digital is only high priced because it has cheaper competition and only when that cheaper competition is gone will they be able to lower prices.
That argument has no logic...
The physical retail channel has the same demand and massive overheads compared to digital yet they can still undercut digital.
your argument is digital is only high priced because it has cheaper competition and only when that cheaper competition is gone will they be able to lower prices.
That argument has no logic...
The price will be set to make the most profit.
The money spent on the game quality will be just high enough to make the most profit.
If it's more profitable to spend $40M in publicity and only $20M on the game, they will (and they do).
The auth servers will be enabled only as long as they make profit, and will be shutdown as soon as there's more profit to be made by selling you a new product.
Aggressive DRM allows controlled prices by eliminating both the used market, and the competition between different sales channels. (see abuses with the ebook pricing).
It allows planned obsolescence (see attempt at doing so with Disney "vault", it's more profitable that way, old productions are in the way of the new ones, they wish DVDs would self destruct when they say so).
It has nothing to do with game designers, it's mostly the publishers that want it (and maybe a few short-sighted game designer with a total lack of integrity, some of them with a simplistic view of the market, and a focus on short term money).
Guillaume de Fondaumiere is not rational. Heavy Rain sold 2 million is because people talked about it and he should be grateful. Some of us lent our copy to friends/family who wouldn't have bought it anyway and weren't convinced by the trailer, and that's free publicity. Many of them were surprised and recommended the game and talked about it. They didn't buy it, but they are now on the preorder list for Two Souls, they are hooked. With an aggressive DRM, the sales wouldn't have been 3 million. It would have been LESS than 2 million, and they would have needed to increase the publicity budget for the game to match even the 2 million. Two Souls wouldn't have the buzz it has right now either. Some people hated Heavy Rain and sold if back quickly, if you don't allow this, people will be a LOT more wary of paying $60 for a game. That 2 million will be down to 1 million.
History will repeat itself, and such attempts will backfire. Just like it did with Microsoft WMA (they shutdown the auth servers), Apple encrypted AAC, Sony's DRM, and DIVX which we successfully killed before it caused too much trouble to DVD adoption.
The money spent on the game quality will be just high enough to make the most profit.
If it's more profitable to spend $40M in publicity and only $20M on the game, they will (and they do).
The auth servers will be enabled only as long as they make profit, and will be shutdown as soon as there's more profit to be made by selling you a new product.
Aggressive DRM allows controlled prices by eliminating both the used market, and the competition between different sales channels. (see abuses with the ebook pricing).
It allows planned obsolescence (see attempt at doing so with Disney "vault", it's more profitable that way, old productions are in the way of the new ones, they wish DVDs would self destruct when they say so).
It has nothing to do with game designers, it's mostly the publishers that want it (and maybe a few short-sighted game designer with a total lack of integrity, some of them with a simplistic view of the market, and a focus on short term money).
Guillaume de Fondaumiere is not rational. Heavy Rain sold 2 million is because people talked about it and he should be grateful. Some of us lent our copy to friends/family who wouldn't have bought it anyway and weren't convinced by the trailer, and that's free publicity. Many of them were surprised and recommended the game and talked about it. They didn't buy it, but they are now on the preorder list for Two Souls, they are hooked. With an aggressive DRM, the sales wouldn't have been 3 million. It would have been LESS than 2 million, and they would have needed to increase the publicity budget for the game to match even the 2 million. Two Souls wouldn't have the buzz it has right now either. Some people hated Heavy Rain and sold if back quickly, if you don't allow this, people will be a LOT more wary of paying $60 for a game. That 2 million will be down to 1 million.
History will repeat itself, and such attempts will backfire. Just like it did with Microsoft WMA (they shutdown the auth servers), Apple encrypted AAC, Sony's DRM, and DIVX which we successfully killed before it caused too much trouble to DVD adoption.
Lets just stop right here, everything that is sold as "used" does the exact same thing, so lets stop selling used items right here.
And lets take his statement and put some holes in it:
So that is potentially one million people that bought the game as a used game, and put 1 million times a used game price back into the gaming world. The money doesn't just go away, he just doesn't get a cut BECAUSE his industry is old fashioned and don't want to embrace the devil, Sonys portable audio waves from the coffin. The one million is also made up off shared accounts in families, but i guess he wants every person in the home to buy their copy of the game, because anything else is stealing.From a guy that is anything but a objective part in this said:
Well they are already losing my money so screw'em anyway i will live without the game industry just as i had no tears for the music industry eventhough i love music.
But you forgot 3: Sell used games and earn from the 2nd hand market.
For PC games DD is very strong and with EA,UBISOFT and Blizzard you have essentially examples of games that can't be resold, and they are not cheaper, they are not better (waiting in line to play a single player game!) but they are making money.
