Moral rights of copyright and software ownership *spawn

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

Sure , hess , shell , BP all 3rd party suppliers

Cars and games aren't comparable in the least

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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

 

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

 

Thanks for the link. Interesting.

 

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.

 

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.