Moral rights of copyright and software ownership *spawn

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?

 

If thats how things are evolving thats a lot of bullocks

 

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

 

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.

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".

 

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)

 

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.

 

What no never.....

 

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?

 

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 ??

 

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 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.

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.

 

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.

 

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?

 

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.

 

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.

 

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?

 

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.

 

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.