Jimquisition: Used Games Have A Right To Exist

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 NEXT
 

Frostbite3789:

Akalabeth:
Snip

That's fine and dandy, but at the cost of having no patience, I'm fine with them being charged for online pass and the ilk.

They have multiple avenues as you said. They have the avenue to have patience. Or to save $5 immediately and have to shell out more for extras.

They have options, they can't bitch. It's not like they're being forced to buy used. If they're that strapped for cash, but they can't wait for a sale, I think I know one reason why they're strapped for cash in the first place.

There are varying reasons to buy used games sooner than wait for sales, ie:

1. Multi-player - If you start later than everyone else, in some cases you're at a disadvantage because you haven't leveled up. In other cases, the multiplayer community has died down and is no longer playing. In either case you're at a disadvantage.

2. Spoilers - People can't keep their mouths shut, and sometimes it doesn't matter how hard you try to avoid things. For example, the day after Gears3 came out I went to check out a trailer for Gow3 on youtube and some moron put a spoiler into the comments.

These are just two that come to mind. Granted I'm just being devil's advocate, but they are both valid examples. Especially the former. And the developers do this on purpose, put new players at a disadvantage in multiplayer, to try and encourage new game sales at full price.

I played Front Mission Evolved for a while, I bought it as soon as it came out but I guess Japan got it first because there were a lot of guys with much better gear than I had. I'd hit a guy a dozen times, dodge his fire for 15 seconds, and he wouldn't die and then he'd hit me once and I'd be toast. This isn't fun. And if that sort of scenario actually mattered to me (SP is much more the priority), then I would see a reason to get it used sooner than newer later.

Richard Allen:

Draech:

bringer of illumination:
So in essence your argument is:

Waaaaah!!! Piracy is worse than trade-ins therefore trade-ins aren't hurting the industry at all!
Waaaaah!!! EA is a worse company than Gamestop (which they aren't, not by a long shot, at least EA actually funds games and many great games at that.), therefore all of Gamestop's bullshit nickle-and-dimeing and intentional working around the companies that actually makes the games are perfectly acceptable!
Waaaaah!!! I don't want the corporate fat cats at EA making money! I'd much rather give my money to the corporate fat cats at Gamestop!
Waaaaah!!! Murder is a worse crime than assault! Therefore punching random people on the street in the face isn't a problem at all!

Class act there Jim.

But alas, you're wrong.

You know who is really hurt by used games? All those smaller titles you talked about two weeks ago. They're the ones that can't afford great marketing, and thus can't push many unit at launch, but because of used sales, slow sales over time quickly regress to no new sales at all, because the games are being traded in is very high compared to the rate at which the game is being bought.

Fantastic. Could not have said it better myself

I still cant believe he wants to whine for 3 full episodes with these flawed arguments.

Maybe those smaller publishers are are just making bad games? No really, plenty of small games that I have never heard of get plenty of coverage if they are good. I see at least one indie game a month that I go out and buy, and I don't sit hunting on gamesites for this shit.

No but yea it in no way could be that the smaller games are just over priced or bad..... nooooo it's the used sales. It's a bunch of bs and while it doesn't surprise me anymore it blows my mind that you all will take it up the ass to defend these companies. It's called capitalism, as he so aptly pointed out. It doesn't matter if your game is big or small if it's good it will float. torchlight, castle crashers, the entire humble bundle.... i could go on so rather then sitting there and say all his arguments are flawed how about you provide a counter argument, kinda like what I did there to you.

Ok
Its its capitalism right? So why do you have a problem with companies changing their payment method that ensures them greater revenue?

Pay as you go has been a valid way of paying for entertainment since well... the oldest profession ever. You got a problem with publishers doing that now?

Oh yeah and by the way you missed the point completely of what he said. Rather than spending money on a cheaper indie title money was spend on a cheaper version of a triple A title, leaving no profit for anyone who develop games.

I admit, I prefer to by games new so that the companies can get the profits, because with used games, the profits go only to the store selling the used game... I think... Jim brings up a good point, as always, and now I feel angry, which is probably the point. But then again, that's where it all begins and ends... With money. What a capitalistic world we live in.

Realitycrash:

Draech:

bringer of illumination:
So in essence your argument is:

Waaaaah!!! Piracy is worse than trade-ins therefore trade-ins aren't hurting the industry at all!
Waaaaah!!! EA is a worse company than Gamestop (which they aren't, not by a long shot, at least EA actually funds games and many great games at that.), therefore all of Gamestop's bullshit nickle-and-dimeing and intentional working around the companies that actually makes the games are perfectly acceptable!
Waaaaah!!! I don't want the corporate fat cats at EA making money! I'd much rather give my money to the corporate fat cats at Gamestop!
Waaaaah!!! Murder is a worse crime than assault! Therefore punching random people on the street in the face isn't a problem at all!

Class act there Jim.

But alas, you're wrong.

You know who is really hurt by used games? All those smaller titles you talked about two weeks ago. They're the ones that can't afford great marketing, and thus can't push many unit at launch, but because of used sales, slow sales over time quickly regress to no new sales at all, because the games are being traded in is very high compared to the rate at which the game is being bought.

Fantastic. Could not have said it better myself

I still cant believe he wants to whine for 3 full episodes with these flawed arguments.

I'm sorry, I just find it amusing that you find this mans "arguments" to be "Fantastic" (even though he just uses rethorics and call Jim a baby) yet to condone Jim for his "flawed arguments", Jim pretty much using nothing but rethorics himself.

My amusement put aside, I have to ask you; Do you believe it's right to lose your right to sell something you own? Because all the other "arguments" put aside, this is a rather solid one.

Yeah because this is all new. No1 has ever made a pay as you go system for entertainment before.... cept since the invention of entertainment.

Draech:

Realitycrash:

Draech:

Fantastic. Could not have said it better myself

I still cant believe he wants to whine for 3 full episodes with these flawed arguments.

I'm sorry, I just find it amusing that you find this mans "arguments" to be "Fantastic" (even though he just uses rethorics and call Jim a baby) yet to condone Jim for his "flawed arguments", Jim pretty much using nothing but rethorics himself.

My amusement put aside, I have to ask you; Do you believe it's right to lose your right to sell something you own? Because all the other "arguments" put aside, this is a rather solid one.

Yeah because this is all new. No1 has ever made a pay as you go system for entertainment before.... cept since the invention of entertainment.

I'm sorry, but you didn't answer my question, you just referenced that there ARE places where you pay from time to time (such as movies), but they never sell you any property, so your argument (if it even was one?) is invalid.
Answer the question, please.

Realitycrash:

Draech:

Realitycrash:

I'm sorry, I just find it amusing that you find this mans "arguments" to be "Fantastic" (even though he just uses rethorics and call Jim a baby) yet to condone Jim for his "flawed arguments", Jim pretty much using nothing but rethorics himself.

My amusement put aside, I have to ask you; Do you believe it's right to lose your right to sell something you own? Because all the other "arguments" put aside, this is a rather solid one.

Yeah because this is all new. No1 has ever made a pay as you go system for entertainment before.... cept since the invention of entertainment.

I'm sorry, but you didn't answer my question, you just referenced that there ARE places where you pay from time to time (such as movies), but they never sell you any property, so your argument (if it even was one?) is invalid.
Answer the question, please.

Cable TV

But putting that aside Movie tickets still count. A game in a box is just a movie ticket. It has a playtime and it has an end. Thoes that dont have an extra service, usually one that they pay for.

But putting that aside you are changing the question. There is no proberty involved in games. Do you pay for the disk or the entertainment on the disk? You ne to categorise it as entertainment rather than proberty. and all of a sudden its not a big issue that they try to change it as a pay as you go system.

I wholeheartedly agree. I admit I don't really care that much for the used games market, but I still acknowledge its right to exist, especially since it is a great market for people who don't have the money to buy every game brand new. I know that games aren't really a necessity, but rather a luxury, but still. My biggest gripe is with day one DLC. It's like "Hey we have this content, which is all done and ready to be put on the disc, but we're not going to do that. Instead we're going to charge you extra on top of the money you already payed for the game. U mad?".

Presented very well this week, Jim!

What's that game shown from 4:30 onward. I don't recognise it.

Draech:
Ok
Its its capitalism right? So why do you have a problem with companies changing their payment method that ensures them greater revenue?

Pay as you go has been a valid way of paying for entertainment since well... the oldest profession ever. You got a problem with publishers doing that now?

Oh yeah and by the way you missed the point completely of what he said. Rather than spending money on a cheaper indie title money was spend on a cheaper version of a triple A title, leaving no profit for anyone who develop games.

What you fail to grasp is that, as was pointed out in the video, for a game to be sold as used it first has to be sold as new. Meaning, the publisher/developer has already been paid for it. They don't deserve to be paid multiple times over for the same product. They give up all of their say as to what happens to any given copy of a game as soon as it is sold as a new copy.

Selling used goods has been around since the first goods were made and sold. No other industry in the long history of goods being produced and sold has ever been immune to a secondhand market so why should video games get special treatment all of a sudden. Game makers have no argument other than "because we say so" to explain why they deserve a single red cent from used sales. They love to fall back on capitalism as long as it benefits them but want to bitch and moan like entitled children when the system they've used to get rich off of works in the favor of consumers.

Draech:

Realitycrash:

Draech:

Yeah because this is all new. No1 has ever made a pay as you go system for entertainment before.... cept since the invention of entertainment.

I'm sorry, but you didn't answer my question, you just referenced that there ARE places where you pay from time to time (such as movies), but they never sell you any property, so your argument (if it even was one?) is invalid.
Answer the question, please.

edit

Yeah, Cable TV is the same as with movie-theaters, they never actually sell you a product, more of a license to use it (though not exactly that either), but fine, I'll give you time to get your edited response in order.

Draech:

Richard Allen:

Draech:

Fantastic. Could not have said it better myself

I still cant believe he wants to whine for 3 full episodes with these flawed arguments.

Maybe those smaller publishers are are just making bad games? No really, plenty of small games that I have never heard of get plenty of coverage if they are good. I see at least one indie game a month that I go out and buy, and I don't sit hunting on gamesites for this shit.

No but yea it in no way could be that the smaller games are just over priced or bad..... nooooo it's the used sales. It's a bunch of bs and while it doesn't surprise me anymore it blows my mind that you all will take it up the ass to defend these companies. It's called capitalism, as he so aptly pointed out. It doesn't matter if your game is big or small if it's good it will float. torchlight, castle crashers, the entire humble bundle.... i could go on so rather then sitting there and say all his arguments are flawed how about you provide a counter argument, kinda like what I did there to you.

Ok
Its its capitalism right? So why do you have a problem with companies changing their payment method that ensures them greater revenue?

Pay as you go has been a valid way of paying for entertainment since well... the oldest profession ever. You got a problem with publishers doing that now?

Oh yeah and by the way you missed the point completely of what he said. Rather than spending money on a cheaper indie title money was spend on a cheaper version of a triple A title, leaving no profit for anyone who develop games.

The issue is the publishers are clearly finding ways to circumvent the first sale doctrine which has been around to prevent this kind of thing for many years. As you can see here it's not cut and dry http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2010/09/the-end-of-used-major-ruling-upholds-tough-software-licenses.ars and the fact is the law needs to change.

This isn't pay as you go.... in what world is this pay as you go? And how has it been used for ages in the entertainment industry. No really explain that one. You buy records, and can sell them, you buy dvd's and can sell them. Are you equating a performance as pay as you go?

And no I'm not missing his point. If a indie game is loosing sales to a AAA then it needs to be better enough that it's name gets out there and that it's worth paying a few extra dollars to get the new copy. I don't think I should have to pay for an indies marketing department.

Finally on that last point, the indie devs aren't even doing this, it's only the AAA publishers so I fail to see your point.

Fact is while it's legality is really unknown as not a lot of precident has been set it's leaning towards teh publishers, I'm not arguing that. I'm arguing that it's a dick move, and that we shouldn't be making it ok for them to do this. If you make a good product you will make money simple as that. I don't know what bizzaro world you live in that makes you think EA or acitvision needs us to give up our rights in order to make money but I won't have anything to do with it. So as the man said, take your position cause that insertion is only going to get worse once they know they can get away with it.

Draech:

Realitycrash:

Draech:

Yeah because this is all new. No1 has ever made a pay as you go system for entertainment before.... cept since the invention of entertainment.

I'm sorry, but you didn't answer my question, you just referenced that there ARE places where you pay from time to time (such as movies), but they never sell you any property, so your argument (if it even was one?) is invalid.
Answer the question, please.

Cable TV

But putting that aside Movie tickets still count. A game in a box is just a movie ticket. It has a playtime and it has an end. Thoes that dont have an extra service, usually one that they pay for.

But putting that aside you are changing the question. There is no proberty involved in games. Do you pay for the disk or the entertainment on the disk? You ne to categorise it as entertainment rather than proberty. and all of a sudden its not a big issue that they try to change it as a pay as you go system.

Uh, a game in a box is not like a movie ticket, since a game can (technically) be enjoyed FOREVER, but a movie ends, and you must pay again to watch it. You, however, own both the system that plays the game, and the game itself, making it yours, thus you don't have to pay to play it again.
And you pay for both the disk, and the entertainment on it. Though it doesn't matter, you still own a physical copy, which is agreed upon when they sell you it (although implicitly). When you watch a movie, it's also agreed upon that you DON'T own the movie, and can only watch it once (that's why you can't bring a videocamera to a theater to tape the movie for yourself).

Change the question? I did no such thing, I asked you a direct one. One you haven't answered. Is it okey for them to take away our right as consumer to sell something we own?

I don't think I've really ever seen anyone saying that used games have no right to exist. It's the details of their existence, particularly in the form of parasitic pricing policies, that cause problems and do hurt sales numbers and are a real issue.

Honestly,this is the reason I felt full of pride when Madden 11 came in the mail with the online pass intact. Basically I used my Gamefly credits to get the game for free,it had an unused online pass,therefore I pretty much beat EA's system out of sheer luck. I felt really good that day.

Xanthious:

Draech:
Ok
Its its capitalism right? So why do you have a problem with companies changing their payment method that ensures them greater revenue?

Pay as you go has been a valid way of paying for entertainment since well... the oldest profession ever. You got a problem with publishers doing that now?

Oh yeah and by the way you missed the point completely of what he said. Rather than spending money on a cheaper indie title money was spend on a cheaper version of a triple A title, leaving no profit for anyone who develop games.

What you fail to grasp is that, as was pointed out in the video, for a game to be sold as used it first has to be sold as new. Meaning, the publisher/developer has already been paid for it. They don't deserve to be paid multiple times over for the same product. They give up all of their say as to what happens to any given copy of a game as soon as it is sold as a new copy.

Selling used goods has been around since the first goods were made and sold. No other industry in the long history of goods being produced and sold has ever been immune to a secondhand market so why should video games get special treatment all of a sudden. Game makers have no argument other than "because we say so" to explain why they deserve a single red cent from used sales. They love to fall back on capitalism as long as it benefits them but want to bitch and moan like entitled children when the system they've used to get rich off of works in the favor of consumers.

Ok then we apply all the same rules that apply to other property . Since its the info on the disk you want and not the actual disk, then it should deteriorate. Now since it is absurd to change it so graphics decrease over time then you can make it so less content is available on the used copy?

Talking of moaning when the system isn't falling in your favor huh?

Games have every right to change their product from what you guyes keep going on as property and over to entertainment. Just like you have every right not to buy it then. That is capitalism.

Fact is is Jim and so many others are crying snot because their used games isn't as good as thoes they bought new. But here is the thing. The publishers dont care and shouldn't care about you because you dont pay them when you buy used. Why the heck should they make any decisions trying to service a bunch of players that want their game, but wont pay them for it?

I don't get why some people here are defending publishers who go against used games. Yes, used games impact sales, but it is still the consumers right to resell what they paid for.

Right on Jim.

It's always irked me with these claims that online passes are to stop used games, and used games are the criminal, when the companies doing this sort of shit are EA, Ubisoft, and Activision. The 800lb Gorilla's of gaming. The same retards that constantly claim DRM is for our own good to stop piracy. Bullshit. It's to try and stop your bottom line at the expense of the consumer, who you show nothing but disdain for. It's why all my respect goes to small developers/publishers that put out awesome content with no DRM, knowing that the game will be supported because it's good.

I was enraged when the idiots behind Heavy Rain got up in arms that they theoretically lost 1/3 of their sales to used sales of the game, 'robbing' them of a few million dollars. A game that sold over 2 million copies. I'm sorry, you no longer have the right to whine about used sales when your game breaks a million sales. Especially when far more deserving games aren't getting the attention they deserve, like the massively pirated World of Goo or Bastion. Both of which are immensely superior games to Heavy Rain. Let alone Quantic Dream shouldn't be allowed to whine, when the creator so clearly wants to be in films and not games, and shows nothing but spite toward games.

Draech:

Realitycrash:

Draech:

Yeah because this is all new. No1 has ever made a pay as you go system for entertainment before.... cept since the invention of entertainment.

I'm sorry, but you didn't answer my question, you just referenced that there ARE places where you pay from time to time (such as movies), but they never sell you any property, so your argument (if it even was one?) is invalid.
Answer the question, please.

Cable TV

But putting that aside Movie tickets still count. A game in a box is just a movie ticket. It has a playtime and it has an end. Thoes that dont have an extra service, usually one that they pay for.

But putting that aside you are changing the question. There is no proberty involved in games. Do you pay for the disk or the entertainment on the disk? You ne to categorise it as entertainment rather than proberty. and all of a sudden its not a big issue that they try to change it as a pay as you go system.

Cable tv is a service and they advertise it as such. Games are advertised as a product, i.e "BUY this game". Not rent this game, or play this game x times . The same with all performances, so no they don't count, not in court and not in any sane persons head.

Look if the entire industry was actually selling a pay as you go service then fine, you have all the right in the world to do that (I subscribe to many that do). But they aren't when you buy GoW3 or w/e you are buying the entire game, they advertise it as such, as should be held to that.
The only reason you don't own your games is because you can then replubish the code as your own, that's why they are licensed and that's fine, I agree with that, but when you start using it to take away rights that we have enjoyed for years and have worked, that's the issue.

Draech:

Xanthious:

Draech:
Ok
Its its capitalism right? So why do you have a problem with companies changing their payment method that ensures them greater revenue?

Pay as you go has been a valid way of paying for entertainment since well... the oldest profession ever. You got a problem with publishers doing that now?

Oh yeah and by the way you missed the point completely of what he said. Rather than spending money on a cheaper indie title money was spend on a cheaper version of a triple A title, leaving no profit for anyone who develop games.

What you fail to grasp is that, as was pointed out in the video, for a game to be sold as used it first has to be sold as new. Meaning, the publisher/developer has already been paid for it. They don't deserve to be paid multiple times over for the same product. They give up all of their say as to what happens to any given copy of a game as soon as it is sold as a new copy.

Selling used goods has been around since the first goods were made and sold. No other industry in the long history of goods being produced and sold has ever been immune to a secondhand market so why should video games get special treatment all of a sudden. Game makers have no argument other than "because we say so" to explain why they deserve a single red cent from used sales. They love to fall back on capitalism as long as it benefits them but want to bitch and moan like entitled children when the system they've used to get rich off of works in the favor of consumers.

Ok then we apply all the same rules that apply to other property . Since its the info on the disk you want and not the actual disk, then it should deteriorate. Now since it is absurd to change it so graphics decrease over time then you can make it so less content is available on the used copy?

Talking of moaning when the system isn't falling in your favor huh?

Games have every right to change their product from what you guyes keep going on as property and over to entertainment. Just like you have every right not to buy it then. That is capitalism.

Fact is is Jim and so many others are crying snot because their used games isn't as good as thoes they bought new. But here is the thing. The publishers dont care and shouldn't care about you because you dont pay them when you buy used. Why the heck should they make any decisions trying to service a bunch of players that want their game, but wont pay them for it?

1: That's a bad comparison. Just because other things deteriorate, doesn't mean we need apply those laws - those physical laws - on a videogame. A game deteriorates in a different fashion: We get sick of the game. We get bored. That's why we trade it in.
Just because "all other property rots" doesn't mean we can't count a videogame-disk, and the entertainment it provides, as property.
Edit: And a videogame-disk is still subject to Entropy, although very slowly.

2: "games" (Guess you mean the game-producers) do not, because it's against the law. And Capitalism is guided by law.

See I liked this episode much better then when he first started here on the escapist. Well, let me just say that, I think that Jim is right. Completely right. I didn't go into this with that opinion but he presented himself passionately and methodically.

I still hate Gamestop do to other business practices, but I still go to Game X change :3

Realitycrash:

Draech:

Realitycrash:

I'm sorry, but you didn't answer my question, you just referenced that there ARE places where you pay from time to time (such as movies), but they never sell you any property, so your argument (if it even was one?) is invalid.
Answer the question, please.

Cable TV

But putting that aside Movie tickets still count. A game in a box is just a movie ticket. It has a playtime and it has an end. Thoes that dont have an extra service, usually one that they pay for.

But putting that aside you are changing the question. There is no proberty involved in games. Do you pay for the disk or the entertainment on the disk? You ne to categorise it as entertainment rather than proberty. and all of a sudden its not a big issue that they try to change it as a pay as you go system.

Uh, a game in a box is not like a movie ticket, since a game can (technically) be enjoyed FOREVER, but a movie ends, and you must pay again to watch it. You, however, own both the system that plays the game, and the game itself, making it yours, thus you don't have to pay to play it again.
And you pay for both the disk, and the entertainment on it. Though it doesn't matter, you still own a physical copy, which is agreed upon when they sell you it (although implicitly). When you watch a movie, it's also agreed upon that you DON'T own the movie, and can only watch it once (that's why you can't bring a videocamera to a theater to tape the movie for yourself).

Change the question? I did no such thing, I asked you a direct one. One you haven't answered. Is it okey for them to take away our right as consumer to sell something we own?

None, and thats why you can still sell that plastic jewel inside your game case.

But if you want to play oversimplification. Can you tell me a single thing you own that doesn't deteriorate over time?

BgRdMchne:

On topic: This whole episode was irrelevant to me, as I'm mostly a PC gamer and the industry managed to shut down the used game market there a long time ago.

Why can't PC gamers buy used anymore. A lot of people have been saying that but a friend of mine who skipped this gen of consoles (mostly because of crap like online passes and monthly fees) gets all of his PC games used. I'm sure he got Mass Effect, Fallout 3 goty, and Dawn of War 2 Chaos used (off Amazon I think) and hasn't has a problem with any of them.

I'm digging these rants: he hits the nail right on the head. It reminds me of Penn & Teller's Bullshit. I've been saying for years that publishers have too few excuses for so many weird schemes. I understand that games are more expensive to make but I thought that was why they're more expensive to purchase (new or used), have less content out of the box, and more content sold later (or sometimes day 1) as dlc.

In the end they're just screwing themselves over... their legacy really. Their turning their games into the old board games that will lose their luster years later with pieces missing and no patches.

And while I can kind of understand some gamers not being bothered by it if they haven't noticed. If money was never an object for you, you always buy new, and don't pay attention to game news, you may have only noticed a few weird annoyances and that's okay; some people just want to play a good game every once in a while and don't pay attention to what's going on in the industry. What bothers me is the gamers that know about all of these schemes and defend the publishers rather than themselves like some poor battered wife making excuses for her husband's temper. Who hands the school bully their milk money without a fight AND THEN helps him shake others down? I don't understand the mentality.

Good one, Jim. Not your most entertaining episode but certainly a heartfelt and worthwhile discussion to have.

To some forum posters, I have to ask the following question. What ultimately makes better games: publishers making money hand over fist for the same product regardless of its quality, or gamers being able to play more games?

The problem we run into every day under the capitalist economic system is that everybody in it perpetually reeks of despair. It's not enough to make a great game. As long as they make a bad game that sells really well (and yes, this is possible) they have done their jobs. And for even more fun they hire people whose sole job it is to milk as much money as possible from consumers regardless of the quality of said game. They hire lawyers who find ways to prevent customers from filing class-action suits and cut deals to destroy competition; market analysts or whoever find ways to stop used game sales; censors cut out anything offensive, progressive, inflammatory or interesting so it will appeal to a wider demographic; and hire tax lawyers and lobbying groups to ensure they never pay a dime in taxes. A good game is then what made money, and a bad game what lost money. If Superman 64 made a ten billion dollars without the developers having to change one bit of data on that cartridge it was the best game ever, right?

Tell me again how any of that is good for the consumers. Explain to me why the corporate structure do or die causes the best possible games.

Draech:

Cable TV

But putting that aside Movie tickets still count. A game in a box is just a movie ticket. It has a playtime and it has an end. Thoes that dont have an extra service, usually one that they pay for.

But putting that aside you are changing the question. There is no proberty involved in games. Do you pay for the disk or the entertainment on the disk? You ne to categorise it as entertainment rather than proberty. and all of a sudden its not a big issue that they try to change it as a pay as you go system.

Yeah, that's not the same thing. Cable TV is a service. Just like your internet providor. (And in modern day is usually the same thing now.) You never own the rights to it. Videogames are PRODUCTS. You own products. You pay money up front to make them yours to use as you will. Buying games is just like buying clothes. You don't rent clothes as a service. You use them as you wish, and then can sell them to a second hand store or give them to charity, that is your wish and your right. Games are the same thing.

How you come to the conclusion a game is just a movie is beyond me honestly, as that borders on not only naive but a bit delussional. In a movie theatre you are in THEIR place of business, using THEIR chairs to watch a movie. When you buy a DVD, did you just pay to buy a ticket to watch it only in one place, or to view it whenever, however, and where ever you wish? I can't simplify it any more than that.

When you don't even understand the basics of services vs products, you should exclude yourself from this discussion.
[quote="GonzoGamer" post="6.314940.12786004"]
Why can't PC gamers buy used anymore. A lot of people have been saying that but a friend of mine who skipped this gen of consoles (mostly because of crap like online passes and monthly fees) gets all of his PC games used. I'm sure he got Mass Effect, Fallout 3 goty, and Dawn of War 2 Chaos used (off Amazon I think) and hasn't has a problem with any of them.[quote]
Short answer: almost nobody allows reselling of PC titles anymore because of DRM and serial numbers. Gamestop dropped it almost a decade ago, as with most every retail chain, where trading exists. Amazon and eBay are about the only places that will still support it.

Draech:

Realitycrash:

Draech:

Cable TV

But putting that aside Movie tickets still count. A game in a box is just a movie ticket. It has a playtime and it has an end. Thoes that dont have an extra service, usually one that they pay for.

But putting that aside you are changing the question. There is no proberty involved in games. Do you pay for the disk or the entertainment on the disk? You ne to categorise it as entertainment rather than proberty. and all of a sudden its not a big issue that they try to change it as a pay as you go system.

Uh, a game in a box is not like a movie ticket, since a game can (technically) be enjoyed FOREVER, but a movie ends, and you must pay again to watch it. You, however, own both the system that plays the game, and the game itself, making it yours, thus you don't have to pay to play it again.
And you pay for both the disk, and the entertainment on it. Though it doesn't matter, you still own a physical copy, which is agreed upon when they sell you it (although implicitly). When you watch a movie, it's also agreed upon that you DON'T own the movie, and can only watch it once (that's why you can't bring a videocamera to a theater to tape the movie for yourself).

Change the question? I did no such thing, I asked you a direct one. One you haven't answered. Is it okey for them to take away our right as consumer to sell something we own?

None, and thats why you can still sell that plastic jewel inside your game case.

But if you want to play oversimplification. Can you tell me a single thing you own that doesn't deteriorate over time?

"None, and that's why you can still sell that plastic jewel inside your game case" - Sorry, what are you SAYING here? I honestly can't understand you. No insult. Just..Be a bit cleared..What were you responding to?

Everything is subject to entropy, everything deteriorates. But don't get off the point. I want you to answer the question i posed. Stop dodging it and just answer.
Or..What..You saying that they have NO right to refuse us to sell our property, but we own ONLY the "plastic jewel" and not the information gathered on the disk?

If such is the case, you really, really need to look over your EULA, becausyou'd be surprised. We actually own, and have legal rights to dispose of as we please, that information. As long as we don't break other parts of the EULA while doing so.

Damn.... I want to play Killzone now. But my TV's dead.

Fucking JIM!

Also, this is even better than your last episode. And your last episode was the best you'd done. So following that logic. This is the best episode you've done... Well done.

Realitycrash:

Draech:

Xanthious:

What you fail to grasp is that, as was pointed out in the video, for a game to be sold as used it first has to be sold as new. Meaning, the publisher/developer has already been paid for it. They don't deserve to be paid multiple times over for the same product. They give up all of their say as to what happens to any given copy of a game as soon as it is sold as a new copy.

Selling used goods has been around since the first goods were made and sold. No other industry in the long history of goods being produced and sold has ever been immune to a secondhand market so why should video games get special treatment all of a sudden. Game makers have no argument other than "because we say so" to explain why they deserve a single red cent from used sales. They love to fall back on capitalism as long as it benefits them but want to bitch and moan like entitled children when the system they've used to get rich off of works in the favor of consumers.

Ok then we apply all the same rules that apply to other property . Since its the info on the disk you want and not the actual disk, then it should deteriorate. Now since it is absurd to change it so graphics decrease over time then you can make it so less content is available on the used copy?

Talking of moaning when the system isn't falling in your favor huh?

Games have every right to change their product from what you guyes keep going on as property and over to entertainment. Just like you have every right not to buy it then. That is capitalism.

Fact is is Jim and so many others are crying snot because their used games isn't as good as thoes they bought new. But here is the thing. The publishers dont care and shouldn't care about you because you dont pay them when you buy used. Why the heck should they make any decisions trying to service a bunch of players that want their game, but wont pay them for it?

1: That's a bad comparison. Just because other things deteriorate, doesn't mean we need apply those laws - those physical laws - on a videogame. A game deteriorates in a different fashion: We get sick of the game. We get bored. That's why we trade it in.
Just because "all other property rots" doesn't mean we can't count a videogame-disk, and the entertainment it provides, as property.

2: "games" (Guess you mean the game-producers) do not, because it's against the law. And Capitalism is guided by law.

"1: That's a bad comparison. Just because other things deteriorate, doesn't mean we need apply those laws - those physical laws - on a videogame. A game deteriorates in a different fashion: We get sick of the game. We get bored. That's why we trade it in.
Just because "all other property rots" doesn't mean we can't count a videogame-disk, and the entertainment it provides, as property."
How fucking ironic is that! we need to apply laws of ownership all across the board! But we dont other apply laws of products.

Condescending self-serving

Here is capitalism.

The producer can do whatever he wants to his product. And your options are to buy it or not to. That is capitalism. Ownership falls under the conundrums of philosophy.

Another thing devs don't seem to realise is that used games can get them MORE sales. I bought ratchet & clank 1 pre-owned, and have bought all of the rest new since then. If a game is good then pre-owned sales will only lead to better sales of the sequels.

Good video. Makes me mad that people say i am no better than a pirate when i sell my used games at gamestop ; or god forbid sell my 10 year old games sitting in storage to a pawnshop. Yeah the devs don't get paid but neither do the publishers and its the publishers my issue is with.

Realitycrash:

Draech:

Realitycrash:

Uh, a game in a box is not like a movie ticket, since a game can (technically) be enjoyed FOREVER, but a movie ends, and you must pay again to watch it. You, however, own both the system that plays the game, and the game itself, making it yours, thus you don't have to pay to play it again.
And you pay for both the disk, and the entertainment on it. Though it doesn't matter, you still own a physical copy, which is agreed upon when they sell you it (although implicitly). When you watch a movie, it's also agreed upon that you DON'T own the movie, and can only watch it once (that's why you can't bring a videocamera to a theater to tape the movie for yourself).

Change the question? I did no such thing, I asked you a direct one. One you haven't answered. Is it okey for them to take away our right as consumer to sell something we own?

None, and thats why you can still sell that plastic jewel inside your game case.

But if you want to play oversimplification. Can you tell me a single thing you own that doesn't deteriorate over time?

"None, and that's why you can still sell that plastic jewel inside your game case" - Sorry, what are you SAYING here? I honestly can't understand you. No insult. Just..Be a bit cleared..What were you responding to?

Everything is subject to entropy, everything deteriorates. But don't get off the point. I want you to answer the question i posed. Stop dodging it and just answer.
Or..What..You saying that they have NO right to refuse us to sell our property, but we own ONLY the "plastic jewel" and not the information gathered on the disk?

If such is the case, you really, really need to look over your EULA, becausyou'd be surprised. We actually own, and have legal rights to dispose of as we please, that information. As long as we don't break other parts of the EULA while doing so.

You own the right to sell the code that locks with your account? then you should take that to court really. Your rights are being infringed upon. Good luck with that.

Draech:

Realitycrash:

Draech:

Ok then we apply all the same rules that apply to other property . Since its the info on the disk you want and not the actual disk, then it should deteriorate. Now since it is absurd to change it so graphics decrease over time then you can make it so less content is available on the used copy?

Talking of moaning when the system isn't falling in your favor huh?

Games have every right to change their product from what you guyes keep going on as property and over to entertainment. Just like you have every right not to buy it then. That is capitalism.

Fact is is Jim and so many others are crying snot because their used games isn't as good as thoes they bought new. But here is the thing. The publishers dont care and shouldn't care about you because you dont pay them when you buy used. Why the heck should they make any decisions trying to service a bunch of players that want their game, but wont pay them for it?

1: That's a bad comparison. Just because other things deteriorate, doesn't mean we need apply those laws - those physical laws - on a videogame. A game deteriorates in a different fashion: We get sick of the game. We get bored. That's why we trade it in.
Just because "all other property rots" doesn't mean we can't count a videogame-disk, and the entertainment it provides, as property.

2: "games" (Guess you mean the game-producers) do not, because it's against the law. And Capitalism is guided by law.

"1: That's a bad comparison. Just because other things deteriorate, doesn't mean we need apply those laws - those physical laws - on a videogame. A game deteriorates in a different fashion: We get sick of the game. We get bored. That's why we trade it in.
Just because "all other property rots" doesn't mean we can't count a videogame-disk, and the entertainment it provides, as property."
How fucking ironic is that! we need to apply laws of ownership all across the board! But we dont other apply laws of products.

Condescending self-serving

Here is capitalism.

The producer can do whatever he wants to his product. And your options are to buy it or not to. That is capitalism. Ownership falls under the conundrums of philosophy.

We don't need to apply the laws of deterioration because we CAN'T, because information doesn't deteriorate in the same way as say a table would, or a car.
And "whether it deteriorates or not" is NOT the critera for "this is property, this is not". Really; This is deteriorates = This is property.
This does not deteriorate = This is not property.
How does this make sense?

And quit with the Ad Hominem. Behave yourself.

The producer (i.e the original owner) can do whatever he wants with his products, this be true. Too bad it's o longer his product when he sells it. It's MINE. And I can do whatever I want with MY product. And since you said products; You agree that videogames are products now, yes?

Edit: I can do whatever I want with my product as long as it falls within the EULA*
So yes, there are some things I can't do. Selling the product on is not one of them.

Draech:

Realitycrash:

Draech:

None, and thats why you can still sell that plastic jewel inside your game case.

But if you want to play oversimplification. Can you tell me a single thing you own that doesn't deteriorate over time?

"None, and that's why you can still sell that plastic jewel inside your game case" - Sorry, what are you SAYING here? I honestly can't understand you. No insult. Just..Be a bit cleared..What were you responding to?

Everything is subject to entropy, everything deteriorates. But don't get off the point. I want you to answer the question i posed. Stop dodging it and just answer.
Or..What..You saying that they have NO right to refuse us to sell our property, but we own ONLY the "plastic jewel" and not the information gathered on the disk?

If such is the case, you really, really need to look over your EULA, becausyou'd be surprised. We actually own, and have legal rights to dispose of as we please, that information. As long as we don't break other parts of the EULA while doing so.

You own the right to sell the code that locks with your account? then you should take that to court really. Your rights are being infringed upon. Good luck with that.

Did I ever claim I did? I never spoke of an account, I spoke of a game. As far as I know, you don't need an account or a code to play a game you buy, unless it has the "always online DRM". I'm not talking about online passes here, and you know it.

Realitycrash:

Draech:

Realitycrash:

1: That's a bad comparison. Just because other things deteriorate, doesn't mean we need apply those laws - those physical laws - on a videogame. A game deteriorates in a different fashion: We get sick of the game. We get bored. That's why we trade it in.
Just because "all other property rots" doesn't mean we can't count a videogame-disk, and the entertainment it provides, as property.

2: "games" (Guess you mean the game-producers) do not, because it's against the law. And Capitalism is guided by law.

"1: That's a bad comparison. Just because other things deteriorate, doesn't mean we need apply those laws - those physical laws - on a videogame. A game deteriorates in a different fashion: We get sick of the game. We get bored. That's why we trade it in.
Just because "all other property rots" doesn't mean we can't count a videogame-disk, and the entertainment it provides, as property."
How fucking ironic is that! we need to apply laws of ownership all across the board! But we dont other apply laws of products.

Condescending self-serving

Here is capitalism.

The producer can do whatever he wants to his product. And your options are to buy it or not to. That is capitalism. Ownership falls under the conundrums of philosophy.

We don't need to apply the laws of deterioration because we CAN'T, because information doesn't deteriorate in the same way as say a table would, or a car.
And "whether it deteriorates or not" is NOT the critera for "this is property, this is not". Really; This is deteriorates = This is property.
This does not deteriorate = This is not property.
How does this make sense?

And quit with the Ad Hominem. Behave yourself.

The producer (i.e the original owner) can do whatever he wants with his products, this be true. Too bad it's o longer his product when he sells it. It's MINE. And I can do whatever I want with MY product. And since you said products; You agree that videogames are products now, yes?

No it is self serving and condecening. its not an ad hominum. When you chose your biases for what serves you best it falls in that. That is objective.

Also the product can be a service. I dont own the plumber I got to fix my sink. What you wanted me to admit was that it was property. The producer can choose method of payment and what the product consists off. In other words. He can make it so your product stays with you forever. All you can do is yay or nay.

A lease is product as well. Get used to it.

An excellent video, Jim, and very convincing. I think you are correct--selling a game (or giving it away) is no different from letting someone park in the space you paid for or handing over an arcade game while your quarter is still running. Nobody would think to demand that you be required to let the meter run out or terminate your game before handing it off to someone else. I hadn't thought of it that way before.

Draech:

Realitycrash:

Draech:

"1: That's a bad comparison. Just because other things deteriorate, doesn't mean we need apply those laws - those physical laws - on a videogame. A game deteriorates in a different fashion: We get sick of the game. We get bored. That's why we trade it in.
Just because "all other property rots" doesn't mean we can't count a videogame-disk, and the entertainment it provides, as property."
How fucking ironic is that! we need to apply laws of ownership all across the board! But we dont other apply laws of products.

Condescending self-serving

Here is capitalism.

The producer can do whatever he wants to his product. And your options are to buy it or not to. That is capitalism. Ownership falls under the conundrums of philosophy.

We don't need to apply the laws of deterioration because we CAN'T, because information doesn't deteriorate in the same way as say a table would, or a car.
And "whether it deteriorates or not" is NOT the critera for "this is property, this is not". Really; This is deteriorates = This is property.
This does not deteriorate = This is not property.
How does this make sense?

And quit with the Ad Hominem. Behave yourself.

The producer (i.e the original owner) can do whatever he wants with his products, this be true. Too bad it's o longer his product when he sells it. It's MINE. And I can do whatever I want with MY product. And since you said products; You agree that videogames are products now, yes?

No it is self serving and condecening. its not an ad hominum. When you chose your biases for what serves you best it falls in that. That is objective.

Also the product can be a service. I dont own the plumber I got to fix my sink. What you wanted me to admit was that it was property. The producer can choose method of payment and what the product consists off. In other words. He can make it so your product says with you forever. All you can do is yay or nay.

A lease is product as well. Get used to it.

A product is, per definition, not a service. A service is a service, a product is a product. Keep your terminology straight.

And yes, a producer CAN do that. He can rewrite the EULA so it says "you bloody-well can't sell this on" or even "you can only install this THREE TIMES! HAH!" (Spore, remember?)
But right now, that is NOT in the EULA, and it is doubtful if it would be passed into law.
Noone is saying that you can't make it so that all games are per definition leases, but there would probably be a public uproar.
Games are physical objects that you can touch and feel, and with such objects, people tend to want to feel that they have control over them, that they own them. If you made it a lease, then you no longer actually own anything.
And yes, the EULA already says what you can and can not to with the information on the disk, so in a fashion it's leased from the company, but still, you are the owner, and by right can sell on the product, still making the EULA apply (since the new owner is now the End Used of which the Licence Agreement speaks of).
Can gamecompanies change this? Yes, technically. Would they get away with it? Highly doubtful.
Should they? Eh, I think not.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Registered for a free account here