Jimquisition: Used Games Have A Right To Exist

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

Realitycrash:

Draech:

Realitycrash:

"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.

So the pass code is not property then?

Then we are on the same page then.

I really don't see how used games are the devil. The publishers make a lot of money on DLC, even the ridiculously over priced map packs. Used games are the only financial relief we can have. So, yeah, excellent video, Jim.

Draech:

Realitycrash:

Draech:

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.

So the pass code is not property then?

Then we are on the same page then.

I never gave two cents about the pass-code. If by pass-code you mean a mandatory code you have to put in to get access to online play then no, the code belongs to whoever is running the online server and decides to let you in. A game doesn't HAVE to have online services, afterall.
If by pass-code you mean a simple code you need to put in, in order to actually play the game at all, then yes, you own the code, since the code is nothing but a fancy lock on a property that you own.

Best Jimquistion to date. I buy mostly used games. I have no beef with the developer, I don't mind them wanting to make sure they get paid... but they're doing it wrong. I buy used games to get cheap games, the ones I wouldn't pay $60 for period. So maybe by the time that used game is down to the $20 or less I want to pay, the new one's cheap too... or more likely, it's not around anymore. I certainly don't remember seeing new copies of Kameo out when I got my 360, and rightfully so- it was 5ish years old by then. Not very fair to blame me for not going out of my way to find someone selling a new copy of an old game so I can spend more on it, just so some guy out there can get his 50 cents for a title he's probably forgotten about.

I've thought about my game buying versus my DVD buying, since I buy those almost exclusively new, and it really boils down to one thing... SALES. Games don't get cheaper very fast. If it only takes a few months (or even weeks) for people to move from one title to another, why does it take a year or more for price drops to really kick in? If publishers let their games go on sale more often or drop faster, they might see more people buying new. Not to mention it'd be a kick in the balls to Gamestop to see faster drops, forcing them to match on their used games faster and possibly lose some money (depending on how much they gave at trade-in.) I'd buy more new games if the stuff I played went on sale more, I prefer the better condition anyway.

Last thing- regardless of where you sit on the new/used debate, buying a $55 used game at Gamestop, or a gutted new game, is stupid. Pay the extra $5 if you want it that soon and show the developer you like their stuff. Buy your new games somewhere where you don't have to worry about snot and food getting wiped all over your 'new' copy.

Agreed with you on all points. Hell, the one thing you should have gone onto is the analogy's. "cars have maintenance costs, etc". Well i'm sorry games industry, but you're working with something that doesn't degrade, that means you don't get the bonuses of working with something that does.

Realitycrash:

Draech:

Realitycrash:

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.

Im sorry about the product and service misunderstanding here. Its a translation error. My bad. It doesn't matter thou because they are interchangeable in the setting here thou.

Yeah you mention spore and the furor it happen. And what happend? a lot of people didn't buy it untill it was changed. Market set it self.

Yet that isn't what what they are doing.

They are changing their games so you cant sell them again. If thats enough for you not to buy it then by all means dont do so. They made a bet that the number of people who will buy new rather than used when is bigger when used is removed as an option is bigger than the number of people who doesn't to buy it because of that removal.

I think they are right

I dont think they are unreasonable

I dont expect them to cater to an audience that doesn't pay them

Realitycrash:

Draech:

Realitycrash:

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.

So the pass code is not property then?

Then we are on the same page then.

I never gave two cents about the pass-code. If by pass-code you mean a mandatory code you have to put in to get access to online play then no, the code belongs to whoever is running the online server and decides to let you in. A game doesn't HAVE to have online services, afterall.
If by pass-code you mean a simple code you need to put in, in order to actually play the game at all, then yes, you own the code, since the code is nothing but a fancy lock on a property that you own.

Then what are we argueing about?

I am saying that the publishers have every rigth to change their product to whatever they see fit and you want to sell games that, but not your account right?

Draech:

Realitycrash:

Draech:

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.

Im sorry about the product and service misunderstanding here. Its a translation error. My bad. It doesn't matter thou because they are interchangeable in the setting here thou.

Yeah you mention spore and the furor it happen. And what happend? a lot of people didn't buy it untill it was changed. Market set it self.

Yet that isn't what what they are doing.

They are changing their games so you cant sell them again. If thats enough for you not to buy it then by all means dont do so. They made a bet that the number of people who will buy new rather than used when is bigger when used is removed as an option is bigger than the number of people who doesn't to buy it because of that removal.

I think they are right

I dont think they are unreasonable

I dont expect them to cater to an audience that doesn't pay them

I can't, of course, say "no, you can't think they are right. You are wrong". Every man is entitled to his own opinion. If you feel that they should change the EULA so that it is less of a product and more of a service (which isn't very far off, now that we got digital downloads and such. I mean, I "bought" a Steam-game yesteday, but I can't sell that game on to anyone else, due to how the EULA is formed with Steam) that's fine. However, with games today, physical objects with copied information on them that go with these objects, it's a bit trickier. If you try to change the EULA for THEM, people will make the "Car/Table/Everything else I own"-analogy, and there will be courtcases, etc, etc, and honestly I think they will lose more than they gain (with "they" I mean the producers).
People still like to think they have control over what they can feel and touch.

Any one else thought that evil cat looked just like Jim?

Great show as usual Jim.

Hitchmeister:
Terrible terrible argument. "I can waste as much money as I want on crap games, thereby encouraging publisher to keep making even worse games, because I can turn around and resell them to some other sucker who will also hate it. It doesn't matter how bad games get because of the lemming-like churn of money to be made off cycle bad games around the toilet of current gaming."

Show a little self-control and don't give publishers your money for games you hate and you won't need to be able to resell them to to the next poor sod.

But don't cry because you're too stupid to recognize crap after being sold it repeatedly. And don't blame the publishers for thinking that what you really want is more of the same crap you've resold time and time again. They can't hear you over the piles of your money they're busy counting.

One tiny little gaping whole in your logic. What if I just don't like the game? Believe it or not, no one sets out to buy a crap game. No one wakes up in the morning sober and says, "I want to play a bad game today!" Now there are exceptions games have several, "The Room"-like games that people play just to see how bad they are.

However, what If just don't like the game? I thought I would like Borderlands, and it's a good game for what it is? However, I paid way too much and was glad to trade it in when it wore out its welcome? Is that encouraging crappy games? Hell no. Sometimes someone doesn't do enough research or it just doesn't turn out as advertised. So what? I should keep it forever?

Thank you Jim, for saving me from trying to explain the same thing in another thread. The argument "but you are paying for server time" is not a good one. After all, this has only appeared as an excuse after publishers noticed that there could be money made with that. HOWEVER, as anyone even remotely proficient in economics knows, they have to factor server costs into the original price tag, as they can not predict how long a user will make use of their online services and how many users will. Running a loss on a product is not an option.

Therefore, the crusade against used games and for online passes, which are both inevitably linked, is a measure to increase profit margins, NOT to finance any sort of higher benefit for the user.

Also, you hereby win the official Final Fantasy 9 Fanboy Award for using my favourite video game tune of all time. Nothing beats "You Are Not Alone".

BgRdMchne:

Also, where I'm from, it's an infraction to put money into someone else's parking meter. Big Bro gets more money from tickets than from the meters.

Actually there are other reasons why this is the case. First parking meters are often in high-traffic areas, and the parking spot may have a max amount of time one car can stay there (usually about 2 hours). If a car just sits there for too long it's blocking other people from being able to get a parking space.

Second, people used to scam the system. They would give the change to homeless people in the area who would drop in a quarter if the police happened to come by, and if the police didn't show up the homeless person got to keep the money.

Inkidu:
Sometimes someone doesn't do enough research or it just doesn't turn out as advertised. So what? I should keep it forever?

Do more research. You buy a movie ticket and it turns out you don't like it, are you allowed to resell that? No you suck it up and learn to accept that there will be an occasional bomb, and try to learn to avoid them.

I agree with this one. Used games aren't piracy and they have a right to exist.

I'm unsure about the multiplayer point, companies (if they're competent) will be valuing and making predictions of the burdens of their product based on the realistically finite life of any multiplayer value.

And I think you're forgetting that one DLC is a brilliant thing for when the developers are free as the game goes through the last steps. It keeps them busy and employed when they wouldn't otherwise have work to do and the revenue from DLC goes towards paying wages and the next game.

And enough developers go bust for me to think they don't have enough money already. I figured this bonus for buying new thing (or as it's becoming, penalty for buying used system) also has the same right to exist and has the benefit that, in all honesty, multiplayer for an old game is usually worthless because no-ones playing it anymore, so it means we get slightly cheaper used games

Jennacide:
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.

This. I don't ever see small publishers or devs moaning about how used sales are killing the industry. It is always the triple-A people. The smaller devs are too busy giving customers soundtracks and artbooks with their purchase. So I have no sympathy for their complaints.

He actually does make some good points here.

I personally am fine with used games existing. It's a market, which is fine. I do have a problem with people complaining that their used game isn't exactly the same as a new copy (aka content was cut because you didn't buy it new).

I would like to see digital distribution see wider adoption (especially on consoles) because prices go down and money is still sent to the publisher. So everybody wins.

There should be less banging on about some mroal highground in this debate, it comes down to 2 very simple facts, Publishers want more money from the videogames they release and consumers want the option of paying less for a game and thus making them affordable.

Pre-owned should be an option just like it is for every other media out there and lending someone a game should also be fine and legal, afterall like Jim says it means someone has actually paid the price for that product at least once. I hate having a good game that I think others should play and not being able to let them play it, even though lending can really help games.

I'll use 2 examples from the PS2 here. Firstly Ace Combat: The Unsung War, I bought this game because I had been a long time fan of the Ace Combat games but missed out on 4 (it just wasn't anywhere to be found) a few of my friends weren't very interested in flying games saying they found them tedious etc, I let them borrow Ace Combat, they won it and then proceeded to buy the next instalments themselves but they wouldn't have if someone hadn't let them take that first uncertain step by lending them a game to try out.

On the flip side I was undecided about Persona 3 until a friend of mine wanted to buy FES and GAVE me his original copy, I played the game and really liked it then furhter in the future I bought both Persona 4 and P3P brand new (hell I actually imported P3P to the UK because there were no plans for a release at that time)

Finally a note to EA, Activision and any other greedy buggers who want even more money, YOU'RE DOING FINE YOUR BUSINESS IS HUGE AND BLOOMING YOU HAVE NO RIGHT TO COMPLAIN.

I live in a moderately sized town in America.

In this moderately sized town, one can buy goods with money. They can be new, or they can be used.

I can buy used furniture, I can buy used clothes, I can buy used books, I can buy used appliances, I can buy used computers, I can buy used DVD's, I can buy used cars, I can buy used books, I can buy a used house.

One may argue that for every thing that I buy used, I am stealing money from the original company. If I buy a used fridge, that is one less fridge that is sold. If I buy a used car, that is one less car sold. However, these remain legal to do. Why? Because by purchase, I own these things.

My point is this: video game companies, suck it up. EVERY other industry puts up with used sales cutting into their slice. Sucks for you, but that's the way the system works.
Would video game companies make more money if used sales did not exist? Possibly. There's to many variations with supply/demand, advertisement, and consumers being able to afford new material to really be able to answer.

Should video game companies get special privileges that no other industry is granted?

I think not.

If games don't make enough profit to cover the expense of making the game, its not because of used game sales. Either your advertising sucks, or your game sucks (or is at least not as good as you thought it'd be). Improve your game or advertising, or make cheaper games. Just like any other industry

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 stays with you forever. All you can do is yay or nay.

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

Question: Why are you arguing for used games being banned?

While overall making some good points, Jim got one thing wrong:

While, physically, it is possible to throw your game in a river and run away, it is not legal to do so. That's littering, which is not only a legal crime, it's also morally wrong and deeply inconsiderate to your fellow humans.

While I generally agree with Jim here, I am actually in favor of dropping the physical media altogether. I love digital downloads and all the advantages of it, especially how damn cheap the games get on Steam, which I am sure you could trace back to the fact that there is no manufacturing, shipping, and brick and mortar shop taking their cut.

I never would have bought Assassin's Creed 2 and Brotherhood new if I hadn't been able to buy AC1 used. Just putting that out there.

Frostbite3789:

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.

Nobody is forced to buy preowned but when you have a limited amount of free cash you're going to look at the cheapest option. Go look at any game (older the better) and i bet you can get a used copy for much less than a new copy. Why choose the more expensive option when there is a equally good product for much less?

Do you, or have you ever owned a car? Did you buy new or used? The same principle applies here, you have two equal products but one is much cheaper than the other and no profits from the resale go to the manufacturer. Should car makers apply a one use licence that means unless they get paid an extra grand your car becomes illegal? Even the motor industry isn't that stupid, instead of putting people off buying their cars they've made it so they are the only ones who can fix them (due to high tech, enclosed engine blocks) and make their money from that; so even though they get no money for that used car they recoup the loss through continued maintenance.

That's what games need to do; by putting out high quality dlc (i.e not shitty £10 map packs) that keep the game interesting and makes either the original owner want to keep it or the new buyer pay more for it then you would see an improvement. The current system penalises preowned customers instead of tempting them to pick up the product; think about it, if you have to pay another £5 to get access to content that may either be utter crap or unusable (i.e deserted multiplayer) then that's not going to make the customer happy is it? They will feel cheated and may not pick up any new games you produce (i.e the sequel argument Jim made last week). Instead if you produce good dlc then people would be happy to pay if they liked your game and it wouldn't matter if they bought new or not, your still making money. To encourage new purchases they could use something like the Cerberus network from Mass Effect 2 that gives new customers a discount on dlc.

The correct way forward is to make things like dlc good enough that people want to buy it regardless of how they got the game. By locking out parts of the game people will just avoid it until it's cheap enough that either the loss isn't noticeable or until the price is low enough that even with the extra unlock costs they are still better off buying preowned than new.

Good work Jim ,it seems our minds have become one and your have channeled all my greivences about the current games market and come to the same judgements. It's like you've been reading my posts for the last year :P. Or maybe this shit is just so fucking obvious that everyone can't help but some to the same conclusion.

Cut content day one DLC is already selling a portion of the game back to us at launch. People live Activision have talked openly about wanting to move more of the 'extra' content into main development time. The publishers have their hands in our pockets every step of the way and just keep demanding more. They can't seem to see that they are a) treading on users rights b) no automatically entitled to all our money and c) operating a system of development that is no longer sustainable.

Part of the problem is that every publisher seems to think you have to push up budgets to sell a AAA game these days. If they worked within a budget and were efficenct but still effective they could make a profit without having to panic about every single dime. Take for example the more niche players in the market; they work to a tiny % budget of the big players and still have a sizeable presence. Look at Atlus, look at the whole of eastern europe.

SirBryghtside:

Draech:

Realitycrash:

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.

Question: Why are you arguing for used games being banned?

Answer: Im not. I am argueing that the producers can treat their product in any way shape or form they please, and when you buy used you are not paying them and therefore have no say in how thoes products are treated.

Rawne1980:

Littaly:
I'll confess that I don't have any sources to back this statement up, so someone, please correct me if I'm wrong. But when you ask "aren't they making enough money already?" you make it sound like most publishers are greedy bastards sitting on piles of money, trying to suck you dry every chance they get. But the last thing I heard was that the only publisher who was turning a profit was Activision (and that was before they pulled the plug on Guitar Hero). I'm not saying their ways of making gamers pay more for their games aren't assy, I hate them too, but a company is a company, you can't expect them to sit and do nothing when they're losing money.

I don't mean to sound harsh but you may want to get sources if you do try and say things like that.

EA made nearly $221 million PROFIT, thats profit not revenue. The revenue was close to $1 billion. That was just the June 2011 quarter, NOT the whole year. So we'll quadruple that to $884 million which will probably work out more so nearly a $1 billion PROFIT for the whole year on a $4 billion revenue.

Oh sh*t, my bad then. It was something I sort of heard a year or so back, and since I hadn't heard anything else since, I assumed it was still the case. I should probably have looked it up before opening my mouth.

I'll take back most of what I said, thanks for clearing that up.

Sandytimeman:

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

I don't think that anyone is suggesting that Gamestop's practices are good for gamers or the industry at large. Just that we have every right to buy used and trade in old games without losing data. Gamestop has only gouged the market to the point where you may as well buy a new copy (as the used price is usually only a savings of a dollar or two) but as they limit their new stock so the consumer has little choice.
So all these schemes like $10 pass and dlc codes aren't going to deter crap if gamers are still only offered a used copy when they go to gamestop.
So once again, why are the publishers going after the few remaining pennies in the pockets of gamers who buy used rather than going after that market share which gamestop so readily abuses. They wouldn't have to try too hard to offer gamers a better deal than gamestop and it would actually solve their problem.
I'm not saying that publishers don't have any rights to used sales, just that if they don't actually fill that spot for the consumer, they can't decide it would just be easier to be dicks to the consumers who may buy new later...like I do.

Companies that protest used games are awkward, but I really bored from the guys who try to justify those companies...

I agree with Jim Sterling on this topic.
I wish that weird companies could also see it.

Draech:

Answer: Im not. I am argueing that the producers can treat their product in any way shape or form they please, and when you buy used you are not paying them and therefore have no say in how thoes products are treated.

I guess this strikes at the heart of "Concept of ownership" and in terms of all other digital media games are being sold short. Take for example the argument that you are just buying a licence with i guess you could technically argue for; the same is true for a digital purchase for a DVD. Yet no-one in the industry cars about used DVD or bluray sales, its a non-issue. In an age when many games are mainly multiplayer focused and their single player sections don't really hold up on their own i don't see the argument that publishers are "investing more" in a product and so sould have more rights to it; they have slightly more control over acess and their actions are a thinly veild abuse of this control.

When you buy a game the terms of service do limit you but there is a kind of common expectation that when a physical product is bought then you should have a right to re-sell that product especially when the investment for a videogame i so very high. The publoshers can techically change the terms of service to what they like and the US courts seem depressingly OK with going along with the errosion of consumer rights but in somewhere like say, the EU encompassing such huge markets as the UK, Germany and france i don't think the publishers would win out in trying to enforce more and more restrictive licencing policies for physical products.

As a consumer you DO have certain rights and expectations of a product and as time goes by i think it looks more and more likely that if test cases are brought forward the rights of the consumer to hteir entertainment will win out.

Littaly:

Oh sh*t, my bad then. It was something I sort of heard a year or so back, and since I hadn't heard anything else since, I assumed it was still the case. I should probably have looked it up before opening my mouth.

I'll take back most of what I said, thanks for clearing that up.

Actually bud I owe you an apology.

I re-read my post and it did sound a bit harsh like I was digging at you and thats not what I wanted.

To put it a nicer way which I should have done first is to say you were not 'far' wrong.

The big companies like EA and Activision do make one hell of a profit.

The little companies that try and compete for the same shares of the gaming market are the ones making a loss. Some of them do bring in a decent income but a lot of them struggle a bit which is how EA and Activision manage to put them under and take their employees and ideas.

You were on the right tracks you just needed to look a little underneath the big companies.

The smaller ones do struggle and it is a tough business to compete in when you have so many companies all vying for our business and we can only spend so much on games a year. We can't give everyone a profit and it is unfortunate that some smaller companies do struggle.

So again, I apologise for sounding a bit like a lecture in my last post, you were on the right lines and I should have explained myself better.

Don't forget one of the most subsidized industries in the US is the video game industry. I would put money on most of the video game industry in the US being software development. Basically we're paying for our games twice over and then some.

Jim Sterling:
Used Games Have A Right To Exist

Publishers would have you believe that used games are the biggest threat to the games industry. Even gamers will sympathize with these huge companies and equate the used market with piracy. Unlike piracy, however, used games have plenty of right to exist and are not the demonic entity others make them out to be. Jim Sterling, naturally, has the band-aid of reality to plaster over your fantasy cuts.

Watch Video

Best vid I've seen of yours/Jim's (do you/does he read these?) yet.

Just a thought.

Millions (billions?) of our dollars were used to bail out Detroit, decades after they collectively stopped making quality cars ("we'll let the Japanese do that!") and started churning out vehicles with a guaranteed expiration date (we can exclude Pontiac for this, IF they bring back the Solstice so I can trade my Grand Am in for one). And yet I've never once hear of Daimer-Chrysler or GM saying "we have to stop this godawful used car market, it's killing our profits! Down with Car Fax!"

Please, someone, tell me how cars and movies and music are all different from video games.

If I purchase an item, I damn well expect to own that item outright. If I want to sell it on when I'm done using it, that should be up to me. Publishers have already guaranteed themselves monster profits by negotiating ridiculously lengthy intellectual property rights. Fuck 'em if they want to sell me something then tell me I have to give them a back-hander to use it...

Dear Jim sterling.
I take back every argument I made against your first videos. Maybe I'm a little late to the party here, but your videos have improved greatly in quality. Great points are made, intelligent arguments are used to support them and overall quality is delivered.

 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