Xbox? Done.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 NEXT
 

I hope the Xbone fails,it's anti-consumer, anti- developer (indies at least) and pro-corporate bureaucracy and bare faced money grabbing. (i doubt i'm over simplifying things)

Xbone's pre-owned fee WILL kill the secondhand market no matter which way you cut it and it'll disrupt traditional gaming, for goodness sake i just read that they even add achievements for watching adds and TV shows, seriously, who asked for that? Where was there a pole or conversation where that was needed and if it was talked about how on earth could they take it seriously?

I really Hope the PS3 doesn't follow suit because i think the Xboox plan is the real reason EA where thinking (i say that because they backtracked)of not making games for the WiU, a lack of home invasion (forgive the hyperbole), which is what MS are proposing.

I've only recently converted to PC gaming, and i've always been a Nintendo fanboi but the PS2 onwards have always complimented my style, Xbox never had. At first it was their first controller, I had teeny tiny hands as a child but ultimately it had nothing to offer me, the XB360 looked good but to rich for me at the time buy the time the Ps3 slim was released i got that instead. But now i am completely repulsed by the console and MS.

I hope Nintendo wins again. They seem to be the only company that puts GAMES as a priority.

Frostbite3789:

The Pink Pansy:

One point; when Steam can't connect to the internet, you can still play all your games just fine. From all indications given by Microsoft thus far, with the Xbone if you can't connect to the internet once a day your console bricks itself until you can, preventing you from playing any games. This key point is the difference, at least for me.

Some of your games. Anytime you try to play some of them offline, they mystically need to update, but work the second you connect to the internet. Without updating. See: Civ V.

Umm, I'm not sure what you're talking about. I have never had a problem opening any single player game in offline mode, including Civ V.

Not to mention that this technically illegal. With ownership comes a right to resell the product, which this development severely hampers. At least that is something which consumer associations would be able to effectively tackle in court.

It really is ridiculous how they are undermining the whole concept of property with this "used game fee", and they're basically allowed to do it because law is a slow-moving beast largely controlled by a bunch of old dudes who don't understand electronics and are frightened and confused by the idea of updating the law to deal with digital/non-physical property. Not that it matters anyway since the companies have all the money and lobbying power and legal teams they need to persuade the lawmakers that electronic property really should be considered totally different and have a completely different set of anti-consumer laws applied to them.

I don't think the majority of people understand how big of a deal it is that they're essentially putting into law the idea that you don't actually own the things you purchase; you have no right to deal with or dispose of your property as you wish anymore.

The second something you own has a digital, non-physical element to it, you essentially cease to have any property rights over it.

Farther than stars:
Not to mention that this technically illegal. With ownership comes a right to resell the product, which this development severely hampers. At least that is something which consumer associations would be able to effectively tackle in court.

The law is scared and confused when it comes to non-physical property, though, so basically the second you put content on a disc you've created this huge legal loophole. You have property rights over the disc, but, as far as the law is concerned, your property rights (or at least certain property rights) do not attach to the content on the disc, so you can sell a disc with a game on it, but that game in and of itself is still the property of the company who published it and they are free to do whatever they want with respect to that non-physical content irrespective of the fact that you own the disc. That's why, for example, they can forbid you from playing games you bought.

The law of property has barely caught up to the notion that money can be stored electronically. It is seriously out of date.

The major difference is PS+ offers a clear and fairly clean differentiation between that which you the consumer own, and that which you are selectively seeking to use as part of the optional service. MMO's are much the same. There is nothing wrong with some form of subscription or rental model. We have long supported it as a voluntary option. From PS+ to iTunes, to Netflix to Leasing cars. We make the choice based on some perceived benefit or compensation. Using PS+ as an example by moving to an optional service model PS+ offers us lowered pricing and extra games for our gaming dollars. There is a legitimate value calculation to be made.

But forcing a a lease or service model on the entirety of your customer base because it is in your business interests at the expense of theirs is an extremely horrid business model. And one that will badly burn MS this generation. Between the hellish little gotcha's in Windows 8 to the XBone. It isn't simply that MS has stripped away ownership. It's that they have stripped away the choice of ownership for any of their products. And they have given us nothing of value in return.

Personally I think we the consumers would be insane to buy into this as it is not in our best interests. The option of a service based relationship is fine. The requirement of one is detrimental to us with no obvious, apparent or even possible upside. The problem is not just that the XBone has no options to it's model. It's that it offers us nothing in return for surrendering our ownership.

RikuoAmero:
In all the furor over the XBone, no-one has yet to comment on a similar service that already exists, one that ties your games to the console manufacturer's continued existence. Namely, Playstation Network Plus. If you subscribe to that, you get a myriad of premium features (why auto-updating firmware is a premium feature, I don't know, that should be standard), but to get back to the topic, they either discounted certain games or give them to you for free. However, those games can only be played as long as you are a paid subscriber. Should your subscription end, or the Sony server datacenter is bombed out of existence, you lose the ability to play them, just like what the XBone is threatening to do. Suddenly, subscribing to PSN+ isn't so that you, the customer, can access great features like uploading saves to the cloud and whatnot - it's so you can continue to play the games that are sitting on the hard drive.

The difference that many will point out is that Xbox Live is used to access things that PSN provides for free, namely access to multiplayer servers. PSN Plus, in addition to not holding multiplayer behind a paywall, also gives free games instead of restricting access to the shop and whatnot. After the subscription expires, your example and explanation applies but people are more likely to keep using it because of the feeling of not being walled off

(note, if i'm wrong, feel free to correct)

badgersprite:

Farther than stars:
Not to mention that this technically illegal. With ownership comes a right to resell the product, which this development severely hampers. At least that is something which consumer associations would be able to effectively tackle in court.

The law is scared and confused when it comes to non-physical property, though, so basically the second you put content on a disc you've created this huge legal loophole. You have property rights over the disc, but, as far as the law is concerned, your property rights (or at least certain property rights) do not attach to the content on the disc, so you can sell a disc with a game on it, but that game in and of itself is still the property of the company who published it and they are free to do whatever they want with respect to that non-physical content irrespective of the fact that you own the disc. That's why, for example, they can forbid you from playing games you bought.

The law of property has barely caught up to the notion that money can be stored electronically. It is seriously out of date.

Indeed, I have to say that that is an overly conservative interpretation of the principles of civil law. Generally property laws don't actually pertain to what an object is physically, but what can reasonable be expected of it. For instance, if I were to buy a chair, I'm not buying it as a block of wood, I'm buying it as something to sit on. I should then be able to resell it for the same purpose I bought it for. If I can't, I've been violated in my rights as a consumer.
The same construct can be applied to video games. When I buy a disc from someone, I'm not buying it for the piece of plastic, I'm buying it to play a game. I should then be able to resell it to someone else who wants to play that game. Furthermore, this construct already applies to other forms of digital entertainment, such as CDs and DVDs.
All in all, I would say that there are enough precedents already that in the long run digital ownership will sway in favour of consumers, even though a lot more litigation will be required before we get that far.

Colt47:

zelda2fanboy:
Screw this, I'm not going to stand for Microsoft's business practices! I'm going to get a gaming PC! *buys a Windows PC* This was their plan all along.

Yeah, kind of ironic how the only way they "lose" is if someone buys a wii or a ps4. On the other hand Windows 8 is doing about as poorly as this new console is going to do: the last pole I've seen shows that 25% of PC users still use windows XP and close to 70% are using windows 7. The rest are using a mix of linux, OSX, and Windows 8. So less than 5% of users are making use of Windows 8.

Yeah, Windows 8 does not seem good for people who use desktops. For mobile users, the tile system works well but with the mouse and keyboard that desktops and laptops use, the system is just a giant roadblock. Windows should have tried to make two different operating systems for mobile and laptop/desktop instead of a hybrid

Kenjitsuka:
I'm not going to buy XBOX One because of how you cannot own YOUR purchases.

"This would effectively turn digital entertainment into the equivalent of a pet hamster that's been genetically engineered to only survive on food available from one specific store (and don't you dare think that PetSmart aren't dumping money into research for exactly that right now) ."

Did you know most corn or maize or whatever you call it in the US comes from seeds that have been mutated to NOT produce viable seeds? Farmers NEED to buy new seeds EACH year now, from ONE company. YES: A few years ago *CORN* was turned into a SERVICE, Bob!!! One that you need basically subscribe to if you want to make DAMNED food!!!

Google "Monsanto Terminator Seeds" for more...
(Great name though, as they are just as evil and uncaring about humanity as any T-1000)

That in and of itself is a bit of a moral issue to me because it makes an activity even more corporate. Because of pollination, the traits that make these seeds valuable can spread, leading to legal battles that farmers are not equipped to fight which forces more under Monsanto's control. That doesn't sound good in my perspective and many probably share my opinion

Everything Bob has talked about here is the exact reason I have never bought a big budget game or an indi game I sought to play more than once on a console and fuels my disinterest in both One and Ps4 atm. 99% of my digital purchases are steam only because I trust Valve and basically no one else to maintain my right to access that content. As they regularly remind us, should Steam "break" tomorrow they'd flip a switch and all those games I own I would still have access to, minus the steam requirements.

All my games that use windows live though, I suspect many of those will be unplayable some day. So its a good thing I feel I got my value from them and will have to simply pretend they were "stolen" when the day comes that they potentially are unplayable. Maybe I'm just lazy but in general I would not find myself getting overtly mad at the prospect of losing access to some of my digitally bought media as I feel that is the world we've lived in for some time now. Doesn't stop it from sucking but I feel its a bit unrealistic to expect companies to have our best interests in mind at all times now in an age of relentless greed and arrogance and just good old fashioned asshole-ism.

Besides when worst comes to worst I'll just "download" replacements of any games I no longer can legally access, no one is to blame for us having to go to such extents besides the companies responsible for that content no longer being easily available.

Farther than stars:

badgersprite:

Farther than stars:
Not to mention that this technically illegal. With ownership comes a right to resell the product, which this development severely hampers. At least that is something which consumer associations would be able to effectively tackle in court.

The law is scared and confused when it comes to non-physical property, though, so basically the second you put content on a disc you've created this huge legal loophole. You have property rights over the disc, but, as far as the law is concerned, your property rights (or at least certain property rights) do not attach to the content on the disc, so you can sell a disc with a game on it, but that game in and of itself is still the property of the company who published it and they are free to do whatever they want with respect to that non-physical content irrespective of the fact that you own the disc. That's why, for example, they can forbid you from playing games you bought.

The law of property has barely caught up to the notion that money can be stored electronically. It is seriously out of date.

Indeed, I have to say that that is an overly conservative interpretation of the principles of civil law. Generally property laws don't actually pertain to what an object is physically, but what can reasonable be expected of it. For instance, if I were to buy a chair, I'm not buying it as a block of wood, I'm buying it as something to sit on. I should then be able to resell it for the same purpose I bought it for. If I can't, I've been violated in my rights as a consumer.
The same construct can be applied to video games. When I buy a disc from someone, I'm not buying it for the piece of plastic, I'm buying it to play a game. I should then be able to resell it to someone else who wants to play that game. Furthermore, this construct already applies to other forms of digital entertainment, such as CDs and DVDs.
All in all, I would say that there are enough precedents already that in the long run digital ownership will sway in favour of consumers, even though a lot more litigation will be required before we get that far.

Ah, but that's the thing. You can possess a chair. The reason the law is scared and confused is because the property laws which are still the basis of our system today were developed hundreds of years ago. Back then, physical possession and direct control was considered a key aspect of property and ownership. Those kinds of definitions don't really work today. However, because the common law is based on precedent, instead of updating the ancient definition of property, the law instead has to do bizarre backflips in order to fit new forms of property into this rigid and outdated legal definition that has no place in the modern world.

So, you see, you can physically possess a disc, but the digital information on that disc has no physical presence. You don't have physical possession of the content on that disc. The law basically says that you have only purchased a license to access that content.

Seriously, they struggled even when it came to the concept of applying the law of theft to electronic money.

That's legal reasoning for you.

cidbahamut:
Well done Bob.

The resident movie expert has given us the most level headed analysis of the video game console reveal debacle. Well done indeed sir.

He's also the GAME OVERTHINKER, so it's not much of a stretch.

themilo504:
My biggest fear is that one day steam will disappear, taking away most of my game collection

I hear this a lot, but really it's a non-issue.

All speculation aside on future events, "unlock codes", and other such things, just know this: Steam has an in-built "backup" system. You can create backup copies of all of your games to any drive or media you desire.

So should, at any point in the future, Steam "disappear", as long as you have your game backups (in this instance, the equivalent of having the discs) you'll be just fine.

crackfool:
Most will say that the reason Steam gets very little backlash is because games on Steam are often put on sale for a fraction of their MSRPs.

Not true.

See my post above.

The only way you could lose your library of games from Steam is if you are very irresponsible.

As I said: the client has an in-built backup feature. The only reason to NOT use it is laziness.

Uriel-238:

The real fear is if Steam got bought out by someone else, but their price is well beyond what EA offered.

238U

It's rumored EA offered Newell and company at least three billion dollars for ownership of the Valve brand, even before Steam's prevalence.

Valve turned it down. Not because it wasn't enough but because of what it would mean for the company. The change in direction. The strict corporate structure. The adherence to the whims of the stock holders instead of to the customers, the artists, and engineers.

Newell himself said, and I paraphrase, "Should it come down to that; having to sell the company; we would rather just close our doors for good than give up what makes us us."

This is not to say they can't or won't change their minds, should the right off come in. Even so, you have to admire the conviction to some degree.

Vigormortis:

Uriel-238:

The real fear is if Steam got bought out by someone else, but their price is well beyond what EA offered.

238U

It's rumored EA offered Newell and company at least three billion dollars for ownership of the Valve brand, even before Steam's prevalence.

Valve turned it down. Not because it wasn't enough but because of what it would mean for the company. The change in direction. The strict corporate structure. The adherence to the whims of the stock holders instead of to the customers, the artists, and engineers.

Newell himself said, and I paraphrase, "Should it come down to that; having to sell the company; we would rather just close our doors for good than give up what makes us us."

This is not to say they can't or won't change their minds, should the right off come in. Even so, you have to admire the conviction to some degree.

I don't know how true the war is between EA and Valve, but if Valve really has gone to developers and said that "you must sell your DLC a specific way" I consider them no better then what Microsoft is rumored to be doing here. I have been going back to try and find a few articles, but the statements from Microsoft change so much depending on what article you are reading I am not even sure how much of it is true and just guessing from people that aren't completely up to speed on what the current implementation is.

I really need to see what Microsoft is exactly offering, for otherwise its a lot of people reading into comments that might be out of date and from a few of the comments that have the community in an uproar if true will hopefully change.

MovieBob:
But I know what too far looks like, in terms of tying my fate to that of a corporation simply because I at one point wished to use their product. And turning videogames into "services" because of a false choice between quality and freedom of use is the beginning of too far.

Too true. I wonder, if the gaming market does crash during or immediately after this coming console generation, which publisher will succeed simply by offering gamers ownership of the games they purchase.

The fears of Valve or Origin closing, and people losing their game collections actually holds some water. So what if you back up everything. If you ever want to install them, or move them to a different machine, you will need to authenticate them online. If Steam closes down, you WILL lose those games. Same goes for if your account gets banned as well.

The cloud does scare a lot of people, and so it should. The only digital distributed games that truly give you ownership of what you pay for is GOG. You have the library online, but if you wish to download all of those games onto a HDD, you will be able to play them till the end of time no matter what.

Microsoft aren't that stupid, guys. They are happy to make a system that appeals to their biggest revenue generating demographic. All of those who are saying "I'm happy to be/become a PC gamer", they've taken that into account. Probably also because Windows 8 sales haven't exactly been what they should be. Anything they don't force onto you in this console generation, you can bet your ass they will start to in the next PC "generation".

RikuoAmero:
In all the furor over the XBone, no-one has yet to comment on a similar service that already exists, one that ties your games to the console manufacturer's continued existence. Namely, Playstation Network Plus. If you subscribe to that, you get a myriad of premium features (why auto-updating firmware is a premium feature, I don't know, that should be standard), but to get back to the topic, they either discounted certain games or give them to you for free. However, those games can only be played as long as you are a paid subscriber. Should your subscription end, or the Sony server datacenter is bombed out of existence, you lose the ability to play them, just like what the XBone is threatening to do. Suddenly, subscribing to PSN+ isn't so that you, the customer, can access great features like uploading saves to the cloud and whatnot - it's so you can continue to play the games that are sitting on the hard drive.

yes

but PNP isn't MANDATORY FOR EVERY GAME

themilo504:
My biggest fear is that one day steam will disappear, taking away most of my game collection

While there are no guarantees Gabe has said that it would probably not be too hard to release a patch that allowed all your Steam games to function without phoning into Valve's servers.

In any case I buy from GOG.com whenever I can, as you get to download a completely DRM free installer that will always work on as many machines, as many years down the road, as you would care to install it. If the game's market gets REALLY competitive I think we'll see less restrictive DRM, not more, as in the end service and convenience win out. Up until very recently the big guys have not had any competition, it has been a 2 company game with others on the periphery. Now mobile is a big deal, there are streaming services, Steam, Humble Bundles, GOG.com, indies, etc., and the big three are going to have to adapt. I don't see them adapting.

Opposite an article referencing Idiocracy was (for me) an advert declaring "Twix: join the debate!"

badgersprite:

Farther than stars:

badgersprite:

The law is scared and confused when it comes to non-physical property, though, so basically the second you put content on a disc you've created this huge legal loophole. You have property rights over the disc, but, as far as the law is concerned, your property rights (or at least certain property rights) do not attach to the content on the disc, so you can sell a disc with a game on it, but that game in and of itself is still the property of the company who published it and they are free to do whatever they want with respect to that non-physical content irrespective of the fact that you own the disc. That's why, for example, they can forbid you from playing games you bought.

The law of property has barely caught up to the notion that money can be stored electronically. It is seriously out of date.

Indeed, I have to say that that is an overly conservative interpretation of the principles of civil law. Generally property laws don't actually pertain to what an object is physically, but what can reasonable be expected of it. For instance, if I were to buy a chair, I'm not buying it as a block of wood, I'm buying it as something to sit on. I should then be able to resell it for the same purpose I bought it for. If I can't, I've been violated in my rights as a consumer.
The same construct can be applied to video games. When I buy a disc from someone, I'm not buying it for the piece of plastic, I'm buying it to play a game. I should then be able to resell it to someone else who wants to play that game. Furthermore, this construct already applies to other forms of digital entertainment, such as CDs and DVDs.
All in all, I would say that there are enough precedents already that in the long run digital ownership will sway in favour of consumers, even though a lot more litigation will be required before we get that far.

Ah, but that's the thing. You can possess a chair. The reason the law is scared and confused is because the property laws which are still the basis of our system today were developed hundreds of years ago. Back then, physical possession and direct control was considered a key aspect of property and ownership. Those kinds of definitions don't really work today. However, because the common law is based on precedent, instead of updating the ancient definition of property, the law instead has to do bizarre backflips in order to fit new forms of property into this rigid and outdated legal definition that has no place in the modern world.

So, you see, you can physically possess a disc, but the digital information on that disc has no physical presence. You don't have physical possession of the content on that disc. The law basically says that you have only purchased a license to access that content.

Seriously, they struggled even when it came to the concept of applying the law of theft to electronic money.

That's legal reasoning for you.

Actually, the data on a disc does have a physical presence. On DVDs, CDs, and Blue Ray the information is stored via pits and lands on the reflective side on the disc. The only case where things get dicey is where someone gets access to some core software through a client program they purchased, such as on MMOs. This is why businesses are pushing the cloud and always online requirements: because if they can make it work, they can simply "Lend" the playable software via a client program that we technically own. This is already somewhat the case with MMOs, though we have more data on our side of the equation than most think.

You know, Mr Chipman, I have generally avoided EVERYTHING you have written since you turned on your fans in the whole Mass Effect fiasco, but I am glad I read this article.

You brought up some salient points - and while I do not agree with all your statements, I think you raise an interesting idea. The notion that businesses are trying to change the paradigm of reliance.

Fascinating really!

Uriel-238:

themilo504:
My biggest fear is that one day steam will disappear, taking away most of my game collection

Being one of the first groups try this, Valve actually has an apocalypse contingency plan, at which point they'll provide time for you to download and back-up your files, and they'll provide a universal unlock.

The real fear is if Steam got bought out by someone else, but their price is well beyond what EA offered.

238U

Honestly, Steam won't disappear. The likely scenario is that it will be bought up by some company that won't be as mellow as Valve. And when that happens, this rumored contingency plan will be shit-canned.

I don't always agree with you MovieBob, but this article hit the nail right on the head. Microsoft has finally gone too far with this console, and I think this will be the first thing I actively decide not to buy no matter what games come out on it.

here is where all complaints about steam fall apart. If you are on a computer and have steam, close this window and disconnect from the internet. scary i know but i only ask your indulgence for a few moments. once it is disconnected from the World wide web and supposedly a tube to the steam servers, open steam. A error message will pop-up lamenting your egregious lack of internet connection. however on that error message there will be a button to access in offline mode. from there steam will act as it normally does opening and allowing you access to your entire library. you can play all the games in your library with no problems except you know the games that are played online, the WoWs and planetsides and counter-strikes and such.

In theory this is what would happen if Valve filed for bankruptcy and closed it's doors.

Now this terribly off topic tangent rebuke to arguments that Xbox One DRM is the same as steam is over.

The Pink Pansy:

Frostbite3789:

The Pink Pansy:

One point; when Steam can't connect to the internet, you can still play all your games just fine. From all indications given by Microsoft thus far, with the Xbone if you can't connect to the internet once a day your console bricks itself until you can, preventing you from playing any games. This key point is the difference, at least for me.

Some of your games. Anytime you try to play some of them offline, they mystically need to update, but work the second you connect to the internet. Without updating. See: Civ V.

Umm, I'm not sure what you're talking about. I have never had a problem opening any single player game in offline mode, including Civ V.

There's at least one scenario I can think of: if you happen to switch to offline mode when Steam is attempting to force an update (whether it's a client update or a game update), Steam will deny you access to content because the update couldn't be finished. That's one of the worst drawbacks to Steam's auto-update feature, and it's one of my biggest complaints about the service.

This kind of thinking is what drove me away from Apple - you must use our product our way and we'll make for damn sure it won't work your way...even though you purchased a physical piece of machinery...

I get that it becomes more convenient/cool to pick up games via PSN/xbox live and just download it in the background. But, that Hasbro analogy you made just really got to me, because it's so true.

Ultimately though, I think what'll end up happening is kids will still get the xbox, because their parents will pick it up for them at xmas, but our generation will take a pass on it. I'm sure it'll still sell gangbusters, and as a result will help normalize the cost/no-used-games to a new generation of gamers.

It'll leave us as a more marginalized, 'i remember the good ol' days,' group of people. Microsoft doesn't care able creating good games for gamers, they care about increasing their marketshare and selling more xboxes & services to people, hence something like the NFL-partnership. Everybody wants to figure out how to make their next console sell like the Wii.

I'd love to think that there will be a niche of developers that will cater to us, but with production costs being so astronomically high I'm sure it'll end up being a few small-independent developers at best. PC's and Indie games will still be our bastion, but yeah

I for one, choose to speak with my wallet. I'm getting a PS4.

zelda2fanboy:
Screw this, I'm not going to stand for Microsoft's business practices! I'm going to get a gaming PC! *buys a Windows PC* This was their plan all along.

And that, in a nutshell, is why Valve are trying to pivot Steam and its library away from being Windows-specific. Even the biggest purveyors of DRM on the planet (nice, friendly DRM, but DRM nonetheless) don't like the idea of MS sharecroppers.

And that's what MS want us to be: sharecroppers.

Trishbot:
Here's a question I want answered:

When the Xbox One's time in the sun is over, and the new system is on the horizon, and Microsoft stops supporting it... what happens when this system can no longer go online to authenticate its games to grant me "permission" to play the library I've spent years and hundreds of dollars acquiring?

Because it needs that daily online check to function... so what happens when, 10 years from now, the servers to the system have been turned off and the system is effectively a non-functioning brick?

Some of us have been asking that question for yeeeeeeeears!.

238U

I think microsoft has reached the end of it's evolutionary tree or is at least nearing it.
At this rate it will be the winner of the first darwin electronics award.

Well, i really don't think this will be a massive problem since most gamers won't buy the xbox one for reasons like this and other people won't buy it because they won't see a purpose in doing so. If the console doesn't sell than wouldn't Microsoft have to change their policy?

RikuoAmero:
In all the furor over the XBone, no-one has yet to comment on a similar service that already exists, one that ties your games to the console manufacturer's continued existence. Namely, Playstation Network Plus. If you subscribe to that, you get a myriad of premium features (why auto-updating firmware is a premium feature, I don't know, that should be standard), but to get back to the topic, they either discounted certain games or give them to you for free. However, those games can only be played as long as you are a paid subscriber. Should your subscription end, or the Sony server datacenter is bombed out of existence, you lose the ability to play them, just like what the XBone is threatening to do. Suddenly, subscribing to PSN+ isn't so that you, the customer, can access great features like uploading saves to the cloud and whatnot - it's so you can continue to play the games that are sitting on the hard drive.

Except that Sony been very upfront about PSN Plus, Microsoft have yet to make a statement on the matter, allowing the EULA do the actual talking for them.

What needs to happen is the American Public needs to write to there senators and congressmen to protect the FIRST SALES DOCTRINE, a vital part of copyright law that states that if you buy something it is yours to do as you please until you no longer wish to have it anymore then its up to you as the owner of said device what to do with such product.

Colt47:

badgersprite:

Farther than stars:

Indeed, I have to say that that is an overly conservative interpretation of the principles of civil law. Generally property laws don't actually pertain to what an object is physically, but what can reasonable be expected of it. For instance, if I were to buy a chair, I'm not buying it as a block of wood, I'm buying it as something to sit on. I should then be able to resell it for the same purpose I bought it for. If I can't, I've been violated in my rights as a consumer.
The same construct can be applied to video games. When I buy a disc from someone, I'm not buying it for the piece of plastic, I'm buying it to play a game. I should then be able to resell it to someone else who wants to play that game. Furthermore, this construct already applies to other forms of digital entertainment, such as CDs and DVDs.
All in all, I would say that there are enough precedents already that in the long run digital ownership will sway in favour of consumers, even though a lot more litigation will be required before we get that far.

Ah, but that's the thing. You can possess a chair. The reason the law is scared and confused is because the property laws which are still the basis of our system today were developed hundreds of years ago. Back then, physical possession and direct control was considered a key aspect of property and ownership. Those kinds of definitions don't really work today. However, because the common law is based on precedent, instead of updating the ancient definition of property, the law instead has to do bizarre backflips in order to fit new forms of property into this rigid and outdated legal definition that has no place in the modern world.

So, you see, you can physically possess a disc, but the digital information on that disc has no physical presence. You don't have physical possession of the content on that disc. The law basically says that you have only purchased a license to access that content.

Seriously, they struggled even when it came to the concept of applying the law of theft to electronic money.

That's legal reasoning for you.

Actually, the data on a disc does have a physical presence. On DVDs, CDs, and Blue Ray the information is stored via pits and lands on the reflective side on the disc. The only case where things get dicey is where someone gets access to some core software through a client program they purchased, such as on MMOs. This is why businesses are pushing the cloud and always online requirements: because if they can make it work, they can simply "Lend" the playable software via a client program that we technically own. This is already somewhat the case with MMOs, though we have more data on our side of the equation than most think.

^ Right. The actual games themselves don't have a complete physical presence on the disc anymore for this reason, because other media on discs like TV shows or films you actually do have property rights over, because the content is entirely on the physical disc. That's what I meant before. I apologise that I wasn't clear. This is why you can resell Xbox 360 games just fine, because if the game is entirely on the physical disc, you are completely free to resell it. That's why they're changing their model to sever that.

This is why more and more companies have taken on a "service" model, like Bob says. It enables them to forgo property laws by basically saying that the content is online, or at least to the point where companies have enough control over the game content that it affords them those property rights. Like I said, this is pretty much why video games can be locked out on your own systems if you don't connect to the internet or whatever. Gamers don't have enough "ownership" over the content, so it's not their property, and the "service providers" can do with it as they please, and the law can deny you the right to dispose of your game as you please.

And I'm not even talking about intellectual property with respect to the games. That's a completely separate issue and shouldn't factor in at all when it comes to things like resale rights and the ability to lend games to friends. Know why? Because of books. I don't own any rights over the words and content printed within a book. I can't legally take those words and manufacture a copy of the book without infringing copyright. But can I lend a book I paid for to a friend? Can I give it away to a complete stranger for free without them having to pay the publisher or author? Yes. I absolutely can. This is pretty much the whole concept that allows things like libraries to exist. And the same is true of paintings, movies or TV shows. If I own that copy, I can do whatever I want with it up to the point of infringing copyright.

The fact that a game is any different defies common sense, but common sense and legal reasoning don't often go together.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 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