By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Gaming Discussion - Deveopers talk about used games countermeasure.

reask on 06 August 2008

Cheaper games might help 60 odd Euro is too expensive for a game imo.



 

 

 

 

Around the Network
Mistershine on 06 August 2008
Kenny said:
kn said:
Why don't the developers and publishers band together to lobby congress for updates to the copyright acts? Instead of stupid technology, they should be looking for general legislation that stops companies selling used games "for profit" if the developer's/publisher's license agreement states so. We as consumers are actually "licensing" the use of the intellectual property. We do not own it. The media we buy is simply a vehicle to carry it. If They simply modified their license agreements (and copyright acts supported it), Gamestop and every other used game vendor will have to stop selling used immediately. I don't see what the big deal here is and why they don't go forward with something like this. It IS intellectual property and if it is being resold for a profit (as all used games dealers are doing), it is technically theft. The company is selling other people's intellectual property for their gain. Again, I don't see the problem in forcing modification/clarification of existing legislation.

Now, that said, I would still support end users trading, using ebay, etc., as long as it was not "for profit". That would eliminate 70-80% of the second hand market. It would also not require any kind of additional DRM or other draconian measures and would allow people to take their games to a friend's house to play and so on.

They will need to bring the price down, though. I think I've bought a handful of games in my lifetime that, in my opinion, justified the $60 layout.

The problem is a little something called the First-sale doctrine, the very short version of which is that once the physical piece of media is sold to a person, the person is free to do with it as they damn well please.  The copyright owner loses all right to change of ownership of that copy of the copyrighted work at sale.

 

 In that case they could stop selling software and just sell the manual and grant the first owner of the manual exclusive use of the included software.



Ail on 06 August 2008

Like some said the real solution here is digital distribution at a discount.

Seeing how those games can't be resold used it would make a lot of sense.

Something like having PC games at retail for 50$ and 40$ if you download it online would speed up the adoption rate of digital distribution too ( and without retail getting their share and no resell of the game publishers would actually probably make more profit on the 40$ digital download than on the 50$ physical media).

Make those physical copies that can be resold more expensives so that those of us that don't plan to resell it can buy a cheaper copy :P



PS3-Xbox360 gap : 1.5 millions and going up in PS3 favor !

PS3-Wii gap : 20 millions and going down !

Kasz216 on 06 August 2008
Garcian Smith said:

So, let me get this straight: instead of going after the real problem (piracy), developers want to go after users buying games via a perfectly legitimate and legal means.

Seems like a winning proposition to me...

Also, what Stof said. I already won't pay more than $10 for a DLC game, due to the fact that if I hate it, I won't be able to resell it. The secondary market is a stop-gap on lazy developers who put out unfinished, buggy, or just plain bad games, and I want to see it remain that way.

It's because piracy isn't really that big of a problem, but by using it as a wedge "oh woe is me" issue they can strip away and get advantages away from the consumers.

It's a typical trick... you see it a lot in union negotiations both ways.



Million on 06 August 2008

Give them an inch and they'll take a mile.




Around the Network
Mistershine on 06 August 2008
Million said:
Give them an inch and they'll take a mile.

 

 I've alwayas found if you give them an inch they moan for more more more.



Kenny on 06 August 2008
Mistershine said:
Kenny said:

The problem is a little something called the First-sale doctrine, the very short version of which is that once the physical piece of media is sold to a person, the person is free to do with it as they damn well please.  The copyright owner loses all right to change of ownership of that copy of the copyrighted work at sale.

 

 In that case they could stop selling software and just sell the manual and grant the first owner of the manual exclusive use of the included software.

Even better for consumers, then.  In that case, the companies no longer have any claim to damages caused by copyright infringement, because the copyrighted work was technically given away for free (i.e there would be no monetary value to the lost sales).



Super World Cup Fighter II: Championship 2010 Edition

Kasz216 on 06 August 2008
Kenny said:
kn said:
Why don't the developers and publishers band together to lobby congress for updates to the copyright acts? Instead of stupid technology, they should be looking for general legislation that stops companies selling used games "for profit" if the developer's/publisher's license agreement states so. We as consumers are actually "licensing" the use of the intellectual property. We do not own it. The media we buy is simply a vehicle to carry it. If They simply modified their license agreements (and copyright acts supported it), Gamestop and every other used game vendor will have to stop selling used immediately. I don't see what the big deal here is and why they don't go forward with something like this. It IS intellectual property and if it is being resold for a profit (as all used games dealers are doing), it is technically theft. The company is selling other people's intellectual property for their gain. Again, I don't see the problem in forcing modification/clarification of existing legislation.

Now, that said, I would still support end users trading, using ebay, etc., as long as it was not "for profit". That would eliminate 70-80% of the second hand market. It would also not require any kind of additional DRM or other draconian measures and would allow people to take their games to a friend's house to play and so on.

They will need to bring the price down, though. I think I've bought a handful of games in my lifetime that, in my opinion, justified the $60 layout.

The problem is a little something called the First-sale doctrine, the very short version of which is that once the physical piece of media is sold to a person, the person is free to do with it as they damn well please. The copyright owner loses all right to change of ownership of that copy of the copyrighted work at sale.

Really makes you wonder how the courts let software companys get away with EULA's. 

Which are factually illegal but are upheld just because people can't think of legal way around getting people to agree to that shit..

 



Garcian Smith on 06 August 2008
Ail said:

Do you really think game publisher don't factor it in the price of the game ???

 


Yes, I do.

If someone suddenly eliminated the secondary market, we'd all just be paying the same price for a worse product.

@ Kasz216: I forget the name of the case, but a federal ruling granted EULAs legal enforcement on the grounds that you could just return the game if you didn't like it. Only, most stores don't accept returns of opened games, and you need to open the game to read the EULA, so the whole thing is just one whopper of a catch-22 that someone really needs to challenge in a new court case.



"'Casual games' are something the 'Game Industry' invented to explain away the Wii success instead of actually listening or looking at what Nintendo did. There is no 'casual strategy' from Nintendo. 'Accessible strategy', yes, but ‘casual gamers’ is just the 'Game Industry''s polite way of saying what they feel: 'retarded gamers'."

 -Sean Malstrom

 

 

Gnizmo on 06 August 2008
Ail said:

Like some said the real solution here is digital distribution at a discount.

Seeing how those games can't be resold used it would make a lot of sense.

Something like having PC games at retail for 50$ and 40$ if you download it online would speed up the adoption rate of digital distribution too ( and without retail getting their share and no resell of the game publishers would actually probably make more profit on the 40$ digital download than on the 50$ physical media).

Make those physical copies that can be resold more expensives so that those of us that don't plan to resell it can buy a cheaper copy :P

 That will annoy the retailers and get your product put in limited quantity on shelves in bad places. Retailers get a little annoyed when you try and cut the retail channel out of your business model.

@Garcian

 As I recall in those instances the company is forced to offer you a refund directly within thirty days of purchase. Most EULAs are unenforced because they are not technically legal and thus can't really be enforced. Some if them stay with-in the limits they are allowed but a whole lot go over-board and could actually cause a huge problem for the company should they be tested. This is all a bit of a fuzzy memory for me though as I haven't looked into the legalities of EULAs since my EQ days.



Starcraft 2 ID: Gnizmo 229