kn said:
I certainly understand and appreciate your argument but video games, specifically console games, have a very limited audience. The number of people that are willing to buy a used Finding Nemo is enormous and selling that game used probably doesn't cut into overall sales (as a percentage of total) nearly as much as selling used copies of, say, a $60 game for a console with a 10-20 million localised userbase. I think there are enough unique things about the video game industry that it can't be compared easily with other "second hand" marketplaces. Regardless, it is Intellectual Property and if the developers decide to put a "this title cannot be re-sold at retail" in the license agreement, put the little disk in a bag, and sticker over the envelope so, once broken, you've agreed, it's their perogative. I truly think something like this is coming in some format or another over the next 2-3 years... We'll see, I guess. Greed often triumphs over sound reasoning..... Edit: Also, I do want to make a clear distinction between Intellectual Property and property in which you take title on delivery. The two cannot really be meaningfully compared as the IP owner holds all right and title and the buyer of said IP -- that book, game, software, etc. is bound by the copyright agreement, license agreement, etc... That sort of changes the balance of power in a second hand market (if the IP owner wants to). |
Regarding first bolded statement: isn't this precisely what Nintendo is disproving as we speak? We've got women and the elderly playing games.
Which tells us that these people will play games, they just don't like the games that had previously been offered to them. Which, again, means the problem is the fault of video game companies. If women are willing to play (as clearly evidenced by recent events), but hadn't been playing up until recently, it's clearly the fault of video game companies. They could have expanded their audience, but no one did. The "limited audience," as you put it, is a problem caused by gaming companies themselves. No one is forcing this "limited audience" on them, and they could make a different type of game that appealed to broader audiences at any time they wanted.
As to the second bolded: it is not actually their perogative, and I'll have to assume you do not undersand IP law. There are actual consumer rights that are legal and ratified, which means that none of these "end user" agreements are enforcable and are just pieces of paper used to bully consumers (and no one ever tries to take these to court, by the way). Of course, they could just make the ending to the game unplayable unless you pay 10$ online: that doesn't require any sort of EULA and is completely legal.
As a side note, EULAs are enforcable in the specific case where you connect directly to a company's servers. So, for example, MMOs have enforcable EULAs: not because they have the right to stop you from reselling it, but because they have the right to stop you from using their servers.
http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a324/Arkives/Disccopy.jpg%5B/IMG%5D">
http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a324/Arkives/Disccopy.jpg%5B/IMG%5D">







