It seems that you're using an outdated browser. Some things may not work as they should (or don't work at all).
We suggest you upgrade newer and better browser like: Chrome, Firefox, Internet Explorer or Opera

×
avatar
Fomalhaut30: Except it is a product.
avatar
StingingVelvet: Only because it is sold on a disc, which it won't be for much longer.
We'll see about that. I've heard that for quite some time now.

Right now most movies are sold an physical data carriers. Sure, bandwidth increases but so does file size. Streaming a blue ray disc probably isn't fun.

avatar
Fomalhaut30: And yes, the products depreciate in value, much like anything else. A dvd can release at $20, but in a few months, it can be found in the bargain bin for $5. That initial $20 you spent will not be recouped. The flip side of that is that some of them go up in value, particularly some items that go out of print or are truly limited in production, like say the official Sailor Moon boxsets or some PC games like I Have No Mouth And I Must Scream.
avatar
StingingVelvet: I didn't say "in value." The point was 20 people can play the same copy of Bioshock and get the same EXACT experience but only the first one contributed to development. Getting the game for cheaper by waiting months or years to play it is common sense, but 20 people playing a game for every 1 that pays the developers to make it is crazy.

With a car or other physical products the person getting it used is getting a worse product than the person who got it new, adding incentive to buy new. No such thing exists with media.
Whether buyer of a car gets an inferior product depends on the circumstances. If everybody sells the car after a week or so, it won't be much worse. Ten years later it won't be up to snuff anymore even if it was being kept in good care. But then again a 10 year old video game won't be up to par with the current generation games either.

And then again we don't quite know yet how long photo-optical storage will last, but it probably won't last forever.

But the point you're actually missing here is exclusiveness in consumption. As long as those 20 people are not playing Bioshock at the same time the developer is no more entitled to their money than the car manufacturer is in you example. They sold one copy of the game and one person is playing it. That's the end of the deal for the developer.
Post edited June 16, 2012 by xy2345
Oh well I'll have to go back to my old system of giving games to people as presents and them being so grateful that they give me some money as a gift. Totally unrelated of course.
Post edited June 15, 2012 by Smannesman
avatar
Smannesman: Oh well I'll have to go back to my old system of giving games to people as presents and them being so grateful that they give me some money as a gift. Totally unrelated of course.
Honestly, if this happens, I'll just go back to my old system of "joint ownership" of all computers that me and my acquaintances have and install my games on all those machines.

I predict that if this comes to pass that there will be an entire movement of people downloading cracks for games that their friends have.
avatar
Fomalhaut30: Answer the question. Why should they be exempted from First Sale? Why are they "special" enough to warrant such exemption when no other industry on the planet has such an exemption?
avatar
StingingVelvet: I've already answered this multiple times, in this thread and others. I would even say the differences are common sense. The fact you cannot accept them is why I said we would never find common ground on this issue.
No, they aren't common sense. The publishing industry has flourished despite the second hand market for centuries. Music industry even more so was doing better when people were pirating the materials with impunity than they are doing now. And games have always been heavily pirated and heavily redistributed on the 2nd hand market. In fact until sometime in the '80s the whole idea of paying for software was largely considered ludicrous as one makes money on the hardware with the software being there to encourage people to buy hardware.

The only times the gaming industry has had serious trouble has been when they themselves glutted the market or opted to provide crap quality games.
Post edited June 15, 2012 by hedwards
avatar
xy2345: And then again we don't quite know yet how long photo-optical storage will last, but it probably won't last forever.
Actually we do, to be safe assume 5 years, the best of the best has a maximum life of 30 years last time I checked, that's tested by artificial aging techniques though, it might not be impossible to extend that with extreme care.
I have a question
Would that basically mean people will not be allowed to sell games back to places like EB etc for store credit etc?. What about private 2nd hand sales of games in papers or on ebay etc?.
Game publishers are getting way to farking greedy. Geeez. What next? People not allowed to sell their 2nd hand clothes or other gear?....
avatar
nijuu: I have a question
Would that basically mean people will not be allowed to sell games back to places like EB etc for store credit etc?. What about private 2nd hand sales of games in papers or on ebay etc?.
Game publishers are getting way to farking greedy. Geeez. What next? People not allowed to sell their 2nd hand clothes or other gear?....
Yes, that's the whole point of it, publishers want to kill the second hand market.
I get so mad when I see people at the Salvation Army buying secondhand clothes. Clothes publishers need our help!
Unlike physical products, we don't become the owners of games when we "buy" them. Instead, we license them. I feel it's probably reasonable that the law doesn't require game licenses to be transferrable.

That said I think there should be clear restrictions on what an EULA may and may not require and on what grounds it may and may not be terminated. One should always be able to read it before purchase, preferably in plain English instead of Legalese. Having to make the deal before seeing the "contract" is silly to say the least.

Intellectual property is a fairly new construct and I don't think it's at all well developed or widely understood yet.
Post edited June 16, 2012 by mpartel
avatar
mpartel: Unlike physical products, we don't become the owners of games when we "buy" them. Instead, we license them. I feel it's probably reasonable that the law doesn't require game licenses to be transferrable.

That said I think there should be clear restrictions on what an EULA may and may not require and on what grounds it may and may not be terminated. One should always be able to read it before purchase, preferably in plain English instead of Legalese. Having to make the deal before seeing the "contract" is silly to say the least.

Intellectual property is a fairly new construct and I don't think it's at all well developed or widely understood yet.
Yes, but the publishers want to have it both ways, they want to license it to you and require that you only use the physical copy that they provided.

What's more, when the stores sell you your copy, they historically haven't ever mentioned that they aren't actually selling you anything, that's been in the EULA that's packaged inside the box.

Realistically they need to decide whether they're selling or licensing. If they're selling then I should be able to resell it. If they're just licensing it then I should be able to download copies if the media ever breaks.
avatar
anjohl: I get so mad when I see people at the Salvation Army buying secondhand clothes. Clothes publishers need our help!
What's worse, they don't have tanks or even light arms. Seriously, what kind of lame army doesn't even have rifles?
Post edited June 16, 2012 by hedwards
avatar
hedwards: Realistically they need to decide whether they're selling or licensing. If they're selling then I should be able to resell it. If they're just licensing it then I should be able to download copies if the media ever breaks.
Yes, a public discussion about this is long overdue. Maybe this case will help with that.

I think digital distribution is taking us more towards the "licensing" intuition. As a rule they do offer redownloads but don't offer transfer of license. Some games are tied to a digital platform even when bought on disc, which seems to reinforce the idea that the disc is there only to compensate for a slow connection and/or look pretty on a shelf.
avatar
hedwards: Realistically they need to decide whether they're selling or licensing. If they're selling then I should be able to resell it. If they're just licensing it then I should be able to download copies if the media ever breaks.
And even if they license it, I should be able to transfer the license to someone else, preferably with as little fuss as possible. Wether I pay for the license to use the product (software, music, video) or for the product itself (chair, car, computer), should make no difference, I should be able to give away or sell what I paid for (again, no matter whether that's the license or the product).
avatar
mpartel: Unlike physical products, we don't become the owners of games when we "buy" them. Instead, we license them. I feel it's probably reasonable that the law doesn't require game licenses to be transferrable.
You need to understand the legal murkiness in the US makes this not really true. As in, in some senses it's true, in others it's almost completely untrue. Especially when they use the words "buy" and "purchase" (which they always do), it makes the whole license argument even more shaky legally.
avatar
hedwards: Realistically they need to decide whether they're selling or licensing. If they're selling then I should be able to resell it. If they're just licensing it then I should be able to download copies if the media ever breaks.
avatar
Miaghstir: And even if they license it, I should be able to transfer the license to someone else, preferably with as little fuss as possible. Wether I pay for the license to use the product (software, music, video) or for the product itself (chair, car, computer), should make no difference, I should be able to give away or sell what I paid for (again, no matter whether that's the license or the product).
There's a strong argument that it may be unconscionable for them to forbid this (after all, a lot of legally purchased software is transferable).
Post edited June 16, 2012 by orcishgamer
avatar
mpartel: Unlike physical products, we don't become the owners of games when we "buy" them. Instead, we license them. I feel it's probably reasonable that the law doesn't require game licenses to be transferrable.
avatar
orcishgamer: You need to understand the legal murkiness in the US makes this not really true. As in, in some senses it's true, in others it's almost completely untrue. Especially when they use the words "buy" and "purchase" (which they always do), it makes the whole license argument even more shaky legally.
Right and what's more they'll often use the term "steal" with regards to piracy. If they aren't actually selling a product then there can be no theft. And good luck getting a refund on a copy you buy, even if the product doesn't work as advertised.

I don't pirate for personal reasons, but with the way that the publishing industry behaves, I have a harder and harder time thinking that there's anything ethically wrong with pirating from thieves and con artists.
There is one crucial point with video games: limited availability.

In most stores, games have a very limited shelves life. A few exceptions may stand here for years, at full price, but most won't be available indefinitely, disappearing forever without even making a passage to the bargain bin. Super Mario Galaxy 2 is still at full price in all stores I checked.

I was lucky to find an used Zelda: The Wind Waker to play on my Wii, something only possible because someone resold his old Gamecube to a store, and it isn't exactly a marginal title.

It's used game sales -and pirating- who keeps old games alive, circulating. Without used game sales, most games will fall in darkness in a year or two. Without used game sales, most franchises wouldn't see another year. The industry is happily burning it's own history. It may explain the shift to casual games...

Note that when I buy a video-game on a physical support, I expect a non-revocable lifetime transferable experience, like I do when I buy a movie or a book - I won't pay full price for anything less, but if the industry want less money from me, they can continues in their stupidity and die, I won't care, there is enough independents out here who treat us like customers rather that thieves.
avatar
xy2345: And then again we don't quite know yet how long photo-optical storage will last, but it probably won't last forever.
avatar
orcishgamer: Actually we do, to be safe assume 5 years, the best of the best has a maximum life of 30 years last time I checked, that's tested by artificial aging techniques though, it might not be impossible to extend that with extreme care.
Do you have recommendations for end user discs that I burn myself? I've thought about buying a magnetic tape drive before for personal archive purposes. I would let immediate family use it first and maybe let extended family and friends use it as well. I figured at the time it was probably too expensive though and wasn't too thrilled about corruption problems and thought it would be best to get blank optical disks that won't rot right away instead. Being able to make cheaper multiple copies to try to insure survival appealed more to me.

On topic (well, on topic to where the conversation is right now anyway): If publishers want to sell media as products and then treat the sales like non-transferable licenses AND binding contracts after the purchases are made by using shitty DRM in order to stop second-hand sales, fuck them . I don't mind Netflix streaming subscriptions because they're honest about what they're selling. GOG isn't perfect either, but they're cheap (usually) and don't use DRM. If someone disagrees and replies to me, I will glower at my screen while muttering under my breath and then politely ignore you...unless you offer chocolate pie.
Post edited June 17, 2012 by KyleKatarn