[QUOTE=carcarcargo;40815138]I'm sorry but people against used games are just dumb. If you buy something why on earth shouldn't I be able to resell it? I bought it so it SHOULD be rightfully mine (games,films and music seem to get special treatment in this regard and get to tell people what they can and cannot do with something they've bought) and thus I should also be able to resell the working product. The company doesn't get money from used games? Tough, car companies don't get money from used car sales either but I don't see anyone complaining about those.[/QUOTE]
As a developer, when you buy one of my games, I certainly don't consider it "handing over ownership of the title". You paid for the right to play the game. You do not own the maps/models/textures. You own a license to play the game and that's it.
Don't compare cars, $5,000-500,0000 pieces of [b]HARDWARE[/b] to a $50 game. That's retarded.
[QUOTE=Daniel M;40825015]As a developer, when you buy one of my games, I certainly don't consider it "handing over ownership of the title". You paid for the right to play the game. You do not own the maps/models/textures. You own a license to play the game and that's it.
Don't compare cars, $5,000-500,0000 pieces of [b]HARDWARE[/b] to a $50 game. That's retarded.[/QUOTE]
I think you're confusing owning a copy of a game i want to install on anything and everything i want without having to worry about external services with selling me a game that i have limited use of.
If i buy a game, i should play it until it degrades over time or until i sell it. The game is [B][U]worthless if no one can play it.[/U][/B]
[QUOTE=ijyt;40824890]How can you take a person this delusional, thinking they're always right, seriously? Totalbiscuit is a joke.[/QUOTE]
Do you seriously want to start this shit again?
[QUOTE=ijyt;40824890]How can you take a person this delusional, thinking they're always right, seriously? Totalbiscuit is a joke.
[url]https://twitter.com/Totalbiscuit/status/339089593947287552[/url]
[IMG]http://i.imgur.com/gayZrCN.png[/IMG][/QUOTE]
He's arrogant sure but you can't deny he makes clear and well thought out arguments. Certainly better than "lol TB's dumb don't listen to him"
[QUOTE=megafat;40825040]I think you're confusing owning a copy of a game i want to install on anything and everything i want without having to worry about external services with selling me a game that i have limited use of.
If i buy a game, i should play it until it degrades over time or until i sell it. The game is [B][U]worthless if no one can play it.[/U][/B][/QUOTE]
Oh yeah I'm all for the digital rights of consumers. As long as it's not exchanging hands (selling a Steam account or whatever) I'm fine with that. Install it on as many machines as you want. I've just heard the argument that once the copy is sold, the user owns everything publicly accessible (not including the decompiled source code) that the disk contains. That means music/sounds/models/textures/maps/executables/binaries.
How many of you actually watched the whole video? It seems a lot of people are saying things that were already addressed in the video.
[QUOTE=Corndog Ninja;40816153]We've established that cars do not make for a good analogy on video games.
How about libraries? I've read hundreds of books that I've never paid for (apart from a smidgen of my taxes, and as a child I didn't have to pay those), and the publishers don't make any money from the hundreds of people who check their book out from the library. Heck, nowadays you can even get ebooks from libraries.[/QUOTE]
The argument was that books don't have an upkeep cost for things like servers and aren't as expensive to produce.
[QUOTE=Daniel M;40825061]Oh yeah I'm all for the digital rights of consumers. As long as it's not exchanging hands (selling a Steam account or whatever) I'm fine with that. Install it on as many machines as you want. I've just heard the argument that once the copy is sold, the user owns everything publicly accessible (not including the decompiled source code) that the disk contains. That means music/sounds/models/textures/maps/executables/binaries.[/QUOTE]
Wait. You think that when someone buys a game, and they say that they own it, you think that they're talking about legally owning everything on that disk? That's not what that means.
[QUOTE=megafat;40825091]Wait. You think that when someone buys a game, and they say that they own it, you think that they're talking about legally owning everything on that disk? That's not what that means.[/QUOTE]
Just saying I've heard that argument and if I recall, it's held up in court that the user legally owns those assets (which can be used to reverse engineer titles and be used for other non-profit projects)
[QUOTE=Daniel M;40825097]Just saying I've heard that argument and if I recall, it's held up in court that the user legally owns those assets (which can be used to reverse engineer titles and be used for other non-profit projects)[/QUOTE]
In terms of copyright, the company owns all of the assets. But when it comes down to it, a person should be able to sell that game or install it wherever and whenever.
[QUOTE=ashxu;40825062]How many of you actually watched the whole video? It seems a lot of people are saying things that were already addressed in the video.[/QUOTE]
I just want to know how many people watched the video and actually prepared themselves to attempt to look at this issue in a different perspective than they're used to, because I was reading though the comments on the front page and it seemed that people just cherry picked key phrases and immediately applied the knowledge that they have been living with and shining a negative light on TB, even though if the person actually listened and stepped outside their box they would probably not need to make such comments in the first place.
This is taking into account the reputation that TB has (especially with the majority of FP members) when it comes to these things, people will automatically view potential criticism that he has as worthless drivel when they've experienced controversial views from him before, whether it be some opinions from his WTF videos or cherry-picked comments from his Youtube channel/social platform #028.
Really, I've always thought of used games as positive, but not essential thing. I don't always agree with TB, but he got me here. Didn't know they pushed used games so hard in GameStop and such, it's not like I've bought anything there for a long time.
The concept of ownership is the same. Several courts have found that software sales are not license sales, meaning you can resell them as the non-transferable licensing doesn't come into effect.
To get the license argument to work games would have to be pushed a lot harder as the sale of a license and not just a disk with the game on it.
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-sale_doctrine[/url]
[url]http://www.out-law.com/page-9151[/url]
Did I miss it or did TB ignore game rentals? He just makes Alex Jones-esque connections and conspiracies between things and cries foul that not everything is on equal footing. Oh glad retail gaming stores are not a "very valuable service to the gaming community". "Some games that are not services" Does he mean all the single player games that by far outnumber the multi-player games? His assessment or a games lifespan is ridiculous as well, lifespan would imply how long it works and since games apparently don't degrade (cracked disks?) it's a moot point. "Audacity to make demands" Like he was trying with his Nintendo rant?
Cherry of his video "These guys are knob sacks", and people wonder why gaming gets looked down on by some people. Once again he paints the portrait of his side being the poor disadvantaged group being bullied by the evil opposition. This guy claims to be a law graduate yet ignores the law when convenient and argues morals, whilst simultaneously making his argument sympathetic at the expense of actual points. People always side morally with the more sympathetic side and he does it in these videos every time.
Imagine, if you will, if you went down to a car dealership of a specific brand of car to buy your first vehicle. You find the car and gleefully say "Awesome, i own my own car!", only for the dealer to turn around and say "Well, actually, you only own a license to own this car (not a license to drive in general, only to use that car), and if anyone else wants to drive it, they have to pay a nominal fee, and when the service used for this car stops and your car dies or stops working, we no longer support it. There's also a little thing in our car that prevents the car from going when our service ends too."
You would be fucking pissed.
Stop comparing video games to a completely different market. The analogy really doesn't work.
[QUOTE=ashxu;40825286]Stop comparing video games to a completely different market. The analogy really doesn't work.[/QUOTE]
Then I'll compare it to movies, another form of entertainment. Imagine if a movie you liked got stuck on an old format that had to connect to a server that wasn't there any more.
[QUOTE=megafat;40825315]Then I'll compare it to movies, another form of entertainment. Imagine if a movie you liked got stuck on an old format that had to connect to a server that wasn't there any more.[/QUOTE]
Maybe you should watch the video because he covers music, movies etc as why it can't be compared with.
Yeah a car and a game are different objects, but what makes them different from a ownership standpoint?
From a legal standpoint ownership is the same. Unless retailers are going to explicitly state at the point of sale you are receiving a non transferable license it is assumed to be a normal transaction, EULA's and anything inside the box is moot since I could sell a unopened game and never even see the terms and conditions they are claiming I agree to. So by that, ownership of a game is exactly the same as a car, book, CD, Table, hell even a pet and that includes all resale rights. I doubt anyone really want to start changing ownership rights of everyday objects.
He never explains why games and music are differant, he just waffles on about revenue streams which again last time I checked HAS NO BEARING ON OWNERSHIP LAWS!
Movies have box office (which usually covers the cost of production plus plenty of profit), online rentals, sales and tv revenue to draw money from in Too Long; Didn't Watch form, while games only have initial sales and DLC to draw from (special mention to subscription based models, as they are a dying practice in favor of F2P models which is similar to DLC). If I've failed to mention something please do say so.
I don't know why I'm getting rated dumb for the car post. I'm not comparing the car to the game, I'm comparing the ownership of said products. If someone told you about an always on internet connection of most other things, you would be pissed. Why are games different?
[QUOTE=benwaddi;40825391]Yeah a car and a game are different objects, but what makes them different from a ownership standpoint?
From a legal standpoint ownership is the same. Unless retailers are going to explicitly state at the point of sale you are receiving a non transferable license it is assumed to be a normal transaction, EULA's and anything inside the box is moot since I could sell a unopened game and never even see the terms and conditions they are claiming I agree to. So by that, ownership of a game is exactly the same as a car, book, CD, Table, hell even a pet and that includes all resale rights. I doubt anyone really want to start changing ownership rights of everyday objects.
He never explains why games and music are differant, he just waffles on about revenue streams which again last time I checked HAS NO BEARING ON OWNERSHIP LAWS![/QUOTE]
His argument was that the difference between music and games was that music already has several established ways to make money besides the initial sale of CDs, whereas games are extremely reliant on new sales, and attempts at forming other methods of gaining revenue like DLC and online passes have been met with public outcry.
Your criticisms have mostly been based around the fact that legally you own a game and can resell it. The thing is, he's not really disputing whether or not it's legal to resell games (unless I'm missing something). Mostly this video seemed to me to be talking about how publishers and developers are affected by used sales, why they've been trying to implement ways of getting money out of used purchases, and why he thinks that those methods are reasonable.
Aside from Steam and licensing, Valve still makes money from their own games, right?
[QUOTE=KorJax;40815296]This video is exactly why banning used game sales will benefit no consumer in the industry and won't be nearly as much of a benefit to publisher's as they wish it would
Used game sales allow storefronts like Gamestop to exist - the very same storefronts that front the majority of your retail new game sales, and the majority of which allow people to ACTUALLY afford new game releases. In a way, the "price you pay" for allowing used game sales is that you get front stage support for your new releases, new IP's, etc by the largest game retailer on earth.
Secondly, used game sales (and piracy to a lesser extent) are the things that spread your brand. Brand awareness is extremely important. If the paywall is too high, why the hell would anyone get your game? Rentals and used game sales are how the console market experiences new IP's, allows gamers who don't have tons of money to actually play your IP, and it builds a brand trust so they become excited for your new game on launch instead of forgetting about it because they couldn't afford to buy your previous game brand new in the first place.
That said he never addressed the real reason why Steam sales exist and do so well, and why no other company will ever likely adopt a sale program such as steam:
1. Valve is privately owned and answers to no one. Their business motives are not "make our bottom line look good for shareholders", they make risks and do R&D because they don't have those shackles on them. Steam sales are a direct result of that experimentation, and it was a success. The reason why they still do them is largly because they believe it provides them with superior service to the gaming community, as it increases the value of the steam brand (THIS IS HUGE, but something investors will [I]never[/I] understand as it doesn't direct add to short-term bottom lines) and because..
2. .. turns out, they make much more when they sell a game 5 months past launch for $5. Like, 3000% more. And they can do this because steam sales are purely digital, so you can't lose money on something that doesn't cost any money to re-distribute once it's made.[/QUOTE]
Even Gabe admitted that he doesn't understand how Steam Sales work like they do
I think the bottom line for this argument is that I simply don't trust publishers.
I don't believe that Microsoft/Sony/Whoever will willingly give into a system like Steam, where we can accept that games can not be traded because of the great sales, etc.
They may eventually end up there, but when they cut used games, console gaming is going to be one [I]hell[/I] of a bumpy road for awhile.
Oh boy, gonna gonna play devil's advocate for the devil's advocate. Well or so he calls that, but he's really just stating his opinion rather than defending the side he doesn't agree with.
[QUOTE=carcarcargo;40815429]He even goes on about how games don't have other methods of revenue, despite most games now having DLC, which believe it or not TB, it another method of revenue for game publishers, so yes it can be compared to music and DVD's. Oh and games also cost £40 where as DVD's and CD's usually cost about £15-10[/QUOTE]
He explicitly states that DLC and online passes are stuff devs put into place to create additional ways of revenue.
If the outcries from hardcore gamers (that would be fan enough to buy extras for their game) are anything to remotely go by, DLC's not as effective as alternative ways of revenue for other media, thus the actual games still need to shoulder the bulk of the cost. Not the only price determinator of course, AAA industry has some rather severe sale expectation and homogenization problems right now.
[QUOTE=Doomish;40815586]besides interest in the game fading, newer versions and rereleases, and older used games being playable on consoles that are no longer sold, yeah dude they're exactly the same [...] the quality and worth of a physical copy definitely degrades just the same as any other physical product you can buy and sell[/QUOTE]
That happens to car models as well on TOP of their actual quality degrading through usage. When a gaming DVD gets little scratches, it'll usually still work fine or just need a small repair to be perfectly functional again, so the core product generally doesn't degrade in quality through usage.
[QUOTE=Elv02;40815666]How can he make the connection that new games are coming out cheaper and regularly go on sale? [...] This doesn't apply to Xbox. Games to not come down in price. Especially on the Xbox digital store. Also, Xbox doesn't have insane sales like we experience on Steam. He may be condemning used game sales but it's not going to become like what we have on PC gaming.[/QUOTE]
IIRC PSN and Origin have some fairly huge sales every now and then as well. I'm fairly certain about PSN anyway. So for XBOX specifically this might just be Microsoft being Microsoft again. I don't recall what's the deal for Nintendo.
[QUOTE=Elv02;40815447]I think it was Extra Credits that did an episode on this to that said we are going to lose [I]so much[/I] gaming history because when we try to show these games to future generations, they simply [I]won't work.[/I][/QUOTE]
Thank god for cracks and services like GoG.
[QUOTE=Marik Bentusi;40826680]
IIRC PSN and Origin have some fairly huge sales every now and then as well. I'm fairly certain about PSN anyway. So for XBOX specifically this might just be Microsoft being Microsoft again. I don't recall what's the deal for Nintendo.
[/QUOTE]
Except the first big "sale" for Origin was that Player Appreciation Sale... Which was really an apology for SimCity.
I don't know about PSN though, but Xbox never had any 'fantastic' deals that I know of.
[QUOTE=Marik Bentusi;40826680]
Thank god for cracks and services like GoG.
[/QUOTE]
Except "Cracks and GoG" only apply to PCs. What are you going to do if you want to play an old Xbox One game, and the servers are long past shut down?
[QUOTE=Elv02;40826962]
Except "Cracks and GoG" only apply to PCs. What are you going to do if you want to play an old Xbox One game, and the servers are long past shut down?[/QUOTE]
I don't know, probably just play it? There isn't any reason for Microsoft not to remove that restriction whenever they are going to shut the servers down, they wouldn't gain anything from it but lose a massive amount of possible future customers due to screwing them over in the past. The same applies to Steam, no one really knows.
[QUOTE=RautaPalli;40815155]Whenever this topic gets brought up here (especially in the Xbox One thread) it gets showered with dumbs, people really want their cheap games, eh? At the same time people also get up in arms about online passes and all the day 1 dlc crap. It's either-or people, get used to it.
What Gamestop and some of these other retailers are doing is practically the same as piracy to publishers and developers, they won't see a dime of those sales. But I guess people would rather support Gamestop instead of the people that actually made the game as long as they get their cheap games.[/QUOTE]
Don't punish people that bought it new with online passes.
[QUOTE=Geikkamir;40825493]His argument was that the difference between music and games was that music already has several established ways to make money besides the initial sale of CDs, whereas games are extremely reliant on new sales, and attempts at forming other methods of gaining revenue like DLC and online passes have been met with public outcry.
Your criticisms have mostly been based around the fact that legally you own a game and can resell it. The thing is, he's not really disputing whether or not it's legal to resell games (unless I'm missing something). Mostly this video seemed to me to be talking about how publishers and developers are affected by used sales, why they've been trying to implement ways of getting money out of used purchases, and why he thinks that those methods are reasonable.[/QUOTE]
It's more how he is demonizing people for doing what they are legally allowed to do. Also the game stores stay in business partially through used game sales, Publishers also get 30% of every new game sale and the store only gets 28% (If eurogamer is correct) and the rest goes to production costs and console license fees. Do developers really want to rock that boat? if retail dies a lot of games will lose huge amounts of sales (30% of every new game sold in store) I really doubt they will gamble away actual profits for the projected profits of used games, which again could die if retail stores die.
The moneys there but who needs it more? Brick and mortar stores have costs they cannot reduce, publishers can stop funding huge bloated budget games to save money.
The whole used games discussion is another instance of the "what if money" publishers like.
Some guy bought a game from a friend. Now, that doesn't hurt the company. But IF he had bought it from the company instead, they would have more cash.
It's flawed logic, really.
[QUOTE=Titusmcgee;40827410]Don't punish people that bought it new with online passes.[/QUOTE]
Online Passes doesn't affect people who bought new so whats your point?
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
