It seems like every publisher and game maker is looking at ways to turn a profit in the used game market.
We already have EA's Online Pass program, THQ recently announced it would bundle access to online play with new copies of WWE Smackdown vs. Raw 2011 and charge used game players a fee for online admission, and Activision has also expressed a desire to take similar steps. Now, it's Sony's turn. During a recent GamesIndustry.biz interview , SCEE head man Andrew House said the company "supports publisher incentives to monetize the second-hand game market through charging for online play." Said House:
"On the principle of making online portions of the game available or unlocked from the disc-based release for a fee, we're broadly supportive of that. And we're exploring actively the same option for our own content."
Although it has been refuted since, we had heard that Activision would install a subscription service to play their popular Call of Duty franchise online, but House said Sony would have difficulty adopting that method. House makes a point of saying they have a 70% connection rate across consoles concerning the Network, and he attributes that number to the lack of a price barrier. And remember, this only relates to used games, so it won't affect those who typically purchase their games new.
But is it on physical media and therefore resellable. You could put this logic into any other product, and all of a sudden, it's alright because it's not a video game. It's like you go buy a used car and then people complaining that the Crystler and Ford should get some money out of the deal. If you say it's not, then you're just lying to yourself and others. There needs to be some type of court hearing for this, even though no matter how the verdict may stand int he end, it wont ever change how people feel. It all comes down to very rich people wanting to be even more rich.
oh… my ….. GOOOOOODDDDDDD!!!! Stop using the car analogy it doesnt work!!!!!
PLEASE do yourself a favor and research licensing laws. You sound REALLY uneducated. It doesn't MATTER what's on the physical disk! THEY ARE REMOVED FROM EACH OTHER BY LAW AND COMPLETELY SEPARATE! I'm sorry! It's true! They are NOT the same! GET OVER IT!!! Take some rational thought! It truly is not difficult to understand, and I am SO SO SO frustrated by the huge volumes of normally intelligent people on this site being SO blinded by their own cheapness! I just… don't… get… why you guys refuse to accept fact as fact. Why? Seriously… why? Because you don't want to admit your wrong? Because you don't want to have to think about how saving a buck might be wrong?
I bet you think Disney and Coke-a-Cola aren't corrupt businesses either!
Seriously… .Fudge it. This isn't worth the blood pressure. I give up. but for god's sake guys… LEARN about what you talk about first. Don't assume you know the truth just because it makes logical sense in your head. BELIEVE ME… I wouldn't lie to you. This isn't my opinion I'm stating here! it's pure and simple fact! I'm sorry! It is!
My OPINION is that I'm glad devs are gonna charge for services on used games.
My KNOWLEDGE is everything else I've written in this thread.
Last edited by Underdog15 on 8/25/2010 11:20:57 AM
I've sold some games to a few friends, now I'm in trouble because I didn't give 10% of the money I earned from selling my used game to my friend. Really? I don't see how a licensing law makes any damn sense when it comes to selling a used copy of a game and how the car analogy doesn't pertain to it. It's like you take a common practice and try to make it into a legal debate, when it's nowhere near a law breaking act. I know a store called A to Z games, and they have a room called 'Cartridge Heaven' for crying out loud. They carry everything from Atari games to PS3 games as well as consoles to go with them. They have a Super Famicon version of Final Fantasy V. If they sell it for it's base price, I'm sure Square-Enix wont be seeing a dime of it and it's completely legal. Same goes with every other video game gem in the store. It's a gamers heaven, truly is, and you probably wouldn't go there because it's 'bringing down the man', lol.
I swore I wouldn't get into licensing laws again… apparently it's inevitable. Frig people… do some damn research.
The real ones with the greedy wallets are those unwilling to pay the devs/publishers for their work. It's really disgusting to me.
There. I said it.
Last edited by Underdog15 on 8/25/2010 10:34:39 AM
Gamestop is ….really…. the video game version of a pawn shop with a shoddy character at the front desk who will also forge you an illegal driver's license.
Last edited by Underdog15 on 8/25/2010 10:44:21 AM
@Underdog – No you're analysis is limited and flawed making your point invalid. Here's how: If it was civil law breaking, then the dev/pubs would be able to sue the retailer a zillion times over for each and every game resold by Gamestop & EB etc. It would be a huge windfall of cash for them. Think about all the used games that have been sold. To think of it as not being worth sueing over a $60 game is extreme pidgeon hole analysis. Take Assassins Creed for example, the dev/pub could have a blanket lawsuit against every single gamestop for every single unit ever sold. That would be a billions dollars minimum. They would sue in a heartbeat! If the gamer owns the functioning disc that is resellable then the whole licensing issue is moot so the logic is sound. The disc is all that matters. With that said. The anger toward Gamestop is misplaced. They are gamer friendly. Sorry Underdog you were short sighted on that one…Next!
No. They can't go after the people that resold it. lol YOU are vastly flawed. I'm sorry! NEXT!!!
Seriously, it's perfectly legal to sell the physical disks, etc. In this sense, Gamestop does nothing wrong.
However, the license belongs to the original owner. Gamestop ONLY does something illegal if they actually access the media on that disk. That is why they don't test it. If they tested every game, they could get sued.
However, as is… they are untouchable. The retailer is UNTOUCHABLE because they are not using media they have no license for. It is 100% in their rights to resale the physical disk, manual, box, a million times over!! It's the data they cannot touch. AND THEY DONT!
SO don't go trying to insult me. You don't even know how licensing works. I guarantee you I have a very complete and overarching understanding of the issue at hand.
You, the consumer, are the one who makes the illegal act using something you have no license to do so with. You do NOT own the data. The dev/publisher does. You merely own the disk. They could sue you for $60 and win, but lets be honest… Such an onslaught of millions of people would lose them far more money than they would make. Then they'd have to prove beyond reasonable doubt that you actually used it and didn't just put it into your collection.
Quite an undertaking!! So, it is far easier for them to do what we see them doing now.
Don't call me shortsighted on a topic you have no understanding for. I guarantee you I am very educated on such issues. Bring on the next question. I am not confident in things I don't know well, but when it comes to this, I know I can own you.
Last edited by Underdog15 on 8/25/2010 11:03:01 AM
Imagine, AmazingSkillz, if you HAD amazing skills enough to freaking READ what people say. I don't know how many times myself and others have explained licensing. You have no excuse to be so clueless at this point. Especially if you're going to mock me.
See… your whole post was a waste of time… They CANNOT go after GameStop because technically, they do nothing wrong. It's SOOOO simple! It's the same reason music stores can sell used music!
Napster was untouchable until they started allowing people to hear clips of the music they were browsing. Once Napster included firmware that allowed people to test the music they were distributing, they got HAMMERED. Why? Because they used what they had no license to use. After that, Napster and other companies were forced to become file sharing sites to place blame on the individual distributing, and music companies became forced to add more to their licensing agreements which allowed them to limit who can distribute their music (iTunes, for example).
I guarantee you Gamestop will not make that same mistake. Instead, they take your license, so if a customer comes back and says "This game is fooked", they can call you on it later without testing it.
Last edited by Underdog15 on 8/25/2010 11:10:15 AM
Sometimes I think many gamers tend to forget developers make games for a living.
Jeez man, think about the online play, the free DLC for some games like RDR outlaw to the end.
First you buy it used, Rockstar make $0, then you go online and you don't download DLC that needs money, and you download free DLC. Again, Rockstar MAKES NOTHING.
In the end, you play something they MADE, download something they uploaded and MADE.
You didn't pay a single rock to them and you're enjoying their hardwork.
This is their right to do so, you're in no place to complain as you're buying it used.
Customer is always right?
Well, that depends.
KNOW YOUR PLACE!!!!!
I still can't understand why people buy used games from Gamestop or EB. They give you 20 bucks for a game and then turn around and sell it for 54.99. It's insulting. I've never bought anything remotely new from them in the used game section.
The developers should work out a deal with retailers to get a piece of the used game market. Afterall, they are the ones supplying the games.
As far as the value of games, they were always over-priced. I remember buying games for my Atari 2600 and the new ones costed 50 bucks. (When I was 8)
If the developers could charge more, they would. No one is going to pay more than 60 for new games. Especially if it's not AAA.
Alienange has a good point about popping a trophy for buying the game. It would also kill Gamefly too. Probably another thorn in the side of developers.
Last edited by JPBooch on 8/25/2010 11:03:26 AM
@Underdog – LOL! Shady pawnshop owner. Your description is so vivid I can see the guy. All you left out was the smokey cigar in his mouth. Anyway, if someone will give me $20 for a used game I maxed out already, toward the purchase of a brand new game why wouldn't I favor them? That means I can get a brand new game for $40 instead of $60. That's a no brainer! It's not selective morality its selective concise common sense. On the one hand we have the dev/pubs who want to get paid twice for one product…on the other other hand we have a retailer that will give you a trade in discount on a brand new game. Oh that's easy. Your anger at Gamestop is based on some emotion instead of pure business logic. Their whole business model is very gamer friendly. Sit back a minute and think about it.
You're right. It's very sound business logic. Most consumers don't know about licensing, and GameStop knows exactly how to keep blame off themselves. It's actually really easy. Small business owners can do the same no problem.
But this is why companies are making people pay for services like online that are not included on the disk already. It's a good way to make sure they recoup some loss. As long as your buddy you sold it to for $20 is ok with not getting those services, then go ahead and make your cool $20. There's no way the dev will ever try to claim $60 from him in court…
Which I suppose could suggest, from a law perspective, a degree of disconcern on the part of the dev making it ok for your friend to use it until asked not to… But even that would have to be proven in court first. lol.
It's definitely a complex issue.
@ Snake – you're late to the argument dude. Your offering has already been crushed. There is no valid argument defending why a dev/pub should get paid twice for a product they've only produced once. Charging for multiplayer on used games is justified for server purposes. But trying to get more cash on a sales transaction they are not involved in is unrealistic. Once they've made the game/disc and sold it, it's not theirs anymore. The new owner can sell it to whomever they want and that person is in no way obligated to give the dev/pub any new money. Also, the retailers arent twisting anyones arms making them buy used games. It the buyers choice..albeit a dumb one but still there choice.
@Snake, not crushed. This guy just doesn't understand licensing laws.
Until DEV/PUBs own retail outlets, there is nothing they can do except charge for multiplayer on used games. Their business model is flawed.
While I am personally not a fan of this idea, most devs have a EULA that states "nonexclusive, non-transferable, limited right and license to use one copy of the Software for your personal non-commercial use for gameplay on a single computer or gaming unit, unless otherwise specified in the Software documentation" (taken from Rockstar Games).
What this leads to is the issue where you have a device failure and now your gameplay is limited until you pay a further charge to the play the locked content.
With how most devs word their EULA, I do wonder why it is legal to have such wide spread reselling of games – I can understand for rental – different agreement, but if the license is non-transferable, and no one is simply buying a game disc for decoration or display, why is this not something that is being policed? I understand how difficult it would be to police individuals, but with Gamestop and others aiding in the illegal game play, there must be some legal action devs could take, isn't there?
You're absolutely right, and probably worded it better than i ever did.
The reason it isn't policed is because it's civil law and not criminal.
In other words, it would have to be a class action suit. The dev's themselves would have to go after the person using their media and sue for $60 in small claims court for every person who has a copy AND prove beyond reasonable doubt that they actually used it. The person who sold it is clear because they can do whatever they want with the physical thing. It's definitely strange, but the physical goods of the disk, box, manual, are very transferrable, as are cars, houses, etc. But media is not subject to deterioration as it is merely data or information.
So that is the licensed part. Not the physical disk. So since Gamestop, although they promote the illegal activity, are not actually involved in illegal activity. The illegal activity is not transferring the disk; it's USING the information. Since Gamestop never actually uses the used game (they don't test anything!!! See how they do that?) they don't do anything illegal. Whoever uses what they don't have license to use is committing the act.
That's why devs CANNOT go after retailers.
Last edited by Underdog15 on 8/25/2010 11:30:00 AM
With governments rewording inadequate laws to try to catch up with the digital age, you would think that this would be an issue discussed and worked on.
Although with how much business is done in second hand games on the legal open market, it becomes difficult for laws to suddenly make it illegal.
I'm glad I'm not the only one to recognize Highlander's arguments as often industry talking points (though he/she is entitled to their opinion like the rest of us). Anyways, while I don't like GameStop's used title practices between their phenomenal depreciation of game value when you trade it in then the seemingly miraculous re-appreciation of value once it goes back on the Used Games shelf, and the fact they run a shady 'game rental' operation (return any used games within one week and get full store credit! if only i were young and unemployed again…), this seems to be Sony's reaction to some of us recognizing, at least at this point, DLC is for suckers as it's the same price (or more, i.e. Infamous) for the DLC as it is for retail media where the company had to spend a few bucks on physical media, packaging, a tiny booklet, artwork, etc. It's a windfall for Sony. What Highlander, and Sony, are doing is a classic tactic we see in current US politics where they frame the 'working class' (in this case the developers) as victims where in reality the developers often only get 'x' amount of money for the title development and actual percentage of sales is determined differently and often is not much (very often like the 'point' system the music industry ripped artists off with for years). I used to work for a game developer and know this to be true. None of us are against developers making money if the game is a quality game. Alot of us are against Sony nickel and diming us and their moves to take away any real 'ownership' of what we pay real money for. I'd argue the money the actual developers lose off of used game sales is very small to what Sony takes in (or does not). If developers have a deal based upon actual sales then they get money from the initial retail sale regardless. If a game is really really good, and has alot of replay value, people will not be quick to sell it once they are done with it. If it's not 'resold' to GameStop or whomever within a few months of it's release then the argument becomes void as Sony usually lowers the cost of the actual retail game significantly anyways at that point. Brutal Legend, anyone? How much did the developers lose when Sony dropped it from $60 to $20 within less then a year of it's release? If anyone think Sony cares about their blue collar developers in the long run, you're deluded.
As for games costing less these days per inflation, etc, etc, that's also not exactly accurate. Most games were overpriced to begin with per what the manufacturing costs were however:
– Games used to come with larger booklets, more extras, etc, actual printed media, which costed money. They come with less of that sort of thing now so they cost less to manufacture.
– The price of physical media to print the games on has dropped considerably, esp bluray, over the past several years. It was never much for publishers to begin with considering their profits and what a consumer pays for blank media but it's gone way way down since whatever days he's referring to.
– Less games are actually 'manufactured/printed' for PS3 then the other consoles mentioned. Again less cost overall for Sony.
– Arguably the packaging and physical contents of the 'more expensive games of old' is equal to the 'collector's edition' of many new games. How much are those collector's editions? Usually $80-$90. That sounds about on par with the games of old prices per inflation (idiot).
If you really want to focus on actual 'victims' it's loads of folks who lose their jobs at the publishing places/factories where they print retail cases/labels/booklets, package them up for shipping, the carriers who delivered them to the stores each week, etc. They area all out of jobs as Sony and others try to make DLC king. And what does less labor add up to? More profits for Sony.
It's a fairly silly argument that, like most, can be spun either way but I feel (and it's only my opinion) that the developers are not the ones losing out here and if they are it's only because Sony's screwing them, not the consumer.
As far as I know there's no way to play pirated games on a PS3 yet (though the dongle thing sounds like a hoot and since Sony removed Linux to avoid something like this and it's apparently being done after that castration firmware update, haha to Sony), so Sony can't blame piracy for bad game sales when a title just plain sucks. That's gotta be painful for them, I know, but don't take it out on your consumers. As they change their business practices more and more I find myself using my PS3 less and less.
1) why bring politics into this?
2) I am an individual with an opinion, I do not work for a game developer, publisher, retailer, or console maker.
3) Your post is so full of inaccuracies, basesless assertions, straw men, and false assumptions that I simply do not know how to address it.
4) The next time someone has the gall to complain that games are too expensive and says that they have to choose between eating and buying games new, I will literally scream.
What kind of spoiled, entitlement minded, brats have such a distorted reality that they think it's a valid choice to make between eating (a necessity of life) and gaming (a luxury/leisure activity not necessary for life)? I mean, be serious people. It's utterly ridiculous to claim that you have to buy used games because if you did not you wouldn't be able to eat properly. Where in god's name are your priorities is this is how you truly think?
Now I'm just plain disgusted.
whooka, you're completely wrong on a lot of points there, but perhaps the most ridiculous one is the idea that LESS games are being produced now for the PS3 than for past consoles.
You obviously aren't old enough to remember a time when a mere handful of titles were produced for old-school systems.
You might also want to examine how publishers in all entertainment industries do the exact same thing as Sony. It's called business.
Last edited by Ben Dutka PSXE on 8/25/2010 12:06:53 PM
@Highlander
My sentiments exactly concerning entitlement.
@Ben
You're right too. Why wouldn't these companies want to recoup their cost? I mean, what do they care if someone who buys their product used gets mad? It's not like they're a customer they need.
I mean, it's a win-win situation for devs incorporating this new pay to access feature.
Here's what it boils down to:
The people paying them for their work are happy either way.
The people NOT paying them will get mad if they have to pay them… I mean seriously, used game buyers… what are you gonna do? Not buy their game used if they charge you money? To that, the dev's say…. uh… ok then. Big fat hairy deal, man. It's not like this is a losing forumla for them.
In the end, I could scream til I'm blue trying to HELP you guys understand what's going on. But I think, instead, I will stop and let everyone here scream until they're blue about being upset about having to pay the dev's for their hard work.
Whether you understand that or not, suddenly doesn't matter anymore. ^.^
Still though… that sense of entitlement is rather disgusting… And it's not because I work for a non-profit working with people who TRULY can't afford video games… let alone food. It's so pious, it's sickening. I share Highlander's sentiment.
Ben, I'm flattered you replied to my comment as I do still enjoy visiting this site and have been a regular reader for a couple of years now. Keep up the good work, I'm sure it's time consuming and a labor of love.
For the record I was not bringing politics into the discussion, merely a method of framing a discussion that is common throughout any sort of debate that basically is about money/corporate profits and we're led to believe it's about people who live and work below the glass ceiling.
I am probably twice as old as you are and do remember when a handful of games were developed for the older consoles. Most likely due to not being able to distribute development kits as readily as they can be now, no way to quickly collaborate with others who aren't in the same room as yourself, and an industry who's workforce did not include those who did four year technical programs for videogame development. All these advancements have definitely been exponential over the years but I do recall buying games way back when and the product coming with much more physically produced (aka, 'costs') materials.
One cannot compare any former age of technology to the current one. There were not as many 'game companies', consoles, etc, so we had less choices as consumers and also did not have the Internet at our fingertips to overwhelm us with other sources of entertainment, etc. It's not the same world so there's no real way to correlate data from the 1980s to the present time without a heap of economic/global/etc factors in there, which no one is doing in this forum nor would have the time.
Is anyone going to argue that DLC should cost less than physical, retail media? And that the move to DLC does mean less labor (and jobs, and income) for those who were involved in the 'box design' process (a HUGE part of any game publishing business, or it used to be), manufacturing and printing of physical media? And that less labor means less expenses for the publishers and more profit?
I am not singling out Sony by any means but what you are hearing from me these days I guess is just anger that what was once a company that I held above others for their business practices and innovation (only recently some lame poll indicated Sony had the best 'reputation' of most entertainment companies) is now doing what all the other publishers are doing (as you yourself stated in your reply). I guess I just need to get over it and ironically it's most likely due to the fact I am older and can remember a time that there was no fine print involved when you paid for a game. You bought it, it was yours, that was that. But again since it's a different age of gaming I need to update my perspective but it also reinforces the idea that any comparison to previous 'ages' are fairly irrelevant.
Not everything printed here, nor what Highlander says is 'accurate' as well. Highlander also apparently has alot of time on his hands to spend in these forums which makes me suspicious of his credibility on some levels only because those of us working in the tech sector at the non-management level are way too busy during the day to be replying to threads every two minutes. That's why you only get treated to my nonsense every couple of weeks.
Whooka101
PS3
Sony Receiver
Uses blank Sony media all the time
Since you know nothing of me, my work, or my schedule, you might as well drop the personal potshots.
lol… so… apparently I'm suspect too since I reply fairly regularly most days too…
Or… maybe… I have a managerial role where I have a flexible schedule where I'm paid a salary based only on the stats I deliver regardless of the hours I put in. Some weeks I work 50 hours, others I work 22… either way… on salary… I make exactly the same amount… whether it's 22 or 50 hours.
If I need to write a proposal to the government, obviously, I'll be working an absolute TON.
My point… whooka… what a pointless pot shot at Highlander. Not everyone is paid by the hour, dude.
You don't appear to be making any real point. All you're doing is ranting and whining. You haven't proved why Sony can't or shouldn't look to monetize their first-party second-hand games, you haven't explained why the differences between then and now (of which you're apparently well aware) are null and void in the argument, and you didn't offer anything in the way of constructive suggestions or criticism.
That was a rant, my friend. They're fun because they're emotionally charged for the writer, but they don't exactly do anything for those who have to read it.
Last edited by Ben Dutka PSXE on 8/25/2010 3:10:02 PM
@Highlander – LOL "Now I'm just plain disgusted" Can't you see Whooka was all over the place. I stopped reading when he said "What Highlander, and Sony, are doing is a classic tactic we see in current US politics where they frame the 'working class' (in this case the developers) as victims". I flat out unplugged after that comment.
Indeed, Whooka is a bit of an idealogue.
LOL!
*checks big ass law book*
Yup, buying and selling used games is still legal.
You don't like it? Well… who the hell are you?
Well… sure. It's legal to purchase the disks and what not… but oddly enough, you can't legally use it under civil law.
Personally, I think it needs major reform. But that won't happen. Too much pressure from big companies.
@underdog – The bottom line is that Gamestop isn't really doing anything wrong. So no real reason to have angst against them. Except they tend to hang onto the XBoX360's balls for dear life sometimes.
I think the pub/dev's are sour because they couldn't see the future on post game resales. There corporate strategy is finite. For example, Activision should take some of the MW2 money they've made and open up Activision retails spots. Similar to smaller versions of the Apple Stores. They would control and profit from everything. They are going about it all wrong.
Apple definitely had the right idea, you're right.
Although I understand the way the laws work and the logic behind what they are doing, I don't understand much about the dev's/publishers distribute their profit. So I don't have much good to add to that discussion.
But I do agree that if it's truly to be fixed, it would need a major rehash. I think the dev/publishers have probably just decided it's easier and cheaper to charge a small fee for extra services to folks who buy used. For them it's no harm no foul. I mean what are they gonna do? Piss off the people who already don't get them any money? Path of least resistance, I guess.
What a hot button topic!
It's hot topic because you get a clash between a number of different values. No matter what way you look at it, there is a flaw in morality. And each person will perceive the more important moral path differently.
On one end, you have the pro-consumer, who believes the consumer, once provided with a service, should continue to get that service conscience and consequence free. Afterall, according to the pursuit of happiness, the better the deal, the better you are as a person. This is typical of people who are very consumer-centric.
On another end, you have the pro-creator approach. These are the folks who believe it most important to reward the originator of a particular work. This is typical of artists and tradesmen.
At another side, you have pro-capitalists who believe in rewarding those with the most profitable business approach. (aka Gamestop) These are usually business people who take this side.
And at ANOTHER side still, you have those who support democracy and the law hardcore… and no matter how porous or how many loopholes the law might have, they feel it should be abided 100%.
So, when you have all these differing preferences to morality together, they clash and we have a heated topic. I'm personally on the side that believes the dev's should get paid for their work, obviously. I'm not so much law 100% in all this. I just understand it.
I'd say this will be the only topic we're going for each other's throat.
So….PEACE!!
As someone who has two kids and also loves his "Luxury Hobbies", I think it's crap that they want to charge for online use. I didn't ask them to put multiplayer in there. They are offering it in the game. I'm also a Dj and I believe that Developers/Producers should get paid for their hard work. But don't get greedy. It's not like they are saving lives. They have a relatively easy job compared to some and they get to sit on their ass and do what they love. God forbid they only make $70,000+ a year or whatever they get paid. Oh and god forbid the big wigs like EA,Activision or Sony only make a couple Hundred million dollars in PROFIT.
I understand some of the business aspect… but i'm not on that end of the spectrum. I'm the consumer and I want as much value as I can get for the price of $60. I don't care who you are, $60 dollars is a lot of money when you have other bills like a mortgage and mouths to feed. I don't mind paying for games but with my budget sometimes i have to buy used. What it almost feels like, is like they are punishing us for being broke.
It really amazes me how some of you actually side with the companies that are taxing the crap out of us. LOL. You may just be the reason these companies are nickel and diming us more and more.
Everyone blames Gamestop but they are really no worse than Sony, Microsoft, Activision or EA. They are trying to make as much money as they can. Charging $30-$40 for a game thats worth $20 is no worse than paying $60 for a game thats worth $20. I think they need to stop worrying so much about what gamestop is doing with used and try to make more money on new ideas and concepts.
Just ask yourself one question… If the devs make no money off you… what do they owe you? So they charge you a fee… cause if you don't like it… what are you gonna do? What? Not buy their game second hand anymore? They've got nothing to lose.
@DjEezzy
Finally someone with some sense. Thumbs up bro! But watch out, TheHighlander and Underdog15 with bash for those ideas. Cause heaven forbid that people might have different opinions than them.
It's fine to have opinions on the matter… Check out the discussion we had up a bit higher on morality. That's what it boils down to.
What's annoying is the complete lack of interest in fact. You DJ's seem to be ignoring the basics. You can still have your opinions as they are even after you accept the facts. But what's annoying is that you are purposely avoiding to accept the facts because it might prove you wrong.
It doesn't really prove anyone wrong. But the moral strand you follow, whichever of the 4 it is, will determine which way you go after you accept facts. It's not even about opinions anymore. it's about you guys being heavily opinionated about an issue you have no knowledge base for. It's annoying.
@underdog – interesting comments on the morality segments. Somewhat accurate analysis on the four segments. I strictly look at the business model and how it affects my pocket. Maybe I'm the capitalist type.
@underdog – interesting comments on the morality segments. Somewhat accurate analysis on the four segments. I strictly look at the business model and how it affects my pocket. Maybe I'm the capitalist type.
This isn't just going to hurt used game sales, it's going to kill game rentals and forget about ever borrowing a friends copy of a game if you want to play it online…
This might be the one thing to make me say "F U" to all consoles and go with PC only.
… who am I kidding, like I'd really give it up. I hope someone comes up with a better solution fast.
according to TheHighlander's flawed logic, if I resell my video games I'm breaking the law because some corporation isn't getting profits from it. Talk about being really flawed.
It's not according to TheHighlander – if you were to read the End-User License Agreement from almost any developer, it will read similar to the one already posted in this thread – you can often find them online.
While Rockstar Games appears to allow the wholesale transfer of a game to another party in their EULA, EA notes that while you can transfer the game, updates and online content MAY not be transferable. Both are available online http://www.rockstargames.com/eula in Section I and http://tos.ea.com/legalapp/eula/US/en/PC/ in Section II)
Technically speaking, if you sell the game (transfer may be limited to gifting), you may be breaking a contract with the developer and they could sue you. That is all that TheHighlander is saying. And quite frankly, depending on the EULA, (whether any of us like it or not) he's right.
You aren't doing anything illegal by selling it. How many times has this been said now? Read about it before you comment, man. Frig.
It's illegal to USE software you don't have license to use…
You're the flawed one… If it's so bad to support a big corporation… why would you buy from Gamestop: a corporation bigger than any video game developer???
@Underdog15
According to the Rockstar EULA:
…
LICENSE CONDITIONS.
You agree not to:
a. Commercially exploit the Software;
b. Distribute, lease, license, sell, rent or otherwise transfer or assign the Software, or any copies of the Software, without the express prior written consent of Licensor or as set forth in this Agreement;
…
As per point b. you agree not to sell it.
It is possible, not being a legal professional I have misinterpreted this wording, but it seemed to me that it was fairly clear. That is where I was getting it from, not from postings within these comments.
Yeah, you're right, and I'm super happy you did some research.
The loophole these companies like Gamestop get into is the fact that these clauses talk about the software. You can't sell, license, distribute, etc. copies of the software. Technically, the original disk it is on is not a copy. If you were to duplicate it, that is where you would run into problems with that section. Technically, in more law-like terms, they would have to word it as re-sale and not sale if they referred to the original disk. Keep in mind, it refers only to the information and not the physical disk… So in section b, it is in regards to actually copying the information and transferring those copies of the digital aspect.
They're actually not allowed to put "no selling the physical disk" into the purchase agreement. Physical property is seen as different from digital information…
I know… the law is stupid… it's silly… lol It makes you roll your eyes… But that ridiculousness is actually the MOST they can do to protect it. lol
Last edited by Underdog15 on 8/27/2010 11:31:33 AM
@Underdog15…
I don't produce music for the money. The money is a plus. If you make something good because you put your heart and soul into it then the money will come. Money should not be the determining factor on whether something is good or not, thats being greedy. If money is the only reason they're making games then i'd suggest another profession maybe because they'll never succeed with money as their goal. I guess the whole concept of taking pride in what you do went out the window along time ago for many. You're right, they don't owe me anything. They owe themselves. I guarantee the developers are making their fair share of money at the end of the day. It's the distributors like EA and Activision that are cashing in on this this fee, not the developers. I highly doubt that you have guys like Gabe Newell and David Jaffe saying that they're hurting from used games sales.
On a side note… I respect what both of them have to say. I actually think theHighlander is has got some great input on alot of different subjects. Don't really care about what underdog says. He obviously sees this subject from the eyes of EA or Sony. But i do think that he's sadly mistaken when he say's that developers are the ones taxing us. It's the distributors. And really in the end it's greed. All I know is that these stupid shennanigans cost me at the end of the day. It doesn't show any loyalty to fans who are and aren't willing to fork out the extra cheddar to fully enjoy the games that they're pushing down our throats. It's a slap in the face when they offer something, make millions and then turn around and say you don't make as much money as Johnny Fat Pockets and had to buy used, so you don't get the full package unless you pay us more. All i have to say is that bad things happen to those who get greedy. Maybe not now but someday. Mark my words.LOL
yes ,MARK HIS WORDS people
lol
I will guarantee you one thing: guys like David Jaffe and Gabe Newell may not be hurting, but they're not benefiting from used game sales. They can't. And don't think for one second they wouldn't if there was some second-hand monetizing for their used games.
In fact, if developers had a way of making money off those sales over the years, some studios would likely still be OPEN. It's a mistake to assume publishers control absolutely everything; if you listen to designers and developers speak about their relationship with Sony, for instance, they're often ecstatic about the situation.
It obviously depends on the terms of contract and the business arrangements – which can vary widely – but there usually aren't any conspiracy theories. Publishers want to make money. They want their stable of developers to make money, so those same developers will remain happy and make another great, money-making game. That's the formula that drives everything forward. Trust me. Anything beyond that is little more than your standard consumer bitterness and ignorance (no offense to anyone here).