A previous case had been dismissed, but with the July, 2012 European Court of Justice ruling affirming the right to sell digital property, it's got a bit of traction. I have no idea how fast the German/European courts move or what the status of the suit is, but it's interesting to see that they probably have a decent shot unless Valve pre-empts them by instituting a buy-back option, but even that might not satisfy the courts.
Once Steam has to accommodate European gamers, it's only a matter of time until the option is available in other regions.
I hear ya, but I don't think anyone has suggested or done that. Efforts to make environments more inclusive are often painted as being horrific, but they almost never actually are.
For example, look at the OP, then look at the actual implementation in the school, and it's extremely obvious that what he imagines is going on is not the truth.
I'm not investing money into a console and games that they can decide they don't want to support anymore, which turns off my console because it can no longer update every 24 hours.
That's what gets me about it. If they decide to turn off the service, I'm SOL.
I still play some PS1 and PS2 games, some of which are over 10 years old. I don't trust Microsoft enough that they'll support XBone more than a year or two once their console after that comes out.
The 8th Dwarf wrote:
Did you catch the part about what the school that banned Mother's Day did for Mother's Day?
Here is again:
On this Mother's Day, children had to write down the names of the family members that made the most difference in their lives and hang the notes up in a tree in the gym.
I'd love to hear the exact nature of the harm that this policy is causing, which we're so up in arms over.
It was upheld in Europe in July, 2012.
Just because YOU don't like doesn't mean the rest of us want to abandon it. Microsoft's service charge on used games is going to fail in Europe. They directly examined software and the ability to resell software you've bought. This isn't "oh, they made this ruling on banana's". This is a ruling based on software. Germany is the 4th largest economy in the world and is only part of Europe.
Edit: Here's a link for you.
The case specifically deals with DIGITAL copies, not just physical copies.
Scott Betts wrote:
Again, first sale doctrine has trumped EULA's in court cases. Gaming companies don't get to decide what the law is or just declare certain things to be true that the rest of society has decided otherwise.
There have cases where other standards have struck down sections of EULA's. Just because a company puts something in their EULA does not give it the force of law, even if you click "agree".
Scott Betts wrote:
He didn't say torrent, pirate, or distribute. He said lend.
But it's not illegal. He didn't say how he was lending the program.
If I let my roommate use my computer to write a paper, that's technically lending the program. They didn't purchase the hardware or software, they'd didn't agree to the EULA. It isn't inherently illegal to let people use your stuff.
Lending =/= copying, in all cases.
See that's the thing, paying for a product licence to have PERMISSION to play a game would make you think there is a service involved. I have yet to see what services developers are offering for cutting out the brick-and-mortar's ability to compete for my dollar.
Microsoft isn't going to provide anything. They just want their cut.
In the US, there have been more court cases that invalidated the EULA than upheld them. Quite a few provision in EULA's have been struck down in the courts on grounds that they violate the UCC.
Just because Microsoft puts a license on it, does not mean that license is going to be legally binding, or that every clause will be upheld.
The European Court of Justice also ruled last summer that the first sale doctrine does apply to digital software, unless the original purchase included an expiration date (making it a rental or lease). The license transferred with the software, but it couldn't prohibit the sale.
The majority of actions by companies to limit the movement of data have been to reject the realities of digital media and try to place controls and prohibitions that have routinely failed.
I'm not spending my money to encourage more steps backwards.
Scott's argument is that because the producers of games get to decide the relationship between you and the product. This is the transaction they want to have, so we either have to accept it or leave.
In a way, he's right. We as consumers have a choice if we don't like XBone (which I love now as a name). Don't buy it.
I don't like the always-online requirement either. In 5 years, if Microsoft decides to turn off their online component, because they just launched a new system and want you to buy that one, your XBone and all the games you have for it are now pieces of plastic that no longer work.
Adamantine Dragon wrote:
Are you claiming that banning Mother's Day is worse than say... the working conditions on the railroad construction crews of the mid-1800's?
pres man wrote:
Except that wasn't the only thing I posted in quotation marks, is it? I even acknowledged your point within those quotation marks and addressed it. Reply to the whole statement, don't just cherry pick the part that looks best for your point.
Scott Betts wrote:
For one, most articles I read about the used game market seem to think it actually adds to the industries value, not detracts from it. So I'd actually argue that they are shooting themselves in the foot by trying to cut into it and eliminate it.
For example, Gamestop makes 41% of their profits from used games, but they account for only 28% of their sales. Their mark up on used games is much higher. A significant amount from the sell-back to Gamestop goes into new games, helping to boost sales. Microsoft and Sony want to position themselves as middle-men in those sales, but not actually add anything to the transaction.
Compare what they're doing to the movie industry. If I wait 12-15 months for a movie, I can basically watch it as part of my subscription fee to Netflix, or pay a couple dollars to rent it on itunes and share it with others. That's a very small fraction of the profit they would have made on opening day. And there were other price drops along the way, like letting me have the movie permanently on DVD. Games, at best drop to $20 new, but only after 2-3 years, sometimes even longer.
Used games aren't eating into sales nearly as much as they think they are. Trying to solve their shrinking profit margins by focusing on used games is like trying to bail out the Titanic with a 5 gallon bucket. Yes, you will technically make a difference.
Smart people make bad decisions all the time. They even make them in large groups.
I've cancelled my Xbox live subscription. Their multiplayer games have been dying off too fast, and all of the other services I use there I can get access to without their fee.
Scott Betts wrote:
Simple yes/no will suffice: are they going after the used game market to increase profits?
Follow up question: which do you think eats into their profits more, the used game market or the 400% increase in development costs every 5 years?
I would like to point out, that her shouting and being aggressive would not fit the definition of being empathetic. So, I would say that before you even responded, I had already expressed a sentiment that I don't agree with that kind of behavior.
I fail to see how your example has anything to do with what I'm saying, because it isn't an example of what I'm promoting. In fact, your example is antithetical to the concept I'm promoting, so you aren't really disagreeing with me, but rather just venting about your experiences with an a%*$!!@.
I think fewer people should be a!%+%++s.
Scott Betts wrote:
I like how you still told me I'm wrong, and then cite the exact same problem.
The man hours for video games is going up, nearly exponentially. The cost of video game development has also risen exponentially. It's nearly quadrupled from 2000 to 2006, and again from 2006 to 2010.
People make bad choices all the time. They even do it when they're really smart, and when there's a lot of people looking at the same thing.
Trying to control the second hand market is not the answer. It's a short term fix for a long term problem, and it is clearly not in the consumer's interest. There is zero benefit to me, either as a buyer or seller, that they want a cut of second hand sales. Supply and demand tells us they're going to lower demand, because the price goes up. Since you can't recoup money from your purchases by selling them, that means less money to buy new games.
Meanwhile, in 5 years, the development cost of a game will probably exceed $100 million.
Killing the used market is not going to increase sales by 500% over the next 5 years.
Thanks for agreeing with me. I think the "don't be offended" is equally stupid.
They're inane, useless statements that don't actually achieve anything.
Scott Betts wrote:
Let me see if I have this right.
I claim games are too expensive because they require too many man hours.
Yes, I had the precise technical aspect wrong, but you had to go about correcting me in a dickish manner.
Is that the gist of your reply?
I guess I dont understand why ppl are so easily offended. And I certainly dont understand the need to censor or restrict what people say. If you dont like something someone said, walk away, change the channel, turn the radio off! Why is that so difficult?
Couldn't I just as easily say "why don't people just stop saying offensive things? If you aren't TRYING to offend, thank the listener for the clarification and move on."
I think the world would be a better place if we encouraged and practiced empathy.
Yeah, I'm definitely out on this gen of consoles if that is where they're going. I've been finding them less interesting the past couple years and the lack of a used game market is the nail in the coffin for my interest.
Scott, restrictions on reselling have regularly been struck down in the courts. Instead of focusing on how to protect their precious profits, companies should be investing in new technology that reduces the man hours needed to make a video game.
That's the real problem for the industry IMO. They've increased the polygons on models, but they haven't figured out a way to streamline the process and make their programming time more efficient.
2000+ years ago, when books were really hard to find, people memorized very long poems. It took 24 hours to recite the Iliad, and that probably wouldn't be the only story the reciter knew, either.
People can't/don't do that any more (with a few exceptionally rare exceptions), except for in cultures that don't have very good access to books. We've lost the skills necessary to memorize such long strings of words, because we can write them down in books now.
That process is repeating itself again and again. As technology improves the necessity for certain skills goes away. You can argue whether that's good or bad, but it's always been and always will be.
I do think certain technologies and habits concerning them are detrimental. For example the multi-tasking trend is bad IMO, but it's not going to make us dumber. Multi-tasking isn't going to halt advancement, instead it will lower the rate of it slightly as a generation of scientists and engineers go into the work place with bad habits. But it's a scientific fact, trying to multi-task reduces your brains efficiency by 15-20%, regardless of how good you think you are at it.
It's pretty common they don't make much on tickets, especially opening weekend tickets. At best, theaters keep 25% of the tickets on opening day, though that is happening less and less. Usually a month into a movie's run, the theater is getting 50-80% of the ticket.
Don't remember the guy's name, but someone who owned a lot of theaters and was fairly successful for a long time had a saying:
"Find a good place to open a popcorn stand and build a movie theater around it."
The argument of time spent with them would hold water, but only if you were talking about banning all death scenes ever in movies, because we only spend 90-120 minutes with them.
I stand by my assessment, all the bickering and fighting between them gets left behind in that scene. We were already shown what Kirk was willing to do to save Spock (opening scene), now we see how Spock feels when he is unable to save Kirk.
I'm not arguing it's great, or classic, but it's fine. The scene and relationship have their flaws, but they aren't BAD. Compared to a lot of movies, I'd even rate it as good overall as far as a buddy/partner relationship goes.
Those excuses for the torpedo are still flimsy.
Oh, also I was a little miffed at how fast the Earth affected the ship via gravity, when the ship was clearly right next to the moon. It would have taken days, even weeks, for the ship to even be drawn into low Earth orbit.
The death scene served to help cement Kirk and Spock's friendship for the viewer. We've been shown tumultuous elements of their relationship, but this helps seal it in our minds that they care for one another.
The magic blood was lame. But, so was the torpedo tube being fired from space, but somehow surviving entry into a planet's atmosphere and what was probably at least a 200 mph crash into the planet without a scratch.
The show has definitely had it's CW moments during the season, but what really struck me was how tightly crafted the finale felt. All the events and dialogue served a purpose, to further the story.
Also, I think the flashbacks were probably the best overall, in how they fit in with the present day timeline. It wasn't it's own story, it was there to highlight and illuminate what was going on.
Spoilered, just in case:
The first time that Cumberbatch is referred to as Khan is the first time the name Khan is even mentioned. The ONLY possible way that this is a spoiler is if you have watched the Wrath of Khan. If you've only seen the Abrams series, it isn't even a reveal, because you have no idea who the f+!* they're talking about. It isn't a reveal, it's exposition. Therefore, not actually a spoiler.
If you did watch the original movies, it's slightly a spoiler, but it is also completely expected. I didn't know Cumberbatch was playing Khan (I hadn't looked at this thread), but I knew that the plot was a revision of the original Wrath of Khan, so I was super unsurprised when it was actually Khan.
Edit: Also, it's spelled Khan, not Kahn.
Bill Kirsch wrote:
I'll echo some of what Mark said.
I would recommend keeping an eye out on Kickstarter for you, but backing very, very rarely. Don't jump on the big projects that are already successful, instead use those to create wishlists for future purchases once those products actually come to market.
Instead, look for projects that you find interesting, but actually need help. Ones where they look less likely to receive funding and you feel willing to contribute to help ensure they do succeed, but more because you want them to succeed, than because you really, really want to have their product in hand.
As DQ mentioned a little further up, think of it more as 21st century patronage. Only put your money in when it's something you believe in.
Brian E. Harris wrote:
I don't throw my money at folks expecting nothing. I research the people and try to at least have some guesses on the how the industry process should work. I've had excellent results with my kickstarters.
For example, WotC's miniatures line, which is fairly similar to the Bones project, probably had a turnaround time of a minimum 4 months, but possibly as long as 6 months. But that is an established product line, with a system already in place. It's really not that surprising that a much smaller company trying to start their own similar line would take 12 months to get their product to market the first run, especially a run with this many variables.
I'm sorry other people bought into the pie-in-the-sky goal of delivery within 6 months. It was unrealistic of Reaper to make that promise, but it was also unrealistic to believe it IMO.
I agree that Reaper could have communicated more. I've never disagreed with that.
Brian E. Harris wrote:
Here's an interesting bit for you.
I have a different viewpoint and expectations of what happens on Kickstarter, than some of the other people in this thread. This different viewpoint and expectation has left me unsurprised and not at all frustrated.
Convince me that I would be better off with a viewpoint that left me surprised and frustrated.
Compare it to dealing with Paizo. You can preorder books from Paizo. Sure, the books are each different, and sometimes different people work on them, but overall Paizo has a process. They've worked most of the kinks out of their system, they know their suppliers well, they know how long everything takes to accomplish.
But then Paizo wants to start up a car company. They don't have an established history making cars. They make have really good ideas and be good at designing cars, but they don't have relationships with their suppliers. They don't know from experience how long it can take to get certain parts or materials. They're going to have to learn how to do every aspect of that kind of business, you're going to have to wait until they do.
The majority of preordering that goes on, for the majority of products in most industries falls into the first category. Established companies promising products that they are familiar producing. Established companies don't use Kickstarter as their preorder system, because they'd have to give KS 5% off the top. Paizo would never do their established book lines through KS, because that would wreck havoc on their profit margin.
Most of what is happening on Kickstarter is the second paragraph.
Technically, it is preordering on Kickstarter, but it isn't even close to anything you'd do, either at Paizo, Gamestop, Amazon, or any other major retailer.
Most businesses have an established method/process for refunding you your money and under what conditions. None of that exists on Kickstarter. Kickstarter doesn't have anyone to help you with customer service, unlike Amazon, or even Paizo. Amazon handles KS payments, but even then it isn't necessarily smooth and can be a hassle for both sides.
Andrew R wrote:
You're failing to understand it's not a double standard. When you examine only one word and one group of people, it appears to be a double standard, except it isn't actually, because there is more than just that one word and more than just that one group of people.
The standard is that people who are familiar with each other, or belonging to the same group have more leeway when referring to the group or individuals than people outside of that group.
The standard is equal for all. When you are dealing with strangers, if you want to keep things polite you will probably have to maintain some sort of control over your mouth.
The word n*@&&+ is an example of that standard, not an isolated case to be examined without acknowledging the existence of other words and other groups.
Similarly, there are a lot of women who find it offensive when strangers call them things like honey, pumpkin, sweetie, toots, etc. Because those are words carry implications with them that make the women uncomfortable. Some women don't care, but if you don't know them and what they might find offensive/uncomfortable, why use those terms for women you don't know? Save them for family/significant others.
pres man wrote:
Do your research on people and the industry.
Don't just go "ooh, shiny!"
Doing research means:
KS is not a handholding site.
You're putting your financial information into a website that has zero policy/infrastructure on returns and zero mechanisms of enforcement. The company that owns KS will do NOTHING to help you obtain your promised goods/services, or refund your money. NOTHING. It is up to you to protect yourself.
Andrew R wrote:
I'm sorry the world is tough and unfair. People have had a lot of suggestions for those who are easily offended, such as grow a thicker skin. Maybe you could check out some of that advice.
Yes, you and I didn't enslave millions of black people and deny them their human and civil rights, personally. But we live in a country where that is part of our history. Put your big boy pants on and deal with it.
Long post about gray areas
This thread is making the assumption that the people who are the target of offensive words are in the wrong. People are basically making the argument that the words are only offensive because the targets of them choose to be offended.
I'm taking those same concepts and showing how they can easily be directed at the speaker of offensive words as well. To me, they actually sound much more convincing too.
If the listener can choose how they react to an offensive word, then the speaker can choose how they react when they are told it was offensive. Instead of getting defensive about the use of the word, they can ask honest and respectful questions.
Dennis Baker wrote:
I understand why you'd think this is true. Kickstarter can feel like a normal website where you buy things from someone.
Except that isn't exactly what is going on. You can claim it is until your blue in the face, but that doesn't make your viewpoint a reality.
You are providing money for someone to start a business, or complete a project. In return, they're going to give you some stuff, once that business is up and running, or the project is completed.
KS avoids the term investor, because you don't get a fiduciary return on the money you put into the project. So they use the term backer.
There plenty of worse cracks in the system showing than this project. Here's a project that pretty much died.
The KS funds have all been spent. The project creator is now digging into his own pocket to supply refunds, but you have to contact him directly and he has to pay pal it to you. I don't know what his exact financial situation is, but if he's out of cash in his pocket, you're out of luck on your refund. You could take him to court over it I guess.
Kickstarter is not a preorder site, regardless of how much it might appear to actually be one, or how much you wish it were one.
There's a quote from Alan Bennett I think of whenever someone decries the end of civil society:
"I saw someone peeing in Jermym Street the other day. I thought, is this the end of civilization as we know it? Or is it simply someone peeing in Jermyn Street?”
Only 60 years ago, in the US, a mob could still hang a man for an unproven offense. If that man was black, and it took place in the South, the odds of the police charging anyone with a crime was extremely negligible.
And you want to describe the Jersey Shore as a decline? While I find it distasteful, I think it's actually an improvement compared to communities committing murder.
You think white people should be allowed to invoke the memory of 400 years of slavery of black people, specifically through a word that was adopted as a pejorative in an attempt to remind black people to be submissive to white people.
You think that white people shouldn't just feel free to use the word, but be angry when people disapprove of their use of the word.
A word adopted in an era when black people, who had been freed, were subjected to a host of laws that denied them their dignity and human rights.
This is your argument?