Oh, cool! I'm down with this. This makes things way better, because we've got all kinds of people in here who have pledged to be done with console games if EULA-like control becomes the norm. Of course, I'm sure many of those people were planning on whiling away their time on computer games instead - where EULA-like control has been the norm for decades.
EULA's are an attempt to get around copy-right laws. Lawsuits involving such cases vary quite widely on the outcome and to date, there is no US Supreme court case that provides a wide precedent or settled law on the issue.
I'm already sort of cranky about things like day one DLC and not having access to single player content by not having a console with an internet connection. Requiring it in the future means I'm either going to have to move somewhere where I can get a landline signal better than a dial-up connection, or skip out on then next gen of consoles. I'm not going to get into the anti-piracy / used games aspect of it, there's already plenty that's been said about that. Suffice to say, I buy my games new most of the time, but not always for the initial retail price.
Or, you know, I might just play a lot more traditional type games like wargaming and Pathfinder, which I'm already doing anyways. In the long run, they tend to be cheaper and have more utility anyways.
And the hand of selective moderation comes down.
I'm done.
Me too. Scott can be antagonizing and yet they let him talk all he wants? To Hell with it.
Me too. Scott can be antagonizing and yet they let him talk all he wants? To Hell with it.And the hand of selective moderation comes down.
I'm done.
Yeah, those three posts of mine that used to be on the last page, but aren't now? No way a moderator could have done that. Must be ghosts. Ghosts in the internet!
Bow down and worship me!
Seems to me Sony and by extension their few defenders need a clue by 4. Oh well when they loose money on this stupidity they will change their tune. Or since it is April 1st maybe its a big joke.You're clearly very well-informed about this issue. Your argument hits all the salient points, and I think we should all just go home.See.....here's an example of how it's done.
There's absolutely nothing here that can be moderated.
And yet, you can smell and taste the earthy funk of the flung poo. You can hear the SPACK! as it hits the wall.
And yet,.....there's nothing to moderate.
See that? That's f~!~ing ingenius.
Those were kid gloves. The "clue by 4" line alone justified that. If I ever suggest that someone needs to be hit with a "clue by 4", you have my permission to unsubscribe me from the internet.
Oh, ha ha! Let's have a cordial laugh.
Touche, good man! Touche! Touche!Hast thou slain teh Jabberwock!
Caloo! Callay!
In intewebz winninz you getz an A!!!
It'll go up on the fridge with the rest of my gold stars.
Deleted some posts.
Everything in moderation!!!!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Personally if they actually made good games I might buy them again. The problem isn't gamestop -- it's the crappy games they are producing. If they were worth replaying and keeping people wouldn't pass them off so quickly. As it stands most modern video games are basically an interactive movie that's had repetitive actual play for the pass 7 levels with simply bigger explosions/bad guys. The only reason to complete most of them is for the FMV at the end. It's crap -- the same sort of crap that ended up killing the sporting games, every year there would be a new one and every year it was the same actual game as last year with just a bit of data moved around.
I've got old games that I've not sold. Why haven't I sold them? They have replay value and bring something other than a plot that I get to cause to move forward.
People that sell their games are basically saying, "Hey this game wasn't worth keeping." Which honestly tells you all you need to know about the game. Same with gamefly and other rental companies -- they rent the games because they games aren't worth keeping once they are beat. That's not a sign of trouble with second hand markets, it's a sign of bad games.
As it is the Wii is likely to be my last console (simply because I own it already). There are plenty of good PS, PS2, GameCube, Super Nintendo and Nintendo games out there for me to buy second hand and enjoy without wasting some 40~60+ dollars on a game that is going end up simply having some flashier graphics with the same vapid game play they've been peddling for the past 10 years. Besides I've got plenty of spare older systems to use as parts to keep them running and playing games for a while too.
Saves me from having to worry about stupid rush consoles and their "red ring of death" or overheating because people couldn't be bothered to build it right to start with.
Personally if they actually made good games I might buy them again. The problem isn't gamestop -- it's the crappy games they are producing. If they were worth replaying and keeping people wouldn't pass them off so quickly. As it stands most modern video games are basically an interactive movie that's had repetitive actual play for the pass 7 levels with simply bigger explosions/bad guys. The only reason to complete most of them is for the FMV at the end. It's crap -- the same sort of crap that ended up killing the sporting games, every year there would be a new one and every year it was the same actual game as last year with just a bit of data moved around.
Video game sales last year were nearly as high as they've ever been, ever - any slump is merely due to the lateness of the current console generation's life cycle. People buy things that are of high quality. People tend not to buy things that are not of high quality. You can think games nowadays are crap, but that doesn't make it so.
Video game sales last year were nearly as high as they've ever been, ever - any slump is merely due to the lateness of the current console generation's life cycle. People buy things that are of high quality. People tend not to buy things that are not of high quality. You can think games nowadays are crap, but that doesn't make it so.
Well the fact that people then turn around and sell those games and others then buy and resell those games certainly doesn't speak to them being great.
If you have some evidence to offer to show that this isn't a problem though do share.
Because what I see something that's good enough to play now but not to keep... if it isn't worth keeping there is generally a reason, typically being that the game isn't that good.
After all why get upset about the second hand market if it isn't for the fact that it's killing later game sales? People aren't buying the game on the first go around because it isn't worth it.
That tells us that people don't value these games as highly as the producers do, so either the quality isn't high enough or the price is too high (which is again to say the quality isn't enough to rate keeping the game or buying it the first time at that value).
Well the fact that people then turn around and sell those games and others then buy and resell those games certainly doesn't speak to them being great.
It doesn't speak to them either way. There are many truly fantastic games that I've played that I would finish and never touch again. It doesn't mean the game sucked. It means the game doesn't have the replay value that would entice me into playing it again.
Furthermore, when you have games that sell literally millions of copies in their first week, why would it be at all odd to see a huge number of used games up for sale?
If you have some evidence to offer to show that this isn't a problem though do share.
Which problem are you talking about? The rise in used game sales? I think the single greatest factor in used game sales becoming more prominent is stores like GameStop slowly shifting their used sales to the focus of their business in an effort to remain relevant in a world that is rapidly abandoning physical sales in favor of digital distribution. I don't think it has anything to do with the quality of today's video games, which are, in my opinion, better than anything we've ever seen on almost every level. It's never been a better time to be a gamer, and the best part is I know that tomorrow will be even better.
Because what I see something that's good enough to play now but not to keep... if it isn't worth keeping there is generally a reason, typically being that the game isn't that good.
Or I just don't think I'll play it again. My time is valuable, and there are a lot of games out there. Some games have replay value. Some don't. That's not a reflection of their quality - there are mediocre games with tremendous replay value (see: many sports titles), and there are truly excellent games with very little replay value (see: Portal).
After all why get upset about the second hand market if it isn't for the fact that it's killing later game sales? People aren't buying the game on the first go around because it isn't worth it.
I don't think anyone's "upset" about the second hand market. Game companies just want people to buy new rather than used.
You need to understand that what you've described is one possible reason for why an individual might buy a game used. The other possibility is that an individual might make the rational decision to wait two weeks before purchasing a game, and buy it used in order to save $20 or $30. If I tell you that you can have a candy bar for $1 now, or have it in one minute for $.50, chances are you'll wait one minute, even though you might have bought it right away for $1 if I hadn't offered you the option to wait (assuming you're the sort of person who likes candy bars).
By the way, this is a pretty classic demonstration of self-control - the ability to delay personal gratification in order to magnify that gratification is a hallmark of a high level of personal self-control.
Given my chronic inability to put off buying a new blockbuster title more than a week or so, I probably wouldn't rate very highly.
That tells us that people don't value these games as highly as the producers do, so either the quality isn't high enough or the price is too high (which is again to say the quality isn't enough to rate keeping the game or buying it the first time at that value).
Or it just tells us that people are willing to wait a little while in order to save money on something. Which, frankly, shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone.
Why do you expect people to be able to put things off for two weeks, when you can't put things off for one? People want new stuff. OOOO SHINY! Understand that only in that first week or two will the new game experience be different. People are getting an impression of the game, strategies are tested and debated, secrets discovered and so on - in a communal fashion. The game is discussed in schools, workplaces, and so on. After those two weeks, it is all mapped out and done. Nobody wants to talk about it, because there are new shinies. And, to those who want to partake of this, yes, it is worth 30$ or so, beyond what the game will cost if they wait.
This does not mean that the game keeps being worth 60$ to everybody, or that it ever was. The companies would like it to, which shouldn't come as a surprise, I'd say. It's their bottom line... which you have repeatedly stated is not likely to be a problem, since they are selling more games than ever before.
If they were hurting, truly down on their knees, yes, I could understand your point. I can support companies I like that are hurting, paying more than I really feel I should because I want to keep that company going. The need for that seems to be pretty slim, eh?
Why do you expect people to be able to put things off for two weeks, when you can't put things off for one?
That was a bit of self-deprecating humor. I put off game purchases all the time. The majority of my Steam library, for example, is games purchased 1+ years after release for 50% off original retail price or more.
People want new stuff. OOOO SHINY! Understand that only in that first week or two will the new game experience be different. People are getting an impression of the game, strategies are tested and debated, secrets discovered and so on - in a communal fashion. The game is discussed in schools, workplaces, and so on. After those two weeks, it is all mapped out and done. Nobody wants to talk about it, because there are new shinies. And, to those who want to partake of this, yes, it is worth 30$ or so, beyond what the game will cost if they wait.
This does not mean that the game keeps being worth 60$ to everybody, or that it ever was. The companies would like it to, which shouldn't come as a surprise, I'd say. It's their bottom line... which you have repeatedly stated is not likely to be a problem, since they are selling more games than ever before.
While I certainly don't think that game companies are having a particularly rough time of things, relatively speaking, volume isn't the whole story. Games also cost much more to develop now than they ever have.
...which is patently NOT our problem. The company chooses to make a big game with a huge budget because they THINK it will become a profit. If people don't buy it, it instead becomes a loss. Don't like that fact, don't make computer games. It does in no way justify demanding more money from anyone, restricting possibilities of resale, or anything else. Particularly when companies are doing well, they should not expect charity, whether in the form of direct financial support or indirectly via putrid lawmaking.
But it will for obvious reasons be the prime example for why purely digital distribution is a bad idea, you know, like forever. An alternative is of course to tighten up the rights situation of the customers in the digital arena.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Thing is, this is just what those companies WANT. There is nothing universal or objective about it. Considering copiers, fax machines CDs and VHS and so on would never have existed if those same companies got what they once wanted, it is absurd to refer to them as any kind of moral authority.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Again, is there an ethically-defensible argument for being upset with the demise of the pre-owned games market?
How about the paradigm of every other product on the market? I can buy a used car, second-hand clothing, used CDs and DVDs, and just about anything else. Why should games be any different?
Because unlike all those other things, software IS different. You're not buying a physical product which can't be duplicated with a single click. You're buying a license to use intellectual property. You're buying a product which could not have existed in the times when clothing and cards were invented.
And don't think the MPAA is that happy about people selling used cds and dvds either. They just don't have a way of shutting down those sales.
But sales of non physical licenses.... that's a whole new branch of law. One that's still in the evolution stage.
Again where does the intllectual property end though? The pre-owned car isn't just physical property -- it's readily copyable intellectual property, as is the book, or CD.
My biggest problem in this honestly comes down to the lack of protections for the consumer. Most of the licensing contracts contain "screw you at our whim" clauses that allow for immediate alteration of the arraignment (but only by the distributor), immediate and incontestable revocation clauses and other such crap.
I am especially vexed by these sorts of things when to comes to online only media. The companies want you to pay 40~60+ dollars for something, then spend more money on it in downloadable content and still reserve the right to take it all from you at some point in the future. That is crap and not something I'm going to put up with over something that is supposed to be entertaining and a form of relaxation.
This would be like Paizo reserving the right to come into your home and take your books away if they don't like the way you are playing with it or the fact you want to sell them later.
When I buy a game I don't want to simply be renting it -- I want to own my copy and to be able to sell that copy or keep it at my discretion.
Of course if they made better games maybe people wouldn't be so quick to sell them secondhand or the games might hold value better.
Heck Nintendo has several prime examples of this already -- several NES games still go for a decent amount second hand or still sell on the Wii despite plenty of emulators and free copies available on the internet. Why? Because those games were good enough that people are still willing to pay for them.
Thing is, this is just what those companies WANT. There is nothing universal or objective about it. Considering copiers, fax machines CDs and VHS and so on would never have existed if those same companies got what they once wanted, it is absurd to refer to them as any kind of moral authority.
Agreed:
There has grown up in the minds of certain groups in this country the notion that because a man or corporation has made a profit out of the public for a number of years, the government and the courts are charged with the duty of guaranteeing such profit in the future, even in the face of changing circumstances and contrary to public interest. This strange doctrine is not supported by statute or common law. Neither individuals nor corporations have any right to come into court and ask that the clock of history be stopped, or turned back.
Profits are not a right, and doing business isn't either.
Again, we are talking about physical media here.Except when we're not.
My posts were all referring to physical media, and the first-sale doctrine.
Huh. No wonder your responses to me don't make any sense! You were diverging off to who-knows-what (probably confusing my post with others' here).
And, as I've noted, in many of those cases you run into the exact same ethical snag. I'm not saying it's okay to sell your used copy of a film on DVD to someone but it's not okay to sell your used game. I'm saying that, from an ethical standpoint, there are problems
with selling both of those things as used products.
Indeed you did. Why are libraries not unethical, then? In any case, since first-sale doctrine and property rights are enshrined in law and widely accepted by the vast vast majority of people, you are in such a tiny minority on that one, your random protests on an internet messageboard still don't mean much. (If a tiny minority believes something is unethical and the majority disagrees, then it's not unethical - "conforming to the standards of behavior" [except in possibly extreme circumstances, which we're not discussing here]. It's also subjective, so again, the minority are usually incorrect.)
I suspect after this paragraph you'll want to go into a debate about "ethics" and "ethical behavior", but that's probably a little too far from this particular topic, so I won't bite. (And we'll save each other a lot of time because it will quickly come to an impasse, since I consider you wrong 99% of the time, Betts. We won't be agreeing.)
Do I really need to defend the idea that we, societally, consider public lending libraries a public good?
*shrug* You brought it up and said it didn't apply, so yeah - you do. Explanation. In detail. (No, you don't need to. See above.)
My previous post/statement continues to hold true: "Purchasing used products (of any sort) is certainly legitimate - and consumers do have the right to sell their property, and have the right of first sale." It really is the end of story.I'm afraid it isn't.
Yes, in the context of physical media for consoles, it is. My statement is correct and accurate.
Again where does the intllectual property end though? The pre-owned car isn't just physical property -- it's readily copyable intellectual property, as is the book, or CD.
No, it isn't. Your car is the product of any number of patents, but is not itself a patent. Meanwhile, software itself is protected by copyright, because that software (and the creative work that it executes) is itself intellectual property.
It is very important that you understand and acknowledge that there is a fundamental difference between the type of product that is a car, and the type of product that is software.
My biggest problem in this honestly comes down to the lack of protections for the consumer. Most of the licensing contracts contain "screw you at our whim" clauses that allow for immediate alteration of the arraignment (but only by the distributor), immediate and incontestable revocation clauses and other such crap.
Which is why EULAs have often been found illegitimate; they are unilaterally-imposed contracts, and lack the validity that a mutually negotiated contract possesses. However, the possible legal illegitimacy of a EULA does not in any way mean that you're actually purchasing title to the game you buy.
I am especially vexed by these sorts of things when to comes to online only media. The companies want you to pay 40~60+ dollars for something, then spend more money on it in downloadable content and still reserve the right to take it all from you at some point in the future. That is crap and not something I'm going to put up with over something that is supposed to be entertaining and a form of relaxation.
While that's a potential concern, there isn't a lot of evidence to support the idea that you'll find yourself in that situation any time soon. I don't want my games disabled either, but I honestly don't see it happening at any point where I'd still care.
This would be like Paizo reserving the right to come into your home and take your books away if they don't like the way you are playing with it or the fact you want to sell them later.
There are a lot of people who already subscribe to a digital service for their roleplaying needs that can hypothetically be shut down, you know.
When I buy a game I don't want to simply be renting it -- I want to own my copy and to be able to sell that copy or keep it at my discretion.
What you want really isn't material, is it? You usually don't have that option, unfortunately.
Of course if they made better games maybe people wouldn't be so quick to sell them secondhand or the games might hold value better.
Games right now are better than games have ever been. If modern games were terrible, gaming wouldn't be seen as the golden child of the entertainment industry right now, and game sales would not have been their highest in history in 2010.
Heck Nintendo has several prime examples of this already -- several NES games still go for a decent amount second hand or still sell on the Wii despite plenty of emulators and free copies available on the internet. Why? Because those games were good enough that people are still willing to pay for them.
No, people are willing to pay for nostalgia and the collectable factor, which is why people will buy them when they could just get free copies.
Profits are not a right, and doing business isn't either.
No one is saying that they have a right to make a profit. But, as long as you've decided to make this an issue of rights, they certainly do have the right to choose to sell you a limited license to use their product, rather than selling you title to it outright.
Don't make this a rights issue. It doesn't come out in your favor.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Profits are not a right, and doing business isn't either.No one is saying that they have a right to make a profit. But, as long as you've decided to make this an issue of rights, they certainly do have the right to choose to sell you a limited license to use their product, rather than selling you title to it outright.
Don't make this a rights issue. It doesn't come out in your favor.
Sure it does -- because I have the right to not buy. Which is fine since the games are generally crap.
Ultimately demand side economics can (and potentially will) ruin any supply side economics these companies want to put out there, which is exactly what they are trying to set up.
Games might be doing fine -- but gaming consoles... meh not so much. Which is part of the issue here.
Indeed you did. Why are libraries not unethical, then?
Because we have, societally, recognized that there is a greater public good served by the public availability of reading material. Ethics is all about balancing concerns against one another.
In any case, since first-sale doctrine and property rights are enshrined in law and widely accepted by the vast vast majority of people, you are in such a tiny minority on that one, your random protests on an internet messageboard still don't mean much.
First-sale doctrine as it applies to software is an area of legal ambiguity, at the moment. There is no clear legal consensus as to whether the re-sale of licensed software is legitimate. It will probably be a while before this is settled.
In the meanwhile, though, we can decide to not make this about the law. Neither the consumer nor the publisher/manufacturer is violating the law (as it is currently understood) in this arrangement. This is about ethics, and whether it's ethically sound to enjoy someone else's work without compensating them for it. I don't believe it is, and you do. That's what this boils down to.
(If a tiny minority believes something is unethical and the majority disagrees, then it's not unethical - "conforming to the standards of behavior" [except in possibly extreme circumstances, which we're not discussing here]. It's also subjective, so again, the minority are usually incorrect.)
I believe that, if you asked a random sampling of the United States population, "Is it ethical to enjoy the work of someone else without compensating them for it?" they would respond, "No," in droves. For whatever reason, we as a society have sort of glossed over that particular ethical snag when it comes to applying the first-sale doctrine to certain commodities.
I suspect after this paragraph you'll want to go into a debate about "ethics" and "ethical behavior", but that's probably a little too far from this particular topic, so I won't bite. (And we'll save each other a lot of time because it will quickly come to an impasse, since I consider you wrong 99% of the time, Betts. We won't be agreeing.)
That's a shame. I only consider you wrong when you're actually wrong.
*shrug* You brought it up and said it didn't apply, so yeah - you do. Explanation. In detail. (No, you don't need to. See above.)
I was sort of hoping that you would do the reasonable thing. I guess that was unfounded?
Yes, in the context of physical media for consoles, it is. My statement is correct and accurate.
Again, you're free to look up case law. This is an unsettled legal issue, with cases supporting both sides. This shouldn't be an argument of rights, because we don't really have the ability to decide which rights we have or don't have for ourselves.
Sure it does -- because I have the right to not buy.
How does that make it turn out in your favor? They don't get money, and you don't get a game!
Which is fine since the games are generally crap.
Oh, okay, then.
Ultimately demand side economics can (and potentially will) ruin any supply side economics these companies want to put out there, which is exactly what they are trying to set up.
Games might be doing fine -- but gaming consoles... meh not so much. Which is part of the issue here.
Gaming consoles are not doing well? That's a surprise. Do you have data to support this? Data that takes into account the fact that the current generation of consoles started a good seven years ago?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Sure it does -- because I have the right to not buy.How does that make it turn out in your favor? They don't get money, and you don't get a game!
Because in order for their business model to work they have to get the money. In order for me to continue to do what I'm doing I don't have to have the game.
If their business model is to be successful they have to do something, that means they have to generate the sell -- I am not required to do anything. In order to generate the sell they have to supply something I want in the way I want it. Either they can meet the demand or they can't -- as it stands they won't, a very different situation and one I can change by abstaining from the sell.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Personally I am just about done with electronic games in general. It just isn't worth it anymore. I have never had a problem with buying my games new, in fact I only ever buy new. I dont rent, borrow or steal. If a game is worth my time its worth the money and the creators deserve to have it.
I dispise drm not because it prevents me from getting cheap games, I dont do that anyway, I do not like not owning what I pay for. I am fine with methods to make sure what is mine is mine and that I legitimately bought it, what I mind is the invasion of my computer with irritating drm, or the hoops I have to jump through (constant internet connection for instance) to get to what I want. So I only buy games I truly want, and I support games that do things I like (no or limited drm, and for console games, in console split screen for multiplayer friendly games). Otherwise I find other uses for my time.
I've actually been on a heavy board game kick these last few years, happy with the costumer service and the general feel that a quality product with good support is required not just a luxary. Not to mention I like actually being in the physical presense of my friends having fun together, which most developers now seem to see as some kind of evil.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This is about ethics, and whether it's ethically sound to enjoy someone else's work without compensating them for it. I don't believe it is, and you do. That's what this boils down to.
Incorrectly stated. Try again.
I believe that, if you asked a random sampling of the United States population, "Is it ethical to enjoy the work of someone else without compensating them for it?" they would respond, "No," in droves. For whatever reason, we as a society have sort of glossed over that particular ethical snag when it comes to applying the first-sale doctrine to certain commodities.
Properly giving them full context (e.g. "giving up all property rights", etc), I do indeed know how the majority will respond. The "glossed over" is for a reason - people know what they are/are not getting, and what's reasonable.
That's a shame. I only consider you wrong when you're actually wrong.
Me too!
I was sort of hoping that you would do the reasonable thing. I guess that was unfounded?
Incorrectly stated. I did do the reasonable thing.
Again, you're free to look up case law. This is an unsettled legal issue, with cases supporting both sides. This shouldn't be an argument of rights, because we don't really have the ability to decide which rights we have or don't have for ourselves.
Certainly. The status quo and what we can do today is abundantly clear.
I've actually been on a heavy board game kick these last few years, happy with the costumer service and the general feel that a quality product with good support is required not just a luxary. Not to mention I like actually being in the physical presense of my friends having fun together, which most developers now seem to see as some kind of evil.
I didn't really realize I had gone through a similar evolution.
At a previous house, my two roommates were good friends of mine, as such, our house kind of became the central hangout for our larger group of friends. A common activity was to gather in the basement with our two tv's and play splitscreen games, particularly ones that could handle more than one console (like the original Halo as an example). We would buy any game that had a coop mode, any game, even if they were absolutely terrible, just because we were hungry for those kinds of games.
When the general shift on Xbox moved towards xbox-live, we went with it for a while and several of the friends have kept playing on there, but in general our level of multiplayer, particularly coop play, has dwindled to almost nothing.
Now in the past two years, our board game purchases and play time has greatly increased. There's such a wide variety, depending on what kind of playstyle you want, duration of play and number of players that we have to buy a fair number of them to suit our various tastes and attendees for the evening.
I know why the game companies shifted to play over networks, because then each player has to purchase a copy of the game. But it reduced the human component to the event for me. I liked getting together, even if we had to take turns playing, it was fun to be in the same room doing the same thing. Board games are now the superior method of that meets those requirements over video games.
I've actually been on a heavy board game kick these last few years, happy with the costumer service and the general feel that a quality product with good support is required not just a luxary. Not to mention I like actually being in the physical presense of my friends having fun together, which most developers now seem to see as some kind of evil.I didn't really realize I had gone through a similar evolution.
At a previous house, my two roommates were good friends of mine, as such, our house kind of became the central hangout for our larger group of friends. A common activity was to gather in the basement with our two tv's and play splitscreen games, particularly ones that could handle more than one console (like the original Halo as an example). We would buy any game that had a coop mode, any game, even if they were absolutely terrible, just because we were hungry for those kinds of games.
When the general shift on Xbox moved towards xbox-live, we went with it for a while and several of the friends have kept playing on there, but in general our level of multiplayer, particularly coop play, has dwindled to almost nothing.
Now in the past two years, our board game purchases and play time has greatly increased. There's such a wide variety, depending on what kind of playstyle you want, duration of play and number of players that we have to buy a fair number of them to suit our various tastes and attendees for the evening.
I know why the game companies shifted to play over networks, because then each player has to purchase a copy of the game. But it reduced the human component to the event for me. I liked getting together, even if we had to take turns playing, it was fun to be in the same room doing the same thing. Board games are now the superior method of that meets those requirements over video games.
This is a literal mirror of my experience. In fact this year was the first year we did not have a full week long 'winter eenmas' which is a made up holiday in which we spend a week all crashing at our friend's house with 5 tvs and every console and game we have available to us, playing all night long, crashing in sleeping bags and on couches and then waking and playing some more. Instead we only had a weekend of it, and one night was filled with board games. And yes I have spent a good deal on board games as have my friends in the last 2 years or so. But our weekly game nights are so much more fun then scrounging for some kind of multiplayer video game experience that there is no question in my mind it is the right choice.
We will still on occassion break out a copy of smash brothers, or some xbla game, but we are far more likely now to break out a modern boardgame. And it all started because I wanted to have things to do with my friends when we were hanging out. Now I can accomodate a wide range of tastes and styles for any amount of people, from 2 to 20 people.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Basically put there is no real ownership except for the maker of a product.
Indeed. I suppose the rest of us are simply more practical and practical-minded than Betts. While he certainly has an interesting opinion of where the "ethics" are in this matter, it does involve the near-entire removal of the concept of property rights, which I suspect the vast majority of the populace would (violently) reject.
Given the above, mentioning "ethics" in this thread becomes useless and meaningless. Whoops.
Basically put there is no real ownership except for the maker of a product.Indeed. I suppose the rest of us are simply more practical and practical-minded than Betts. While he certainly has an interesting opinion of where the "ethics" are in this matter, it does involve the near-entire removal of the concept of property rights, which I suspect the vast majority of the populace would (violently) reject.
Given the above, mentioning "ethics" in this thread becomes useless and meaningless. Whoops.
Well I'm beginning to suspect a bit of Austrian economics, or libertarianism from Betts...
Which puts the whole "ethics" thing from him strictly in the absurd column since both of those are directly derived from praxeology which patently removes any ethical or moral considerations from play from the on set.
It's the very first point you have to realize when talking to proponents of those systems since if you try to argue with them on the grounds of ethics and morals as actually understood by the majority of humanity you aren't going to get anywhere.
It's almost a form of political autism in my opinion.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I removed a post and several replies to it. I don't care what kind of veil it's behind: personal attacks are unacceptable.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I removed a post and several replies to it. I don't care what kind of veil it's behind: personal attacks are unacceptable.
The heavy handed moderation probably wouldn't have been needed in the first place here or in the Mass Effect thread if a closer look was taken to the poster in the center of it in both threads. Apologies in advance if you see this as a slight Ross but as a long time poster here myself, I'm a little surprised.
Edit* I'm not all that innocent for falling into it, but there seems to be a common antagonist.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Again, is there an ethically-defensible argument for being upset with the demise of the pre-owned games market?
How about the paradigm of every other product on the market? I can buy a used car, second-hand clothing, used CDs and DVDs, and just about anything else. Why should games be any different?
Because unlike all those other things, software IS different. You're not buying a physical product which can't be duplicated with a single click. You're buying a license to use intellectual property. You're buying a product which could not have existed in the times when clothing and cards were invented.
And don't think the MPAA is that happy about people selling used cds and dvds either. They just don't have a way of shutting down those sales.
But sales of non physical licenses.... that's a whole new branch of law. One that's still in the evolution stage.
Again where does the intllectual property end though? The pre-owned car isn't just physical property -- it's readily copyable intellectual property, as is the book, or CD.
My biggest problem in this honestly comes down to the lack of protections for the consumer. Most of the licensing contracts contain "screw you at our whim" clauses that allow for immediate alteration of the arraignment (but only by the distributor), immediate and incontestable revocation clauses and other such crap.
I am especially vexed by these sorts of things when to comes to online only media. The companies want you to pay 40~60+ dollars for something, then spend more money on it in downloadable content and still reserve the right to take it all from you at some point in the future. That is crap and not something I'm going to put up with over something that is supposed to be entertaining and a form of relaxation.
This would be like Paizo reserving the right to come into your home and take your books away if they don't like the way you are playing with it or the fact...
Sorry, don't know where this topic has gone, just saw this and feel the need to comment.
What separates buying a physical product and IP is the "Second Sale Doctrine" which gives the owner of something, like a cd or dvd - the right to sell it. Also, a small percentage of money from blank CD and DVD sales go to record and movie studios (maybe software companies too) to pay for potential copies being made with them.
What makes this different is that you don't really buy these licenses to play the games. You pay for a non exclusive license of a duration not in perpetuity. So you own nothing you ARE NOT BUYING ANYTHING, you just happen to be in an agreement that involved giving them money.
Personally, I'd be ok with a market where games are on a service like a game version of spotify or netflix. That's mostly because I'm a fan of protecting IP, and that's a pretty good way of doing it. And also because people in the business have to use licenses to obtain IP from each other (movies get sync licenses for music, etc) so it's not a big deal to me.
However, the terms of most of this kinda stuff are basically set up to screw consumers and I'd like to see that change. but really, courts tend to side with consumers when they get screwed over by 10000 page legalize minute bullcrap, so I wonder how much of those types of terms would hold up anyway.
Just doing my part to educate about intellectual property.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Devick you would be right if I didn't buy games. The companies openly admit this when in the owner's manual they call me the owner of the game. That instance and copy of the game are mine to do with what I see fit so long as I don't produce unauthorized copies and sell them as the same game -- the same goes for copyrights too -- I own the car I buy, however I can't build a copy and sell it without authorization.
It's the same with books, blueprints, car designs, shoes, and video games.
People are acting like one type of 'intellectual property' isn't the same as other types, it's all the same copyright laws.
What we are talking about here is an industry's attempt to force a supply side profit booster by limiting your rights as a property owner. Instead they should focus on making a better product as that always works better.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Devick you would be right if I didn't buy games. The companies openly admit this when in the owner's manual they call me the owner of the game. That instance and copy of the game are mine to do with what I see fit so long as I don't produce unauthorized copies and sell them as the same game -- the same goes for copyrights too -- I own the car I buy, however I can't build a copy and sell it without authorization.
It's the same with books, blueprints, car designs, shoes, and video games.
People are acting like one type of 'intellectual property' isn't the same as other types, it's all the same copyright laws.
What we are talking about here is an industry's attempt to force a supply side profit booster by limiting your rights as a property owner. Instead they should focus on making a better product as that always works better.
I'm sorry, I was a little unclear in my statement. When you buy a physical game, then yes you ABSOLUTELY own it and can sell, per the second sale doctrine. I was saying in the case of downloading games off the internet.
My bad.
EDIT: Also, there are actually copyright laws that deal with specific mediums, and laws that have exemptions for certain stuff (Works for hire, compulsory licenses). Remember that copyrights include the right to display your work to the public, and some stuff like that. You can buy a CD, but if you want to play it at a club, you're going to be in legal trouble (Well, probably not really, but in theory anyway).
So when you buy a car, you don't own the IP but you have a machine that has an engine and can propel you. When you buy a CD, you don't own the IP but instead of something that does something, the physical property is really just binary data on a piece of plastic, you're no more entitled to what comes out of it when its in a cd player or xbox than you are to the blueprints of the car.