|
Why are video games different from any other type of software? Or any digital content, period?We are talking about video games.Yeah, as long as i respect the laws regarding copyrights (no multiplication, presenting the work in it's entirety or parts thereof as my own), it's mine. If they sell me a license, I'm not going to buy. As simple as that.I assume you don't use Windows, then.
Well, regarding video games and Windows, windows is an operating system and thus necessary for computer operation. A video game is entertainment software and thus unnecessary.
I don't have to by a game from a company whose moves or policies i dislike.But since i don't like Linux i have to use Windows for my day-to-day stuff. And that means having to suffer through buying a license for Windows.
Also, yeah, scale matters.
But i understand where you're coming from. Both of you.
|
The difference between renting a home and paying for a licence to use a video game is that if I wanted to I could buy a home instead (assuming I had the money, or the ability to get a mortgage).Oh, you could totally buy a video game. You'd just have to convince the developer/publisher to give it up, and pay (probably) a ton of money for it. But you'd own it! It would be yours! You could do anything you wanted with it!
Apples and Oranges.
If I lend a book to a friend, or a DVD they get the same experience as I did. They don't owe the author, or the production company a cent. That copy is bought and paid for.
If I give away my copy of Mass Effect to a friend, then it's not the developer's business that I do that.
If they are going to insist on charging a licence to play a game, then the consumer better get something out of the deal, because right now we don't get anything except treated like idiots.
Why does the scale matter?Scale always matters.
It's the same reason there's a difference between simple theft and grand theft.
Yes. They're crimes of the same type, but different magnitude. The sentences for them are of the same type, but different magnitude.
I'm not arguing the license for a larger piece of software shouldn't be more expensive. :-)
An article about a first sale case from last year.
Especially concerning physical copies of the game, I think Microsoft could have a court case on it's hands.
Is there a large amount of difference between a piece of game software and a piece of word processing software?Nope.
I lend those to people too, and also see nothing wrong with that.
<moderator hat>Please don't discuss your illegal activities on the forum.
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.
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.
I think it's more along the lines of how we don't discuss torrent sites - they can be used legitimately, on occasion, but by and large if you're using a torrent site/giving someone a copy of your Office suite, it's breaking some law or regulation somewhere.
Apples and Oranges.
Nope.
If I lend a book to a friend, or a DVD they get the same experience as I did. They don't owe the author, or the production company a cent. That copy is bought and paid for.
If I give away my copy of Mass Effect to a friend, then it's not the developer's business that I do that.
It is if you are party to a licensing agreement that prohibits that.
If they are going to insist on charging a licence to play a game, then the consumer better get something out of the deal, because right now we don't get anything except treated like idiots.
You do get something out of it. You get to play the game.
This isn't new. This is something you've been doing for years, now. You're just finally realizing it.
I think it's more along the lines of how we don't discuss torrent sites - they can be used legitimately, on occasion, but by and large if you're using a torrent site/giving someone a copy of your Office suite, it's breaking some law or regulation somewhere.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.
He didn't say torrent, pirate, or distribute. He said lend.
Apples and Oranges.Nope.
If I lend a book to a friend, or a DVD they get the same experience as I did. They don't owe the author, or the production company a cent. That copy is bought and paid for.
If I give away my copy of Mass Effect to a friend, then it's not the developer's business that I do that.
It is if you are party to a licensing agreement that prohibits that.
If they are going to insist on charging a licence to play a game, then the consumer better get something out of the deal, because right now we don't get anything except treated like idiots.You do get something out of it. You get to play the game.
This isn't new. This is something you've been doing for years, now. You're just finally realizing it.
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".
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.Apples and Oranges.Nope.
If I lend a book to a friend, or a DVD they get the same experience as I did. They don't owe the author, or the production company a cent. That copy is bought and paid for.
If I give away my copy of Mass Effect to a friend, then it's not the developer's business that I do that.
It is if you are party to a licensing agreement that prohibits that.
If they are going to insist on charging a licence to play a game, then the consumer better get something out of the deal, because right now we don't get anything except treated like idiots.You do get something out of it. You get to play the game.
This isn't new. This is something you've been doing for years, now. You're just finally realizing it.
I have a feeling that first sale doctrine is going to receive some legal reexamination; it's one of those relics of a less complex world like so many other aspects of our IP law. I think that big companies like Microsoft feel the same.
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.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Why is it not making you angry?
Why are we letting corporations treat us like enemies or idiots?
Stockholm Syndrome.
Why is it not making you angry?
Because I try to avoid getting angry over trivial things. And because I think it's fair to expect to be paid when someone uses something you've made. And because I think that when you create something, you have the right to decide the manner in which it can be used, as long as you are up-front about it.
Why are we letting corporations treat us like enemies or idiots?
You're acting like you're being treated like their enemy, or like you're being treated like idiots. Neither of those things is true, of course - you're being treated as potential customers - but casting this relationship as adversarial probably helps to justify this outrage, doesn't it?
The Xbox 1 may be coming, but it can stay the hell away from me. I do not want it's cooties. It's a shame, because the 360 was my preferred console this generation, but...
I'm poor, so I pick up second hand games. About 2/3 of the games I get are second hand. Sometimes, I'll pick up something like Mass Effect 1 second hand and love the game so much that I instantly pre-order the collector's edition of it's sequel. BioWare have gotten quite a lot of money out of me, thanks to me picking up Mass Effect on the cheap...if I know it's something I'll like, I will be much, much more likely to actually pay for a new game.
Honestly, I don't like anything to do with the new console. It looks like someone welded two black Wii's together. The online thing to make sure you're not a horrible person who lends there friends games instead of making them buy them means a lot of people are going to have issues - I know my network is unstable, and I'm sure there are enough people out there who can't easily hook up online just so Microsoft can assure themselves that no one's being naughty with games. And I believe all the TV stuff they keep yodeling about requires and add on.
Equally, while I know developers don't especially like the second hand games market, it's the only way a lot of the companies that sell games remain afloat. We nearly lost our biggest game store chains last year in the UK because they're going broke - do Microsoft really think removing a major revenue stream for the people who sell there stuff on the street is going to do good things for them? Who do they think is going to get the prime retail space in the shop, the PS4 with it's second hand games or the Xbox 1 which will make the shop far, far less money?
Honestly, I can't see how some new Halo and Gears of War titles can save this console - it has done just about everything wrong I can think of. Backwards compatibility isn't a huge deal for me (no one is forcing me to hurl my 360 out a window...at least, not until Microsoft bricks them all with a 'Buy the Xbox 1 newb!' message. But pretty much every other thing ever is. So I'm now watching the PS4 with much greater interest than before, and saving for a WiiU.
Honestly, I don't like anything to do with the new console. It looks like someone welded two black Wii's together. The online thing to make sure you're not a horrible person who lends there friends games instead of making them buy them means a lot of people are going to have issues - I know my network is unstable, and I'm sure there are enough people out there who can't easily hook up online just so Microsoft can assure themselves that no one's being naughty with games.
You do not need to be online constantly to use the Xbox One. An unstable connection will not prevent you from being able to use the console.
And I believe all the TV stuff they keep yodeling about requires and add on.
I don't think it will. I haven't seen any indication of that.
Equally, while I know developers don't especially like the second hand games market, it's the only way a lot of the companies that sell games remain afloat.
I think it's probably for the best that they transition to a web storefront model. Companies like GameStop are not particularly well-loved for their brick-and-mortar business model.
We nearly lost our biggest game store chains last year in the UK because they're going broke - do Microsoft really think removing a major revenue stream for the people who sell there stuff on the street is going to do good things for them?
I don't think Microsoft is particularly invested in the success of third-party physical storefronts.
Who do they think is going to get the prime retail space in the shop, the PS4 with it's second hand games or the Xbox 1 which will make the shop far, far less money?
Both will get prime retail space, because both will make the store money. As you pointed out, these stores can't afford to turn down a moneymaking opportunity. They are not in a particularly advantageous bargaining position.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You do not need to be online constantly to use the Xbox One. An unstable connection will not prevent you from being able to use the console.
Unless your internet goes out for more than 24 hours. Or you're traveling or summat.
Then it's a paperweight because...what was the reasoning behind this feature again?
I don't think Microsoft is particularly invested in the success of third-party physical storefronts.
They're obviously not particularly invested in their own success right now either, unless the legions of fanboys and CoD drones are larger than I dare to think.
You do not need to be online constantly to use the Xbox One. An unstable connection will not prevent you from being able to use the console.
No, but it will require you to connect at least once a day. And if it fails due to internet hiccups or a internet outage you can't play that day. Of course, if you don't have a broadband internet connection, you pretty much can't play. Or if you have a gaming set up in a location that doesn't allow internet access.
I don't think it will. I haven't seen any indication of that.
Unfortunately, the release statement says;
"At launch, Live TV will require a supported receiver device with HDMI output (sold separately)."
I suppose that could mean it will eventually work with the main box, but it doesn't sound likely.
Add to that it will only be available in the US to start with...
I think it's probably for the best that they transition to a web storefront model. Companies like GameStop are not particularly well-loved for their brick-and-mortar business model.
They may not be loved, but there are enough people out there who don't especially like digital only copies that Microsoft still needs them.
I don't think Microsoft is particularly invested in the success of third-party physical storefronts.
They should be. Digital releases still only make up about 40% of sales, including DLC. Given that digital versions are usually hideously expensive on a console (Remember Me is up for Pre-Order on my PS3 - it's £47.99 compared to the £36.98 Zavvi is offering it for) I imagine there are plenty of folks ordering it from elsewhere.
It's not just brick and mortar shops that will suffer - a lot of online retailers make money from second hand stuff too.
Both will get prime retail space, because both will make the store money. As you pointed out, these stores can't afford to turn down a moneymaking opportunity. They are not in a particularly advantageous bargaining position.
They'll both get sold. But without the option for second hand games, the Xbox 1 will make those stores a lot less money, and they have a lot less reason to push them. Why give equal store space, advertising and such to a company that, as you've pointed out, does not give a crap about you or whether you succeed? They'll sell the Xbox 1 stuff, but it'll be that small shelf at the back of the store.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
two black Wii's together.
Hot.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I have to say, I'm not a fan of the general direction either.
But then I do play a lot of older games.*
And backwards compatibility is a huge draw for me.
And I did detest the server-side single player aspect of Diablo 3 and all the worrying things that entails.
And I dislike DRM that targets legitimate customers while only offering a speedbump at best to pirates.
And I don't like the idea of being forced to take my console online at all. No Far Cry 3, I don't care about you failing to connect to the internet so I can play single player and punch some tigers good GOD this is part of why I left you for Borderlands 2. >:(
...honestly, . At least you understand me.
*Thing is, I would love to have ways to support game makers even if I have to, by necessity of stock, buy their games used. But I'm not a fan of any methods that leave you out of luck should those companies cease supporting those purchases.
But then again, I'm not exactly in a rush for the next generation of consoles either. I mean seriously, we just got 360's to stop dying all the time. I'd wager there still plenty of life left in this batch for this cycle.
You do not need to be online constantly to use the Xbox One. An unstable connection will not prevent you from being able to use the console.Unless your internet goes out for more than 24 hours. Or you're traveling or summat.
Traveling to somewhere that doesn't have internet access, but has a television and electricity, and where you've decided to cart your full-size game console with you?
I don't recall my internet service ever going out for more than 2 hours, but I suppose this must happen to some people. Still, the absolute worst that could happen is that a few people don't get to play their video games while their internet is out.
Then it's a paperweight because...what was the reasoning behind this feature again?
You know the reasoning.
They're obviously not particularly invested in their own success right now either, unless the legions of fanboys and CoD drones are larger than I dare to think.
The fanboys? Nah, most of those are too young to have much personal purchasing power anyway. But typical, semi-casual gamers? They'll buy truckloads.
No, but it will require you to connect at least once a day. And if it fails due to internet hiccups or a internet outage you can't play that day.
An outage lasting longer than an entire day cannot be described as a "hiccup".
Of course, if you don't have a broadband internet connection, you pretty much can't play. Or if you have a gaming set up in a location that doesn't allow internet access.
I think we're at the point where it's not unreasonable to require someone to have basic broadband internet access in order to enjoy the current generation of digital technology.
Unfortunately, the release statement says;
"At launch, Live TV will require a supported receiver device with HDMI output (sold separately)."I suppose that could mean it will eventually work with the main box, but it doesn't sound likely.
I read that as "You'll need a cable box capable of HDMI out, which you probably already have." I'd hardly call that an "add-on". They're essentially telling you that you need to subscribe to cable TV in order to watch cable TV. This shouldn't come as a shock.
Add to that it will only be available in the US to start with...
It shouldn't be a surprise to anyone abroad that it might take longer for certain media features to reach them. That's par for the course.
They may not be loved, but there are enough people out there who don't especially like digital only copies that Microsoft still needs them.
Nah, Microsoft just needs to make it easy enough to transition away from physical copies. The people who are actually passionate about owning physical copies of everything can easily use an internet retailer like Amazon.
They should be. Digital releases still only make up about 40% of sales, including DLC.
Digital releases represented almost 0% of sales at the beginning of the last generation of consoles. Microsoft is anticipating (correctly) that digital sales will become increasingly commonplace during this generation. And they're in a position to use their infrastructure to encourage that percentage to increase. It looks like they plan on doing so.
Given that digital versions are usually hideously expensive on a console (Remember Me is up for Pre-Order on my PS3 - it's £47.99 compared to the £36.98 Zavvi is offering it for) I imagine there are plenty of folks ordering it from elsewhere.
Remember Me is priced at $60 US on the PlayStation Store, and $60 US on Amazon. It has not been my experience that digital releases tend to cost more. In fact, if the PC digital distribution shift is any indication, you can expect prices to fall.
It's not just brick and mortar shops that will suffer - a lot of online retailers make money from second hand stuff too.
And they will probably continue to make money from second-hand stuff. They'll adapt, or they'll go under. It's deceptively easy to act like any change in the way the market works will spell the doom of our beloved corporations, but companies focus on operational agility for a reason. The well-managed ones will weather it fine.
They'll both get sold. But without the option for second hand games, the Xbox 1 will make those stores a lot less money, and they have a lot less reason to push them.
They have every reason to push them. When someone makes up their mind to buy a current console, which console to purchase is rarely the most proximate choice to the sale. Rather, where to purchase that console from tends to be the most proximate choice. Retailers like GameStop aren't primarily concerned with convincing people to buy a particular console. What they are primarily concerned with is convincing people to buy a console from their store.
Why give equal store space, advertising and such to a company that, as you've pointed out, does not give a crap about you or whether you succeed?
Again: because they can't afford not to.
They'll sell the Xbox 1 stuff, but it'll be that small shelf at the back of the store.
Their loss.
Well, the word processing software gets released full and usable. The game software is most likely put out still in beta or alpha and patched later. ;)Is there a large amount of difference between a piece of game software and a piece of word processing software?
Well I'm glad we got that cleared up.
Traveling to somewhere that doesn't have internet access, but has a television and electricity, and where you've decided to cart your full-size game console with you?
Hotel room internet service is difficult to get hooked up to an Xbox. I usually have to call a guy in the next day to get online service.
I semi-regularly travel out of state for a whole week.
I don't recall my internet service ever going out for more than 2 hours, but I suppose this must happen to some people. Still, the absolute worst that could happen is that a few people don't get to play their video games while their internet is out.
I have Comcast as my ISP and Century Link is the only competitor. That should speak for itself.
And the problem with this is: If I don't have internet, I can't work. So I'm looking at a lot of free time. Time that it would be nice to spend digging into my backlog. Half the reason I own a console is so I can have something that will reliably work within 5 minute sof hitting the on button and popping the disc in, regardless of internet connectivity. That's the one real, huge edge current consoles have over PC. You don't have to wait an hour for things to install, you don't have to fiddle around with it for another 30 minutes to get everything to work exactly right, they just WORK.
My main beef with the new console(s) besides the idiotic 2nd install fees, is that it's throwing away that main advantage and replacing it with...the exact disadvantages a PC has, but with none of the major advantages (better hardware, most prominently, at least if we're just talking games).
You know the reasoning.
Not for sure, no. The only good one I can think of is to make cloud storage the main method of storing saves and such.
The fanboys? Nah, most of those are too young to have much personal purchasing power anyway. But typical, semi-casual gamers? They'll buy truckloads.
Correction: They'll buy whatever everyone else is buying.
I'm not thinking that this gen it will be the XBone.
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.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think we're at the point where it's not unreasonable to require someone to have basic broadband internet access in order to enjoy the current generation of digital technology.
Tell that to people who live in rural areas. Yes, there is satellite internet, but a lot of people don't see it as worth the cost. Presently I have satellite internet, buy once this 2 year contract I have is up I'm ditching it because it's just not worth it. I'm paying 50 bucks a month right now for a service that will shut off my connection should I go above their 10,000 MB per month limit. My wife works for the local branch of AT&T and found out that there are no plans for them to run broadband to our area until at least 2019. There are no other companies who provide internet service to my area.
So as I see it, yes, requiring an internet connection is unreasonable.| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Honestly, is the whole point of this thread to argue with Scott?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Honestly, is the whole point of this thread to argue with Scott?
It is starting to seem that way. I don't usually get involved in these debates, but felt the need to throw in my 2 cents on the internet thing. People seem to forget sometimes that there is life past the suburbs and we aren't all Amish out here.
Valve is currently being sued to allow German gamers to resell digital software.
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 have a feeling that first sale doctrine is going to receive some legal reexamination; it's one of those relics of a less complex world like so many other aspects of our IP law. I think that big companies like Microsoft feel the same.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.Apples and Oranges.Nope.
If I lend a book to a friend, or a DVD they get the same experience as I did. They don't owe the author, or the production company a cent. That copy is bought and paid for.
If I give away my copy of Mass Effect to a friend, then it's not the developer's business that I do that.
It is if you are party to a licensing agreement that prohibits that.
If they are going to insist on charging a licence to play a game, then the consumer better get something out of the deal, because right now we don't get anything except treated like idiots.You do get something out of it. You get to play the game.
This isn't new. This is something you've been doing for years, now. You're just finally realizing it.
I agree and think first sale doctrine is going to be reexamined. I just disagree with you on how it is going to end. I believe the general expectation people have is that they will be able to resell the products they have purchased, and that the reexamination will strengthen this idea. Most people think they are buying software not licensing it. I think it will go with the way most people think they are doing something.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Why are we letting corporations treat us like enemies or idiots?You're acting like you're being treated like their enemy, or like you're being treated like idiots. Neither of those things is true, of course - you're being treated as potential customers - but casting this relationship as adversarial probably helps to justify this outrage, doesn't it?
No, they aren't treating us as customers. They are treating us as thieves. If they were treating us as customers, they would show respect. These policies do not do that.
This has probably already been mentioned (four pages of text and I'm at work, wish I could read it all but...alas :P), but you don't even own your PS3. If you read the terms and agreements section that you're forced to accept during every update, you'd see that you're RENTING the device, it ISN'T yours and they can feel free to lock you out of the PSN at any time (possibly even out of the device itself). Let me just add that while I'm pointing this out, I don't actually like it, it's just the way it is.
On a small point, Blizzard uses torrent technology to send updates and patches and apparently other companies use it to transfer info as well, it CAN be used illegally but it is also being used legally by major companies and such (I remember finding an article about several companies that use it to move info around really quickly).
If Sony actually tried to do something with this language they would probably have a legal battle on their hands that they don't want to be resolved. It would probably not be in their favor.
Scott, "It's not a problem for me" does not equate to "it's not a problem".
"It's a problem," does not equate to, "It's a big problem," either.
Hotel room internet service is difficult to get hooked up to an Xbox. I usually have to call a guy in the next day to get online service.
I semi-regularly travel out of state for a whole week.
Might I suggest tethering your phone, then? If you're traveling out of state regularly, you'll probably find the ability to tether worthwhile regardless of whether you're toting a full-size console around with you.
I have Comcast as my ISP and Century Link is the only competitor. That should speak for itself.
And I have Time Warner Cable, which isn't exactly a fan favorite. My internet, nonetheless, remains fairly reliable. Outages of more than a day should be extremely rare.
And the problem with this is: If I don't have internet, I can't work. So I'm looking at a lot of free time. Time that it would be nice to spend digging into my backlog. Half the reason I own a console is so I can have something that will reliably work within 5 minute sof hitting the on button and popping the disc in, regardless of internet connectivity.
As long as the outage in question doesn't last more than a day, again, this shouldn't be an issue.
That's the one real, huge edge current consoles have over PC. You don't have to wait an hour for things to install, you don't have to fiddle around with it for another 30 minutes to get everything to work exactly right, they just WORK.
I suppose, though I find that the number of games I need to spend 30 minutes fiddling with on PCs has dropped dramatically over the last few years. Most of them just work.
My main beef with the new console(s) besides the idiotic 2nd install fees, is that it's throwing away that main advantage and replacing it with...the exact disadvantages a PC has, but with none of the major advantages (better hardware, most prominently, at least if we're just talking games).
The main advantage of a console is not the ability to throw in a disc and start playing right away. The main advantage of a console is in its standardized platform architecture.
Correction: They'll buy whatever everyone else is buying.
I'm not thinking that this gen it will be the XBone.
They'll buy the one that has the games they want to play. Right now we have no idea which one that is (or if one will even have an advantage over the other).
I think we're at the point where it's not unreasonable to require someone to have basic broadband internet access in order to enjoy the current generation of digital technology.Tell that to people who live in rural areas. Yes, there is satellite internet, but a lot of people don't see it as worth the cost. Presently I have satellite internet, buy once this 2 year contract I have is up I'm ditching it because it's just not worth it. I'm paying 50 bucks a month right now for a service that will shut off my connection should I go above their 10,000 MB per month limit. My wife works for the local branch of AT&T and found out that there are no plans for them to run broadband to our area until at least 2019. There are no other companies who provide internet service to my area.
So as I see it, yes, requiring an internet connection is unreasonable.
There is a lot that I can say on the whole rural-broadband thing that is probably better suited for another thread. Suffice it to say, for now, that I consider adequate internet access crucial enough to modern life that I include broadband access among the most important questions when considering where to live.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Honestly, is the whole point of this forum to argue with Scott?
Fixed.
Scott makes good points, even if I sometimes disagree with them (see: several pages of the MASS EFFECT 3 thread). In this case I can see where the gaming companies are coming from. The AAA gaming business model is riddled with holes and could be about to drop dead, so the publishers need to change their ways if they are going to continue making money. Unfortunately, rather than noting the gamer-driven answers (Kickstarter, dropping all DRM, exploiting old properties via Steam and GoG), they're doing things their way and forcing us to come along for the ride. If we don't like it, we can stop gaming.
As I've said before, this will lead to the inevitable battle of the forthcoming generation: the closed-shop approach of the consoles and, to a lesser extent, Windows 8, versus the open-sourced one of indie and smaller games (backed by the enormous firepower of tablets, Valve, Apple and Google) and things like Ouya and Steambox. I'm not entirely sure the big console way of doing business is going to prevail, especially given Sony's dire financial straits and Microsoft's failure to get a handle on the tablet market until way too late.
Most people think they are buying software not licensing it. I think it will go with the way most people think they are doing something.
So if most people think it's true, that makes it legally correct as well? That's a pretty poor way to make legal decisions, don't you think?
"Your Honor, yes, the plaintiff does technically hold ownership of the Electronic Arts trademark, and has since 1965, but most people think that trademark is owned by my client, EA."
"My word, counsel! Well, if most people think your client owns it, I guess we'd better not disappoint them. Sorry, plaintiff, but we just can't run the risk of people being confused or having to educate themselves."
When your legal doctrine starts sounding like something that would be used by the judge from Phoenix Wright, it's probably time to go back to the drawing board.
EDIT: In hindsight, I should have used patents in this example, not trademarks - trademarks are one of the few areas of our law where it sometimes actually does work this way; if you fail to defend your trademark's use for a long enough period of time, you risk it becoming genericized (which basically means that enough people think it's not associated with your company that you lose it). Doesn't change the thrust of my argument, but it's close enough to what we were talking about that it would have been better for me to use a different example.
No, they aren't treating us as customers. They are treating us as thieves. If they were treating us as customers, they would show respect. These policies do not do that.Why are we letting corporations treat us like enemies or idiots?You're acting like you're being treated like their enemy, or like you're being treated like idiots. Neither of those things is true, of course - you're being treated as potential customers - but casting this relationship as adversarial probably helps to justify this outrage, doesn't it?
If they were treating you as thieves, you'd have the police knocking on your door. So figure out another label for yourself (preferably sans incendiary rhetoric). I suggest "potential customer". You'll find it to be the most accurate.
Threads like this make me so very very glad I've not bought anything but Steam games, Kickstarter rewards, and SNES/N64/Gameboy/DS cartridges or PS1/2 discs... well, ever. =)
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
]My main beef with the new console(s) besides the idiotic 2nd install fees, is that it's throwing away that main advantage and replacing it with...the exact disadvantages a PC has, but with none of the major advantages (better hardware, most prominently, at least if we're just talking games).The main advantage of a console is not the ability to throw in a disc and start playing right away. The main advantage of a console is in its standardized platform architecture.
That is the main advantage for the developer. It is not the main advantage for the consumer.
That is the main advantage for the developer. It is not the main advantage for the consumer.]My main beef with the new console(s) besides the idiotic 2nd install fees, is that it's throwing away that main advantage and replacing it with...the exact disadvantages a PC has, but with none of the major advantages (better hardware, most prominently, at least if we're just talking games).The main advantage of a console is not the ability to throw in a disc and start playing right away. The main advantage of a console is in its standardized platform architecture.
No, it's still the main advantage for the consumer.
EDIT: I would argue that it's not even much of an advantage for the developer. Depending on what you're trying to do, developing a title for a console (at least, historically) can often be harder than developing one for a PC.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
"Here are some strawberries."
"I don't like strawberries."
"Yes you do like strawberries. Here are some strawberries."
Besides the name (I mean, "XBone", haha!), the console seems pretty nice. I think I'll be getting one.
"Here are some strawberries."
"I don't like strawberries."
"Yes you do like strawberries. Here are some strawberries."
"I like strawberries"
"I like strawberries too!""No, you like the wrong type of strawberries!"
"NO U"
Mind you, I prefer raspberries.
Dr. Gillian Taylor: Do you guys like Italian?
Spock: No.
Kirk: Yes.
Spock: No.
Kirk: [at Spock] No, Yes.
Spock: No.
Kirk: Yes, I love Italian...
[looks at Spock]
Kirk: And so do you.
Spock: Yes.