As was foretold, we've added advertisements to the forums! If you have questions, or if you encounter any bugs, please visit this thread: https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/240191/forum-advertisement-faq-and-reports-thread/

The fair restriction of consumer rights

135

Posts

  • IncenjucarIncenjucar VChatter Seattle, WARegistered User regular
    edited November 2007
    New and used is not a valid concept for downloads.

    They do not degrade in value with use, unlike disks, which eventually wear out.

    Neither is limited quantity.

    Incenjucar on
  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    edited November 2007
    Gihgehls wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    Ok, someone tell me right now what the difference between a "new and "use" copy of a digitally distributed item are? Anyone?

    The answer is none. Zip.

    So why would Valve, or any company, want to sell 2 identical items at different price points? Especially when they make less money on the cheaper one.

    "Used Game" and "Digital Distribution" don't make sense together.

    Because Valve isn't selling used and new, they are only selling new. Me, I'm the one selling used, and uncle Newell can take his cut.

    Now cut to 16 year old Billy who has 20 dollars to spend. He wants Half-Life 2 but he can't afford it. Uncle Newell gets nothing. But I have a used copy for 20 dollars. Billy buys it, and Gabe takes 5 dollars off the top for himself. Sure, Valve could go "fuck Billy he can save up" but I can't see why they would want to do that because they risk Billy taking his saved up money for something different and not from Valve.

    Radiohead recently let people download their album for whatever amount you wanted to pay for it. They made more money from downloads that way than if they didn't make that offer. Some money is better than no money, right?

    No, you don't have a used copy. You have a 100% new copy. It's completely identical to the one they sold you. Your selling Billy a new copy for a fraction of the price Valve is, and cutting them in for a piddly 10%. Why the fuck would they want to let you do that?

    shryke on
  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    edited November 2007
    Azio wrote: »
    People need to let go of this idiotic idea of games and music and books and movies being physical products, like a table saw or a quarter pounder with cheese.

    Exactly. This is the main point.

    Digital Distribution has finally allowed us to separate the means of distribution (the disk a movie/album/game is burned on or the paper a book is printed on) from the actual product itself (the book/movie/game/album). Which is why intellectual property rights are only going to become a bigger deal as time goes on. The world she is a changing.

    shryke on
  • GihgehlsGihgehls Registered User regular
    edited November 2007
    shryke wrote: »
    Gihgehls wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    Ok, someone tell me right now what the difference between a "new and "use" copy of a digitally distributed item are? Anyone?

    The answer is none. Zip.

    So why would Valve, or any company, want to sell 2 identical items at different price points? Especially when they make less money on the cheaper one.

    "Used Game" and "Digital Distribution" don't make sense together.

    Because Valve isn't selling used and new, they are only selling new. Me, I'm the one selling used, and uncle Newell can take his cut.

    Now cut to 16 year old Billy who has 20 dollars to spend. He wants Half-Life 2 but he can't afford it. Uncle Newell gets nothing. But I have a used copy for 20 dollars. Billy buys it, and Gabe takes 5 dollars off the top for himself. Sure, Valve could go "fuck Billy he can save up" but I can't see why they would want to do that because they risk Billy taking his saved up money for something different and not from Valve.

    Radiohead recently let people download their album for whatever amount you wanted to pay for it. They made more money from downloads that way than if they didn't make that offer. Some money is better than no money, right?

    No, you don't have a used copy. You have a 100% new copy. It's completely identical to the one they sold you. Your selling Billy a new copy for a fraction of the price Valve is, and cutting them in for a piddly 10%. Why the fuck would they want to let you do that?

    Because some money is better than no money.

    Gihgehls on
    PA-gihgehls-sig.jpg
  • IncenjucarIncenjucar VChatter Seattle, WARegistered User regular
    edited November 2007
    Gihgehls wrote: »
    Because some money is better than no money.

    Presuming they would get some money, and that it would be more money than they would make otherwise.

    Which is a lot of presuming.

    Incenjucar on
  • mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    edited November 2007
    Azio wrote: »
    Even with physical copies, nobody can honestly say that an appreciable fraction of the $50-70 they pay for a game is accounted for by the physical portion of the product. Halo 3 costs $59.99 because the game, that is, the cumulative effort of hundreds of talented people distilled into a ten-hour experience designed for the enjoyment of one to four people, is worth $59.99. The disc, box and booklet have negligible value. So if I sell my copy of Halo 3 to somebody else for $40, they get to enjoy the exact same experience I paid $59.99 for, but they save $20 thanks to this insipid notion that a video game's price has more to do with the two-cent disc that it's printed on than with the $20+ million effort that went into creating the game. Now two people have enjoyed the game and the developers have only been compensated for one of them. So if the disc is in good enough condition that the game works, I don't get why it should be worth much less than a brand-new copy.

    Honestly if every brick-and-mortar store was replaced by online, digital-only content delivery, and used games were killed overnight, I would shed no tears. Buying and selling used is great for gamers, but it screws developers and publishers in pretty much the same capacity as piracy, and it just doesn't make sense in the context of an intellectual property. Especially when that property came from the internet and doesn't even have a physical component. "Used" Steam games is the silliest idea I've ever heard. People need to let go of this idiotic idea of games and music and books and movies being physical products, like a table saw or a quarter pounder with cheese.

    Maybe I'll be willing to do that as soon as we get the concept of the public domain back. Which, at the moment, is not going to happen in my lifetime.

    As it is, even with used sales, the entertainment industry (as a whole) seems to have little problem recouping the costs of production, and paying for fleets of limos and private jets. Many of those limos and jets purchased with revenue generated by works that should have fallen into the public domain long ago. Why do I still have to pay for a Beatles album again? Why can Disney still keep their IP out of print for vast stretches of time to artificially inflate prices on what is already an artificially imposed scarcity...especially when much of their IP should have fallen into public domain long ago?

    Maybe some part of this is fallout from the many, many years during which media was treated very much like a physical product. If I spilled ink all over my book, the publisher wasn't exactly going to replace it (even if I turned the old one in). If my CD was scratched beyond play, the label was unlikely to replace it (and any labels that would didn't make the process readily available). Same for console games. Oddly, considering the origin of this conversation, PC games (and software in general) was about the only realm where it was common for such media replacement to be available and advertised to the consumer. But in general, entertainment media was treated as physical property...if it was damaged, it was lost, and you had to buy another.

    So yeah. More than willing to start treating intellectual property differently than physical. But I'm going to want to see some renegotiation in order to be happy with this...starting with a drastic reduction in copyright terms.

    mcdermott on
  • GihgehlsGihgehls Registered User regular
    edited November 2007
    For some reason I thought the topic of discussion wasn't semantics about what new and used mean.

    EDIT: I thought it was about giving a licensee of a game an opporunity to back out of his license and pass it off to someone else, while still providing a monetary gain for the owner of that license.

    Gihgehls on
    PA-gihgehls-sig.jpg
  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    edited November 2007
    I'm with you on that. Intellectual Properties time limit needs to be drastically reduced.

    You can blame Disney for this though. As far as I've been told, their team of lawyers are at the spearhead of keeping the length of IP rights as long as possible.

    shryke on
  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    edited November 2007
    Gihgehls wrote: »
    For some reason I thought the topic of discussion wasn't semantics about what new and used mean.

    You'd be wrong. The whole topic started as a discussion of why someone can't sell a used copy of a digitally distributed item. The fact that said item is not really used at all is pretty central.

    shryke on
  • mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    edited November 2007
    shryke wrote: »
    I'm with you on that. Intellectual Properties time limit needs to be drastically reduced.

    You can blame Disney for this though. As far as I've been told, their team of lawyers are at the spearhead of keeping the length of IP rights as long as possible.

    No, I don't blame Disney. They may be the spearhead, but last I checked none of the other companies are exactly pushing the other direction. The entire entertainment industry, more or less, is happy to see copyrights extended in perpetuity...which is exactly what is going to happen, since I bet we're seeing generations of kids now that don't even understand the concept of public domain, let alone the value/importance.
    You'd be wrong. The whole topic started as a discussion of why someone can't sell a used copy of a digitally distributed item. The fact that said item is not really used at all is pretty central.

    Then I guess to get past the semantics we can just agree that "used" in this context means the ability to transfer a license to another person. I've still not seen any great argument as to why people shouldn't be able to do this, other than "publishers make more money this way."

    Goodbye fair use, goodbye first sale...we'll bury you guys next to public domain.

    mcdermott on
  • GihgehlsGihgehls Registered User regular
    edited November 2007
    Then the discussion is totally based on false premises. Of course there is no such thing as a used or new copy of a digital distributed item. There is such thing as granting, revoking, and transfering licenses however, which is the only thing I am really talking about.

    Gihgehls on
    PA-gihgehls-sig.jpg
  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    edited November 2007
    Alright, are their other industries where transferring licenses is doable and how does it work in those cases?

    shryke on
  • mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    edited November 2007
    shryke wrote: »
    Alright, are their other industries where transferring licenses is doable and how does it work in those cases?

    Doable or done? I'd say it's more than "doable" in music. I transfer the license to play an album to somebody else (as a gift, or maybe they paid me, either way)...they now have the license to play it, and I no longer do. The file will no longer work on my copies of iTunes, or my iPods (once I sync them).

    Same for video purchased from the iTMS.

    I fail to see why this isn't "doable." And music, unlike video games (at least many videogames), isn't so much a "one-shot" deal...I still listen to music purchased decades ago.

    I'd argue that there may not be any industries where transfer of licenses for digitally distributed content is done now...because why would they? It's just lost profit.

    Personally I'd almost like to see government step in and do a significant re-write of copyright law to take into account the new digital formats/distribution...find a way to work in 21st century versions of first-sale, fair use, etc. Basically try to level the playing field for the consumer again...oh yeah, and bring back the public domain. With how fast culture moves nowadays, I see little reason it should last more than a decade, but I'd settle for two.

    Note the "almost" in that last paragraph? That's because I have less money than studio execs, so I know exactly how any such rewrite would be likely to work. And it wouldn't be in our (consumers) favor.

    Oh, and I'm really hoping somebody will try to say that the government shouldn't be messing with the marketplace in this way. Really.

    mcdermott on
  • GihgehlsGihgehls Registered User regular
    edited November 2007
    How to transfer Adobe software product licesences.

    Hell, they don't even take any money from this. Gosh, why the hell would they do that?

    Gihgehls on
    PA-gihgehls-sig.jpg
  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    edited November 2007
    Interesting, I didn't know that about iTunes (I refuse to touch that shit. Especially after QuickTime turned into fucking spyware or something on my computer).

    And yeah, I did mean "done" not "doable", but it's just as good a question.

    So, I'll agree. At some point, we're gonna have to admit that our old notions of things like copy right/intellectual property/etc are no longer fully applicable and that we need to start rewriting these laws to get with the times. Your probably right about us getting fucked worse when it happens though.

    shryke on
  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    edited November 2007
    Gihgehls wrote: »
    How to transfer Adobe software product licesences.

    Hell, they don't even take any money from this. Gosh, why the hell would they do that?

    The same reason they let Photoshop pirating run rampant. The more people using their product, the more people are familiar with it and used to using it, and therefore more companies buy it because all their employees are used to using Adobe products.

    shryke on
  • PataPata Registered User regular
    edited November 2007
    Azio wrote: »
    People need to let go of this idiotic idea of games and music and stories and movies being physical products, like a table saw or a quarter pounder with cheese.

    Never.

    Pata on
    SRWWSig.pngEpisode 5: Mecha-World, Mecha-nisim, Mecha-beasts
  • GihgehlsGihgehls Registered User regular
    edited November 2007
    shryke wrote: »
    Gihgehls wrote: »
    How to transfer Adobe software product licesences.

    Hell, they don't even take any money from this. Gosh, why the hell would they do that?

    The same reason they let Photoshop pirating run rampant. The more people using their product, the more people are familiar with it and used to using it, and therefore more companies buy it because all their employees are used to using Adobe products.

    I was being facetious, but thanks for spelling it out for the people who didn't get that before. I think it is safe to say that something similar applies to valve. The more people out there with HL2 experience, the more mods and expansions and episodes they can sell.

    Gihgehls on
    PA-gihgehls-sig.jpg
  • DaedalusDaedalus Registered User regular
    edited November 2007
    Azio wrote: »
    Daedalus wrote: »
    The reason why a used game has less value than a new game is because it's been opened. Fucked with. Somebody's used it before you. They might have taken the disc and rubbed their dick all over it for all you know. There's no guarantee of the original packaging, the disc itself is probably damaged, etc. There is a chance that the game is as pristine as if it were new, but that's the point: it's the uncertainty that drives the price down.

    None of this holds for games bought over Steam. A "used" copy (how can it be "used" anyway, if the next person just downloads it from Steam?) would be identical to a "new" copy. So why would Valve let people trade "used" copies like that? What would they gain?
    Even with physical copies, nobody can honestly say that an appreciable fraction of the $50-70 they pay for a game is accounted for by the physical portion of the product. Halo 3 costs $59.99 because the game, that is, the cumulative effort of hundreds of talented people distilled into a ten-hour experience designed for the enjoyment of one to four people, is worth $59.99. The disc, box and booklet have negligible value. So if I sell my copy of Halo 3 to somebody else for $40, they get to enjoy the exact same experience I paid $59.99 for, but they save $20 thanks to this insipid notion that a video game's price is tied to the two-cent disc that it's printed on, and not the $20+ million effort that went into creating the game. Now two people have enjoyed the game and the developers have only been compensated for one of them. So if the disc is in good enough condition that the game works, I don't get why it should be worth much less than a brand-new copy.

    Honestly if every brick-and-mortar store was replaced by online, digital-only content delivery, and used games were killed overnight, I would shed no tears. Buying and selling used is great for gamers, but it screws developers and publishers in pretty much the same capacity as piracy, and it just doesn't make sense in the context of an intellectual property. Especially when that property came from the internet and doesn't even have a physical component. "Used" Steam games is the silliest idea I've ever heard. People need to let go of this idiotic idea of games and music and stories and movies being physical products, like a table saw or a quarter pounder with cheese.

    And I assume that when physical games go out of print, nobody who didn't buy it new should get to play it? Gotcha. Throw works of art out with the bathwater, sounds great for the medium as a whole.

    And don't say something stupid like "well if it's online distribution nothing will ever go out of print".

    Daedalus on
  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    edited November 2007
    Gihgehls wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    Gihgehls wrote: »
    How to transfer Adobe software product licesences.

    Hell, they don't even take any money from this. Gosh, why the hell would they do that?

    The same reason they let Photoshop pirating run rampant. The more people using their product, the more people are familiar with it and used to using it, and therefore more companies buy it because all their employees are used to using Adobe products.

    I was being facetious, but thanks for spelling it out for the people who didn't get that before. I think it is safe to say that something similar applies to valve. The more people out there with HL2 experience, the more mods and expansions and episodes they can sell.

    Because their completely different products. Most licensed products, like Adobe, make their money licensing to schools and businesses. Games just flat out don't make money that way. So it doesn't apply to games.

    shryke on
  • GihgehlsGihgehls Registered User regular
    edited November 2007
    They're not completely different products at all. Different markets, and perhaps different business models, but no, not different products.

    Gihgehls on
    PA-gihgehls-sig.jpg
  • DaedalusDaedalus Registered User regular
    edited November 2007
    Gihgehls wrote: »
    They're not completely different products at all. Different markets, and perhaps different business models, but no, not different products.

    Really? Then how come Photoshop isn't on the shelf at my local EBStop?

    The only thing the products have in common is that they run on a computer.

    Daedalus on
  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    edited November 2007
    Photoshop and Video Games work on such completely different business models, it's ridiculous to compare them.

    shryke on
  • mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    edited November 2007
    shryke wrote: »
    Photoshop and Video Games work on such completely different business models, it's ridiculous to compare them.

    mcdermott on
  • GihgehlsGihgehls Registered User regular
    edited November 2007
    Daedalus wrote: »
    Gihgehls wrote: »
    They're not completely different products at all. Different markets, and perhaps different business models, but no, not different products.

    Really? Then how come Photoshop isn't on the shelf at my local EBStop?

    Because EBstop is a pawn shop that sells games, a subset of the group that includes computer software. You can get Adobe products AND games at any large software store. I think you're just being thick for the hell of it. Why isn't WindowsXP on the shelf at my local Apple store? Don't answer that.
    The only thing the products have in common is that they run on a computer.

    The only relevent comparison was that they are both licensed software. Anything beyond that was not part of my arguement. I made a comparison not directly related to the fair restriction of consumer rights, wherein I suggested that perhaps it is in Valve's interest to have lots of legitmate copies of HL2 floating around. Piracy and how Adobe sells its software is not part of anything I'm talking about.

    Gihgehls on
    PA-gihgehls-sig.jpg
  • AzioAzio Registered User regular
    edited November 2007
    Daedalus wrote: »
    Azio wrote: »
    Daedalus wrote: »
    The reason why a used game has less value than a new game is because it's been opened. Fucked with. Somebody's used it before you. They might have taken the disc and rubbed their dick all over it for all you know. There's no guarantee of the original packaging, the disc itself is probably damaged, etc. There is a chance that the game is as pristine as if it were new, but that's the point: it's the uncertainty that drives the price down.

    None of this holds for games bought over Steam. A "used" copy (how can it be "used" anyway, if the next person just downloads it from Steam?) would be identical to a "new" copy. So why would Valve let people trade "used" copies like that? What would they gain?
    Even with physical copies, nobody can honestly say that an appreciable fraction of the $50-70 they pay for a game is accounted for by the physical portion of the product. Halo 3 costs $59.99 because the game, that is, the cumulative effort of hundreds of talented people distilled into a ten-hour experience designed for the enjoyment of one to four people, is worth $59.99. The disc, box and booklet have negligible value. So if I sell my copy of Halo 3 to somebody else for $40, they get to enjoy the exact same experience I paid $59.99 for, but they save $20 thanks to this insipid notion that a video game's price is tied to the two-cent disc that it's printed on, and not the $20+ million effort that went into creating the game. Now two people have enjoyed the game and the developers have only been compensated for one of them. So if the disc is in good enough condition that the game works, I don't get why it should be worth much less than a brand-new copy.

    Honestly if every brick-and-mortar store was replaced by online, digital-only content delivery, and used games were killed overnight, I would shed no tears. Buying and selling used is great for gamers, but it screws developers and publishers in pretty much the same capacity as piracy, and it just doesn't make sense in the context of an intellectual property. Especially when that property came from the internet and doesn't even have a physical component. "Used" Steam games is the silliest idea I've ever heard. People need to let go of this idiotic idea of games and music and stories and movies being physical products, like a table saw or a quarter pounder with cheese.

    And I assume that when physical games go out of print, nobody who didn't buy it new should get to play it? Gotcha. Throw works of art out with the bathwater, sounds great for the medium as a whole.

    And don't say something stupid like "well if it's online distribution nothing will ever go out of print".
    It's not like other options are unavailable to you. If you want a game that is out of print so badly, but are so adverse to the idea of not paying for it (even though the publisher clearly doesn't care to charge money for it), for god's sake just pirate it and mail a cheque to the publisher. This ain't rocket science.

    Azio on
  • Satan.Satan. __BANNED USERS regular
    edited November 2007
    shryke wrote: »
    Ok, someone tell me right now what the difference between a "new and "use" copy of a digitally distributed item are? Anyone?
    Fine, fuck, call it "first use license" and "second use license". Can we get past this? The labels need better wording. How about we nail the concept down first, then worry about cutesy terms for each. We're working with well-known definitions for the time being.
    shryke wrote: »
    I'm with you on that. Intellectual Properties time limit needs to be drastically reduced.

    You can blame Disney for this though. As far as I've been told, their team of lawyers are at the spearhead of keeping the length of IP rights as long as possible.
    Makes sense. If IP rights lost a lot of their length, Disney would stand to lose a substantial part of that fucking "Disney vault" marketing bull to public domain. I'm sure other studios are behind this, IP is a huge industry and covers damn near everything.
    mcdermott wrote: »
    I'd argue that there may not be any industries where transfer of licenses for digitally distributed content is done now...because why would they? It's just lost profit.
    Why not profit from it by providing customers with a medium to exchange your license, and take a percentage from the re-sale of said license? We've been beating that horse for the last few pages.

    Satan. on
  • mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    edited November 2007
    [
    mcdermott wrote: »
    I'd argue that there may not be any industries where transfer of licenses for digitally distributed content is done now...because why would they? It's just lost profit.
    Why not profit from it by providing customers with a medium to exchange your license, and take a percentage from the re-sale of said license? We've been beating that horse for the last few pages.
    Because there's more profit in just selling new licenses. Period. There is more profit in simply selling new licenses than this little "take a percentage of license transfers" gig. Because most of those potential "used" buyers will instead simply wait until a price drop to buy the game instead...so Valve (or whoever) will be able to sell it for $19.99 or even $9.99 to that person instead of taking their $5 (or possibly a bit more) percentage on a license transfer.

    mcdermott on
  • HevachHevach Registered User regular
    edited November 2007
    Azio wrote: »
    It's not like other options are unavailable to you. If you want a game that is out of print so badly, but are so adverse to the idea of not paying for it (even though the publisher clearly doesn't care to charge money for it), for god's sake just pirate it and mail a cheque to the publisher. This ain't rocket science.

    Don't do this. It might set your conscience at ease, but it's also not a good idea. Remember the original Napster? People set up online tipjars where people could "pay" for MP3s they downloaded. The RIAA used them to track down some of their first lawsuit victims. Not only is it still illegal, it's illegal and you're advertising the fact to the people who can sue you for doing it.

    Hevach on
  • DaedalusDaedalus Registered User regular
    edited November 2007
    Azio wrote: »
    Daedalus wrote: »
    Azio wrote: »
    Daedalus wrote: »
    The reason why a used game has less value than a new game is because it's been opened. Fucked with. Somebody's used it before you. They might have taken the disc and rubbed their dick all over it for all you know. There's no guarantee of the original packaging, the disc itself is probably damaged, etc. There is a chance that the game is as pristine as if it were new, but that's the point: it's the uncertainty that drives the price down.

    None of this holds for games bought over Steam. A "used" copy (how can it be "used" anyway, if the next person just downloads it from Steam?) would be identical to a "new" copy. So why would Valve let people trade "used" copies like that? What would they gain?
    Even with physical copies, nobody can honestly say that an appreciable fraction of the $50-70 they pay for a game is accounted for by the physical portion of the product. Halo 3 costs $59.99 because the game, that is, the cumulative effort of hundreds of talented people distilled into a ten-hour experience designed for the enjoyment of one to four people, is worth $59.99. The disc, box and booklet have negligible value. So if I sell my copy of Halo 3 to somebody else for $40, they get to enjoy the exact same experience I paid $59.99 for, but they save $20 thanks to this insipid notion that a video game's price is tied to the two-cent disc that it's printed on, and not the $20+ million effort that went into creating the game. Now two people have enjoyed the game and the developers have only been compensated for one of them. So if the disc is in good enough condition that the game works, I don't get why it should be worth much less than a brand-new copy.

    Honestly if every brick-and-mortar store was replaced by online, digital-only content delivery, and used games were killed overnight, I would shed no tears. Buying and selling used is great for gamers, but it screws developers and publishers in pretty much the same capacity as piracy, and it just doesn't make sense in the context of an intellectual property. Especially when that property came from the internet and doesn't even have a physical component. "Used" Steam games is the silliest idea I've ever heard. People need to let go of this idiotic idea of games and music and stories and movies being physical products, like a table saw or a quarter pounder with cheese.

    And I assume that when physical games go out of print, nobody who didn't buy it new should get to play it? Gotcha. Throw works of art out with the bathwater, sounds great for the medium as a whole.

    And don't say something stupid like "well if it's online distribution nothing will ever go out of print".
    It's not like other options are unavailable to you. If you want a game that is out of print so badly, but are so adverse to the idea of not paying for it (even though the publisher clearly doesn't care to charge money for it), for god's sake just pirate it and mail a cheque to the publisher. This ain't rocket science.

    So the rightsowners have an admission that I stole it and know my address and bank account information. Fucking brilliant. Oh, and how do I pirate Saturn games again? We seem to be short on emulators that actually work, and nobody makes chips anymore.

    And why the publisher? They're the useless middlemen, after all, right?

    Daedalus on
  • AzioAzio Registered User regular
    edited November 2007
    Hevach wrote: »
    Azio wrote: »
    It's not like other options are unavailable to you. If you want a game that is out of print so badly, but are so adverse to the idea of not paying for it (even though the publisher clearly doesn't care to charge money for it), for god's sake just pirate it and mail a cheque to the publisher. This ain't rocket science.

    Don't do this. It might set your conscience at ease, but it's also not a good idea. Remember the original Napster? People set up online tipjars where people could "pay" for MP3s they downloaded. The RIAA used them to track down some of their first lawsuit victims. Not only is it still illegal, it's illegal and you're advertising the fact to the people who can sue you for doing it.
    I'm not suggesting that people actually do this, piracy is illegal after all.

    Not that pirating it would be any worse for the publisher than buying a used copy from Jim-Bob Ebayer.

    Azio on
  • DaedalusDaedalus Registered User regular
    edited November 2007
    Azio wrote: »
    Hevach wrote: »
    Azio wrote: »
    It's not like other options are unavailable to you. If you want a game that is out of print so badly, but are so adverse to the idea of not paying for it (even though the publisher clearly doesn't care to charge money for it), for god's sake just pirate it and mail a cheque to the publisher. This ain't rocket science.

    Don't do this. It might set your conscience at ease, but it's also not a good idea. Remember the original Napster? People set up online tipjars where people could "pay" for MP3s they downloaded. The RIAA used them to track down some of their first lawsuit victims. Not only is it still illegal, it's illegal and you're advertising the fact to the people who can sue you for doing it.
    I'm not suggesting that people actually do this, piracy is illegal after all.

    Not that pirating it would be any worse for the publisher than buying a used copy from Jim-Bob Ebayer.

    Look, I think the games industry benefits from a used market more than you think.

    Case in point: I bought Metroid Prime used for $8. It was no longer in print, so my alternative to buying used would be to not buy the game. I liked Metroid Prime and later bought Prime 3 for $50, new. Had there been no used market, I wouldn't have bought that sequel, now would I?

    But whatever, go for the illegal approach rather than using legal channels for whatever stupid reason, woo! Or never play any game that you can't find new, that's great too.

    Daedalus on
  • GihgehlsGihgehls Registered User regular
    edited November 2007
    Daedalus wrote: »
    Look, I think the games industry benefits from a used market more than you think.

    Case in point: I bought Metroid Prime used for $8. It was no longer in print, so my alternative to buying used would be to not buy the game. I liked Metroid Prime and later bought Prime 3 for $50, new. Had there been no used market, I wouldn't have bought that sequel, now would I?

    But whatever, go for the illegal approach rather than using legal channels for whatever stupid reason, woo! Or never play any game that you can't find new, that's great too.

    I agree with you completely here. I bought my copy of Rez used, because I missed my window of opportunity to buy it new before it went out of print. Nevermind the fact that I paid more for it used than I would have new. That just depresses me.

    Gihgehls on
    PA-gihgehls-sig.jpg
  • IncenjucarIncenjucar VChatter Seattle, WARegistered User regular
    edited November 2007
    Downloadable games negates the issue of the supply of previously-released games running out.

    There would never be a rare game ever again.

    Games would also become easier to profit from, making them more attractive to make, especially regarding niche titles.

    Incenjucar on
  • mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    edited November 2007
    Incenjucar wrote: »
    Downloadable games negates the issue of the supply of previously-released games running out.

    There would never be a rare game ever again.

    Until game publishers learn a thing or two from Disney. Coming out of the vault in 2013, Deus Ex! Your last chance to buy it for a generation!

    Oh, especially since they could start putting expiration dates in licenses. Disney can't exactly make my copy of Fantasia disappear.

    mcdermott on
  • IncenjucarIncenjucar VChatter Seattle, WARegistered User regular
    edited November 2007
    Not all companies are as douchey as Disney.

    Especially since being that douchey just gives pirates easier profits.

    Also: Vote with your wallet. If a company has that kind of practice, don't buy their games.

    Incenjucar on
  • DaedalusDaedalus Registered User regular
    edited November 2007
    Incenjucar wrote: »
    Downloadable games negates the issue of the supply of previously-released games running out.

    There would never be a rare game ever again.


    HAhahahahahahahahahaaa! Yeah, that's why Goldeneye 007 is heading right for the Virtual Console and/or XBLA, right?

    Look, sometimes the rights to a game get tied up in legal horseshit to the point where nobody can republish it.

    Daedalus on
  • IncenjucarIncenjucar VChatter Seattle, WARegistered User regular
    edited November 2007
    Republishing is an entirely different matter from publishing forever and ever.

    Incenjucar on
  • DaedalusDaedalus Registered User regular
    edited November 2007
    Incenjucar wrote: »
    Republishing is an entirely different matter from publishing forever and ever.

    No, it really isn't. Properties change hands all the damn time and right now, for instance, most of the good games in the N64 library are caught in a legal limbo between Nintendo and Microsoft. If Nintendo had gotten the VC up and running well before the sale of Rare to Microsoft, those games would have gone down then. Your system only works in a perfect fantasy world, the same world where communism works flawlessly and (simultaneously) the free market can iron out any problem.

    Daedalus on
  • IncenjucarIncenjucar VChatter Seattle, WARegistered User regular
    edited November 2007
    Yes, yes it is, because your initial contracts would be based around the idea of perpetual publishing.

    So unless they hire absolutely retarded legal departments, it's a different thing.

    Incenjucar on
Sign In or Register to comment.