F**K Project Ten dollar and others... let's take some actions

[Petromir]

There autodesk was trying to stop people from tradeing in unopened copires, which is clearly unfair, not cut down on the transfer of used licenses.

Also, possibly illegal.

Evidence?

Becasue last time I checked nobodies been made to remove said licence terms from a piece of software, and in the UK it would be asking to be sued if after having being made to remove it from one you tried to put it on another (and yes individual lawsuits on contractual clauses likle that have been sucessful before). If it was then DRM that limted installs on the PC and even CD keys we've had for well over a decade would have been declaired illegal.

No I'm talking about being stopped from trading unopened copies. Not user licenses. I think the office of fairtrade states that you should legally be entitled to sell or trade any item obtained legally (unless said item needs a license of trade I.e alcohol or weaponry, or if the item it self is illegal). I said possibly because I don't know all the jargon behind all this but I think being stopped from selling a legitimate item is an offence. I'm no solicitor though so I could be wrong.

I probably need to do a little more research on the matter, should have done before posting... I think the heat is getting to me today... not really thinking straight.

I didnt say that trying to prevent someone selling unopend copies wasnt illegal. I beleive it is, and fully support it being so.

I read your post as suggesting that prenveting people from selling opened and installed copies of a single user licensed product was illegal. As it appeasr it wasnt I appologise.

 

[Sovvolf]

I read your post as suggesting that prenveting people from selling opened and installed copies of a single user licensed product was illegal. As it appeasr it wasnt I appologise.

My bad, I should have cut the part about the user license out of the quote, I'm not thinking to clearly today... extremely hot today and I think it's getting to me... minor case of heat stroke I think... so my head's all over the place.

 

[Blimey]

Everyone is looking at this as if it's such a terrible thing. To them, I have to say "GET A DAMN JOB." The difference in pricing between a used and new game is marginal, and ten dollars isn't going to break anyone's bank.

I don't give a shit about this whole 10-dollar thing, just because I don't buy current-gen used games.

But the get a job statement I gotta take some issue with. Alot of these people do have jobs. But money doesn't just fall from the sky, especially in places like Russia and Romania, where you work shitty hours for very little pay. So telling someone to get a job sucks for them, because they do have a job. One that barley puts food on their table. So chill dude.

 

[Lukeydoodly]

Try supporting the publishers and developers. Buy it new or pay the damn 10 dollars.

Hurp durp.

 

[I am Spy]

The used game market is a disgrace. All it does it allows companies like GAME in the UK to make stupid amounts of money off the back of the developers hard work. They'll buy a game for £3 then sell it on for £30; it's ridiculous. This is a good thing.

Remember when all us PC gamers were angry about the removal of dedicated servers from MW2 and we just got told to suck up the corporate bullshit? Well, welcome to the world of DRM that kills the used game market. Suck it up.

 

[Xanthious]

I will tell you this much. The more I see these companies pulling dick move after dick move after dick move the harder it makes it for me to feel any ounce of sympathy for them when their games get leaked a week early and downloaded by everyone and their dog.

Honestly if the movie, music, and video game industry are that hell bent on controlling how I use my media, when I can use my media, and now how I buy my media I will just download it and use it whenever, on whatever, and however I want and they can suck both nuts before they get a dime of my money.

 

[Kenjitsuka]

Personally I'm all for Project Ten Dollar. I feel as if I should be entitled to some thing extra for going out and buying the game full price on release.

The extra you get is to play it way before I can afford it second hand...

 

[Sovvolf]

Personally I'm all for Project Ten Dollar. I feel as if I should be entitled to some thing extra for going out and buying the game full price on release.

The extra you get is to play it way before I can afford it second hand...

What if I don't buy it straight away?. What if I buy it at the same time as you but I buy it full... shouldn't I be able to feel rewarded for buying the full game rather then buying the second hand one?.

I don't mean any offence to you in any way. However I don't want to debate this issue anymore today. I'm sure you could read through the last six pages and see my point and maybe agree or disagree. I would normally jump at a debate but today I feel ill with the heat and I'm not really thinking straight so I doubt I'd be any good at a debate. This is not an attack against you or your opinions, I simply don't feel well. Maybe tomorrow we could pick up on this debate when (or if) I'm feeling better?. Though I feel I'd probably just end up parroting what I've said over the last six pages. Sorry for not being able to debate with you and I apologize if you are offended by this.

 

[Katana314]

Playing games earlier is no bonus whatsoever. Bioshock 1 is still just as good a game now as when it first came out. I had plenty of fun with Mirror's Edge after buying it about 5 months after release, and didn't care that I wasn't a part of the hype-wave that discussed it on forums.

I don't really see what reward a used game should entail. You haven't done ANYTHING for the publisher, so why should they do anything for you?

I support Project Ten Dollar, but will note that I oppose the disgracefully large prices that all games seem to be set at.

 

[icaritos]

So many people willing to defend multi-million dollar industries for their right to screw the consumers...when did the gaming community go insane, did i miss some kind of indoctrination event?

That's what I don't understand. It's just my opinion that this is complete bullshit, but I'm wondering why so many are of the opposite opinion that they should just bend over and accept anything EA gives them.

ya they are trying to defend the company right to maintain control over your property even after you buy it. And no the DLC thing is not only a "bonus" they are removing core gameplay mechanics and making it into mandatory DLC packages.

here is a nice little quote:
Barron's Law Dictionary (2d ed. 1984) defines property as "one's exclusive right to possess, use, and dispose of a thing"

Dispose includes selling just so you know.

Pity its entirely irellivant. When you buy a game your not getting property your buying an end-user licences to be allowed to play it. A games publiseher is well within its rights to decide on what basis the license can be transfered to another person.

This is the way games (and indeed dvds, videos etc) have been sold pretty much since the industries began. Its just recently they've started taking steps protect their ability to deal with THEIR property as they see fit.

Cant you see whats even wrong with the fact you state that something a consumer buys is still their property. We should be rightfully restricted to the ways we use such property to avoid copying and reuse of the source code but it should be our freedom to deal with what we have paid for, at least for physical objects (that is not including things like services and all the rest).

 

[Katana314]

Your post includes terms like "we should" and demands certain rights, but that's just your opinion. My opinion, and congress' opinion, is different; I DON'T think we should have the right to re-sell certain things, even if we've paid for them. And we've been illustrating reasons for that.
Besides, games aren't physical objects. We buy a disc sure, but we're not just paying for the cost of making that disc. We're paying for the intangible program and textures inside of it, plus support in the instance that the software fails. When you use a service like Steam, you're getting NOTHING physical, and it's really the same thing you're getting.

 

[Xanthious]

Pity its entirely irellivant. When you buy a game your not getting property your buying an end-user licences to be allowed to play it. A games publiseher is well within its rights to decide on what basis the license can be transfered to another person.

This is the way games (and indeed dvds, videos etc) have been sold pretty much since the industries began. Its just recently they've started taking steps protect their ability to deal with THEIR property as they see fit.

Here's the problem. That attitude is what makes people like me look at movies, games, music etc and just say "Screw it, I can get it for free w/o the headaches". It doesn't matter if that attitude is right or wrong the fact is the more you try to force people to do something the harder they will resist. You try forcing people away from used games and you will just drive them to download them instead.

 

[Deofuta]

I am not sure how to argue with this. I for one believe that companies are moving in the right direction with this, however instead of creating harsh penalties they should incentive's it. Give a bonus instead of just merely lifting off a penalty. It sucks that you have to go through an American credit card. But it is an American Product is it not?

 

[TPiddy]

Exactly this... people who buy used games are not the customers of the developers and have no right to make any demands of them. If I buy a used car and it breaks down, I head to the used car dealership, not the manufacturer's dealership.

Off topic, but the car dealership would probably love it if you brought your used car in to get it fixed... probably at about double the cost most other mechanics would do it for, but that's beside the point. Just saying. They were paid for the original purchase and most are more than willing to order parts or do labor for your used product if you pay for said parts and labor. That's how I see project $10. You didn't buy from the original manufacturer, but they'll still provide services if you pay them for it. Also, my sensibilities run more strongly in the vein of "capitalist" than "gamer". If Gamestop or EB found a working legal business model (resale of used goods), more power to them. It's up to publishers (and I suppose devs indirectly) to beat their deal. Which they're trying to do with Project 10 Dollars. I don't see why people get up in arms about this... I think it's a beautiful system and the economy gets better whether it's via EA or Gamestop. I don't "owe" anything to a company so they can make "Space Marine Shoots Aliens for Fun and Profit 8". They can take their business, liquidate the entire operation, and pay out their stockholders any time they want. They don't because it's less profitable. I can choose to buy or not buy their games any time I want. I act on a per game basis. The system works in my opinion.

Thank you for expanding on my existing point and sticking with the analogy. I am definitely in agreement with you on this one.

 

[TPiddy]

Exactly this... people who buy used games are not the customers of the developers and have no right to make any demands of them. If I buy a used car and it breaks down, I head to the used car dealership, not the manufacturer's dealership.

Car manufacturers have been providing incentives to buy new for years now.

However, not allowing online play to people who buy used is definitely total dick. That's like buying a used car and finding out it costs extra to drive it on roads with 4 lanes.

Thanke - though I'm more on the field about the online capacity, I am lending towards the publishers on this one.

Right, I suppose the one flaw in that argument is that the car dealers don't make the roads, whereas the publishers do have to provide some of the online service.

 

[Petromir]

Cant you see whats even wrong with the fact you state that something a consumer buys is still their property. We should be rightfully restricted to the ways we use such property to avoid copying and reuse of the source code but it should be our freedom to deal with what we have paid for, at least for physical objects (that is not including things like services and all the rest).[/quote]

And at no point is a game your property, nor is a license. You've got the wrong idea in your head. Digital distribution may help lessen the false belief in ownership. All in all maybee its easier to understand if you think of it as a service, as effectively thats what a license is. Especially as thses days even on consoles games makers thse days ddo continue to provide a service.

 

[erac3rx]

Here's the problem. That attitude is what makes people like me look at movies, games, music etc and just say "Screw it, I can get it for free w/o the headaches". It doesn't matter if that attitude is right or wrong the fact is the more you try to force people to do something the harder they will resist. You try forcing people away from used games and you will just drive them to download them instead.

I have to say, I agree with this feeling. This just makes me even less likely to buy a game new, and I don't see how people who 'always buy new' could actually be happy about this. Sure it may feel like you are getting more when you buy it new, but that new game you just bought just became $10 less valuable!

It may seem to the publishers that this will encourage people to buy new, but it will also have the effect of making used games cheaper. Gamestop won't be able to get away with charging $55 for a 2-day old copy of CoD:Blackout or whatever-- at most now it will be worth $49 to anyone that cares about multiplayer-- so they'll have to sell it for $49. So now used games become a better deal, especially if you don't care about MP. There will be the $59 for everything people, and then the $49 for single player used 3 days after the games come out people. There will also be the VERY ANGRY people who buy a game used and can't play it. Sure as a publisher you may not *think* you care about those people... but how many of those angry customers that buy your crippled used Madden 11 to try it out are going to buy Madden 12 new after getting screwed like that?

An analogy I would use is, imagine if your DRM'free iTunes Plus tracks for $1.29 each now just got DRM'ed, to where only 80% of the song will play unless you're on the authenticated iTunes account that bought it. Well, those files just got worth less, but you're being charged the same price. How can you be happy about this?

 

[oranger]

like I said before...when was the disc licensed to me? I bought it. With money, with no agreement beyond an exchange of currency.
THAT'S why the various companies are pushing the online distribution, its not the used market they are worrying about; they want to give their views on consumer rights legitimacy.
After all, they (the various game companies) have every right to sell you their software "as is", which can simply be half a game and a contract to make an agreement for the terms to use the rest of the software.

 

[Audioave10]

The only way they will ever care what you think, is to...Don't Buy The Game!