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

[CD-R]

But then again, that would only apply to just released titles.

Not necessarily I was in a Gamestop awhile back and they were still selling used copies of Dragon Age for the 360 for $55.00. It was kind of funny they had a whole stack of them just sitting there.

I suppose I should take this opportunity to give everyone still bitching about project ten dollar a quick economics lesson. Supply and demand. GameStop isn't going to just sit there and let those used copies of Dragon Age pile up forever. They are going to have to get rid of that inventory eventually. Which means whether they like it or not they are going to have to lower the price of the used game. Unless stupid people continue to buy used copies of Dragon Age for $55.00

Ultimately it's up to you and you alone to be smarter about where you spend your money on games. Trading in games for store credit is a ripoff anyway. The guy Zero Originality did a ZP parody explaining this, look it up if yuo want more info. Try Amazon.com or Craigslist if you really want to buy and sell used games.

 

[CD-R]

I don't see the issue to be honest. As if forces stores like Gamestop /GAME to sell pre-owned at a more reasonable price rather than the rip off they are we might be getting premature about pissing and moaning.

Exactly

 

[SL33TBL1ND]

I don't see the problem with it. You get the full game for it's full price, or a fraction of the game for a fraction of it's price. And it stops devs losing money from pre-owned games.

Its not for the devs its for the publishers...

How do the devs get payed hmmm?

They get paid as part of the cost of development. They won't be seeing very much if any of the money the publisher would get from moves like this.

Devs get payed by royalties my man!

 

[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?

 

[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.

 

[VZLANemesis]

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.

You wanna know of a company that has been pirated for a couple of years now, and I mean PIRATED A LOT, and still continues to offer AAA games without feeling the need to fuck consumers for every last penny?
Nintendo, the wii was hacked and mod-chipped everywhere right after launch, Nintendo doesn't give a fuck... they just keep making great games and hoping their fans do right by them as they do by their fans.
Just read the Mario Galaxy 2 review, and thought I should point this out in the thread...

 

[Xiorell]

I'm not really interested in joining the good thing/bad thing argument but, I was just thinking (Sorry if this came up before, I aint read EVERY post)....

...If person 1 goes and buys , takes it home, plays... then takes it back to the store a few days later for a full refund simpley saying something to the effect of "Nothing wrong with it I just thought it sucked arse", as long as he has a recept he's totally entited to a refund as far as I am aware.
Now Person 2 goes into store and buys ... what happens if the store re-sells that returned copy??
Can they do that? Would they have to put if in the pre-owned section or can they resell it??

Basically if a product comes back to my shop, as long as it isn't damaged/faulty I can just put it back on sale.

Obviously with these games if it goes back to the store, it's not fucked but it's not pristine either so, where does that put the retailer??


Not the point of this thread I know, just curious.

 

[Sovvolf]

I don't really feel like refuting every point here, because you just dug your own grave by linking me to an article entitled, "EA's Financial Troubles Caused by Lack of Innovation."

It doesn't say "EA's financial troubles caused by USED GAME MARKET," now does it? So basically, because they're driving themselves under with shitty/un-inventive games, they expect me to pay extra fees for features considered standard in other games? Fuck. That.

Jesus, I posted the EA's Financial troubles caused by Lack of Innovation, to prove that they are in financial trouble. Lack of innovative games may be one of the causes but so is piracy and marketing. The reason you don't feel like refuting every point is because you can't. You picked the weakest point to refute while missing the entire point. You seem to be under this impression that I'm out to defend EA, I'm not... I hate them just as much as anyone else for what they did to infinite ward however (Edit: Whoops a bit of mis-blamed hate here... that was Activision, my bad) I'm defending project $10 because it makes sense. Why don't you, instead of trying to refute one minor point, try and refute the rest of the post?. The points that you ignored?. Why not instead of going on about how EA sucks, get to the real issue that we've all been talking about which is project $10?.

 

[D_987]

You seem to be under this impression that I'm out to defend EA, I'm not... I hate them just as much as anyone else for what they did to infinite ward

EA didn't do anything to Infinity Ward...not quite sure what you're on about...

I agree with your points on project 10 dollar though.

 

[Der Kommissar]

You really expect me to believe that used games are all of a sudden a problem even though they've been around since the NES? And then after that you expect me to feel sorry for a multi-million dollar company like EA? ROFL.

& other shenanigans between these two gentlemen

Is it just my ineptitude or is there really no dichotomy between developers and publishers on Sovvolf's side? Publishers do not (usually) make games.

 

[bassdrum]

The game industry is trying to protect itself--used games hurt profits, and the point of any industry in a capitalistic society is making money. Therefore, they're offering an incentive to pick up a new copy (which they'll get money from) rather than a used copy. Personally, I like the system, because, for the most part, it doesn't do anything too drastic to the game if you buy a used copy, but it also makes used game players want to pay for the other content.

I sympathise with your situation, that's really unfortunate. However, Project Ten Dollar is, in my opinion, an overall worthwhile venture.

 

[Sovvolf]

You seem to be under this impression that I'm out to defend EA, I'm not... I hate them just as much as anyone else for what they did to infinite ward

EA didn't do anything to Infinity Ward...not quite sure what you're on about...

I agree with your points on project 10 dollar though.

Bollox sorry, got my head so far into this arguement that my research is going all fuzzy, that was Activision.

You really expect me to believe that used games are all of a sudden a problem even though they've been around since the NES? And then after that you expect me to feel sorry for a multi-million dollar company like EA? ROFL.

& other shenanigans between these two gentlemen

Is it just my ineptitude or is there really no dichotomy between developers and publishers on Sovvolf's side? Publishers do not (usually) make games.

I know the publishers don't often create the games, the games Developers do that (Bioware = Dev E.A = Pub) The publishers quite often fund and distribute the video games, the publishers are pretty important... the publisher going under would mean no funding for the developers.

 

[Petromir]

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.

 

[shadow skill]

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.

Wrong see here for an example:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vernor_v._Autodesk,_Inc.

 

[Petromir]

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.

Wrong see here for an example:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vernor_v._Autodesk,_Inc.

Unfortunately that only applies if it hasnt been used. Since he hadnt installed the products he couldnt be bound by the agreement. Niether EA or THQ is preventing the sale of an unopened copy. I also noticed I implied that the DVDs, videos etc were sold under non-transferiable licenses which isnt what I meant, they are however sold as a license not as a product.

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.

 

[veloper]

DRM is a problem.

"free" DLC with a new game is not a big deal.

 

[Sovvolf]

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.

 

[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.

 

[Sovvolf]

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.