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

Recommended Videos

oranger

New member
May 27, 2008
704
0
0
audiosave10...the problem is, there's a large percentage of society who are basically programmed by advertisements and other forms of commercialized culture, who will always buy what they are told to. This means that we the people who are programmed via the old methods (IE family, social circles, law etc..) basically get screwed.
 

Kenjitsuka

New member
Sep 10, 2009
3,051
0
0
Sovvolf said:
Kenjitsuka said:
Sovvolf said:
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.
First off, I hope you'll feel better soon!
Second, thanks for the respectfull reply, you're a grace to the web :)
Third; well, if you do buy it several months later (the time when you can get a second hand version for a really low amount, the time I will pick it up) it will either be out of sale new (shelves in gamestores are valuable commodity and must feature the most likely to sell new stuff) or be availble for 20-30 bucks instead of 60+.

In the last case, I might also pick it up brand new for that price, but generally most games are no longer available when their price drops below a certain point; they are sent back to the developer to clear shelf space.

Also (sorry, maybe you already discussed this earlier, I'm too lazy to read all the way back) the whole project $10 is only there to line publishers pockets with more gold. And when it comes to money, they fight as rotten as they can! So the $10 content will be content previously in the released game, but then kept off the game disc, then put online where you need a code + Internet connection to claim what you normally would have gotten in the store. This $10 amount of content is not bonus or extra content at all; it's just a portion of the game as it was intended they stripped out to resell as many times as possible...

Lastly, as I've lost my job I am sortof forced to buy second hand (i.e. I can buy more games for the same, smaller budget), but even if I had enough cash to buy land on the moon I'd still protest these $10 projects, as they hurt the pleasure of less fortunate people that like gaming. It's principle to me, it just feels so unfair.

Pirates are left almost completely alone; second hand buyers are way more evil! (see an article on the Escapist not long ago). That's bull, because when someone sells their new game to the store they get cash they are likely to spend on a new game there.

Maybe if they made new games $10 cheaper from the start revenues would soar?
And then let everyone buy the new content for added money if/when you are willing to spend that on that game... If a game sucks after all at least you'd not be out ? 65-70 but a little less.
 

oranger

New member
May 27, 2008
704
0
0
kenjitsuka, that last paragraph of yours is describing their last strategy...and they found gamers weren't willing to pay for extra stuff.
 

Doug

New member
Apr 23, 2008
5,205
0
0
TPiddy said:
Doug said:
TPiddy said:
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.
True; I meant 'on the fence' btw, in case it wasn't clear.

And I think its a question of how much they have to pay on each platform - I mean, on the PC, they have to do pretty much everything. With XBLA, I'm not sure how much Microsoft do and how much the publishers/developers have to do. I imagine the system is that microsoft provide the framework and servers for a set number of years, and the devs have to provide any necessary server code. After the years are up, I imagine they have to renew the license... but again, this is guesswork on my part. Same with the PSN service.
 

Petromir

New member
Apr 10, 2010
593
0
0
Doug said:
TPiddy said:
Doug said:
TPiddy said:
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.
True; I meant 'on the fence' btw, in case it wasn't clear.

And I think its a question of how much they have to pay on each platform - I mean, on the PC, they have to do pretty much everything. With XBLA, I'm not sure how much Microsoft do and how much the publishers/developers have to do. I imagine the system is that microsoft provide the framework and servers for a set number of years, and the devs have to provide any necessary server code. After the years are up, I imagine they have to renew the license... but again, this is guesswork on my part. Same with the PSN service.
Some of the console cost network costs will be covered by the console makers cut from the game sale, the rest either from extra paid to the console maker by the publisher, and from other funding the console maker gets from the player (either through fees or general game fees).

PC is more complex certainly any unifying infrastructure (i.e matchmaking, official deicated) servers is the publishers own responsibility, though its not unusual for when either official one dies for the community to replace it, often funded by adds or premium meberships for perks.
 

Sovvolf

New member
Mar 23, 2009
2,341
0
0
Xzi said:
No, we're not talking about project ten dollar. At least, I'm not. I'm talking about online pass here, which is taking away a standard feature from customers. Project ten dollar I'm fine with, because it only deals with entirely optional content, not half of the game proper.
Most of this thread as been a mixed discussion of both the $5 internet and project $10. I imagine you've read my earlier post and your aware that I'm pretty ill... too ill to get into any serious debating. So I'm not going to debate with you tonight/today. However if I'm in a more stable condition tomorrow, with a straighter head, I would love to carry on this debate. I apologize for this as I was enjoying our debate though the uncharacteristic (for Briton any way) blistering heat today as given me (what I think is) minor sunstroke. I don't like debating when my head isn't the norm as I make mistakes in my arguement and it wouldn't be a fair test of skill or knowledge for either of us.
 

DaOysterboy

New member
Apr 4, 2010
105
0
0
Petromir said:
icaritos said:
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).
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.
Courts have disagreed with your assertion that if I buy it it doesn't belong to me. If I pay $60 for indefinite use of a product, to say that the company then can dictate whether I resell that product is a violation of the first sale doctrine.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Softman_v._Adobe
"Since the purchaser pays a fixed fee to obtain the rights to use the software for an indefinite period of time and also accepts the risk commonly associated with a sale, the court determines the transactions between Adobe and SoftMan are sales. Thus, first sale doctrine applies and Adobe's copyright claims are rejected."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vernor_v._Autodesk,_Inc.
"In United States v. Wise, which directly addressed the classification of sales and licenses for the purposes of first sale with respect to film prints, the court found that the crucial factor was whether the transaction gave rise to a right of perpetual possession in the transferee. If the transferee was entitled to keep the copy acquired from the copyright holder, it was a sale. If the transferee was required to return the copy, it was not a sale."

My 2 cents: unless the software maker intends to take the product back after a certain period of time it is a SALE and liable for resale.
 

Darkeagle6

New member
Nov 12, 2008
80
0
0
About the online pass: What's so difficult to comprehend? You buy a game disc, regardless how you do, you get the content that's on the disc. Single player, split-screen multiplayer, whatever extra features they put in, etc.

Online multiplayer is a service the companies provide, a kind of support for their product. It is true that it has been offered to the customers for a while now, and you know what? It still is. You pay the company (among others) for the game by buying it new, and they support your use of it through their services. If buying the game used from, say, gamestop, you are gamestop's customer. You aren't really the publisher/developper's customer; they didn't do business with you, and you aren't giving them anything in exchange for their product. Why should you be allowed access to the services they offer to their customers? You're already getting all the single player content, and the other stuff that comes with it; in many cases, that's an even better deal than other stuff you can buy used, since the data on the disc (unless the disc itself is damaged) didn't lose any of its value.

You want to use their services? Pay for them, wether it's buying the game new (why not wait for a price drop if you don't want to pay the release price?) or by paying a small fee for the service. If you shop intelligently for used games, you're still saving money after the fee, and the people who made and published the product get at least something. Yes, it can involve waiting. You're the one who doesn't want to pay the market's price.

Want the market to change? Well, consumers have power in numbers. Rally those who agree with you, convince those who disagree if necessary,
 

Petromir

New member
Apr 10, 2010
593
0
0
DaOysterboy said:
Petromir said:
icaritos said:
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).
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.
Courts have disagreed with your assertion that if I buy it it doesn't belong to me. If I pay $60 for indefinite use of a product, to say that the company then can dictate whether I resell that product is a violation of the first sale doctrine.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Softman_v._Adobe
"Since the purchaser pays a fixed fee to obtain the rights to use the software for an indefinite period of time and also accepts the risk commonly associated with a sale, the court determines the transactions between Adobe and SoftMan are sales. Thus, first sale doctrine applies and Adobe's copyright claims are rejected."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vernor_v._Autodesk,_Inc.
"In United States v. Wise, which directly addressed the classification of sales and licenses for the purposes of first sale with respect to film prints, the court found that the crucial factor was whether the transaction gave rise to a right of perpetual possession in the transferee. If the transferee was entitled to keep the copy acquired from the copyright holder, it was a sale. If the transferee was required to return the copy, it was not a sale."

My 2 cents: unless the software maker intends to take the product back after a certain period of time it is a SALE and liable for resale.
Both cases are only relevant to unopened copies. Read the cases before you spout them. the crucial issuse is that by installing/using the product you agree to the terms, asnd therfore the principle by which these cases were won do not apply.
 

DaOysterboy

New member
Apr 4, 2010
105
0
0
Petromir said:
DaOysterboy said:
Petromir said:
icaritos said:
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).
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.
Courts have disagreed with your assertion that if I buy it it doesn't belong to me. If I pay $60 for indefinite use of a product, to say that the company then can dictate whether I resell that product is a violation of the first sale doctrine.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Softman_v._Adobe
"Since the purchaser pays a fixed fee to obtain the rights to use the software for an indefinite period of time and also accepts the risk commonly associated with a sale, the court determines the transactions between Adobe and SoftMan are sales. Thus, first sale doctrine applies and Adobe's copyright claims are rejected."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vernor_v._Autodesk,_Inc.
"In United States v. Wise, which directly addressed the classification of sales and licenses for the purposes of first sale with respect to film prints, the court found that the crucial factor was whether the transaction gave rise to a right of perpetual possession in the transferee. If the transferee was entitled to keep the copy acquired from the copyright holder, it was a sale. If the transferee was required to return the copy, it was not a sale."

My 2 cents: unless the software maker intends to take the product back after a certain period of time it is a SALE and liable for resale.
Both cases are only relevant to unopened copies. Read the cases before you spout them. the crucial issuse is that by installing/using the product you agree to the terms, asnd therfore the principle by which these cases were won do not apply.
I did read them and am aware that the cases involved unopened copies, but despite this the court stated that the crucial factor was whether the transaction gave rise to a right of perpetual possession in the transferee. EULAs are not the end-all of legal matters involving software. The games I buy are not mine "until the publisher decides that I should no longer have access to it and come take my computer away". Besides have you ever fully read an EULA? I wouldn't accept some of those terms and conditions at face value on a bag of cat food. "No implicit or explicit guarantee of fitness for any purpose"? Basically "we don't have to make it work at all if we don't want to." I understand they're trying to cover their asses against law suits involving "it crashed my computer", but "you have no rights to do anything with the game without our explicit say so" is a little on the ridiculous side of things don't you think?
 

Petromir

New member
Apr 10, 2010
593
0
0
DaOysterboy said:
Petromir said:
DaOysterboy said:
Petromir said:
icaritos said:
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).
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.
Courts have disagreed with your assertion that if I buy it it doesn't belong to me. If I pay $60 for indefinite use of a product, to say that the company then can dictate whether I resell that product is a violation of the first sale doctrine.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Softman_v._Adobe
"Since the purchaser pays a fixed fee to obtain the rights to use the software for an indefinite period of time and also accepts the risk commonly associated with a sale, the court determines the transactions between Adobe and SoftMan are sales. Thus, first sale doctrine applies and Adobe's copyright claims are rejected."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vernor_v._Autodesk,_Inc.
"In United States v. Wise, which directly addressed the classification of sales and licenses for the purposes of first sale with respect to film prints, the court found that the crucial factor was whether the transaction gave rise to a right of perpetual possession in the transferee. If the transferee was entitled to keep the copy acquired from the copyright holder, it was a sale. If the transferee was required to return the copy, it was not a sale."

My 2 cents: unless the software maker intends to take the product back after a certain period of time it is a SALE and liable for resale.
Both cases are only relevant to unopened copies. Read the cases before you spout them. the crucial issuse is that by installing/using the product you agree to the terms, asnd therfore the principle by which these cases were won do not apply.
I did read them and am aware that the cases involved unopened copies, but despite this the court stated that the crucial factor was whether the transaction gave rise to a right of perpetual possession in the transferee. EULAs are not the end-all of legal matters involving software. The games I buy are not mine "until the publisher decides that I should no longer have access to it and come take my computer away". Besides have you ever fully read an EULA? I wouldn't accept some of those terms and conditions at face value on a bag of cat food. "No implicit or explicit guarantee of fitness for any purpose"? Basically "we don't have to make it work at all if we don't want to." I understand they're trying to cover their asses against law suits involving "it crashed my computer", but "you have no rights to do anything with the game without our explicit say so" is a little on the ridiculous side of things don't you think?
If you had read them you'd have noticed that there were precidents quoted in the autodesk case that supported the autodesk view, but genrally open cases were involved.

And no I don't think its terriably rediclious that they have a say, what could I possibly want to do with a game but play it? Its due to the intangible naure of software that this is nesseary.

And as I have previously said if you think a terms unreasonable sue them for it. Dodgy contract clause cases arnt that hard to win.
 

DaOysterboy

New member
Apr 4, 2010
105
0
0
Petromir said:
DaOysterboy said:
Petromir said:
DaOysterboy said:
Petromir said:
icaritos said:
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).
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.
Courts have disagreed with your assertion that if I buy it it doesn't belong to me. If I pay $60 for indefinite use of a product, to say that the company then can dictate whether I resell that product is a violation of the first sale doctrine.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Softman_v._Adobe
"Since the purchaser pays a fixed fee to obtain the rights to use the software for an indefinite period of time and also accepts the risk commonly associated with a sale, the court determines the transactions between Adobe and SoftMan are sales. Thus, first sale doctrine applies and Adobe's copyright claims are rejected."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vernor_v._Autodesk,_Inc.
"In United States v. Wise, which directly addressed the classification of sales and licenses for the purposes of first sale with respect to film prints, the court found that the crucial factor was whether the transaction gave rise to a right of perpetual possession in the transferee. If the transferee was entitled to keep the copy acquired from the copyright holder, it was a sale. If the transferee was required to return the copy, it was not a sale."

My 2 cents: unless the software maker intends to take the product back after a certain period of time it is a SALE and liable for resale.
Both cases are only relevant to unopened copies. Read the cases before you spout them. the crucial issuse is that by installing/using the product you agree to the terms, asnd therfore the principle by which these cases were won do not apply.
I did read them and am aware that the cases involved unopened copies, but despite this the court stated that the crucial factor was whether the transaction gave rise to a right of perpetual possession in the transferee. EULAs are not the end-all of legal matters involving software. The games I buy are not mine "until the publisher decides that I should no longer have access to it and come take my computer away". Besides have you ever fully read an EULA? I wouldn't accept some of those terms and conditions at face value on a bag of cat food. "No implicit or explicit guarantee of fitness for any purpose"? Basically "we don't have to make it work at all if we don't want to." I understand they're trying to cover their asses against law suits involving "it crashed my computer", but "you have no rights to do anything with the game without our explicit say so" is a little on the ridiculous side of things don't you think?
If you had read them you'd have noticed that there were precidents quoted in the autodesk case that supported the autodesk view, but genrally open cases were involved.

And no I don't think its terriably rediclious that they have a say, what could I possibly want to do with a game but play it? Its due to the intangible naure of software that this is nesseary.

And as I have previously said if you think a terms unreasonable sue them for it. Dodgy contract clause cases arnt that hard to win.
Oh I noticed them, but the point of debate is to make YOUR case. I didn't bring them up because that's your job :) Besides, the clauses cited in the other cases were mentioned to be "controversial" and had little precedent themselves. Also the precedent cases were found to be in direct conflict in Vernor vs. Autodesk, so ruling went to the earliest case which was the one I cited.

Also, in addition to playing the game I may want to sell it. Isn't that the issue at hand? If nobody wanted to do anything other than play their games (like sell it) then the whole discussion is moot. I might want to build a tower out of the disks. I might want to put it in my fireplace. I might want to put it under glass in a display case. First sale doctrine allows me to do any of these so long as I don't infringe the copyright. I'm all for companies being able to enforce their rights, but once they sell a copy with no plan to recover it at any time, they really don't have rights to dictate how it's used. In a less politically correct era that would have been called "Indian giving." I simply call it "powermad" or "infringing on consumer rights".
 

shadow skill

New member
Oct 12, 2007
2,850
0
0
Petromir said:
shadow skill said:
Petromir said:
icaritos said:
Xzi said:
icaritos said:
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.
That is incorrect, that Vernor never agreed to the license is not the controlling factor. The controlling factor is that Autodesk has no right to get the copies back at any time. I.E. What the transaction resembles is the controlling factor. The transaction between CTA and Autodesk with respect to the copies that eventually ended up in Vernor's possession resembled most closely a sale and therefore transfer of ownership. It only helped Vernor more that there was no evidence he ever installed or used the software on his own machines.