Online Pass Required to Play as Arkham City's Catwoman

[CM156_v1legacy]

-snip-

1: How can I make you understand its not about the 10$ dollars they pay you, but about the 50$ they make when they sell it?

It doesn't matter they add 750 mio dollars to new sales(btw source please. I have looked for this everywhere) if they inflate that number to 5 times the amounts when they sell the game again. They dont just buy your game. They sell it.

2: That every source have to deal with a factor doesn't mean it has the same effect everywhere. Rising fuel prices doesn't affect Toyta the same way it affects dodge. Used doesn't affect clothes the same way it affects cars. The same factor will have different consequences in different scenarios. If you refuse to believe that, then just say so because we will never see eye to eye on this and we will be wasting each others time.

http://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20110324005389/en/GameStop-Reports-Sales-Earnings-Fiscal-2010

Look up their 2010 and 2009 fiscal reports. And yes, it does matter. If part of the second hand market increases sales in the new market, than it's relevant.

2. If used game sales are sooo bad, why did Ubisoft, EA, and Activision post revenue in the BILLIONS? And how has gaming managed to live this long if used sales are such a problem? Answer: They aren't. Gaming is larger than it's ever been, and the market just keeps getting bigger. They have huge amounts of money, and these online passes represent an attack on the idea of ownership.

 

[Epona]

-snip-

Now rather than going into your arguments one by one, ill just stick with this.

You have the fundamental right to sell crap that you own.

If you truely believe this then you have no problem with the online passes. You know why?
Because they own the game!
You have not bought it.
And they can do whatever they want with it. They can rent it to you or throw it in a river. They can give it to people and sell it to others. Its theirs.

You do not have a right to buy it. They have a right to sell it.

Practise as you preach.

Yes, they could rent the game to you but they don't. They SELL it to you at FULL PRICE and then they want to claim you don't own it. I can go to a video store and rent the game for $1 a day or I can go to Wal Mart and BUY it for $60.

The difference between renting and owning is clear and you aren't renting video games for $60, you are buying them.

Doesn't matter they can still chose to cut it into tiny pieces and sell 90% to you and then rent 10% to you

You dont have a right to buy.

Of course you have a right to buy as long as they are offering it for sale. They may be selling you 90% now and renting you the other 10% but you can still resell the 90%.

I just can't believe how many people have been fooled into believing they don't own what they bought. If you were told that you don't own your TV or your stove, would you believe that too? Further, if you really believe that you don't your games, why are you paying $60 for a rental when you can pay much less at a video rental store?

Dude, you're wrong. You own the right to play the software on the disc, not the actual software. Rental's give you the right to play the software on the disc for a limited time, buying gives you the right to play the software for an unlimited time. The real issue is that the Catwomen content is on the disc, and they won't let you play that unless you buy new or pay extra. If you want to do that, fine. But don't market her like crazy, and release her content for what it is, DLC, and do it after launch. Don't include it on the disc.

Let's look at your statement:

Rental's give you the right to play the software on the disc for a limited time,

If you rent a car you have the right to drive the car for a limited time, yes?

buying gives you the right to play the software for an unlimited time.

If you buy a car you gain the right to drive the car for an unlimited time, yes?

Why then do I own my car but not my games?

Because cars aren't software. Different laws dude. No one owns software. they own the right to use it. You're arguing semantics.

Oh yes, the "software is special" argument.

Think of it like this: the software is like a patent. When you buy a car or a TV you own that item, not the patent. When you buy software you own that copy of the software, not the actual code.

In both cases though you own what you bought and can resell it. So long as you can resell it or legally destroy it (ie, you can't legally destroy that which you do not own), you own it.

The argument that you don't own your games is really just psychology to convince you that when they make portions of a game only rentable, you are more likely to accept it. You see that psychology at work everytime someone reasons that things like this don't matter since you don't really own the game anyway.

Whatever though, believe what you want because sooner or later you really won't own your games as the game industry moves into activation codes before you can even start a game, just like PC.

I don't get you. We're saying the same thing. I don't know why you're getting so hung up on the word "own". I am a computer science major. I do this for a living. I write and sell software. We, and everyone else, sells the right to use our software. When people buy our software, they are buying the right to use it, they're not buying the actual software. And software is not a patent. Cars and TV's are PHYSICAL OBJECTS, software is not, not legally anyway.

Lets use an example. You buy a game. You've just bought the right to play that game. If you want to sell it, fine. You sell the right to play that game to someone else. No one at Rocksteady or Warner Bros. can come to your house and take that copy of the game. You own the right to play it. You, however, do not own the actual game. The code that makes Batman run, jump, and kick ass, that belongs to Rocksteady and Warner Bros. But you don't want the code, you want to play as Batman. That's what you're buying and they're selling. You're getting hung up on the word "own" way too much.

The word "own" is important and if it isn't, why is the game industry so hung up on telling us we don't "own" our games?

BECAUSE YOU DON'T FUCKING OWN THE GAME. YOU OWN THE RIGHT TO PLAY IT. READ. LEARN. THEN TALK. Jesus fucking Christ dude....When you do buy a game you do own something, it's just not what you thought. That's nobody's fault but your own. If I buy a Honda and expect to get a Porsche that's my own dumb fault. Learn what you're buying.

I own it because I can use it, resell it or destroy it. You mad?

Before this gen, everyone knew they owned the games they bought, you don't see anyone making these ridiculous claims about SNES games or even PS2 games. Why do you think that is?

 

[rje5]

-snip-

Now rather than going into your arguments one by one, ill just stick with this.

You have the fundamental right to sell crap that you own.

If you truely believe this then you have no problem with the online passes. You know why?
Because they own the game!
You have not bought it.
And they can do whatever they want with it. They can rent it to you or throw it in a river. They can give it to people and sell it to others. Its theirs.

You do not have a right to buy it. They have a right to sell it.

Practise as you preach.

Yes, they could rent the game to you but they don't. They SELL it to you at FULL PRICE and then they want to claim you don't own it. I can go to a video store and rent the game for $1 a day or I can go to Wal Mart and BUY it for $60.

The difference between renting and owning is clear and you aren't renting video games for $60, you are buying them.

Doesn't matter they can still chose to cut it into tiny pieces and sell 90% to you and then rent 10% to you

You dont have a right to buy.

Of course you have a right to buy as long as they are offering it for sale. They may be selling you 90% now and renting you the other 10% but you can still resell the 90%.

I just can't believe how many people have been fooled into believing they don't own what they bought. If you were told that you don't own your TV or your stove, would you believe that too? Further, if you really believe that you don't your games, why are you paying $60 for a rental when you can pay much less at a video rental store?

Dude, you're wrong. You own the right to play the software on the disc, not the actual software. Rental's give you the right to play the software on the disc for a limited time, buying gives you the right to play the software for an unlimited time. The real issue is that the Catwomen content is on the disc, and they won't let you play that unless you buy new or pay extra. If you want to do that, fine. But don't market her like crazy, and release her content for what it is, DLC, and do it after launch. Don't include it on the disc.

Let's look at your statement:

Rental's give you the right to play the software on the disc for a limited time,

If you rent a car you have the right to drive the car for a limited time, yes?

buying gives you the right to play the software for an unlimited time.

If you buy a car you gain the right to drive the car for an unlimited time, yes?

Why then do I own my car but not my games?

Because cars aren't software. Different laws dude. No one owns software. they own the right to use it. You're arguing semantics.

Oh yes, the "software is special" argument.

Think of it like this: the software is like a patent. When you buy a car or a TV you own that item, not the patent. When you buy software you own that copy of the software, not the actual code.

In both cases though you own what you bought and can resell it. So long as you can resell it or legally destroy it (ie, you can't legally destroy that which you do not own), you own it.

The argument that you don't own your games is really just psychology to convince you that when they make portions of a game only rentable, you are more likely to accept it. You see that psychology at work everytime someone reasons that things like this don't matter since you don't really own the game anyway.

Whatever though, believe what you want because sooner or later you really won't own your games as the game industry moves into activation codes before you can even start a game, just like PC.

I don't get you. We're saying the same thing. I don't know why you're getting so hung up on the word "own". I am a computer science major. I do this for a living. I write and sell software. We, and everyone else, sells the right to use our software. When people buy our software, they are buying the right to use it, they're not buying the actual software. And software is not a patent. Cars and TV's are PHYSICAL OBJECTS, software is not, not legally anyway.

Lets use an example. You buy a game. You've just bought the right to play that game. If you want to sell it, fine. You sell the right to play that game to someone else. No one at Rocksteady or Warner Bros. can come to your house and take that copy of the game. You own the right to play it. You, however, do not own the actual game. The code that makes Batman run, jump, and kick ass, that belongs to Rocksteady and Warner Bros. But you don't want the code, you want to play as Batman. That's what you're buying and they're selling. You're getting hung up on the word "own" way too much.

The word "own" is important and if it isn't, why is the game industry so hung up on telling us we don't "own" our games?

BECAUSE YOU DON'T FUCKING OWN THE GAME. YOU OWN THE RIGHT TO PLAY IT. READ. LEARN. THEN TALK. Jesus fucking Christ dude....When you do buy a game you do own something, it's just not what you thought. That's nobody's fault but your own. If I buy a Honda and expect to get a Porsche that's my own dumb fault. Learn what you're buying.

I own it because I can use it, resell it or destroy it. You mad?

Before this gen, everyone knew they owned the games they bought, you don't see anyone making these ridiculous claims about SNES games or even PS2 games. Why do you think that is?

1) You must be young. Just because you pay money for something doesn't mean you own it. I pay for the property my house sits on, but I don't own it. The government can come by, hand me a check, and kick me out if they wanted to because they own it.

2) You didn't hear anything like this last gen because online gaming wasn't as prominent and DLC didn't exist. There weren't any cases like this to point out the fact that you didn't own the game, just the right to play it. It's a convenient little legality publishers are using to make more money.

3) Find a legal document telling me I'm wrong and that you actually own the game you buy and we'll go from there. Otherwise just drop it.

 

[Epona]

1) You must be young. Just because you pay money for something doesn't mean you own it. I pay for the property my house sits on, but I don't own it. The government can come by, hand me a check, and kick me out if they wanted to because they own it.

The government can do it but not the real estate company you bought it from. Attacking my age, I am probably older than you are. I began playing games with the Atari 2600 in the late 70's. I know a thing or two about the history of gaming and until this gen, no one claimed you were only renting games for full price.

You didn't hear anything like this last gen because online gaming wasn't as prominent and DLC didn't exist. There weren't any cases like this to point out the fact that you didn't own the game, just the right to play it. It's a convenient little legality publishers are using to make more money.

In fact, before all this online nonsense the claim would have been meaningless if it had been made. You still own your games the same as you did when you bought Super Mario World, the only thing that has changed is the DRM.

Find a legal document telling me I'm wrong and that you actually own the game you buy and we'll go from there. Otherwise just drop it.

You own everything you buy and software would be the exception, not the rule. You need to prove to me that I don't own my games.

I will say again, I can resell it and destroy it. That I can do those things legally means I own it. I cannot legally do those things to things that I don't own.

 

[rje5]

1) You must be young. Just because you pay money for something doesn't mean you own it. I pay for the property my house sits on, but I don't own it. The government can come by, hand me a check, and kick me out if they wanted to because they own it.

The government can do it but not the real estate company you bought it from. Attacking my age, I am probably older than you are. I began playing games with the Atari 2600 in the late 70's. I know a thing or two about the history of gaming and until this gen, no one claimed you were only renting games for full price.

You didn't hear anything like this last gen because online gaming wasn't as prominent and DLC didn't exist. There weren't any cases like this to point out the fact that you didn't own the game, just the right to play it. It's a convenient little legality publishers are using to make more money.

In fact, before all this online nonsense the claim would have been meaningless if it had been made. You still own your games the same as you did when you bought Super Mario World, the only thing that has changed is the DRM.

Find a legal document telling me I'm wrong and that you actually own the game you buy and we'll go from there. Otherwise just drop it.

You own everything you buy and software is the exception, not the rule. You need to prove to me that I don't own my games.

I will say again, I can resell it and destroy it. That I can do those things legally means I own it. I cannot legally do those things to things that I don't own.

You cannot burn Arkham City. You can burn the medium on which is contained. There is a huge difference. When you buy a game, you buy a disc and the right to play it. All you're doing is burning your right to play the game, since the disc would no longer exist, you could not play it.

 

[Epona]

1) You must be young. Just because you pay money for something doesn't mean you own it. I pay for the property my house sits on, but I don't own it. The government can come by, hand me a check, and kick me out if they wanted to because they own it.

The government can do it but not the real estate company you bought it from. Attacking my age, I am probably older than you are. I began playing games with the Atari 2600 in the late 70's. I know a thing or two about the history of gaming and until this gen, no one claimed you were only renting games for full price.

You didn't hear anything like this last gen because online gaming wasn't as prominent and DLC didn't exist. There weren't any cases like this to point out the fact that you didn't own the game, just the right to play it. It's a convenient little legality publishers are using to make more money.

In fact, before all this online nonsense the claim would have been meaningless if it had been made. You still own your games the same as you did when you bought Super Mario World, the only thing that has changed is the DRM.

Find a legal document telling me I'm wrong and that you actually own the game you buy and we'll go from there. Otherwise just drop it.

You own everything you buy and software is the exception, not the rule. You need to prove to me that I don't own my games.

I will say again, I can resell it and destroy it. That I can do those things legally means I own it. I cannot legally do those things to things that I don't own.

You cannot burn Arkham City. You can burn the medium on which is contained. There is a huge difference. When you buy a game, you buy a disc and the right to play it. All you're doing is burning your right to play the game, since the disc would no longer exist, you could not play it.

...and how is this different from any other product that I own? I can burn my TV but I can't prevent Sony from making more of them. I still owned my TV before I burned it.

 

[rje5]

1) You must be young. Just because you pay money for something doesn't mean you own it. I pay for the property my house sits on, but I don't own it. The government can come by, hand me a check, and kick me out if they wanted to because they own it.

The government can do it but not the real estate company you bought it from. Attacking my age, I am probably older than you are. I began playing games with the Atari 2600 in the late 70's. I know a thing or two about the history of gaming and until this gen, no one claimed you were only renting games for full price.

You didn't hear anything like this last gen because online gaming wasn't as prominent and DLC didn't exist. There weren't any cases like this to point out the fact that you didn't own the game, just the right to play it. It's a convenient little legality publishers are using to make more money.

In fact, before all this online nonsense the claim would have been meaningless if it had been made. You still own your games the same as you did when you bought Super Mario World, the only thing that has changed is the DRM.

Find a legal document telling me I'm wrong and that you actually own the game you buy and we'll go from there. Otherwise just drop it.

You own everything you buy and software is the exception, not the rule. You need to prove to me that I don't own my games.

I will say again, I can resell it and destroy it. That I can do those things legally means I own it. I cannot legally do those things to things that I don't own.

You cannot burn Arkham City. You can burn the medium on which is contained. There is a huge difference. When you buy a game, you buy a disc and the right to play it. All you're doing is burning your right to play the game, since the disc would no longer exist, you could not play it.

...and this is different from any other product that I own?

Physically, no. Legally, yes. That's the whole point I've been trying to get across. You're describing the physical nature of what is going on. I'm trying to describe both. Physically, you own a copy of the game. Legally, you own a disc, and the right the play the game.

 

[Epona]

1) You must be young. Just because you pay money for something doesn't mean you own it. I pay for the property my house sits on, but I don't own it. The government can come by, hand me a check, and kick me out if they wanted to because they own it.

The government can do it but not the real estate company you bought it from. Attacking my age, I am probably older than you are. I began playing games with the Atari 2600 in the late 70's. I know a thing or two about the history of gaming and until this gen, no one claimed you were only renting games for full price.

You didn't hear anything like this last gen because online gaming wasn't as prominent and DLC didn't exist. There weren't any cases like this to point out the fact that you didn't own the game, just the right to play it. It's a convenient little legality publishers are using to make more money.

In fact, before all this online nonsense the claim would have been meaningless if it had been made. You still own your games the same as you did when you bought Super Mario World, the only thing that has changed is the DRM.

Find a legal document telling me I'm wrong and that you actually own the game you buy and we'll go from there. Otherwise just drop it.

You own everything you buy and software is the exception, not the rule. You need to prove to me that I don't own my games.

I will say again, I can resell it and destroy it. That I can do those things legally means I own it. I cannot legally do those things to things that I don't own.

You cannot burn Arkham City. You can burn the medium on which is contained. There is a huge difference. When you buy a game, you buy a disc and the right to play it. All you're doing is burning your right to play the game, since the disc would no longer exist, you could not play it.

...and this is different from any other product that I own?

Physically, no. Legally, yes. That's the whole point I've been trying to get across. You're describing the physical nature of what is going on. I'm trying to describe both. Physically, you own a copy of the game. Legally, you own a disc, and the right the play the game.

There is no difference, just as the cartridge is needed to play Super Mario World, a 360 disc serves the same purpose and without the disc, the game cannot be played. The two are inseparable so when you buy one, you are also buying the other. In fact, it would be pointless to buy one without the other. You are not buying the disc and renting the software, you are buying both. Copyright laws apply so you can't make illegal copies but that doesn't mean you don't own it. You can't use your car to perform illegal acts either but you still own it.

 

[rje5]

1) You must be young. Just because you pay money for something doesn't mean you own it. I pay for the property my house sits on, but I don't own it. The government can come by, hand me a check, and kick me out if they wanted to because they own it.

The government can do it but not the real estate company you bought it from. Attacking my age, I am probably older than you are. I began playing games with the Atari 2600 in the late 70's. I know a thing or two about the history of gaming and until this gen, no one claimed you were only renting games for full price.

You didn't hear anything like this last gen because online gaming wasn't as prominent and DLC didn't exist. There weren't any cases like this to point out the fact that you didn't own the game, just the right to play it. It's a convenient little legality publishers are using to make more money.

In fact, before all this online nonsense the claim would have been meaningless if it had been made. You still own your games the same as you did when you bought Super Mario World, the only thing that has changed is the DRM.

Find a legal document telling me I'm wrong and that you actually own the game you buy and we'll go from there. Otherwise just drop it.

You own everything you buy and software is the exception, not the rule. You need to prove to me that I don't own my games.

I will say again, I can resell it and destroy it. That I can do those things legally means I own it. I cannot legally do those things to things that I don't own.

You cannot burn Arkham City. You can burn the medium on which is contained. There is a huge difference. When you buy a game, you buy a disc and the right to play it. All you're doing is burning your right to play the game, since the disc would no longer exist, you could not play it.

...and this is different from any other product that I own?

Physically, no. Legally, yes. That's the whole point I've been trying to get across. You're describing the physical nature of what is going on. I'm trying to describe both. Physically, you own a copy of the game. Legally, you own a disc, and the right the play the game.

There is no difference, just as the cartridge is needed to play Super Mario World, a 360 disc serves the same purpose and without the disc, the game cannot be played. The two are inseparable so when you buy one, you are also buying the other. In fact, it would be pointless to buy one without the other. You are not buying the disc and renting the software, you are buying both. Copyright laws apply so you can't make illegal copies but that doesn't mean you don't own it. You can't use your car to perform illegal acts either but you still own it.

Dude it's been the same. You buy the medium and the RIGHT to play it. That's it.
"Proprietary software is computer software licensed under exclusive legal right of the copyright holder. The licensee is given the right to use the software under certain conditions, but restricted from other uses, such as modification, further distribution, or reverse engineering." That's the definition. That means you can play the game as long as you don't change the game, copy and distribute the game, or use the code. You don't own the software. Just saying "I own whatever I can burn" isn't an argument. It's just easier to say I own Super Mario Bros. than saying I own the right to play Super Mario Bros.

And two, yes, you can't play the game without the disc. But you also can't use a computer without an operating system. That doesn't necessarily mean when you buy one you buy the other. And it certainly doesn't mean when you own one you own the other.

Understand, I agree basically with what you're saying. But technically, and legally, what you're saying is wrong.

 

[Epona]

1) You must be young. Just because you pay money for something doesn't mean you own it. I pay for the property my house sits on, but I don't own it. The government can come by, hand me a check, and kick me out if they wanted to because they own it.

The government can do it but not the real estate company you bought it from. Attacking my age, I am probably older than you are. I began playing games with the Atari 2600 in the late 70's. I know a thing or two about the history of gaming and until this gen, no one claimed you were only renting games for full price.

You didn't hear anything like this last gen because online gaming wasn't as prominent and DLC didn't exist. There weren't any cases like this to point out the fact that you didn't own the game, just the right to play it. It's a convenient little legality publishers are using to make more money.

In fact, before all this online nonsense the claim would have been meaningless if it had been made. You still own your games the same as you did when you bought Super Mario World, the only thing that has changed is the DRM.

Find a legal document telling me I'm wrong and that you actually own the game you buy and we'll go from there. Otherwise just drop it.

You own everything you buy and software is the exception, not the rule. You need to prove to me that I don't own my games.

I will say again, I can resell it and destroy it. That I can do those things legally means I own it. I cannot legally do those things to things that I don't own.

You cannot burn Arkham City. You can burn the medium on which is contained. There is a huge difference. When you buy a game, you buy a disc and the right to play it. All you're doing is burning your right to play the game, since the disc would no longer exist, you could not play it.

...and this is different from any other product that I own?

Physically, no. Legally, yes. That's the whole point I've been trying to get across. You're describing the physical nature of what is going on. I'm trying to describe both. Physically, you own a copy of the game. Legally, you own a disc, and the right the play the game.

There is no difference, just as the cartridge is needed to play Super Mario World, a 360 disc serves the same purpose and without the disc, the game cannot be played. The two are inseparable so when you buy one, you are also buying the other. In fact, it would be pointless to buy one without the other. You are not buying the disc and renting the software, you are buying both. Copyright laws apply so you can't make illegal copies but that doesn't mean you don't own it. You can't use your car to perform illegal acts either but you still own it.

Dude it's been the same. You buy the medium and the RIGHT to play it. That's it.
"Proprietary software is computer software licensed under exclusive legal right of the copyright holder. The licensee is given the right to use the software under certain conditions, but restricted from other uses, such as modification, further distribution, or reverse engineering." That's the definition. That means you can play the game as long as you don't change the game, copy and distribute the game, or use the code. You don't own the software. Just saying "I own whatever I can burn" isn't an argument. It's just easier to say I own Super Mario Bros. than saying I own the right to play Super Mario Bros.

And two, yes, you can't play the game without the disc. But you also can't use a computer without an operating system. That doesn't necessarily mean when you buy one you buy the other. And it certainly doesn't mean when you own one you own the other.

Understand, I agree basically with what you're saying. But technically, and legally, what you're saying is wrong.

Explain to me how owning an SNES game is any different from owning a 360 game? Keep in mind that no one disputes ownership of SNES games.

 

[StBishop]

Yep. The precedent set is now an industry standard. Thank you everyone who said "I dont see why this is such a big deal"

This is also a reason why I typically wont preorder anything. Little bits like this like to come out right before launch. Had I not gotten my copy free with my video card and already had it applied via steam regrettably I would have to pass on this game for this.

I still don't see why this is such a problem.

I can't say I'm terribly fond of this, but I must admit this is one of the least dickish anti-used-games things they could have done.

It's a code that only affects single player and to my knowledge is a rather small part of the game as a whole. It reminds me a lot of RAGE and the sewer things it had. It's the same style at any rate.

I'd like it a lot more if publishers stopped being completely retarded and realized that used games are not a problem, but this is definitely an improvement over the other shenanigans they pull.

Batman has multiplayer?

 

[Malfy]

Don't publishers usually release new copies of the game for $40 bucks months later? Couldn't the people that buy titles used just wait for that, so they could still have all the new purchase incentives? Not saying the online passes are right, just asking.

 

[CM156_v1legacy]

-snip-

1: How can I make you understand its not about the 10$ dollars they pay you, but about the 50$ they make when they sell it?

It doesn't matter they add 750 mio dollars to new sales(btw source please. I have looked for this everywhere) if they inflate that number to 5 times the amounts when they sell the game again. They dont just buy your game. They sell it.

2: That every source have to deal with a factor doesn't mean it has the same effect everywhere. Rising fuel prices doesn't affect Toyta the same way it affects dodge. Used doesn't affect clothes the same way it affects cars. The same factor will have different consequences in different scenarios. If you refuse to believe that, then just say so because we will never see eye to eye on this and we will be wasting each others time.

http://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20110324005389/en/GameStop-Reports-Sales-Earnings-Fiscal-2010

Look up their 2010 and 2009 fiscal reports. And yes, it does matter. If part of the second hand market increases sales in the new market, than it's relevant.

2. If used game sales are sooo bad, why did Ubisoft, EA, and Activision post revenue in the BILLIONS? And how has gaming managed to live this long if used sales are such a problem? Answer: They aren't. Gaming is larger than it's ever been, and the market just keeps getting bigger. They have huge amounts of money, and these online passes represent an attack on the idea of ownership.

1: Yeah they added 750 mil towards new purchases.... while adding 2,537.6 millions in capital to the market.... but yeah its all about the 750 mio.... well to you anyway. Because the 2,537.6 mil doesn't matter to the publisher at all. after all they got 750 mio in new sales while their goods got devalued for a sum of 2,537.6 mil....

2: Yeah I didn't say they didn't make profit. I said Used games have an effect on sales. Their job is to make more profit. Just like me. I want to have more games for my money they want to have more money for their games. They dont ow me anything and I dont ow them anything.

I do however see your real problem with it, and its that you think its an attack on the right of ownership.

However you have an incredible double standard there. You see doesn't online passes represent an attack on the idea of ownership. Your objection to the idea is an attack on the idea of ownership.

Because you can do whatever you want with things you own. That also means NOT SELLING IT. Dont call into view the idea of ownership if you are not going follow it.

Wait, are you saying you can't sell things you own?

Allow me to laugh [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-sale_doctrine]

 

[CM156_v1legacy]

-snip-

1: How can I make you understand its not about the 10$ dollars they pay you, but about the 50$ they make when they sell it?

It doesn't matter they add 750 mio dollars to new sales(btw source please. I have looked for this everywhere) if they inflate that number to 5 times the amounts when they sell the game again. They dont just buy your game. They sell it.

2: That every source have to deal with a factor doesn't mean it has the same effect everywhere. Rising fuel prices doesn't affect Toyta the same way it affects dodge. Used doesn't affect clothes the same way it affects cars. The same factor will have different consequences in different scenarios. If you refuse to believe that, then just say so because we will never see eye to eye on this and we will be wasting each others time.

http://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20110324005389/en/GameStop-Reports-Sales-Earnings-Fiscal-2010

Look up their 2010 and 2009 fiscal reports. And yes, it does matter. If part of the second hand market increases sales in the new market, than it's relevant.

2. If used game sales are sooo bad, why did Ubisoft, EA, and Activision post revenue in the BILLIONS? And how has gaming managed to live this long if used sales are such a problem? Answer: They aren't. Gaming is larger than it's ever been, and the market just keeps getting bigger. They have huge amounts of money, and these online passes represent an attack on the idea of ownership.

1: Yeah they added 750 mil towards new purchases.... while adding 2,537.6 millions in capital to the market.... but yeah its all about the 750 mio.... well to you anyway. Because the 2,537.6 mil doesn't matter to the publisher at all. after all they got 750 mio in new sales while their goods got devalued for a sum of 2,537.6 mil....

2: Yeah I didn't say they didn't make profit. I said Used games have an effect on sales. Their job is to make more profit. Just like me. I want to have more games for my money they want to have more money for their games. They dont ow me anything and I dont ow them anything.

I do however see your real problem with it, and its that you think its an attack on the right of ownership.

However you have an incredible double standard there. You see doesn't online passes represent an attack on the idea of ownership. Your objection to the idea is an attack on the idea of ownership.

Because you can do whatever you want with things you own. That also means NOT SELLING IT. Dont call into view the idea of ownership if you are not going follow it.

Wait, are you saying you can't sell things you own?

Allow me to laugh [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-sale_doctrine]

Oh I am sorry I was unaware you owned Arkham City... when did you buy it? Oh you dont own that? Oh

Did I SAY I bought Arkham City? NOooooooooooo! Show me where I said "I own Arkham City"

I bring up case law, and you miss the point. Nice

 

[CM156_v1legacy]

-snip-

1: How can I make you understand its not about the 10$ dollars they pay you, but about the 50$ they make when they sell it?

It doesn't matter they add 750 mio dollars to new sales(btw source please. I have looked for this everywhere) if they inflate that number to 5 times the amounts when they sell the game again. They dont just buy your game. They sell it.

2: That every source have to deal with a factor doesn't mean it has the same effect everywhere. Rising fuel prices doesn't affect Toyta the same way it affects dodge. Used doesn't affect clothes the same way it affects cars. The same factor will have different consequences in different scenarios. If you refuse to believe that, then just say so because we will never see eye to eye on this and we will be wasting each others time.

http://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20110324005389/en/GameStop-Reports-Sales-Earnings-Fiscal-2010

Look up their 2010 and 2009 fiscal reports. And yes, it does matter. If part of the second hand market increases sales in the new market, than it's relevant.

2. If used game sales are sooo bad, why did Ubisoft, EA, and Activision post revenue in the BILLIONS? And how has gaming managed to live this long if used sales are such a problem? Answer: They aren't. Gaming is larger than it's ever been, and the market just keeps getting bigger. They have huge amounts of money, and these online passes represent an attack on the idea of ownership.

1: Yeah they added 750 mil towards new purchases.... while adding 2,537.6 millions in capital to the market.... but yeah its all about the 750 mio.... well to you anyway. Because the 2,537.6 mil doesn't matter to the publisher at all. after all they got 750 mio in new sales while their goods got devalued for a sum of 2,537.6 mil....

2: Yeah I didn't say they didn't make profit. I said Used games have an effect on sales. Their job is to make more profit. Just like me. I want to have more games for my money they want to have more money for their games. They dont ow me anything and I dont ow them anything.

I do however see your real problem with it, and its that you think its an attack on the right of ownership.

However you have an incredible double standard there. You see doesn't online passes represent an attack on the idea of ownership. Your objection to the idea is an attack on the idea of ownership.

Because you can do whatever you want with things you own. That also means NOT SELLING IT. Dont call into view the idea of ownership if you are not going follow it.

Wait, are you saying you can't sell things you own?

Allow me to laugh [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-sale_doctrine]

Oh I am sorry I was unaware you owned Arkham City... when did you buy it? Oh you dont own that? Oh

Did I SAY I bought Arkham City? NOooooooooooo! Show me where I said "I own Arkham City"

I bring up case law, and you miss the point. Nice

Oh I am misunderstanding then.

So you didn't complain about online passes?

Because you dont own that Arkham City you are not bothered by being unable to sell it.

Do you see a problem in them deciding how to sell it?

Or dont they own their games?

Look beyond you nose for 2 and you might understand that the right of ownership also applies to the publisher. They can chose what to do with the product. Also not sell it. Rent it to you. Sell you a 1 person ticket to it. Right of ownership.

I'm sorry, but did you even LOOK at my link? I don't mean to sound rude, but is English a second language for you? First sale doctrine. I may resell games legally. They CANNOT sell you a game on the condition that you never resell it. Tis' an illegal contract.

And yes, they legally CAN do this with online passes. It's stupid though. The used market is a great place to get rid of products you don't want any more. This is devaluing the product artificially, which is something I oppose