Poll: Boycott Rage

[WaruTaru]

That's just one case and only applies to that one case. You can legally resell your games.

See what I mean by ignoring the law for your convenience?

 

[Raso719]

@Raso719: With used games the disc is guaranteed to work. With new games you can buy the $3 guarantee in case the disc ever breaks/stops working.

My mistake then. And also I'll have to have a talk with my local gamestop.

 

[Woodsey]

Its a menial piece of content that most won't see (reportedly). Not worth boycotting over.

If someone starts physically removing stuff from their game to give an "incentive" to buy new, then there's an issue. What developers actually seem to be doing is making some rather minor content to fulfill that role instead.

If you buy used you're still going to get it cheaper than buying it new if you pay for the missing content too.

 

[Raso719]

"Yeah, how dare these companies want profit for their game that they spent countless hours and thousands of dollars on! Boycott! Boycott! New world order! NEW WORLD ORDER!!!"
Yes, cutting part of the game to make you buy it new probably won't sit well with people, but what else can they do? Ask nicely?

They can accept that the used market is legal and a normal part of doing business in a capitalist society. Fighting against the used market is the same as fighting against consumers whose role in a capitalist society is to save money.

People trying to save money? What liberal, socialist nonsense is that? All consumers should be thankful that the massiveness corporations that love and protect them allow you to buy things AT ALL! They could force you to rent everything or just stop selling things in the US.

Because, you know, heaven forbid we look at it from the consumer's point of view.

 

[Epona]

How about when used games aren't the same? No box, no manual, disc not picture perfect?

Gamestop doesn't accept used games without boxes and manuals anymore. If the disc doesn't run, you can keep bringing it back until you get one that does.

Since when?

They had a "Gamestop Guarantee" in place where all pre-owned games you ordered online were guaranteed to come with a manual and boxart. I can't find it anymore, so my bad if that has since been reversed.

@Raso719: With used games the disc is guaranteed to work. With new games you can buy the $3 guarantee in case the disc ever breaks/stops working.

So without the box and manual you aren't getting the same thing as buying new? What if the book is ripped or the box is discolored?

Used is not the same as new most of the time.

 

[liveslowdiefast]

dude its about that if you buy it used not a cent goes to them, ok so they need to make you buy it new so they deny content, i'm sorry but i'm on their side, they make quality content, you give them money for it. and if they have to deny content to make you do that, they gotta do it.

 

[Epona]

That's just one case and only applies to that one case. You can legally resell your games.

See what I mean by ignoring the law for your convenience?

Whatever, are you saying that set an industry wide precedent? If you are, you are going to need to prove it.

In fact, I'll just go ahead and say you are ignoring the law for your own convenience because thus far you have been unable to show me the law that makes EULA's legally binding.

 

[blizzaradragon]

Yes, they're totally screwing them over by. . . giving their paying customers something extra for their support. Goddamn, that is some true evil there.

They are devaluing the product once it is purchased.

So they are doing what is essentially basic economics? Seems legit to me.

In any other used market, once something is purchased and used the value depreciates. If you buy a new car, the second you drive it off of the lot the value goes down. The same should be said about games once the game is put into your console and started up. What developers are doing is essentially giving you the extra oomph for buying it new, just like a new car will have that extra oomph over a used car of the same type.

Essentially, when you buy a new product it should feel like a new product. If you buy a used product it should feel like a used product. Used markets exist for every other industry because of depreciation, so when you buy used you know you are getting a product inferior to a new version of said product. Now that games are doing the same thing, people feel they have the right to complain when in reality they don't. Gamers aren't entitled to shit when they buy used, just like people who buy used in any other market aren't entitled to anything.

If Ford slashed the seats when you resold the car, then it would be the same and it would be unacceptable.

The difference is that a car getting NORMAL wear and tear is acceptable. A game getting ARTIFICIAL wear and tear by the publisher in the interest of making more money is not acceptable, nor should it be.

No offense, but you're starting to grasp for straws now.

The difference is that games are an ARTIFICIAL MEDIA, not physical like a car. That is part of why everyone is getting so worked up about all this: they look at the game as a physical item. I don't know about you, but when I buy a game I pay for the data on the disc, not for the disc itself. I don't go and throw the disc like a frisbee, I play with the data of the disc. So why should someone who pays half the price of my get access to everything I have access to?

What is going on here is that people like you are getting butthurt that the $40 they spend on a game, which not a single cent is going back to the people who made it mind you, are not getting the exact same quality as someone who paid $60 for. The developers and publishers get not a single thing from you, why should they give you anything in return? Lets go back to a car example, since everyone seems to love those. You buy a Ford truck used, and after a day of driving around the engine craps out. You call Ford and demand that they do something about your engine, even though you didn't give them a cent of your money. Then when they tell you that since you didn't buy it from them they can't do anything you decide to boycott Ford altogether.

tl;dr You didn't support the developer/publisher so why should they support you

It's you who are grasping at straws. Games are a product, not an artificial product but a real product. When you buy a CD, you want the music but music isn't just floating in space (else it would be free), it's attached to the media, permanently.

You know though, you may be on to something, perhaps digital code really is artificial and as such, has no value. Like music floating in the air (from the radio), it can be grabbed for free with the correct device (an antenna in that case). Pointing out that games are artificial isn't going to help your case.

None of this matters though because the bottom line is that NORMAL wear and tear is acceptable because it is naturally (can't be avoided) or accidentally occurring. ARTIFICIAL wear and tear is done on purpose and it can be avoided.

Good for you, you can figure out how to take one point said and run with it while ignoring the whole rest of the post. I'll humor you though, lets go with your radio example. With the radio, we can all listen to music for free simply by purchasing the radio and tuning to the station we want to listen to. Here's where the example falls apart though: the radio company paid for the right to play the music over the air, so the musicians have already got their cut. Same goes with television when they air a movie: they paid for the right to air that for us. The difference here is that with a used game the company got paid for the price of one game, while with radio and TV the companies get paid a lot more than the price of one song on iTunes or one DVD.

I want you to answer me a serious question though. One I mentioned earlier but you utterly bypassed. Why should the developer/publisher/company/etc. support you when you buy used? No other industry supports customers who buy their products used, why should the game industry be any different?

Also not part of the argument, but artificial wear and tear can happen naturally. It's called data erosion, and it happens over time to any data-based media. Perfect example: I have a copy of Earthbound for the SNES. The cartridge itself is fine and the connection between it and the system is perfect, but the game now freezes and doesn't load properly in some areas. This is due to the data on the cartridge eroding due to age. It takes a while, but artificial wear and tear does happen.

 

[intheweeds]

How about when used games aren't the same? No box, no manual, disc not picture perfect?

Gamestop doesn't accept used games without boxes and manuals anymore. If the disc doesn't run, you can keep bringing it back until you get one that does.

Since when?

They had a "Gamestop Guarantee" in place where all pre-owned games you ordered online were guaranteed to come with a manual and boxart. I can't find it anymore, so my bad if that has since been reversed.

@Raso719: With used games the disc is guaranteed to work. With new games you can buy the $3 guarantee in case the disc ever breaks/stops working.

So without the box and manual you aren't getting the same thing as buying new? What if the book is ripped or the box is discolored?

Used is not the same as new most of the time.

Oh please. Are we really arguing a manual makes a game complete? Do you really give a crap about the manual? When is the last time you ever read one? A used game is still a full game. The whole thing.

His car analogy is great in my eyes. If used games were routinely in as bad condition as used cars or other used goods, no one would be buying them and we wouldn't be here having this discussion.
No one gives a crap about car manuals either. Did you even know they had them?

 

[Epona]

Yes, they're totally screwing them over by. . . giving their paying customers something extra for their support. Goddamn, that is some true evil there.

They are devaluing the product once it is purchased.

So they are doing what is essentially basic economics? Seems legit to me.

In any other used market, once something is purchased and used the value depreciates. If you buy a new car, the second you drive it off of the lot the value goes down. The same should be said about games once the game is put into your console and started up. What developers are doing is essentially giving you the extra oomph for buying it new, just like a new car will have that extra oomph over a used car of the same type.

Essentially, when you buy a new product it should feel like a new product. If you buy a used product it should feel like a used product. Used markets exist for every other industry because of depreciation, so when you buy used you know you are getting a product inferior to a new version of said product. Now that games are doing the same thing, people feel they have the right to complain when in reality they don't. Gamers aren't entitled to shit when they buy used, just like people who buy used in any other market aren't entitled to anything.

If Ford slashed the seats when you resold the car, then it would be the same and it would be unacceptable.

The difference is that a car getting NORMAL wear and tear is acceptable. A game getting ARTIFICIAL wear and tear by the publisher in the interest of making more money is not acceptable, nor should it be.

No offense, but you're starting to grasp for straws now.

The difference is that games are an ARTIFICIAL MEDIA, not physical like a car. That is part of why everyone is getting so worked up about all this: they look at the game as a physical item. I don't know about you, but when I buy a game I pay for the data on the disc, not for the disc itself. I don't go and throw the disc like a frisbee, I play with the data of the disc. So why should someone who pays half the price of my get access to everything I have access to?

What is going on here is that people like you are getting butthurt that the $40 they spend on a game, which not a single cent is going back to the people who made it mind you, are not getting the exact same quality as someone who paid $60 for. The developers and publishers get not a single thing from you, why should they give you anything in return? Lets go back to a car example, since everyone seems to love those. You buy a Ford truck used, and after a day of driving around the engine craps out. You call Ford and demand that they do something about your engine, even though you didn't give them a cent of your money. Then when they tell you that since you didn't buy it from them they can't do anything you decide to boycott Ford altogether.

tl;dr You didn't support the developer/publisher so why should they support you

It's you who are grasping at straws. Games are a product, not an artificial product but a real product. When you buy a CD, you want the music but music isn't just floating in space (else it would be free), it's attached to the media, permanently.

You know though, you may be on to something, perhaps digital code really is artificial and as such, has no value. Like music floating in the air (from the radio), it can be grabbed for free with the correct device (an antenna in that case). Pointing out that games are artificial isn't going to help your case.

None of this matters though because the bottom line is that NORMAL wear and tear is acceptable because it is naturally (can't be avoided) or accidentally occurring. ARTIFICIAL wear and tear is done on purpose and it can be avoided.

Good for you, you can figure out how to take one point said and run with it while ignoring the whole rest of the post. I'll humor you though, lets go with your radio example. With the radio, we can all listen to music for free simply by purchasing the radio and tuning to the station we want to listen to. Here's where the example falls apart though: the radio company paid for the right to play the music over the air, so the musicians have already got their cut. Same goes with television when they air a movie: they paid for the right to air that for us. The difference here is that with a used game the company got paid for the price of one game, while with radio and TV the companies get paid a lot more than the price of one song on iTunes or one DVD.

I want you to answer me a serious question though. One I mentioned earlier but you utterly bypassed. Why should the developer/publisher/company/etc. support you when you buy used? No other industry supports customers who buy their products used, why should the game industry be any different?

Also not part of the argument, but artificial wear and tear can happen naturally. It's called data erosion, and it happens over time to any data-based media. Perfect example: I have a copy of Earthbound for the SNES. The cartridge itself is fine and the connection between it and the system is perfect, but the game now freezes and doesn't load properly in some areas. This is due to the data on the cartridge eroding due to age. It takes a while, but artificial wear and tear does happen.

In this case, the artificial wear and tear is done on purpose. So your Earthbound example doesn't count. Especially since it's an SNES cartridge and nothing was purposely withheld to punish you if you bought it used.

I don't understand how this issue has anything to do with supporting used buyers. If they just left this so called bonus content on the damn disc, there would be no need to support used buyers.

I will answer though, they should support used buyers because they want them to buy the next game in the series on day one. Making your own game look bad to used buyers isn't very smart.

 

[WaruTaru]

Whatever, are you saying that set an industry wide precedent? If you are, you are going to need to prove it.

In fact, I'll just go ahead and say you are ignoring the law for your own convenience because thus far you have been unable to show me the law that makes EULA's legally binding.

I just did? All games are software, is it not? If one software is legally not goods, isn't all software not goods? Accordingly, if the courts say software is licensed due to the EULA, then all software with EULA essentially results in the same thing, no?

Read the case? The license is derived from the EULA. If there was no EULA, that case wouldn't have been found in favour of the software maker.

 

[Omnific One]

Gaming boycotts always fail. Which is worse, losing the hated sewer sections or the entirely of MP? And I bet the OP has purchased a project 10 dollar game or the like.

 

[AperioContra]

I know no one's going to read this, as it is up to 8 pages beyond the point which anyone cares. But I'm just going to point out something. If I had gone to the library and found a book, only to find that the publishers had torn out chapters of the book and reserved them for people who had bought it outright, I would feel a little ripped off, regardless of whether or not those chapters were important to the story.

The deal is, it is kind of a dick move to reserve content of a game to only those privileged enough to buy the game a full retail. I personally rely off of renting and used games, and only can buy a couple new games a year (and those are the games that I wish to see more of). So, because of circumstance, people like me are not allowed content of the game in which we acquired under law?

This is not right, nor is it fair to those who are less enfranchised. This doesn't make me want to buy the game more, in fact it makes me want to exclusively buy the game second hand, or rent as a "fuck you" to the developers. This isn't an issue of monetary gain, this is an issue of treating your customers with respect. I'm not about to spout the "B" word just yet, but seriously, this just feels like a dick move. Think of it as buying a movie out of the bin in blockbuster and finding out that a part of the movie was cut out because you didn't buy it new. There is a simple ethical issue with not allowing the people who bought your game (Under the pretense of the law (as to not advocate piracy)) to play the full game.

On another less serious note: It is nothing but comedic genius that I found this while watching Jim Sterlings Boycott Video.

 

[Buzz Killington_v1legacy]

See what I mean by ignoring the law for your convenience?

Whatever, are you saying that set an industry wide precedent? If you are, you are going to need to prove it.

He keeps waving Vernor v. Autodesk around like it's a crucifix and the used game market is a swarm of vampires. He never brings up, say, SoftMan Products Co. v. Adobe Systems Inc., Step-Saver Data Systems, Inc. v. Wyse Technology, or Novell, Inc. v. CPU Distrib., Inc.

 

[Assassin Xaero]

If we allow this to continue, what will happen to games like Skyrim?

I disagree but saw your point at first, but with that line, I quit caring. Skyrim, the overrated sequel that spawned from the game that created horse armor, and you're trying to use that as a defense for why this should stop? Wow.

A lot of this is because the developers already don't get much of the profit, and with used games, they get zero. This way, they can still get some money to continue making makes. And well, I already preordered RAGE, so... meh...

 

[Smithburg]

Yes, it will get worse and I suggest gamers protest it every step of the way. The used market helps the industry and only greed is making these bad decisions that will come back the entire industry.

Understand first that I really am just asking your opinion in friendly way, so no need to get mad. But how does the used market help the industry? Seems to me it helps Gamestop make money and gamers get cheap games, but how does it help the industry?

I hope you won't mind my experience as an example, but I will sell games in order to afford new games quite often, right now Im picking up Deus Ex Human Revolution, Bioshock Infinite, Skyrim, Gears of War 3, Battlefield 3, Modern Warfare 3 (If Elite doesnt screw us over) and a few others new, I will only be able to pick up one if I could not sell my games back. And also I can pick up last generation games used if I ever want to replay them when they are not sold otherwise.

 

[ninja51]

I'd say the biggest problem is the things put in place to try and stop pirateing. The other stuff makes it very hard to rent or buy used, but there are plenty of good arguements to be made for that. Developers need to get payed of course.

Problem is, when they make the game harder to use for those buying it legally and new. Pirates dont give two craps about whatever security developers put in place, a new game is usually hacked and cracked a few days after release without fail. Even with Rage's no single player thing, all that does is put alot of pressure on people still laying down cash. Pirates with have that fixed and running single player in no time at all. Makes it actually a more viable option to pirate a game than rent or buy used

 

[Smithburg]

Its a menial piece of content that most won't see (reportedly). Not worth boycotting over.

If someone starts physically removing stuff from their game to give an "incentive" to buy new, then there's an issue. What developers actually seem to be doing is making some rather minor content to fulfill that role instead.

If you buy used you're still going to get it cheaper than buying it new if you pay for the missing content too.

THere are games that take away content if you buy it used. Homefront will not let you get past level 5 for example

 

[intheweeds]

Yes, it will get worse and I suggest gamers protest it every step of the way. The used market helps the industry and only greed is making these bad decisions that will come back the entire industry.

Understand first that I really am just asking your opinion in friendly way, so no need to get mad. But how does the used market help the industry? Seems to me it helps Gamestop make money and gamers get cheap games, but how does it help the industry?

I hope you won't mind my experience as an example, but I will sell games in order to afford new games quite often, right now Im picking up Deus Ex Human Revolution, Bioshock Infinite, Skyrim, Gears of War 3, Battlefield 3, Modern Warfare 3 (If Elite doesnt screw us over) and a few others new, I will only be able to pick up one if I could not sell my games back. And also I can pick up last generation games used if I ever want to replay them when they are not sold otherwise.

Fair enough. I just think that model only works for a time. I mean if I traded in my games I could get more new games too, but there would come a point where i would run out of games of value to trade. It only works for me every once in a while when i have a good backlog. If I have to trade three games to get one back, I soon run out of stuff to trade and i'm stuck in Gamestop's vicious cycle.
I appreciate the argument though. I too trade in my games and I buy used sometimes. I just bought modern Warfare 2 the other day used (i know, i know, haha).

I try to buy new as much as possible also. For two reasons really. One is that I like to support developers. I am in school for programming right now so I appreciate the devs side of this. Two is that I like to have shiny new things on my shelf. I prefer it if i can at all afford it.

I just wish new games were cheaper, I think people would buy more of them. Modern Warfare 2 for instance is still going for 35 bucks used at my gamestop. Sometimes you have to buy used, I know i do. (The reason I got the used one even though it wasn't a big savings was that I was also trying to afford a pokemon thing for my daughter at the same time). The point is, it isn't a huge drop in price to buy certain games used. If new games capped out at $50 bucks, I bet Gamestop would sell more new and less used, if only because even the most selfish of us like shiny new things rather than old dirty things.

 

[WaruTaru]

He keeps waving Vernor v. Autodesk around like it's a crucifix and the used game market is a swarm of vampires. He never brings up, say,
SoftMan Products Co. v. Adobe Systems Inc.,

The buyer did not run the program, and had no knowledge of the EULA. The courts said he was not bound because he did not click "I Accept".

Vernor assented to the EULA and accepted it.

Step-Saver Data Systems, Inc. v. Wyse Technology,[/I]

The seller tried to sell a non-working copy with their EULA. Of course that wouldn't fly.

Vernor did not sell broken copies.

or Novell, Inc. v. CPU Distrib., Inc.

As to this case, I can't find a copy anywhere. Care to provide me with a source?