Sony, Pre-owned games and DRM

[SF_Bahamut]

Convenient? What are you talking about? The case set a precedent that is directly relevant to the topic. That was the point of posting it. The case itself has nothing to do with Sony, pre-owned games, or DRM, but the principle applies here. "Licensed, not owned" was the point.

The Court's decision applies directly to Sony's policy.

 

[SF_Bahamut]

I don't post here very often. I joined the site in September of 2010 and only made one post prior to the ones I've made here. I didn't plan on sticking around, I had just seen what you said about the first sale doctrine and knew about the case that contradicted it (which some might not have known about), so I posted it.

 

[Epona]

Sorry if this is a little off topic, though I think it's still related.

I'd be interested in seeing what would happen to the game industry if copyright were just simply eliminated. The movie industry as well, to a lesser extent.

It's already pretty likely that writers and musicians will be fine; they're getting screwed by the publishing companies as it is, and writing and music were around long before copyright. They have their ways of making a living.

Video games and movies are expensive to produce though; the triple A ones, anyway. There are already a lot of good movies online, so I have hope that they will find a way.

While there are games online, it seems like a trickier situation. Software in general will be okay; software is created because there is a need for it. The programming I'm doing isn't going to be sold to customers; it's being written because the company needs these programs. The free software movement is also doing a good job, and they've found ways of making a living.

I suspect the video game industry would find a way if suddenly people could share games without necessarily having to pay, though it would probably also be chaos for a while. On the other hand, maybe it would be terrible terrible disaster.

Regarding pre-owned games though, I don't think it should be stopped. But if people want to support the developer, they should be aware that buying a game pre-owned won't help; buy it new. It's more legal than piracy, but it's not particularly better. I would hope that the people who pirate and buy pre-owned are doing it because they can't afford new games, or because they have an ethical issue against DRM. If they can afford it, they should support the developers.

it would destroy the mediums especially music because most people would have to find other jobs to support their families. Copy write is the only thing that allows content creators to make their content because without copy write where would the incentive be to pay for a song or a story. the only reason writers and musicians made money before copy write is because it wasn't able to be reproduced as easily as it is today.


so copy write = good

Copyright law was designed to prevent people from making and selling illegal COPIES. What is passing for copyright law now is controlling how you use the product and if you are allowed to resell it or even give it away. These things have nothing to do with copying.

 

[Chibz]

What really scares me is that gamers are so concerned with how much money publishers make.

To be honest, there are SOME developers/publishers you really should support by buying a game new. I probably could wait a couple of months to buy Earth Defense Force: Insect Armageddon used (if I could find it used. Heh...) developed by Vicious Cycle Software, and published by D3 Publisher. But, I'll be frank I support them for producing a great experience.

You obviously didn't check out my link. Go ahead, read up on it. I'll wait.

Here's a question for you. Answer it if you can. I bought a copy of a game I love for the 360. However, I bought it second-hand from someone who owns a used game shop. BUT, this copy was completely new. Unopened, in shrink wrap. Even came with a rather nice custom faceplate.

Spoiler: FACEPLATE!

So. According to your theory of how copyright should work is what we did allowed?

 

[SF_Bahamut]

It's not my theory. It's not my opinion. I'm applying what the authority on this matter has dictated. That's where we differ. You WANT one outcome to be true and are trying to find the evidence to say that it is. I'm looking at the law from an unbiased viewpoint and am finding meaning from what it says. I'm not taking a side before trying to find supporting evidence for that side. That's not how the law works.

As for your example... the shrinkwrap was not opened, so no agreements were made. In a case where the terms of the agreement were made clear on the box before opening it, the Court has ruled that opening the shrinkwrap implies consent to these terms. It doesn't seem like this was done in your example, however, so it sounds perfectly legal.

 

[Epona]

What really scares me is that gamers are so concerned with how much money publishers make.

To be honest, there are SOME developers/publishers you really should support by buying a game new. I probably could wait a couple of months to buy Earth Defense Force: Insect Armageddon used (if I could find it used. Heh...) developed by Vicious Cycle Software, and published by D3 Publisher. But, I'll be frank I support them for producing a great experience.

You obviously didn't check out my link. Go ahead, read up on it. I'll wait.

Here's a question for you. Answer it if you can. I bought a copy of a game I love, Deathsmiles for the 360. However, I bought it second-hand from someone who owns a used game shop. BUT, this copy was completely new. Unopened, in shrink wrap. Even came with a rather nice custom faceplate.

Spoiler: FACEPLATE!

So. According to your theory of how copyright should work is what we did allowed?

I buy new games most of the time but I don't do it because I care about developers, I do it because I prefer a product I open myself. That's not the point though. Buying used helps out other gamers because if no one bought used, they couldn't resell their game.

You help someone no matter which route you go so the guilt trips gamers throw on each other are really stupid. Help the devs, great, help your fellow gamers, great, help Gamestop, great. In the end you should help yourself first though, buy what you want, not what you feel guilted into buying to support a developer.

 

[Epona]

Profit is not a right. It must be earned. If their business model is so flawed that it leaves this option for Gamestop wide open, then they need to work on fixing it. Not blame the person who is playing by the rules

Sure, that's what Retailers like GameStop are abusing though by taking the Profits off of the content creators in the first place... They could try to do something that I can't really come up with or I would be rich or they could just do the "easy fix" and introduce things like Keys and "Project 10$".

If we go digital, I expect the price of games to drop, and DLC be discounted. But I know that that is never going to happen. I ask you this: If used sales are such a problem, why don't they charge less for PC versions of games?
I doubt it will go all digital. Some people, myself inculded, much prefer a physical object. And others, such as my friend, do not have internet connection.

Depends on platform and publisher, new games will probably not cost any less but I cannot refrain from mentioning Steam again... aside of Activision (and they're starting to do it too) every other Publishers has such "deals" and sells their games for a few days to a lesser price... hell I think I've bought about 30+ games for under 100? this time myself.
The last day (tomorrow) will likely feature a "Best Of" of all sales: http://store.steampowered.com/?cc=us
You won't get games to those prices even at your GameStops or other Resellers because they're much too greedy for that Steam/Publishers can largely do those deals because they aren't permanent and they are a "one-time-sale" without the possibility of selling or passing it on to other accounts, also they apparently increase profits of up to 3000% in some cases and reach new customers: http://www.shacknews.com/article/57308/valve-left-4-dead-half
Also there's a huge push into "F2P" gaming going on on the PC at the moment, with a lot of quality games like League of Legends, Firefall, Tribes etc. being initially "free" that will have some effect (also on other platforms) in the future...

And I, under the first sale doctrine, can GIVE AWAY A PHYSICAL OBJECT!!! Or sell it! Or use it to reflect lasers. You're missing the forest for the trees

You can do the same with the disc after it's got a key for one-time use, I just doubt you'll get the same price as before xD

What really scares me is that gamers are so concerned with how much money publishers make. They are willing to throw away consumer rights and bash one another while the publishers laugh all the way to the bank.

Of course I care who I give my money to... I do with most products I buy I'm just less or more informed on some. The best way to get more of (or like) a certain game you like is to buy their product and give them the money. It also enables me to boycot certain brands because of their business practices in reverse (like Activision).

If you think publishers are entitled to money from used sales then you are not informed.

 

[Chibz]

not what you feel guilted into buying to support a developer.

Tell me if this makes sense, but it's a form of "enlightened self interest". I realize that the best way to keep games I like coming is to support the people who have the power to make sure they can come. I don't buy them because I feel that "I must". I buy them more because I feel that "I ought". There's a very fine difference there.

Also it helps that I'm immune to guilt.

 

[Epona]

not what you feel guilted into buying to support a developer.

Tell me if this makes sense, but it's a form of "enlightened self interest". I realize that the best way to keep games I like coming is to support the people who have the power to make sure they can come. I don't buy them because I feel that "I must". I buy them more because I feel that "I ought". There's a very fine difference there.

It's like an addiction when you put it that way. Not trying to be mean but "gotta keep the games coming" just sounds so helpless.

I buy something because I like it (like Pizza flavored Pringles). I never think "I hope they keep making these". I figure that if they keep making them, I'll keep buying em. If not, I will move onto something else. I have been playing games for 30 years but I just can't understand many of the motivations modern gamers have.

 

[Chibz]

It's like an addiction when you put it that way. Not trying to be mean but "gotta keep the games coming" just sounds so helpless.

I buy something because I like it (like Pizza flavored Pringles). I never think "I hope they keep making these". I figure that if they keep making them, I'll keep buying em. If not, I will move onto something else. I have been playing games for 30 years but I just can't understand many of the motivations modern gamers have.

Well, a lot of the games I support heavily are games where the developers/publishers are in a situation where each sale really does matter. Look at Deathsmiles for example. We never saw it here until recently. Or Monster Hunter. Most that series' games don't see the light of day in north america.

For the most part these companies offer a gaming experience that almost no other company is offering me, and they don't have the almost automatic first-adopters that games like MW3 will have.

So yeah. If I want to see Monster Hunter Portable 3rd running on my PSP, I acknowledge that I might have to get over myself a little and buy Monster Hunter 3. Because if they cannot expect to turn a profit (or even break even...) for the overall cost to translate/etc for north america they won't sell it here. Full break.

 

[Asuka Soryu]

I sometimes buy used, but I mostly buy cheap. xD 20$ still sealed games at Walmart, they're just old is all.


But I couldn't resist buying Dragon Ball Z Burst Limit for 3$ used.

I agree with people buying used. 60$ is alot of money to go into a game that could be really bad or way to short.

60$ for a 4 hour game!?

 

[Asuka Soryu]

I sometimes buy used, but I mostly buy cheap. xD 20$ still sealed games at Walmart, they're just old is all.


But I couldn't resist buying Dragon Ball Z Burst Limit for 3$ used.

I agree with people buying used. 60$ is alot of money to go into a game that could be really bad or way to short.

60$ for a 4 hour game!?

As opposed to $60 for a 10 minute game?

Nah, 3000$ for an 8 minute game.

 

[TxMxRonin]

There were rumors of Sony blocking used games from being played on the PS3 BEFORE the system launched. If they wanted to do it they would have already. And if this does to through then maybe it'll be incentive for publishers to keep games in print and bring down outrageous prices on some used games. And cause developers to make longer games. If I'm paying $60 for a game, that I could be spending on fuel, I want an experience that will make me keep that damn game.

 

[Defense]

http://yro.slashdot.org/story/10/09/10/210243/Court-Says-First-Sale-Doctrine-Doesnt-Apply-To-Licensed-Software

Fortunately, we're seeing restrictions on the first sale doctrine.

Very good. However, last I checked, I didn't get a "liscense" on the physical game I purchased. Digital games should not be protected under FSD. But this ain't digital. Wasn't the whole PS3 jailbreak debacle based around Sony, in esense, saying "Yeh, you don't really "own" your system as much as you get a liscense for it"?

Are you really willing to line up to defend a publisher who, to get more money, is willing to say "Yeh, I know you bought that physical copy of game, but we really are just giving you a liscense to use it"? I want games to make money, yes. But this is NOT the best way to go about it.

In reality, you only own the physical product. You don't own the data even if you paid for it, like it or not.

 

[Continuity]

If we go digital, I expect the price of games to drop, and DLC be discounted. But I know that that is never going to happen. I ask you this: If used sales are such a problem, why don't they charge less for PC versions of games?

They do, maybe not on day one release but check out my steam account on my profile... every games there I bought for £20 or less, and most were bought for between £5 and £15.

 

[Plinglebob]

Allright. Humor me this. What would YOU do about it?

I don't buy the whole "Robbing the industry" statement. What about movie rentals? Did studios get money with each rental? What about libraries? Do book publsihers get money with each check-out? What about art galeries? Do artists get money with resale of their paintings?

The answer? No. They do not. Where were you when blockbuster video was still around? Were you protesting THEM? The industry isn't going anywhere. How long have we had the printing press? People have been giving books to friends or people have sold them second hand. And yet we still have books.

So, again, what would you do about used sales and Gamestop?

For movie rentals, the copy somewhere like Blockbuster buys costs around £50 so the industry gets compensated fopeople who rent it rather then buying a new copy. Also, it is a small gamble on behalf of the film industry as they know that when seone rents a film, there is a chance they will like it and buy it.

For Libraries (in the UK anyway) the author DOES get a small amount each time their book is borrowed though admittadly its a small amount.

For artworks, the original artist retains the copyright so while they may not see any of the money made by resales of the original, any tim there is a copy made, the artist gets royalties.

Back on topic, I fully support Sony in this as I think any oppotunity to get more money to the evs who created the game is a good thing. Also, maintaining an online game has a cost to it and I don't see why companies should let someone use it when that person as put no money towards the cost by buying new.