Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[fenrif]

Am I the only person who thinks this opens up a huge can of worms and isn't 100% a good thing?

How so?

[IronyOwl]

Am I the only person who thinks this opens up a huge can of worms and isn't 100% a good thing?

How so?

It punishes game developers in favor of resellers. One obvious issue that's already been raised is that now it's impossible to sell something for cheap without having to worry about being undercut with it later, but it also applies much more generally than that as well. Shunting some of the rewards for making a game from the people who made it to people who facilitate reselling it in order to streamline people being able to rent it in a roundabout way has some obvious, unpleasant connotations.

[Shadowlord]

It's still business as usual with xbox games, unless they also declared those online code things illegal (Those being the only reason I bought a new copy of Mass Effect 3 rather than a used one).

I bought Modern Warfare 3 for $45 or so and traded it back in for $40 a couple months later, in the US. I think I may have gotten it used, too (actually, probably not).

[IronyOwl]

It's still business as usual with xbox games, unless they also declared those online code things illegal (Those being the only reason I bought a new copy of Mass Effect 3 rather than a used one).

I believe any mechanism designed to limit or control reselling/transfer in this way was deemed illegal, yes.

Still only in the EU, though, and obviously it'll take a while to be enforced/adapted to. How/whether they'd be required to retroactively adjust things that are already floating around to suit this requirement is also possibly an issue.

[ductape]

expect prices to go up to cover the lost profits.

Expect sales to go down then I guess?

precisely my point

[fenrif]

It punishes game developers in favor of resellers. One obvious issue that's already been raised is that now it's impossible to sell something for cheap without having to worry about being undercut with it later, but it also applies much more generally than that as well. Shunting some of the rewards for making a game from the people who made it to people who facilitate reselling it in order to streamline people being able to rent it in a roundabout way has some obvious, unpleasant connotations.

It "punishes" game developers by requiring them to abide by the same consumer protection/rights laws as every other industry that wants to sell things.

Publishers worry about anything and everything, the decision to sell things cheap (I assume you mean stuff like indie bundles and steam 75% off sales?) is still entirely upto them. Plenty of other non-video game things are sold in sales and still manage to make a profit.

I don't get what that last sentance means, "streamline people being able to rent it in a roundabout way?" Are you objecting to the idea of being able to rent video games?

expect prices to go up to cover the lost profits.

Expect sales to go down then I guess?

precisely my point

Mine too? :S

[IronyOwl]

It "punishes" game developers by requiring them to abide by the same consumer protection/rights laws as every other industry that wants to sell things.

Publishers worry about anything and everything, the decision to sell things cheap (I assume you mean stuff like indie bundles and steam 75% off sales?) is still entirely upto them. Plenty of other non-video game things are sold in sales and still manage to make a profit.

This is considerably different with goods that aren't entirely digital. Even goods that are theoretically just data, like movies or regular games, still experience some manner of loss or decay. A digital product has zero disadvantages in getting it from some shady guy on a street corner versus the people who made it in the first place.

I don't get what that last sentance means, "streamline people being able to rent it in a roundabout way?" Are you objecting to the idea of being able to rent video games?

I was referring to customers who resell the game when they're done with it- they're more or less just renting the game in a roundabout fashion.

[Heron TSG]

This is considerably different with goods that aren't entirely digital. Even goods that are theoretically just data, like movies or regular games, still experience some manner of loss or decay. A digital product has zero disadvantages in getting it from some shady guy on a street corner versus the people who made it in the first place.

Depends on the degree of shadiness. To take the metaphor further, perhaps the shady guy on the corner has to give you a box to give you the product. But the box is shaped like a little wooden horse. And then Agamemnon and company come pouring out to wreck your computer's shit.

Boom, virus'd. Bet Steam wouldn't give you that. 

[Felius]

Yes, but if you are selling your rights to a digital copy, that would include the right to download it from steam as well. Basically, what this seems to be is it vanishing from your account and appearing on someone's else account. There's absolutely no loss of value at all.

Honestly, what I think that's likely is: No more sales happening on EU, and prices will go generally up. If we are luck, prices will go up only in EU, but it's likely that it'll affect everyone worldwide, partially as they try to recoup losses, partially as they try to avoid people buying games from outside the EU (have a friend buy and gift it to them possibly for example). It honestly sounds somewhat damaging for the whole digital distribution model.

This kind of policy sounds great on paper, but on practice tends to have a good deal of unintended undesirable effects. Every time I see decisions such as these I want to bash the head of their makers with an economics textbook. Consider the whole freaking picture, consider what kind of effects that kind of policy would make, and at the very least address them instead of apparently ignoring them.

[Shadowlord]

Economics has nothing to do with the law.

This is considerably different with goods that aren't entirely digital. Even goods that are theoretically just data, like movies or regular games, still experience some manner of loss or decay. A digital product has zero disadvantages in getting it from some shady guy on a street corner versus the people who made it in the first place.

Let's replace "a shady guy on a street corner" with "steam" to avoid the obvious "virus'd" "not what you paid for" "not a legal copy" responses:

Steam still has downsides:
You lose internet due to a derecho (!?), freak thunderstorm, noreaster, tornado, hurricane, etc, but you have a generator, so you run your computer on it because you feel like it. Alas, you cannae get ye steam games from steam if they already weren't installed, and cannae run them if you don't have steam set up properly to do that (and some games don't allow it at all - Skyrim, I think, doesn't?) - unless your internet is miraculously working (my ISP is apparently lazy, as our internet keeps working when the power goes out for only a couple hours and then goes out, and they lol at phone calls during power outages complaining of lack of service, because they've never heard of generators before). Someday Valve may decide to sell Steam, and then who knows what happens next, or maybe Valve goes out of business because they invested too heavily in something which then fails - like, say, human civilization.

(Not that generators are good for the climate, but what are you gonna do when the government refuses to spend any money to improve the power infrastructure so this stuff can't happen anymore?)

[Felius]

Economics has nothing to do with the law.

Only when lawmakers are stupid. That is, just nearly all the time. I still want to hit them with economics textbooks until they start considering the economical consequences of a policy before they decide on it.

[Flare]

It punishes game developers in favor of resellers. One obvious issue that's already been raised is that now it's impossible to sell something for cheap without having to worry about being undercut with it later, but it also applies much more generally than that as well. Shunting some of the rewards for making a game from the people who made it to people who facilitate reselling it in order to streamline people being able to rent it in a roundabout way has some obvious, unpleasant connotations.

For certain methods of reselling I can see this not being as big of a problem. For example, for certain digital distributors like Steam, gamersgate, or g2g they can allow reselling of titles but with certain rules applying. For example, the distributor provides you a service for reselling games while collecting a bit of commission from themselves and the game developers.

[RAM]

This is considerably different with goods that aren't entirely digital. Even goods that are theoretically just data, like movies or regular games, still experience some manner of loss or decay. A digital product has zero disadvantages in getting it from some shady guy on a street corner versus the people who made it in the first place.

To be fair, games typically depreciate in value over time. A game that costs 100 dollars now may well cost 20 dollars in five years. Because the product is easily reproduced, the original seller has almost nothing to lose from a sale other than the opportunity for that sale. Many discounts are made on products that are not seeing an abundance of sales and so the reduction in price doesn't actually cost the original merchant anything, as the product was worthless without the sale that was inspired by the discount.

long story short: If it is economically viable to sell a product at a 75% discount, then the merchant can almost certainly, and most certainly should(see generally illegal predatory business practices) tolerate the product's value being at 25%. And 75% is most certainly not an unheard of depreciation in a high-profile computer game...

[Felius]

It punishes game developers in favor of resellers. One obvious issue that's already been raised is that now it's impossible to sell something for cheap without having to worry about being undercut with it later, but it also applies much more generally than that as well. Shunting some of the rewards for making a game from the people who made it to people who facilitate reselling it in order to streamline people being able to rent it in a roundabout way has some obvious, unpleasant connotations.

For certain methods of reselling I can see this not being as big of a problem. For example, for certain digital distributors like Steam, gamersgate, or g2g they can allow reselling of titles but with certain rules applying. For example, the distributor provides you a service for reselling games while collecting a bit of commission from themselves and the game developers.

Most such methods might end being classified as illegal if mandatory, as it might be counted as a barrier to resale. Besides, unless they charge absurd amounts for that service, they don't get even close to the amount of money from an actual sale.

[alexandertnt]

Yes! Now only if I lived in the EU...

Spoiler: As for the arguing about it this is my loosely-cobbled-together take (click to show/hide)

For disks on consoles, you cant duplicate them (or at least this law doesn't make it any easier then it already is). So if 100,000 are manufactured, then 100,000 people can play it at once. If only a few buy it, and many want a cheap second hand copy, then supply-demand kicks in and shoots the second hand price up to barely-cheaper then new. So people will continue to buy it new until prices work themselves out.

The car metaphor works well here also:
I buy a car, I should have the right to resell it.
I buy a game, I should have the right to resell it. There is the whole "dont own" argument, sure, but if I pay $90 for a game I damn well want to be able to sell it again. Its not like the car companies ownership of the car design, or the EMS software is stopping me from reselling the car (despite my lack of ownership of both). I would understand the "dont own" argument if the game could be easily copied and reproduced though. But this ruling doesnt effect that.

Also, simply having more money flow into random game companies isn't automatically better for the economy. People will just spend that money somewhere else, helping a different part of the economy up. And lets face it, the video game industry isn't exactly the most vital part of the economy to humanity. If less money flows into the game industry, then its because more people don't want it's services.

Besides, people will just buy a new game when they become bored of any current ones. The same demand exists for games.

People will still buy games, just now there will be more influence from people's ability to decide when and how. Looks like game companies will actually have to make a worth while product now. Oh no.