Print

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

[EuchreJack]

In their defense, they state that some of their terms don't apply in the EU, for what that is worth.

Interesting thought: If the insane troll logic of game companies and distributors like Steam that games aren't owned by the player but rather are licensed for the player to use were true, then piracy would not exist.

Here is my insane troll logic: A pirate is someone that steals an item that belongs to someone else.  If games can not be owned by the consumer, but only used by paying consumers, then games also can not be stolen from makers and distributors of games, only used without license, and therefore it is impossible to steal a game.  If a consumer can not acquire title by purchase, then title also can't be stolen.

So the supposedly evil crime of "stealing" games becomes the signficantly less ominous, and likely not criminal, offense of "using a game without a license".

The EU decision actually does a lot to combat piracy, and Steam's attempts to circumvent the EU ruling in fact dilute if not destroy any standing they have to protest against piracy.  If they were smart, they would see themselves as the successors to EBgames (by which I mean, their online service is an evolution of brick-and-mortar game stores), where their rights are concrete and protected, instead of trying to give themselves godlike powers, only to risk being smited by stronger powers.

The problem with your logic is that piracy isn't the act of stealing anything. It's making unauthorized copies of something. Though I'm pretty sure "piracy" is just a boogaboo buzzword that actually encompasses a handfull of different crimes that all come under the same general area of "copyright based computer stuff?" I'm not a lawyer though so I could be completely wrong.

Actually, that was sort of my point.  It wasn't so clear because of all my quotation marks and so forth.

I also like the idea of being able to giveaway/sell games that I never intent to play.  From what I've seen of Steam's inner workings, the only thing keeping me from just uploading the games onto Pieratbay I've actually downloaded now from Steam is my good ethical sense.

[Rez]

most malware detected in pirated stuff are false-positives.  Not all, but most.

[Alkhemia]

So I heard steam might become NA only if this goes through since they don't want to implement something like this, not sure if it true though.

[Shadowlord]

I agree with the statement that it will encourage game companies to act differently. The constant stream of Modern Warefare's, for example would be less viable and they would have to come up with something worth while to actually encourage people to purchase the new game instead of a second hand copy of the old, virtually identical game. Also if you are someone who thinks the newer MW's are good, then there is nothing stopping you from purchasing them, and if enough people think the same ways, then people will continue to buy them.

This doesn't change people's desire for games, only the method that money can change hands. This allows more freedom for the market. If there is no money going into EA/Activision etc, then no one wants their games. They should make better games. Games which are actually better then the older ones.

This is a couple pages old, but nobody's really addressed it directly.
All console games including MW3 can be bought pre-owned for less than new copies, and traded back in (usually you lose money on it, but as the stores occasionally offer bonus credit, it's possible to break even or almost do so if you buy something on sale and then trade it in before the value has tanked and during a trade-in bonus credit promotion; I did this with MW3 myself).

By buying pre-owned, the publisher gets no money AFAIK, which is why there's been a push by certain companies (such as EA) to add an online pass key which can only be redeemed once, so that anyone acquiring a pre-owned game who wants to use the functionality unlocked by that key would have to pay for access to it. EA did this with ME2 and ME3 (with time limits on both, apparently, and I think the ME2 time limit may have already been reached - the date it stated when I started it was in the past, at any rate), and Battlefield 3 (which I have not played), and another publisher (WB) used a one-time code in Arkham City for the Catwoman content (and it pops up to tell you you're missing it every time you start the game if you don't enter a code or buy one).

They already have to deal with this on consoles. So far Activision hasn't done anything about it, but it wouldn't surprise me if they added an online key to Black Ops II since multiplayer is the main draw of the CoD series.

[Alkhemia]

I agree with the statement that it will encourage game companies to act differently. The constant stream of Modern Warefare's, for example would be less viable and they would have to come up with something worth while to actually encourage people to purchase the new game instead of a second hand copy of the old, virtually identical game. Also if you are someone who thinks the newer MW's are good, then there is nothing stopping you from purchasing them, and if enough people think the same ways, then people will continue to buy them.

This doesn't change people's desire for games, only the method that money can change hands. This allows more freedom for the market. If there is no money going into EA/Activision etc, then no one wants their games. They should make better games. Games which are actually better then the older ones.

This is a couple pages old, but nobody's really addressed it directly.
All console games including MW3 can be bought pre-owned for less than new copies, and traded back in (usually you lose money on it, but as the stores occasionally offer bonus credit, it's possible to break even or almost do so if you buy something on sale and then trade it in before the value has tanked and during a trade-in bonus credit promotion; I did this with MW3 myself).

By buying pre-owned, the publisher gets no money AFAIK, which is why there's been a push by certain companies (such as EA) to add an online pass key which can only be redeemed once, so that anyone acquiring a pre-owned game who wants to use the functionality unlocked by that key would have to pay for access to it. EA did this with ME2 and ME3 (with time limits on both, apparently, and I think the ME2 time limit may have already been reached - the date it stated when I started it was in the past, at any rate), and Battlefield 3 (which I have not played), and another publisher (WB) used a one-time code in Arkham City for the Catwoman content (and it pops up to tell you you're missing it every time you start the game if you don't enter a code or buy one).

They already have to deal with this on consoles. So far Activision hasn't done anything about it, but it wouldn't surprise me if they added an online key to Black Ops II since multiplayer is the main draw of the CoD series.

On the ps3 you can download your buddy key if they have one i do it all the time the DLC he gets to I did it with assassin's creed revelations multiplayer key

[fenrif]

1) It was blatantly obvious that I was referring to games that aren't brand new.  I don't doubt that people would still fork out the cash to get games at launch, but a month or two later there's gonna be shed loads of second hand keys floating about that function identically to firsthand keys.  Joe Bloggs is probably gonna choose to pay £5 rather than £30 nine times out of ten, regardless of what that'll do to the guys who actually made the game and won't be gaining a penny from this.

2) Apples and iguanas dude.  A lot of people choose to purchase over pirating because it's legal and less likely to be filled with malware.  Secondhand keys don't have these issues at all.

3) Yes, some people will always buy new.  Probably less people though, which means less money for developers and potentially less game getting made.

Everything I said is still completely apt in reference to your first point. This is something I too consider blatantly obvious. See: pre-owned games a month or two after launch for an example. And I said piracy wasn't a direct comparison, I don't see why you're pointing out to me something I've allready said? I was using it to illustrate a point.

I like how somehow video games are once again a unique snowflake in situations like this. People can buy second hand movies, music, tv shows, books, etc. But with video games it'll be the one time it's a huge hit to profits because.... Probobly less people will buy new? Oh no the industry will collapse and never again will a game be made. People will still buy new games like they always have. Like they buy new movies and music and everything else even though they can get second hand versions for cheaper. It won't be the end of the industry and it wont mean less games will get made. EA, Activision/Blizzard, and THQ are more of a threat the video games being made than used sales. 

Also, as people have allready pointed out, generally pirate copies have no issues at all. Like less issues than actually buying a game. The illegality and ambiguous morality or piracy is the only real barrier for people pirating games. Which I'll grant you means that it's just not an option for some people. But I think the gist of my point still stands.

All of this is kind of besides the point anyway. This isn't an issue of "oh the poor developers " or "the video games will stop being made!" It's an issue of consumer rights and the video game publishers unending quest to erode them in the name of exponential profit margin growth. The whole concept of turning this issue into a situation where the video game publishers are the victims is so unbelievably ludicrous to me (and this is much more a publisher issue than a developer issue). Publishers have been waging a PR war on used game sales for years now. I can't count the number of game journalists I've stopped reading because they decided to tell their readers that used games are hurting the industry. This is even more annoying beacuse the entire concept of digital sales is relatively new, and in the coming years the whole legal framework will (hopefully) be established for how these are treated.

The line about how (used games/less-DRM/demos/game trading/game rentals/ whatever else publisher don't like this week) will decrease profits and stop games being made is pure unadulterated publisher BS. If it were true then we wouldn't be seeing a new game being funded almost daily on kickstarter. Talk about a perfect example of people being willing to buy new! People will literally throw money at games that aren't even out yet, to the point of giving them like 300% of their requested funds. People will always buy things new, people will always support the entertainers, musicians, authors, game devs, etc that they enjoy. Theres probobly some complex psychological explanation for why, but I have no idea what it is.

[Alkhemia]

http://dontstepinthepoop.com/3-reasons-why-we-buy-things-we-dont-need-or-even-want this might be a part of it but there more too it than just these most likely.

[lordcooper]

I gotta head out for a bit and don't really have time to respond properly, but I gotta reply to this part of your post.

I like how somehow video games are once again a unique snowflake in situations like this.

But they are, at least when it comes to digital distribution.  There are disadvantages to buying preowned games on disk, just the same as there are disadvantages to buying preowned books, DVDs, vinyl.  This disadvantage is completely removed when considering digitally distributed goods.  Allowing people to sell preowned game keys is more comparable to being able to sell tracks from your itunes library when you get bored of listening to them, or ebooks from your Amazon account.

If you buy a preowned book it's generally a bit tattered, which puts people off doing so.  If you're buying a preowned ebook, there's no difference whatsoever and therefore less incentive for people to buy a firsthand copy.

[G-Flex]

This is an extremely late response, but:

1) Start a company that buys used games for 50% of their cost and sells at 80%;
2) Profit.

GameStop (and previously, places like FuncoLand and maybe EB) do this and have been for a long time, except it's probably more like 15/80 instead of 50/80. Wouldn't be anything new.

[Aklyon]

So I heard steam might become NA only if this goes through since they don't want to implement something like this, not sure if it true though.

Why would Steam give up the hugeness of europe over one thing?

[EuchreJack]

So I heard steam might become NA only if this goes through since they don't want to implement something like this, not sure if it true though.

Why would Steam give up the hugeness of europe over one thing?

Considering the new Steam user agreement addresses EU consumers, I think it safe to say the above myth is not true.  They have apparently moved on, at least for now.

[Alkhemia]

So I heard steam might become NA only if this goes through since they don't want to implement something like this, not sure if it true though.

Why would Steam give up the hugeness of europe over one thing?

Considering the new Steam user agreement addresses EU consumers, I think it safe to say the above myth is not true.  They have apparently moved on, at least for now.

Good what was the agreement though?

[fenrif]

I gotta head out for a bit and don't really have time to respond properly, but I gotta reply to this part of your post.

I like how somehow video games are once again a unique snowflake in situations like this.

But they are, at least when it comes to digital distribution.  There are disadvantages to buying preowned games on disk, just the same as there are disadvantages to buying preowned books, DVDs, vinyl.  This disadvantage is completely removed when considering digitally distributed goods.  Allowing people to sell preowned game keys is more comparable to being able to sell tracks from your itunes library when you get bored of listening to them, or ebooks from your Amazon account.

If you buy a preowned book it's generally a bit tattered, which puts people off doing so.  If you're buying a preowned ebook, there's no difference whatsoever and therefore less incentive for people to buy a firsthand copy.

I covered all this in one of my previous posts. But none of the pre-owned games/books/movies/etc I've bought has ever been a "bit tattered." Anecdotal evidence is fun isn't it! It's really not hard to find pre-owned anything in like-new condition. There are whole shops dedicated to providing this service for you on any highstreet. US video game stores used to re-shrink wrap pre-owned games and resell them as brand new, because there's basically no way to tell. You might get a book with a dented or scuffed cover, but you get new books like that too. You might get a game with a scratch on the case, but you get new games like that too. Things that are new in shops have just as much chance of being damaged in transport, stocking, manufacture, etc. as you do of buying a preowned one in the same condition.

I mean it's not like any of the advantages of digital distrobution have been passed onto us as consumers. Why should any of the disadvantages matter if the advantages don't? Digital games cost the same is retail boxed copies. Digital E-books often cost more!

[alexandertnt]

Thing is, would anyone actually buy any firsthand copies of games that are older than a month or two if they could pay a hell of a lot less for an identical 'preowned' copy?

Yes. That preowned copy was bought firsthand at some point.

Regardless of what that'll do to the guys who actually made the game and won't be gaining a penny from this.

Same with cars. Buy a second hand one and the creators dont get a cent.

2) Apples and iguanas dude.  A lot of people choose to purchase over pirating because it's legal and less likely to be filled with malware.  Secondhand keys don't have these issues at all.

I dont know anyone who refrains from piracy simply because its illegal, so is Jaywalking but people do it without so much as blinking. Most people are aware of that-site-that-must-not-be-named and there are few malware issues for popular releases. Which people use. The only real difference is 1 pirate copy for many people, as opposed to 1 firsthand copy for 1 person (getting a pirate copy is even *easier* then getting a second hand copy), which only seems to reinforce fenrif's point.

3) Yes, some people will always buy new.  Probably less people though, which means less money for developers and potentially less game getting made.

I dont see how less games getting made is bad per se. If there are less games getting made, its because of a smaller market demand for new games. In which case people are happy with whats available in the current market.

[MasterFancyPants]

Off topic, but -fenrif- are you a lawyer, on a debate team, or something like that? You're one of the best debaters I've ever seen.