Print

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

[NRN_R_Sumo1]

I'm imagining right now that I've released a game for 10$, and then someone buys a copy, and starts selling copies of that copy for 3 dollars.

No, that is illegal. They can sell their right to use it. So they can sell it to one person only, and never use it themselves again, in much the same way selling a physical-disc game would work (or a car etc).

Thats not really what I'm saying here.

What I mean to say is that, people won't pay for something twice.
If you can buy something cheaper with little effort, you'll do it generally, regardless of if its brand new or not.
And with digital its Always brand new.

Personally I love frequenting pawn shops, but I know that if I buy something there for 5-10$ I'm not going to go and buy the same thing from the original developers for full price.

Early on in this thread someone mentioned buying games for half price and selling them for 80%, so if you can get 20% off of regular price, you'll go there wouldn't you? I sure as hell would.
I have more morals than I have money to spend, I can spare tossing some of my morals out the window to save a buck

[MasterFancyPants]

Thats not really what I'm saying here.

What I mean to say is that, people won't pay for something twice.
If you can buy something cheaper with little effort, you'll do it generally, regardless of if its brand new or not.
And with digital its Always brand new.

Personally I love frequenting pawn shops, but I know that if I buy something there for 5-10$ I'm not going to go and buy the same thing from the original developers for full price.

Early on in this thread someone mentioned buying games for half price and selling them for 80%, so if you can get 20% off of regular price, you'll go there wouldn't you? I sure as hell would.
I have more morals than I have money to spend, I can spare tossing some of my morals out the window to save a buck

How is buying a game for a lower price immoral?
Once you sell something, you don't own it anymore; the person who you sold it to does and they can do what they want with it... Including sell it for a lower price.

Using their wonderful "Backup" option one could easily back up the files onto disks, you remember those right?
not to mention how often things go wrong with games and files need to be re-downloaded.

So? That doesn't effect Steam, they shouldn't care.
Unless you mean that they would re-install the game after selling it because that would be illegal.

[alexandertnt]

What I mean to say is that, people won't pay for something twice.

Of course not, and they shouldn't.

And with digital its Always brand new.

I made a post on this page why digital is not always brand new. Im still not using DOS, despite the fact it is apparently "brand new".

Early on in this thread someone mentioned buying games for half price and selling them for 80%, so if you can get 20% off of regular price, you'll go there wouldn't you? I sure as hell would.

Magically buying it for 50%? Because I wouldn't go with the 20% option, I would go to the place selling it at half price and save 50%. Let the market kick in to action here.

I have more morals than I have money to spend, I can spare tossing some of my morals out the window to save a buck

Is this supposed to imply that buying stuff cheap is immoral? Becuase I agree with MasterFancyPants. Its not.

[pilgrimboy]

When the newest os/console has been released and the game stops working, then it has suffered software-rot, and has degraded.

If the software-doesnt-wear-out argument was valid, we wound not need to purchase any new software again. But we do because the software does stop working, and also because a new version with shiny new features comes out and, in effect, "degrades" the old software (it now functions inferiorly to the new product).

The ones and zero's won't degrade though, keeping in mind that this is taking about digital downloads, and most downloads are many-copies-of-a-master-copy, as opposed to a copy-of-a-copy-of-a-copy.

Defining words in a debate. Wonderful.

When I, or others who use it in the same way, use the word degrade, we are not meaning "having been improved upon to make it not as desired". We are not talking about Madden 08 versus Madden 07. We are using it as "to fall below a normal state; deteriorate." You might want to use "degrade" to mean the former, but I think you probably are looking for the word "outdated".

The outdated argument actually goes against your argument and highlights the point that publishers have a limited window to make back their investment on the game they have made. Their game will be out-dated in five to ten years. Maybe sooner.

As a matter of fact, a game from Steam might degrade ("deteriorate" not become "out-dated", although the latter happens too). But if it does deteriorate, we have the right to just download a new one. So the consumer faces no relative degradation for a digital copy of a game.

Unless you're arguing that people will have to take a risk and buy possibly deteriorated games when they buy second-hand digital games, then you have to acknowledge that there is a difference between digital and physical.

[alexandertnt]

Degraded was more a simile, I probably did not make that very clear at all in my post.

What I was trying to say was that while digital games may not degrade physically, the other effects that digital sofware experiences results in a similar effect. People want a new car because the old one may not function as well, People want a new game because the old one may not provide as much entertainment (and thus not function as well).

The outdated argument actually goes against your argument and highlights the point that publishers have a limited window to make back their investment on the game they have made. Their game will be out-dated in five to ten years. Maybe sooner.

Car manufactures generally only sell new cars for about the same period of time. Also I never argued that this is a good thing for the publisher per se. Infact in the example of the Madden games (In a hypothetical scenario where Madden 07 was the very first one) Madden 07 would have sold well (it is an original game) but Madden 08 probably would have sold worse ("I will just buy a second-hand 07). Which is honostly something I dont see a problem with.

"to fall below a normal state; deteriorate."

With something like a tool, a car for instance, its normal state remains constant (it is a vehicle, it transports me). As a car becomes old it functions worse and worse, degrading (it is a worn vehicle, it no longer transports me). As games are not tools (In the sence they dont exist to accomplish a single task), their "normal" state can change and vary. As new games come out, the level of entertaining-ness that can be had goes up and the "normal" state is shifted upwards. This is hardly a perfect argument, but hopefully highlights how it can be considered "similar" to physical degradation, even if the word "Degrade" is not technically correct.

[pilgrimboy]

Physical games suffer all of those drawbacks that you describe just like their digital counterparts. What you are describing is the nature of the gaming industry, not the difference between physical and digital. Becoming outdated has nothing to do with whether a game is physical or digital. However, physical games suffer one drawback that digital games don't (unless you want to allow the degradation risk to be carried by the second buyer) and that is they degrade over time. Some times worse. Other times they are kept in perfect shape by a superclean/neat person. But digital games don't have that. And in that they are different.

So I repeat my ignored conclusion. Unless you're arguing that people will have to take a risk and buy possibly deteriorated games when they buy second-hand digital games, then you have to acknowledge that there is a difference between digital and physical.

[alexandertnt]

then you have to acknowledge that there is a difference between digital and physical.

They are actually pretty much the same (a licence to use a piece of software, digital/physical is only means of transport of said software). Keep in mind that they are not buying a deteriorated game, only a licence to use the software. However I agree that they are treated differently by people. So technically, no. Effectively, yes. But since it is the effect of importance here, then I agree with your statement. I was using the word similar in my previous post.

In regards to second-hand-risk, one can just look at the would-be purchased disk for damage (or get the second hand car checked out by a mechanic, or rely on the warrenty that alot of second-hand dealers provide to negate the risk of purchasing second hand). Also, when you buy a digital game, while it will definetely run, it may not be what you expect/fun at all. Since the purpose of a game is to provide fun, then one could say that "Buying a game has some risk in regards to its purpose" in much the same way that a second hand car "has some risk in regards to its purpose (transport)". No this is not perfect (This would also apply to a first-hand game, but not to a first-hand car) but it highlights some similarities between the two.

[EuchreJack]

I think everybody is losing sight of the real question: Don't gamers deserve some kind of rights to the games they purchase?

The EU High Court say yes.  I'm not going to argue with the EU High Court.

[Shadowlord]

All my 3.5" floppy disks are DEEEEAAAAADDDDDDDD, filled with bad sectors, and unreadable. I didn't bother to include a floppy drive in this computer, because it seemed pretty pointless. They aren't floppy, either. What a crock!

This didn't happen from copying data. This happened from them existing. Sitting in a sealed container. Fucking magnets? I don't know.

I haven't had any CDs stop working, but they presumably will at some point because they do degrade, but again that is not happening when files are copied. Hard drives also fail in time (I have had one die on me separate from the computer, another was fried with a computer ~11 years ago), but Steam just lets you redownload stuff.

(The 5.25" Commodore 64/128 floppy discs continued to work several decades later. I am unsure if they still work today since I haven't tested them in the past 10 years or more.)

[fenrif]

I just love how all the other arguements have been abandoned and now the huge sticking point is that digital copies are everlasting immaculate things that never lose value in any way whatsoever, wheras physical copies are sullied and filthy the moment anyone lays a hand on them.

The idea that the physical degredation of an item is completely divorced from it's value is kinda funny too. The whole reason the physical condition of an opbject was brought up is because it's a decrease in the value. And as I've said before, the value of a game is based on waaaay more than just the physical condition of the bits and bytes of the game itself. But please lets keep belabouring  the same point ad infinitium!

Using their wonderful "Backup" option one could easily back up the files onto disks, you remember those right?
not to mention how often things go wrong with games and files need to be re-downloaded.

As it is they sell  "Access" to the files opposed to the files.
and thats the way it should be.

Personally as an indie programmer I have no problem with people sharing games, the problem comes when they sell them to other people, as that takes away money from the developers. A lot of people are known to 'pirate' a game to try it instead of getting a demo, and then paying for it if they like it enough.
So as I see it, they might not want to send developers money since they bought it cheaper from a 3rd party. 

I'm imagining right now that I've released a game for 10$, and then someone buys a copy, and starts selling copies of that copy for 3 dollars.
Now the costs of making that game, are tossed out the window, as well as the ability to make any money now that someone is selling the game I made for 3 dollars.

No they don't sell "access" to games. They sell you games. Selling access to something is basically a way of dancing around the word "rental" and it's not what Steam does. Complaining about piracy, and people breaking the law is basically entirely outside the perview of this thread, and is dangerously close to the fearmongering game publishers have used for years to encroach on their customers rights. You may aswell complain that if you make a game someone could kick your door down and shoot you for all the profits you made on it, so you'll never make any money. It's entirely besides the point of this discussion.

Thats not really what I'm saying here.

What I mean to say is that, people won't pay for something twice.
If you can buy something cheaper with little effort, you'll do it generally, regardless of if its brand new or not.
And with digital its Always brand new.

Personally I love frequenting pawn shops, but I know that if I buy something there for 5-10$ I'm not going to go and buy the same thing from the original developers for full price.

Early on in this thread someone mentioned buying games for half price and selling them for 80%, so if you can get 20% off of regular price, you'll go there wouldn't you? I sure as hell would.
I have more morals than I have money to spend, I can spare tossing some of my morals out the window to save a buck

People will buy something twice. Look at GOG.com. That's a company whos entire buisness model is based upon selling things people have allready owned for an extremely reduced price. It works for two reasons, the value of those games has deteriorated drastically in the years since they were released and because people will literally have no problem buying something twice in many situations. For another example look at the FF7 re-release. Personally I think it's extremely lacklustre but you can bet your right arm that it'll be a huge success because people will throw money at that game due to nostalgia. And I know this isn't really your main point, and isn't entirely an apt comparison, but I thought it worth pointing out that people will definatly pay for something twice.

Buying something for half price and selling it for 80% of the price IS NOT IMMORAL. It's called capitalism. It's called good  buisness. It's literally the foundation of the entire economic system that the world has been based on since humans abandoned the barter system. I've said this at least once in the thread, and like most of my points it was ignored because it's a lot harder to argue than "physical copies degraaaaaade!!!" The fact that you literally said that buying low and selling high is immoral completely baffles me, and I seriously hope you ellaborate on this point. Please please explain how this is in anyway wrong (and by that I mean wrong in every industry the world over, and not just as "videogames are a special case")

And I'll reitorate a point I've made repeatedly in the thread without anyone responding:

Just because the bits and bytes of a digital game don't spontaniously combust like phsycial copies apparently do, doesn't mean that it's value is brand-new untill the end of time. And the value is the really important part here. Sure the physical condition something is a huge part of it's value, but I don't really think that's a huge factor in video games. Video games are an entertainment product, which throws in a whole bundle of new value-judgements for any purchaser beyond any random physical object like a chair or a car. A video game that has been out for a year is LESS VALUEABLE than a video game that has been out for a day. That's the nature of entertainment: People want to play what's new, and they'll pay a premium for it. And I'm not just talking about madden 12 versus madden 11 (which is a whole other kettle of fish). Obviously certain games are exceptions to this, and certain people wont agree, but just look at video game prices and tell me that things don't drastically go down very quickly a year or so after release.

Things like system compatability, multiplayer servers, multiplayer community, and even graphics can drastically effect the value of a game over time. A game sold today might be worth half as much a year from now, when the community has left it. In 2 years from now it might be worth even less because the graphics are now dated. In 5 years it could be completely worthless because it wont run on modern OSes. This is the degredation of digital copies. And yes I know it's not a physical degredation, but it's just as important because it directly effects the value arguably more than the condition of the box a game was sold in.

And lets face it, when people talk about physical degredation of video games, the quality of the box is what they'e talking about. I've bought hundreds of pre-owned games, for countless sytems. And never had the game not work. Every game shop in the UK shows you the disc before you take it home, they do dist repairs as a standard thing for pre-owned games. There's literally no difference between a pre-owned disc and a brand new disc. The way people are talking in this thread it's as if any pre-owned game bought from a brick or mortar has a 50/50 chance of setting fire to your console when you try to play it.

I think everybody is losing sight of the real question: Don't gamers deserve some kind of rights to the games they purchase?

The EU High Court say yes.  I'm not going to argue with the EU High Court.

You are entirely correct. This is the crux of the whole debate. Video game publishers have been arguing for years that we don't deserve any rights. Their reasons are as changing and as substantial as the wind. But it all amounts to the idea that video games are somehow so radically different a product from any other human production that the rules don't apply to them.

I think the main thing that annoys me, is that it's entirely a one way street with issues like this. It's a case of "well digial copies can't be resold" "pre-owned games aren't allowed" "you don't own any of your games, you just have access." But with no concession in favour of the customers. Digital games aren't any cheaper than retail games. They want you to pay purchase prices but get a rental. They want no pre-owned, but only want to sell games that last 6 hours with no replayability. It's a pattern of customer-hostile buisness practices that has been going on for years.

[LordSlowpoke]

thing is, bits can be flipped randomly each time something is copied, leading to degradation over time, as well.

People in this thread keep saying this, but this is why error detection and correction routines exist, which are part of any reading/writing operation.

and physical degradation can be avoided easily, provided you look after it. the physical copy will degrade over time, that's a given, but you're talking about hundreds of years with a well looked after copy. there's a reason I could buy a 'like new' version of populous a few years back.

EDIT: derp, populous: the beginning. point still stands, however.

I'm just going to jump in with what was supposed to be a PTW to claim i have a copy of "Les Trois Mousquetaires" printed circa 1850 in Prussia. It was in regular usage for at least a century now, and it's in better shape than most books that I've seen bought during the last decade. I don't think anyone cared for it in a special manner, too. Make your own conclusions.

[Felius]

I wonder in case this new rulings get a hold of the market if it wouldn't be better for smaller developers to use kickstarter to get the money, and release it as freeware instead. Of course, then the problem would be the freerider problem.

Also, just one quick point:

People will buy something twice. Look at GOG.com. That's a company whos entire buisness model is based upon selling things people have allready owned for an extremely reduced price. It works for two reasons, the value of those games has deteriorated drastically in the years since they were released and because people will literally have no problem buying something twice in many situations. For another example look at the FF7 re-release. Personally I think it's extremely lacklustre but you can bet your right arm that it'll be a huge success because people will throw money at that game due to nostalgia. And I know this isn't really your main point, and isn't entirely an apt comparison, but I thought it worth pointing out that people will definatly pay for something twice.

People buy stuff from GOG generally because either their physical copies have degraded or because their physical copies create issues when trying to make the software compatible with modern systems. It's really not a good comparison.

[G-Flex]

The DOS games generally do use a prepackaged DOSbox installation, yeah, but sometimes they do a bit more than that as well. It depends on the game.

[NRN_R_Sumo1]

ITT: players attack developers incomes so that indie developers no longer exist and all you get is call of duty and sims

[Urist Imiknorris]

In This Thread.