Print

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

[pilgrimboy]

Am I, as a consumer, a part of the industry?

[Shadowlord]

By all rational standards, no.

Edit: Unless you are part of the industry in some other way, e.g. a developer, artist (for games), musician (for games), voice actor (for games), indie game maker, modder?, etc. Not sure if modders count. Executives of big software companies apparently count.

[fenrif]

Since we cleared up that there is a difference between digital and physical - something some were trying to say didn't exist - I'll move on.

Another key component of the issue is whether the market should decide how games are made and sold/purchased or whether video games are an essential enough industry that we need government regulations telling us how the industry and consumer rights should be managed.

In the former, if people think that secondhand selling is good to the industry, they should start a business that will do that. That's the way the free market works. Negotiate deals with publishers and start selling secondhand digital games. Or you can just tell people who make the games and distribute the games how they should do it the way you want. That's a lot easier than trying to actually create a company that proves this is what the consumer wants, is willing to financially support, and is superior to the system we currently have. Develop the system. Get publishers on board. And run with it. Make your millions. If it's good for the industry, then it shouldn't be that hard to get it going.

One other brief note to the conversation going on. The movie industry is a terrible example. They have a window of exclusivity making profit in the movie theaters. Games have no such window. And if secondhand reselling happens that exclusive window to make a profit has been narrowed to about one second. Whether a movie is eventually digital or not does not matter during the whole time it is in the movie theater.

I wasn't aware we cleared up that the difference between digital and physical products mattered? That it doesn't matter has been the crux of many of my points. I don't think anyone's really adressed them beyond "but degredation!!!"

And the essentiallity of video games has no bearing on this arguement at all. This isn't a matter of it needing governement regulations, this is a matter of the government saying "yes, your consumer rights STILL APPLY like in every other situation where purchases are made!" The market has been trying to dictate this interaction for years, and that's exactly why the EU had to step in and basically say "no, you can't do that."

I'll agree that Hollywood may not be a perfect example, but the DVD industry certainly is. Quite a lot of DVDs don't get cinematic releases, or get very small releases. There's more to movies than just Hollywood just as there's more to games than just EA.

[Cecilff2]

You also seem to excuse the point here that like most games, dvd's can be easily completed within a week or two of release date.
If someone makes a game that has only 20 hours of gameplay, and players burn through it in a weekend, then sell it, the people playing it after them would not be giving money to the developers, thus this short game will not make money for the developer.

All I can see this doing is making initial prices go up so that people can still make a small profit before everyone sells off their copies to other players.

The reason people can buy from pawn shops without affecting much is that, those big companies sell directly to stores, not to the players.
If you cut out the middle man, then the developer relies on the initial buyers to pay them.

So you think it's a good idea to reinforce the industry standard to make games that you complete really quickly and have no replay value?

No sir, I don't like it.

If companies want to see more first hand sales, they should focus on making games that people won't want to resell.

[pilgrimboy]

I wasn't aware we cleared up that the difference between digital and physical products mattered? That it doesn't matter has been the crux of many of my points. I don't think anyone's really adressed them beyond "but degredation!!!"

No reason to move on to other areas then. We'll just have to agree to disagree that you think digital isn't different than physical.

If I were to vote on the issue, which isn't likely to happen, I would vote for publishers to be able to sell what they want how they want. Publishers could/should argue that they are providing digital amusement parks for people to play in rather than an end product to be consumed. I can't go to Cedar Point and tell them how I want to start using their rides, yet it still costs me forty dollars. Nor should I be able to go to Toady and tell him how I think his product should be sold/used. He made it for my enjoyment. But he controls the experience because it is the experience that he made.

[Zangi]

My 2 bits...
1. They'll have a workway to 'get their money back' on second hand scales, IE Mass Effect 2+3
2. It'll be multiplayer only or at least have a very strong emphasis on multiplayer that encourages people to play longer and bring more into the fold, which puts a negative modifier on resale.
3. Longer games, though it may just be adding more grinding, to get people to play it longer before they resell it.
4. A company will come out of the wood-works just buying and reselling used digital games, if not one of the established ones.

I see no oncoming apocalypse. 

Steam, if they want to get with the times, just buys the game back themselves and resell if they so please or whatever financial way they have about it... 
Many people will instead sell direct to Steam if its much more convenient then reselling it to another player...  which Steam could obviously make happen with UI/process 'creativity'...
And/or Steam can set themselves as an arbiter of trade for the players, making it super convenient and take a cut of it.

Edit: Fun times, typing up a post while doing other stuff...

[pilgrimboy]

Multiplayer only would be an apocalypse for me. I love those single player games.

[Zangi]

Multiplayer only would be an apocalypse for me. I love those single player games.

Except there will still always be single player games...  Sure, the big AAA folks may gravitate toward multiplayer heavy games... but there are still many other developers who will fill in the single player, regardless of digital resale being allowed.  And even then, those AAA folks can always use something similar to the Mass Effect 2/3 model...

[pilgrimboy]

As long as it remains profitable.

[alexandertnt]

Another key component of the issue is whether the market should decide how games are made and sold/purchased or whether video games are an essential enough industry that we need government regulations telling us how the industry and consumer rights should be managed.

It seems strange that the right to reselling something would be considered a government regulation instead of part of the market.

Infact the current government regulations in every other country exist to restrict your ability to resell the game (copyright etc), that is not being able to resell the game is not a natural part of the market for the gaming industry.

It would be like a car manufacturer complaining about those damn government regulations permitting people to resell their cars "Oh but we would lose money" (which they would, but that does not mean we shouldn't be able to resell it).

On a further note about cars, the EMS software is copyrighted. It seems that if software deserves special protection from the market, then a car manufacturer could demand that you cease using the EMS (making the car worthless).

If I were to vote on the issue, which isn't likely to happen, I would vote for publishers to be able to sell what they want how they want. Publishers could/should argue that they are providing digital amusement parks for people to play in rather than an end product to be consumed. I can't go to Cedar Point and tell them how I want to start using their rides, yet it still costs me forty dollars. Nor should I be able to go to Toady and tell him how I think his product should be sold/used. He made it for my enjoyment. But he controls the experience because it is the experience that he made.

Except games are not services, they are products. The metaphor you used involving Cedar Point would be equivalent to going to a publisher and telling them how to design their games. Infact selling games would be better represented by selling the ticket (since it represents your ability to use this "amusement park"). Which is legal (at least in most countries).

[fenrif]

As long as it remains profitable.

Your base assumption is that people only create art for profit? Or is it that you think video games cannot be art? Again, do you see the irony of posting this on a forum dedicated to a game that has been released for free, and coincidentally is also singleplayer?

I wasn't aware we cleared up that the difference between digital and physical products mattered? That it doesn't matter has been the crux of many of my points. I don't think anyone's really adressed them beyond "but degredation!!!"

No reason to move on to other areas then. We'll just have to agree to disagree that you think digital isn't different than physical.

If I were to vote on the issue, which isn't likely to happen, I would vote for publishers to be able to sell what they want how they want. Publishers could/should argue that they are providing digital amusement parks for people to play in rather than an end product to be consumed. I can't go to Cedar Point and tell them how I want to start using their rides, yet it still costs me forty dollars. Nor should I be able to go to Toady and tell him how I think his product should be sold/used. He made it for my enjoyment. But he controls the experience because it is the experience that he made.

You can move on if you want, but you keep bringing this point up about how digital products are fundamentally different from physical products from a value perspective. I don't think you've really made a compelling argument for your point, and I'm pretty sure you've not actually responded to any of my points. I was just pointing out it's a little premature to say "oh well, we've settled that then."

Just to summarize because it's entirely possible I've missed a post and hopefully someone can point out to me where it is: Your argument as I recall it is that they are different because physical things degrade, that digital things don't, and that with digital sales the lack of degredation means pre-owned cannot be allowed as it would mean noone would buy any copies of a game after a critical mass of people had theirs due to constant trading. That, in essence, game sales would collapse as people would just buy a copy and sell it on ad infinitum.

I've put forth that some physical things degrade, some don't and it's not hard to find things in perfect working order. For example, pre-owned DVD's that still play perfectly fine, and pre-owned games that play perfectly fine. Things like DVD's aren't difficult to keep in working condition. This hasn't led to the death of the DVD or video games industry. That the value of a piece of entertainment (which is the real crux of the issue; that digital pre-owned and new are the same value) is much more than the physical condition of the media it's stored on. It's tied to numerous things like it's age, it's quality, it's replay/rewatch-ability. I've also said that with games in particular there are other issues to consider such as multiplayer servers being shut off, multiplayer communities dying off, OS incompatability, graphics becoming obsolete, other games in the genre doing the same thing better, etc. And that the value of a piece of entertainment is generally much more complicated than the condition of the media on which it is stored. I'd also argue that the physical condition of things like the box a game comes in, the instruction manual, etc are completely besides the point in this discussion, since you don't get those with pre-owned games and we're solely talking about the condition of the actual game itself (though feel free to disagree).

I can't help but feel like you've reduced your arguement down to this single point and haven't actually responded to any of my posts on this subject. Again, please correct me if I'm wrong.

Noone is saying publishers cannot sell what they want how they want. That's exactly how it works under the EU ruling as it's been interpreted in this thread. What they can't do is dictate what you can do with something once it's been sold to you, or violate your rights as a consumer with their buisness practices.

In the same sentance there you're saying that we as customers aren't allowed to dictate how their property should be used, but implying it's ok for publishers to tell us how our property can be used. You're either contradicting yourself or for some reason you value your rights lower than other peoples because you give them money for something.

Toady controls the experience yes. Up untill he sells you something. Then you control that thing. This is how buying things works.

I feel like I keep repeating myself over and over in this thread. Is it just me?

[Zangi]

If I were to vote on the issue, which isn't likely to happen, I would vote for publishers to be able to sell what they want how they want. Publishers could/should argue that they are providing digital amusement parks for people to play in rather than an end product to be consumed. I can't go to Cedar Point and tell them how I want to start using their rides, yet it still costs me forty dollars. Nor should I be able to go to Toady and tell him how I think his product should be sold/used. He made it for my enjoyment. But he controls the experience because it is the experience that he made.

Except games are not services, they are products. The metaphor you used involving Cedar Point would be equivalent to going to a publisher and telling them how to design their games. Infact selling games would be better represented by selling the ticket (since it represents your ability to use this "amusement park"). Which is legal (at least in most countries).

Oh jah...  amusement parks?  I'm going to say that the only games which can be defined as such would have to be MMOs and other such multiplayer games where the company(or xbox/ps3) hosts the multiplayer service.  As in, you are playing on their premises and subject to their rules of conduct and what-not...
Also, amusement park related stuff are defined as services, not products...

I really do hate how the game/software/media industry are trying to make it look like they are selling a license so that they can keep control of their products out of the hands of the consumer...  Especially for inherently single player games. 
Its fine with MMOs and multiplayer centric games at least, but even with the multiplayer centric games, they are disabling the ability for players to privately host their stuff and what-not... which is another matter...

[pilgrimboy]

Again, do you see the irony of posting this on a forum dedicated to a game that has been released for free, and coincidentally is also singleplayer?

You mean the game that you don't have the right to tweak or resell? We're talking about the same thing, right?

[pilgrimboy]

Would your logic work in reverse?

Could I pay the price that Toady wants for DF (free) and then repackage it and sell it however I want?

Or does Toady have the right to say that I can't sell it even after I have legally obtained it?

[pilgrimboy]

We want digital without degradation. Somehow, someone has to legally provide fresh copies for the degraded copies. Should a secondhand buyer have the right to a fresh install? Why should they? Why should a publisher provide that if they aren't making any money on it?

Is the debate just about us getting games cheaper? Or is it about the right that I should be able to do whatever I want with games I buy? Would there be any limitation on my ability to do whatever I want with a game I buy? Could I tweak the coding and the game could then be mine to sell? Why not?