Print

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

[pilgrimboy]

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...

Why would an amusement park have to be multiplayer? If I went into an amusement park alone and all the workers were there to help me, would it not still be an amusement park?

[fenrif]

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

You can tweak it. There are mods all over these forums from people tweaking the game. You can't resell it because resell means to sell something you've bought it. You can't resell something you can't buy. If you mean that we can't sell copies we've downloaded for free then I honestly dispair that I'm going to have to explain how that is completely divorced from what we're talking about.

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?

AFAIK, and I'm so not a lawyer so feel free to correct me, you can sell anything you own. Now I'm not intimately familiar with the dwarf fortress TOS, but I imagine it's likely that it specifically says you cannot sell a copy you've downloaded. Now this is a bit of a murkey situation because EULA's don't tend to hold up in court. And of course not being a lawyer means I don't really understand hte legality of it... But the EULA for DF might hold more legal weight than for an EA/activison/sold game because there's no money changing hands.

But this is kinda besides the point, since you're arguing that being able to resell games would kill the games industry. This isn't reselling. And basic common sense says that selling something which is free for everyone is both a stupid buisness decision that will not make you money and wont actually harm the production of that product (or similar products like it). I guess you're just trying to find a way of demonizing my point of view without having to actually respond to my points properly?

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?

Most of this post is just drivel. But I'll respond to your last point. And I'm doing so that you're referring to changing the coding and reselling it as your own product rather than the specific copy you have modified, which is still perfectly legal.

You can't do that because the majority of the work would still be copyrighted/trademarked by the original creator. It's why you can't reshoot a scene on the Millenium Falcon and sell that with the rest of the original scenes as your own version of Star Wars. You seem to be grasping wildly for a point here. Equating selling your own property to profiting from someone elses work is just silly. You can modify a game you own, you can crack the copy protection on a game you own, and you can even read through the binary code if you wanted to.

I notice that after declaring we'd cleared up the difference between digital and physical you yet again refused to respond to any of my points or point to posts where you've done so previously. You seem to do that a lot. It's kinda dissapointing to be honest.

[MasterFancyPants]

C-C-COMBO BREAKER!
Also, where do you get the idea that we can't tweak DF? I play with Genesis mod and DFhack.

[alexandertnt]

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

What does tweaking have to do with anything? This discussion was about being able to resell a game. As you said, digital and physical games are not the same, but in regards to reselling, they effectively are. (For the record, I do believe people should be able to tweak games at least for their own use).

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?

Sort of. But the person would have to be pretty dumb. There is no way you could do this to anymore than a few people before they realise its free and they were scammed (there are also generally laws against unfair practices/scamming like this anyway that apply to physical objectsm, not to forget legal good faith, which you would not be acting in.).

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?

Yes they should have the right to a fresh install, it wont cost anything more. When Steam sells 1 copy, the money they make coveres the bandwith to download that game for that person. When that person sells the game its still only 1 person downloading the game.

Why would an amusement park have to be multiplayer? If I went into an amusement park alone and all the workers were there to help me, would it not still be an amusement park?

This would be equivilant to playing an MMO without anyone else in the game (For singleplayer, it would be equivalant to owning your own amusement park. No one else will ever be able to use it with you, only instead of you). You purchase a subscription to connect to their servers. You could sell that subscription (it would represent that digital purchase) in the same way you could sell a ticket to an empty amusement park. A subscription with 0 days on it would be as valuable as a used ticket - worthless.

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?

It is neither, it is about the law, and the right to resell a game you purchased (not to "be able to do whatever I want with game I buy"). When you resell it, you are selling the right to play the game, not your unique 1 and 0's. The same limitations apply to physical games, but you can still sell them. You cant resell that specific data because that is illegal, this law does not make that legal.

[Zangi]

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...

Why would an amusement park have to be multiplayer? If I went into an amusement park alone and all the workers were there to help me, would it not still be an amusement park?

Thats just it, in a single player game, you are not even going to the amusement park.  You are staying home, alone, to play that game in the comforts of your own home.  Except that the game industry has been insisting that a bouncer comes home with you, so he can make sure you are not letting other people play it... or *gasp!* install it more then 3 times on the same computer.
And now, they want to force you to show up at an empty amusement park, despite the fact that you can play the game perfectly, without their meddling.


Your argument would have more standing, if the single-player games are sold as subscription services, similar to MMOs... which can be canceled anytime the 'subscriber' damn well pleases.

[Shadowlord]

ME3's online pass was more important for the revised/extended endings than for the online pass, I think. I played until I hit 100% galactic readiness, and then realized that where I was, it wasn't reading it anymore and only cared that it was 50% when I started the previous mission. There was no hint of this in the game anywhere, naturally, but it turned out to be unnecessary to go above 50% (for anything other than achievements) anyways - I was able to get the best ending and even the hidden part of the one ending which only happens with a high score.

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

The one which shows Shepard somehow survived destroying most of the Citadel, and shows him taking a breath.

I prefer the synthesis ending anyhow, although I'm somewhat baffled that the AI which was able to take out its creators and numerous civs that followed it was apparently not sophisticated enough to come up with a non-lethal method of synthesis (or control - I, and it sounds like AIMindCloneShep as well, consider control to kill Shepard and create a copy of his mind in an AI construct, rather than being some sort of metaphysical transfer of consciousness).

[pilgrimboy]

I was just clearing up a thought. You agree that publishers have rights. So I'm not an evil, dictatorial, oppressive monster who is against fun for arguing the side I have been arguing. We're just trying to decide where the publisher's rights end and where the consumer's rights begin.

You act like I'm crazy, but we are not allowed to change Dwarf Fortress' source code and redistribute, are we? True, we can build mods on top of what already exists, but Toady has not allowed DF to be OpenSource.

So you still disagree that there is a difference between physical and digital goods.
But can we agree that the debate is actually not one where one side is evil and the other side good. We're just trying to decide where the publisher rights end and where the consumer rights begin.

[pilgrimboy]

And now, they want to force you to show up at an empty amusement park, despite the fact that you can play the game perfectly, without their meddling.

Their "meddling" made the game you're playing.

[alexandertnt]

I was just clearing up a thought. You agree that publishers have rights. So I'm not an evil, dictatorial, oppressive monster who is against fun for arguing the side I have been arguing. We're just trying to decide where the publisher's rights end and where the consumer's rights begin.

Of course publishers have rights, thats not in question. The question is the magnetude of those rights in regards to reselling software. Who said your evil, dictatorial or a monster? Its a debate, I am not critisizing you personally, for starters that would not prove any point and I, and I assume others here, are not critisizing you personally. Indeed, your points are thought provoking and are worth raising.

You act like I'm crazy, but we are not allowed to change Dwarf Fortress' source code and redistribute, are we? True, we can build mods on top of what already exists, but Toady has not allowed DF to be OpenSource.

Again, no one is acting like you are crazy, just disagreeing with you. (In regards to source code access) This law has nothing to do with access to source code, since we are not talking about stripping publishers of their rights. (This law says that developers do not have a right to stop resell, not that they had the right and it is being stripped.) When you go to an amusement park/buy a car, you dont get access to the amusement park/car-design trade secrets/blueprints etc, because you did not pay for them. Companies infact usually clain that their program source code is a literal trade secret. Toady does not have to release the source code because no one has bought them, nor has he given them to anyone (That is, I have not bought it therefore do not have access to it). As opposed to a complete game, which I did purchase and do have access, in which I argue for the ponit that that access/purchase should be transferrable.

So you still disagree that there is a difference between physical and digital goods.
But can we agree that the debate is actually not one where one side is evil and the other side good. We're just trying to decide where the publisher rights end and where the consumer rights begin.

I dont think anyone is really disagreeing with this point, Indeed my posts now have stated that there is acutally a difference. My argument relies on that difference not being a justification for restricting resale. For example, the fact that digital goods can be copied is reason to ensure that if someone buys a digital good, that that purchase means only one person can use it (that is you cant just upload it to a torrent and say your "giving it away for free") and that on sale/giveaway, the right for that person to use/sell etc it is forfeit.

No, no one is evil. I do not view anyone who thinks this law is bad to be an evil person, or someone who "is a slave to the big corporations" or something like that, just someone with an opposing viewpoint. People are entitled to their own viewpoint, and to debate their viewpoint. Hell, people should debate their viewpoint, debate is healthy and can help find flaws in either sides argument.

[fenrif]

I was just clearing up a thought. You agree that publishers have rights. So I'm not an evil, dictatorial, oppressive monster who is against fun for arguing the side I have been arguing. We're just trying to decide where the publisher's rights end and where the consumer's rights begin.

You act like I'm crazy, but we are not allowed to change Dwarf Fortress' source code and redistribute, are we? True, we can build mods on top of what already exists, but Toady has not allowed DF to be OpenSource.

So you still disagree that there is a difference between physical and digital goods.
But can we agree that the debate is actually not one where one side is evil and the other side good. We're just trying to decide where the publisher rights end and where the consumer rights begin.

Noone at any point ever said publishers don't have rights. Noone ever said you're an evil dictatorial monster. The problem people are having is when you and others who are arguing the same position as you rely entirely on hyperbolic strawman arguments and refuse to engage with any of the rebuttals to your point. You put forth an argument, and then when people respond to it you either ignore them completely or arbitrarily decide that we've all agreed on something somehow.

You're the one who said that being able to resell something you own will cause the end of video games, without being able to back up that point in any way shape or form. You focused your argument almost entirely on this physical/digital point, and flat out refuse to engage anyone discussing it. Identifying that we disagree is not engaging the discussion, it's an attempt to pretend you are without actually bothering to defend your argument. You've said people wont buy as many firsthand games if they can resell them, and then refused to engage that discussion too.

You've said this bill will mean paying more and having less games to chose from over all. You said being able to resell games would mean the end of all discounts on video games. You bemoaned the fact that publishers would only be able to make money from the initial sales (all anyone is actually entitled to) and then abandoned that point when I responded. You seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding of what this discussion is even about, multiple times suggesting that this is somehow an encroachment on the rights of video game publishers, or is some form of attack on their right to do buisness.

The crux of the argument is that this EU ruling doesn't change anything. It only confirms rights that have existed for hundreds (thousands?) of years still apply. If you're arguing against it you'll have to explain why consumer rights should be weakened for this specific instance. Considering you've mentioned in previous posts how we should let the market sort it out I'd be interested to see you argue how government regulation is OK in favour of big buisness, but (and I'm inferring from all your posts up to now) not for citizens. This isn't about deciding where publisher rights end or where consumer rights begin, it's about why this one specific entertainment industry needs to be essentially above the law with regards to their customers rights.

I don't even know what kind of point you're trying to make with regards to DF source code. Did you read my response to the last time you brought this up? It's a total non-sequitur that you've allready brought up once and I've responded too.

[Zangi]

I was just clearing up a thought. You agree that publishers have rights. So I'm not an evil, dictatorial, oppressive monster who is against fun for arguing the side I have been arguing. We're just trying to decide where the publisher's rights end and where the consumer's rights begin.

You act like I'm crazy, but we are not allowed to change Dwarf Fortress' source code and redistribute, are we? True, we can build mods on top of what already exists, but Toady has not allowed DF to be OpenSource.

So you still disagree that there is a difference between physical and digital goods.
But can we agree that the debate is actually not one where one side is evil and the other side good. We're just trying to decide where the publisher rights end and where the consumer rights begin.

You are making zero headway using DF Source Code as an example pilgrimboy.  Everyone here arguing against you already figures that Toady and other publishers/developers own the rights to decide how the source code of their games can or cannot be messed with.

And now, they want to force you to show up at an empty amusement park, despite the fact that you can play the game perfectly, without their meddling.

Their "meddling" made the game you're playing.

Yea, so that means they have the right to decide you can only play it under their arbitrary rules and conditions, despite the fact that you bought a singleplayer game that (shouldn't) require any further input from the 'amusement park'... ?

[pilgrimboy]

This one was to Fenrif:

I was talking with a lot of people at different times. Sorry if I didn't give your arguments the attention they deserved.

I wonder what is at the heart of the disagreement. I think I am fearful that this policy would cause less games to be made. I think you just want cheaper games.

And when it comes to predicting the future from a change in policy, one can never be 100% assured of their position. So I don't know how one can back up a futuristic prediction. It's our logic that differs that brings us to different conclusions concerning what the results of this bill would be. We draw from our experiences and make conclusions on perceived correlations.

It appears to me that a publisher would never do temporary sales again. It would be shooting themselves in the foot for a long period of time. If a game is selling for $20 and they drop it to $4.99 for a temporary sale. They would never sell that many games for $20 again. This is what happens a lot right now. This model will be gone.

Also, how much damage to sales would having secondhand consumers selling cause. I think it would be astronomical. But again, we can't prove it either way. It's purely futuristic speculation. I know I would wait ten days to get a game cheaper because I'm cheap and don't need the fancy baubles the day of their release.

If publishers make less money, then they will make less games. It won't be the end of the industry. It will just result in less games being made. I view that as a negative.

"If you're arguing against it you'll have to explain why consumer rights should be weakened for this specific instance."

How about you have to argue why the current system has to change. The burden of proof is typically on the one wanting to change the status quo, not on the one arguing to retain the status quo.

What changes do you think will result from the change? What negatives? What positives?

"It's a total non-sequitur."

It's not or I wouldn't have brought it up. You still refuse to see that this is a discussion about where publisher rights end and consumer rights begin. I don't know what I can do to help you see that because it seems apparent to me. Once we accept that, then we should move to trying to define what that gray area should look like.

If I didn't address one of your statements that you believe are important, please point it out again. But I would really like an answer to this: What changes do you think will result from the change? What negatives? What positives?

[pilgrimboy]

This law has nothing to do with access to source code, since we are not talking about stripping publishers of their rights. (This law says that developers do not have a right to stop resell, not that they had the right and it is being stripped.)

I agree that the law has nothing to do with the source code. I brought that up to show that we agree that publishers have certain rights. The question is whether publishers have the right to not allow reselling. And they currently have that right, so it would be stripped with a new law.

No, no one is evil. I do not view anyone who thinks this law is bad to be an evil person, or someone who "is a slave to the big corporations" or something like that, just someone with an opposing viewpoint. People are entitled to their own viewpoint, and to debate their viewpoint. Hell, people should debate their viewpoint, debate is healthy and can help find flaws in either sides argument.

Sorry if I came across that people were accusing me of being evil. I was just using exaggeration (never good in a debate) to show that we are just disagreeing on the gray area where publisher rights end and consumer rights begin.

[Zangi]

Eh, consumers have been able to resell video games in the past... its the fact that publishers having been introducing things that make it impossible to resell (some of the newer) video games now....   That change was not government forced or anything of the likes, it is purely an initiative of the publishers. 
So there is precedent that reselling video games is ok and had not killed the industry when it was younger.

[fenrif]

This one was to Fenrif:

I was talking with a lot of people at different times. Sorry if I didn't give your arguments the attention they deserved.

I wonder what is at the heart of the disagreement. I think I am fearful that this policy would cause less games to be made. I think you just want cheaper games.

And when it comes to predicting the future from a change in policy, one can never be 100% assured of their position. So I don't know how one can back up a futuristic prediction. It's our logic that differs that brings us to different conclusions concerning what the results of this bill would be. We draw from our experiences and make conclusions on perceived correlations.

It appears to me that a publisher would never do temporary sales again. It would be shooting themselves in the foot for a long period of time. If a game is selling for $20 and they drop it to $4.99 for a temporary sale. They would never sell that many games for $20 again. This is what happens a lot right now. This model will be gone.

Also, how much damage to sales would having secondhand consumers selling cause. I think it would be astronomical. But again, we can't prove it either way. It's purely futuristic speculation. I know I would wait ten days to get a game cheaper because I'm cheap and don't need the fancy baubles the day of their release.

If publishers make less money, then they will make less games. It won't be the end of the industry. It will just result in less games being made. I view that as a negative.

"If you're arguing against it you'll have to explain why consumer rights should be weakened for this specific instance."

How about you have to argue why the current system has to change. The burden of proof is typically on the one wanting to change the status quo, not on the one arguing to retain the status quo.

What changes do you think will result from the change? What negatives? What positives?

"It's a total non-sequitur."

It's not or I wouldn't have brought it up. You still refuse to see that this is a discussion about where publisher rights end and consumer rights begin. I don't know what I can do to help you see that because it seems apparent to me. Once we accept that, then we should move to trying to define what that gray area should look like.

If I didn't address one of your statements that you believe are important, please point it out again. But I would really like an answer to this: What changes do you think will result from the change? What negatives? What positives?

You're implying wanting cheaper game is somehow wrong? Is wanting cheap anything wrong? I mean yeah, I'm not exactly rich, so I'd like things in general to be cheaper, but that's not at all what this discussion is about. I'm much more interested in being able to trade games between me and my friends. I want to be able to sell a game I've beaten so I can buy another game. I want my consumer rights to not be eroded. I've said this MANY times. You need to stop trying to work out what I think via vague assumptions and psychic powers and actually respond to what I write, which is actually a pretty good indicator of what I think.

People will still do sales, just like how DVDs and music and books and every other entertainment product gets sales. This is the same sort of arguement the EA executive used when he said that steam-style sales are damaging the value of their IP's. It's also demonstrably wrong and evidenced by the fact that a week or two after he said that Origin had a Steam-style sale.

Second hand sales allready exist. They allready exist within the medium of video games. You say its futuristic speculation, but we have the entirity of civilized commerce to look at as an indicator that second hand sales don't destroy and industry. Infact with entertainment products it often benefits the industry.

I don't have to argue why the current system will change. This is the current system. The EU ruling didn't change anything, it said "yes, your rights still apply even with digital products." You seem desperate to cling to this notion that the ruling is a drastic change from the norm. It is not. What you're suggesting is.

If you want one of my statements to specifically respond to, please see every point I've made about the argument concerning how digital products aren't drastically different in terms of value. Pretty much anything I've said on that subject infact. I've asked you to respond to those points at least 3 times now. Normally in a debate or discussion one side makes a point, the other side responds to that statement, and then the first party defends his position and rebutts. What happened here is you made an assertation, I responded, and then you declared the subject closed and settled.

Just because you bring something up doesn't mean it's a non sequiter. The sun is purple and dogs come from mars! It's not a non-sequitor because I said it guys!

I'll say it again. It's not a discussion about where publishers rights end and consumers rights begin. That is a hugely wide-ranging subject that, while being the framing for this issue, isn't what we're talking about here. The discussion here is you explaining why this ONE specific industry that produces artistic entertainment goods needs to be exempt from consumer protection laws that have existed for hundreds of years and still apply in every other industry, buisness, transaction and trade that exists. Your arguement is that video game publishers and distributers should be somehow exempt from this, and you don't want to actually talk about the reasons why. You can hide behind "oh it's all future speculation and sci-fi predictions." But you're the one making this arguement.

It's very easy to hold your hands up and shout "the end is nigh!" But when someone asks "why?" you can't just claim that noone can know because we can't predict the future. You're the one arguging for a change in the status-quo, and if you then admit that you can't actually back up your position how do you expect anyone to be swayed by your words. Or to even take you seriously?

I agree that the law has nothing to do with the source code. I brought that up to show that we agree that publishers have certain rights. The question is whether publishers have the right to not allow reselling. And they currently have that right, so it would be stripped with a new law.

This, AFAIK is not true (and as I've said many times I'm not a lawyer so feel free to prove me wrong, it wont be difficult). Publishers never had the right to restrict reselling. They did it anyway because video game publishers are extremely customer-hostile. The ruling essentially says they have to stop trying to illegally restrict the right of first sale.