Print

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

[Sowelu]

Yoinked from the Steam thread to keep from derailing...

I have always had trouble believing in the legitimacy of PC game resale.  I mean, it took forever for rentals to even get off the ground.  Most resale I've seen has been of the garage-sale variety, where the value is seriously depleted.

I'm not saying that all PC game resale is illegitimate.  Only that most of it is.

Besides...I actually kind of have a problem with the whole concept of resale in general.  Yeah, resale of tools is firmly enshrined in our legal system, but the more technological you get, the less sense it makes, especially for media that you'll only use once. 

If you go to the zoo, can you resell your ticket after you leave?  No.  If you buy a season membership, can you sell it to someone else?  No, you might get fifty people who each use it on a different day, instead of actually paying real money to get in.  Hell, if you donate a ton of money and get a lifetime membership, can you sell it to someone else?  No.  And nobody complains.  Remember, resale means that the original creator GETS NOTHING from resale.

Let's look at a short game like, oh... I dunno, Eversion.  Yeah you might want to play it more than once, but the first playthrough is really the important mind-warping one.  Also it's pretty cheap (_{for this example, ignore the fact that there's still a free version out there}), and it's pretty SHORT, too.  If you've got a circle of ten friends, do you think it's really legitimate for one guy to buy a copy, then pass it to the next guy, who passes it to the next, until everyone has played it at home on their own time for the cost of a single copy?  Do you REALLY think that's the way that the sale of a one-shot artistic work is supposed to work...one person pays for it, then everyone they know can use it for free?



...Yeah, I'm going to go WAY the hell out on a limb, and suggest that sharing the consumption of creative works for a single price should be the exception and not the rule.  It would absolutely wreck the used-book industry.  There would be incredible upheaval all over the place, lots of people would lose their jobs, tons of companies would go out of business.  Yes, life would suck for a while, but I'm curious what would happen on the other side.  For one thing, media would probably be cheaper, because it would actually get paid for more often...

Also, imagine this model for games.  You buy a copy for $10.00, and it's just yours, can't be resold or used by anyone else's MegaGameServer account.  But you can buy a license extension for $2.50, and put another person on that game's license.  It lets them "borrow" it--only you or they can use it at any given time, and you can disable their use whenever you want--but 1) they get to use it cheap, and 2) the original content creator gets more $$ instead of no more $$.  You can add as many extensions as you want for that same price, but only one can be in use at a time.  If someone on an extended license decides they want to actually own it, they pay the difference in price to migrate to a full account ($7.50 in this case).

I think that would be a pretty cool way to loan a friend a game...and a good way to get it back when you want to, too.



I'm saying this stuff with the assumption that DRM isn't going away, that it's going to get stronger, and that it is NOT a bad thing...if implemented right.  Two absolute core assumptions to work from here are 1) The servers are ALWAYS available, aren't buggy, and being hacked will be no more frequent or disasterous as being physically robbed and 2) The service will never end and leave your media in limbo.

[Soulwynd]

Our cracking measures will get stronger, so will our ability to share.

I'm your complete antithesis but I really don't feel the need to explain myself again.

[Sowelu]

Eh, this is kind of different though.  It's an issue of "What gives a purchasing bloc of three or four friends the right to pay the same amount as any one other person, while still obtaining the same individual value for each of them".  Books, too.

[freeformschooler]

And once these measures are established, what's from keeping these companies from selling a new game at full price and then simply stopping its sale altogether as opposed to discounts? You'd have to buy it at full price to play it before it's lost in the annals of time and company protection.

Profit. If a company sells at full price for a certain period of time and then just decides to make their possibly four-year work DISAPPEAR, they've lost an incredible amount of potential profit. You see, there are these people who are "informed" "consumers" (I know, crazy, I still have met very few of them), and know how likely it is for the price on something to go down and when, and I can guarentee you that they will not buy it on the initial day, or at the initial price. The profit margin to be lost there is more than likely disproportionately higher than the profit margin lost when a certain fraction of their userbase decides to pass the product around (and even there, the assumption that they lose profit on this is based on the idea that all of the people who will be passing the work around are horrible people, and even if satisfied with the work, will not buy it after sharing, buy the upgraded/limitedplatinumdiamondsuperduper edition, or just plain buy it to support the producer/developer).

[Soulwynd]

Eh, this is kind of different though.  It's an issue of "What gives a purchasing bloc of three or four friends the right to pay the same amount as any one other person, while still obtaining the same individual value for each of them".  Books, too.

It's not. It's the same basic fact. Anything that depends on a media has no value besides the value people, in this case the consumer, gives it. The fact you shared the book has no meaning to the fact you paid for a book. Whoever wrote the book isn't short 2 or 3 books just because 2 or 3 friends also read it.

If you want to go that way, what gives the right to someone to charge for something when they have already made way past 100% of profit? I'm sorry, but if there will be absolutely no sharing whatsoever, they cannot be allowed to make more profit than the average profit for anything that depends on source materials in the market. Once they hit a certain profit margin, no more charging for the book/game/whatever, nothing besides the price of the media or bandwidth used, which would be a few cents, even in the case of a book.

[Krelian]

I think if I paid to OWN something, I can do whatever I please with such something, including reselling it.

[Gantolandon]

If you go to the zoo, can you resell your ticket after you leave?  No.  If you buy a season membership, can you sell it to someone else?  No, you might get fifty people who each use it on a different day, instead of actually paying real money to get in.  Hell, if you donate a ton of money and get a lifetime membership, can you sell it to someone else?  No.  And nobody complains.  Remember, resale means that the original creator GETS NOTHING from resale.

Do you have a Kleenex? I need it to wipe my tears.

...Yeah, I'm going to go WAY the hell out on a limb, and suggest that sharing the consumption of creative works for a single price should be the exception and not the rule.  It would absolutely wreck the used-book industry.  There would be incredible upheaval all over the place, lots of people would lose their jobs, tons of companies would go out of business.  Yes, life would suck for a while, but I'm curious what would happen on the other side.  For one thing, media would probably be cheaper, because it would actually get paid for more often...

You would get bigger piracy and even more imaginary losses on the side of the companies which do the distribution. Also, the disproportion between small-time distributors and the big ones would become greater, as the whole system would have to be supported by expensive DRM and an army of lawyers.

[Ivefan]

so... 1/3 of your post is about resale and the rest is about lending.
Games is a form of entertainment, just like books, movies, music. They all is displayed in, and generate venue in different forms.

In response to 1/3 of it;
You have bought an item and can rightfully sell it to someone else because you will no longer be able to use the item as you no longer have it in your possession.
And what kind of resale is illegitimate? You either resell it or you do not, Is there some other way that I cannot think of?

In response to the rest;
Lend your friend a book, they read it and might never read it again.
Lend your friend a game, they play it and might never play it again.
The first have a governmental institute built upon, lending books to people.
The second you say should be illegal.
What is the difference?

[Krelian]

You have bought an item and can rightfully sell it to someone else because you will no longer be able to use the item as you no longer have it in your possession.

Exactly was I meant. I buy a game, then I can sell it. It is my right to sell it as I can no longer play it after I do.

It is the companies problem if they dont offer enough replayability. If a game offer replayability (example strategy games with skirmish/multiplayer), I wont want to sell it, because in the future I probably will want to play more.

As in books, I got the lord of the rings. Have I sell that book? No! I read it again now and then. The same to all good books.

[freeformschooler]

Ah, but what's keeping the "informed consumers" from buying a used copy from a third party to save money? Granted, that would be impossible in the proposed scenario and therefore you'd be right.

My statement in my previous post may have been unrealistic, I understand, but restrictions tend to create additional restrictions, and looking at it from a worst-case scenario, I can see limitation of the source or exchange of games becoming a way to move people to buy the product.

If I'm completely wrong, let me know though. I'd rather be embarrassed and educated than naive.

I don't disagree with you're post. You were spot on on a lot of things, just not that specific part. If a retailer is going to make the product disappear (and have the ability to do that) after it being sold for full price, there probably won't be any discount third party retailers that would be allowed to sell for lower than full price, thus no discounts to be gained.

However in most current free market, used-book business models there is nothing stopping the informed consumers (or anyone else) from buying at a lower price third party. You are right on that. But you see, that partially negates the original point because the third party sellers had to buy (or somewhere down the line, someone did) from the first party producers/manufacturers and therefore they would not be imposing limitations that would be as undesirable as the stop-after-full-sale scenario.

Unfortunately, to stay on topic, this does not align perfectly with video games. Let's say a game is only released on Steam. Maybe the producers made an agreement with Steam that their video game WOULD disappear after being sold for full price. Since you can not just lend someone the digital copy, and the person to tend to can't just pick it up from someone else after a certain point, the limitations there would collapse the used book model for that specific product. Fortunately, we have just enough "informed" "consumers" that the outrage that would be probably to cause would leave a #BB0000-colored stain on their logo, especially if this is a business model they're only experimenting with.

[Zangi]

Used vehicles, tools, clothing, toys....  I don't now about you... but in America... some of us sell old stuff we don't use anymore. 
Possibly to used stuff dealers or directly to the next person that is going to use it.

Main problem I suppose is the original owner copying the data for themselves then going off and selling it...  which is a unique situation with software.  (Not so much with console games.....)

[kg333]

Lend your friend a book, they read it and might never read it again.
Lend your friend a game, they play it and might never play it again.
The first have a governmental institute built upon, lending books to people.
The second you say should be illegal.

My local library also has console video games available for checkout.  And that's not even getting into movies...most of the arguments in the OP would also apply to lending or reselling movies.

I'm saying this stuff with the assumption that DRM isn't going away, that it's going to get stronger, and that it is NOT a bad thing...if implemented right.

I lol'd.

Two absolute core assumptions to work from here are 1) The servers are ALWAYS available, aren't buggy, and being hacked will be no more frequent or disasterous as being physically robbed...

Lol'd again.

...The service will never end and leave your media in limbo.

OK man, seriously now, you need to lay off on the Kool-Aid.  I might take your ideas about lack of resale more seriously if your post didn't rest upon at least three assumptions that range from naive to idealistic to absurd.

KG

[Gantolandon]

Also it's pretty cheap (for this example, ignore the fact that there's still a free version out there), and it's pretty SHORT, too.  If you've got a circle of ten friends, do you think it's really legitimate for one guy to buy a copy, then pass it to the next guy, who passes it to the next, until everyone has played it at home on their own time for the cost of a single copy?  Do you REALLY think that's the way that the sale of a one-shot artistic work is supposed to work...one person pays for it, then everyone they know can use it for free?

Another rant, as this stuff is pretty scary. I mean seriously, what is wrong with the idea that people who are close enough to each other, share things they buy? If your friend wants to borrow a book - or a game - from you, should he be turned down? Do those friends do something wrong that should be punished or at least prevented from doing it?

I really wouldn't want to live in the society where people are expected to care more about industry and some guy's profit than their own friends. I don't think people should even ask for the distributor's consent when they want to watch a movie with their girlfriend or play a game together.

[Sowelu]

I guess I'm just saying that a lot of peoples' concept of "buying" and "owning" is outdated, and I'm trying to fundamentally question the doctrine of first sale.

When you have a physical object, and a substantial part of the price is the cost of creating it, transporting it, physically getting it from the mine to the factory to you--and when selling it means you CAN'T reuse it, as a physical limitation--it makes more sense.  But we've evolved past that point now.

I really don't see much difference between resale and lending.  In a fully developed resale economy, once you put something on the used market, you can buy it back off the used market for a little more than you got for it (or the same amount, depending on how long you wait for its value to go down).  The resale economy, to a large extent, IS about lending your copy of a work to the world-at-large, often in exchange for borrowing a copy of another work (yeah, there's a transition through currency, but this is one usual way it happens).  And unlike libraries, if you get a game off the used-game market, you are almost guaranteed not to buy it from the original publisher.  Sequels maybe, but still.

Anyway.  In this hypothetical situation where Alice buys a game and Bob makes use of it, I'd like someone to pinpoint exactly where it STOPS being piracy on Bob's part:
1) Alice installs a cracked copy on Bob's machine.  They both play it all they want.
2) Alice makes a copy of the CD that works without needing a crack and gives it to Bob.  They both play it all they want.
3) Alice installs it on Bob's machine.  It requires a code sheet.  She photocopies it for him.
4) Same as above, but they only use it while in the same physical location (Bob is visiting Alice or vice versa).
5) Very similar to above: They play at the same time in the same location, but they both refer to the same uncopied code sheet.
6) Alice installs it on Bob's machine somehow and makes a copy of the code sheet for him.  Alice only plays it while Bob is at school, and Bob only plays it while Alice is at school.  They live on different continents, so they never play it at the same time.
7) Alice and Bob both have copies of the code sheet. They agree that Alice plays it on odd-numbered days of the month and Bob plays it on even-numbered days.
8) Alice and Bob only have one code sheet, but they both keep the game installed.  They trade the code sheet back and forth on even- and odd-numbered days.
9) The game only runs from CD (maybe it's a console game).  Alice and Bob trade the entire game back and forth every day.
10) Alice plays through the entire game once, then gives it to Bob, who does the same.  They don't have it installed at the same time as each other.  When one of them wants to play it, they ask the other for the copy if it's free.  They have a large library of games they do this with.
11) Same as 10, but whenever one of them gives the game to the other, they ask for $1 in return.  With their large game library, it equals out over time.

Under today's legal system etc, I believe that 1 through 8 are piracy, while 9 through 11 are not.  With Steam, 1 through 11 are all piracy.  In ALL of these cases, both Alice and Bob get to play through the game to completion, and in ALL of these cases, the publisher is only paid one time.  Personally I'm on Steam's side.  With the exception of direct household family members (spouse + children under the age of 18), I suggest that it should not be possible to share creative works back and forth once they have been 'opened'.

So I'm curious.  Which numbered scenarios *exactly* are immoral, and which scenarios are not?  I want to know exactly where you guys draw the line.  Also:  Do your answers change if instead of it being two friends, it's oh, an entire large frat house (20-30 guys)?  What about if it's your workplace?  What if it's a small town?  What if it's everyone on the Internet?

Do your answers change if it's a book (or an ebook)?  Why?

I really wouldn't want to live in the society where people are expected to care more about industry and some guy's profit than their own friends. I don't think people should even ask for the distributor's consent when they want to watch a movie with their girlfriend or play a game together.

Then buy a copy for your friend, then you can care about your friend AND the guy who made whatever you're sharing.  As for 'watching a movie with whoever' or 'playing a game together on the same console using two controllers', those are pretty firmly established as okay.  Though it would be interesting to contrast 'two players on one console' versus 'two players on two consoles', yeah.  Now as for movies, they already say that 'not for public performance', so I'm sure you already know there's a difference between watching it with a friend and showing it at your own homemade drive-up theater.

...The service will never end and leave your media in limbo.

OK man, seriously now, you need to lay off on the Kool-Aid.  I might take your ideas about lack of resale more seriously if your post didn't rest upon at least three assumptions that range from naive to idealistic to absurd.

Come on.  I'm allowed to suppose those in order to limit the field of discussion.  This is about policy, not technical possibility.

Guys.  It's hypothetical.  I'm arguing way over in left field, I want to see where it goes.  Humor me a little?

[sluissa]

Re: Hypothetical situation.

If Alice and Bob trust each other enough, there's nothing saying that they can't do 6 through 11 all by sharing account information.

Alice creates an account, buys a game on it, gives account information to Bob. Steam prevents them from both using the account at the same time, but otherwise lets them do as they wish.

While I only skimmed it, I didn't find anything in the Steam subscriber agreement that says you can't let two people use one account as long as they're both not using it at the same time. If you can give me a quote that says otherwise, please, correct me. Of course, each game might have its own agreement that says otherwise, but steam itself doesn't.

Sorry... it was right there at the top. They don't want you doing that.