Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 24th May 2013 17:26 UTC
Games So, the Xbox One disaster continues. Microsoft's policy for dealing with the used games market has reportedly leaked - and it's a clear and direct attack to destroy the used games market. Prices for used games will be set at the retail value of a new game, and retailers have to hook into Microsoft's computer systems and comply with Microsoft's terms and conditions.
Thread beginning with comment 562632
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Comment by jigzat
by jigzat on Fri 24th May 2013 17:36 UTC
jigzat
Member since:
2008-10-30

The blurry line between fair use and developers and publishers bankruptcy. For us gamers feels like friendship or fair use but when that means a developer might get just 1/5 of the projected profit it becomes dangerous. We all have done it, is legal, we all have friends but developers have the right to protect their profit after all without that there would be no amazing games.

Reply Score: -3

RE: Comment by jigzat
by Kochise on Fri 24th May 2013 17:47 in reply to "Comment by jigzat"
Kochise Member since:
2006-03-03

There is protecting, and there is robbing.

Protecting would imply using a 'token'-based system, the original user getting his original price paid back (minus some fee) and the second hand user getting the copy at a bargain price.

To sum it up, after each selling iteration, an original copy would generate 100%, 100-90+100=110%, 110-90+100=220%, ... (cost rounded and approximated)

Robbing is making almost 100% profit$$$ on each sales, that's to say 100%, 195%, 290%, 395%, ... profit on each originally sold copy.

Kochise

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[2]: Comment by jigzat
by jigzat on Tue 28th May 2013 18:06 in reply to "RE: Comment by jigzat"
jigzat Member since:
2008-10-30

truth, but a way of protecting their investment is actually charging more for those who actually pay, is the same logic some countries use for their taxes. But remember right now everything is a rumor, as someone says "It's the economy stupid" if they charge a lot people would simply not buy it, after all there is competition and they know that.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE: Comment by jigzat
by B. Janssen on Fri 24th May 2013 18:26 in reply to "Comment by jigzat"
B. Janssen Member since:
2006-10-11

We all have done it, is legal, we all have friends but developers have the right to protect their profit after all without that there would be no amazing games.

This is a terrible, terrible wording. Nobody has a right to profit. And nobody has a right to protect anything by trampling on the rights of others. This is another real "old Europe" achievement, look it up.

Reply Parent Score: 8

RE[2]: Comment by jigzat
by BushLin on Tue 28th May 2013 17:03 in reply to "RE: Comment by jigzat"
BushLin Member since:
2011-01-26

I totally agree with your sentiment...

Then I looked up "old Europe" as you suggested but couldn't see how it related to what Microsoft are doing.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Europe_%28politics%29

If anything "old Europe" seemed to a body upholding the rights of others in the face of disingenuous arguments for starting a war.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE: Comment by jigzat
by Bill Shooter of Bul on Fri 24th May 2013 22:01 in reply to "Comment by jigzat"
Bill Shooter of Bul Member since:
2006-07-14

For us gamers feels like friendship or fair use but when that means a developer might get just 1/5 of the projected profit it becomes dangerous. We all have done it, is legal, we all have friends but developers have the right to protect their profit after all without that there would be no amazing games.


That's obviously wrong. Who cares what percentage of total revenue a single game generates is? I don't. Its not my responsibility. There are already great games today with our current system, changing the system to push more revenue towards one party many not result in a better system for all interested parties.

I have not purchased a game system since 2003, so I can't really call myself a gamer. But your ploy to make me weep over the largely successful game developers is just absurdly wrong on so many, many levels. If I were to buy one, I would favor any other company due to the used games situation. And I've heard all of my colleges, who do buy several console games a month say the same.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE: Comment by jigzat
by Soulbender on Sat 25th May 2013 01:44 in reply to "Comment by jigzat"
Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

The blurry line between fair use and developers and publishers bankruptcy


There's no blurry line.

but developers have the right to protect their profit after all without that there would be no amazing games.


Except that in many countries with decent consumer protection developers, or publishers actually, have no right to dictate what I do with merchandise after I have purchased it. I can give it to a friend, sell it to some guy on the street or tear it to shreds and burn it. It is none of their business.

Reply Parent Score: 8

RE[2]: Comment by jigzat
by Moredhas on Mon 27th May 2013 20:59 in reply to "RE: Comment by jigzat"
Moredhas Member since:
2008-04-10

Now there's a point. If you don't really own your game, if it represents future profits for the publisher, what happens if you do destroy it? Are you depriving them of a future sale? Will there be laws against defacing the media?

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[2]: Comment by jigzat
by jigzat on Tue 28th May 2013 18:13 in reply to "RE: Comment by jigzat"
jigzat Member since:
2008-10-30

Actually it is, when you purchase software your are not buying it, they are licensing it to you for your own use, in fact if you purchase a copy of Windows for example you shouldn't be re-selling it, first because you click on the agree button and accepted the user agreement and second the law actually forbids it. Most companies and countries don't enforce that law because is very difficult to trace but, for example, in my country the tax recollection institution actually verifies that companies have a properly licensed software. It is only a matter of time for the law to enforce the law to consumers too.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[2]: Comment by jigzat
by jigzat on Tue 28th May 2013 22:45 in reply to "RE: Comment by jigzat"
jigzat Member since:
2008-10-30

problem is that you cannot directly compare a physical product with a virtual one. The production model is different, with a physical product the production cost is differed during the life cycle but in software the whole cost is used before selling the first unit. And when you purchase a DVD or a blu-ray or what ever that is not the actual product, it is a distribution form. Is very similar to movies although the time frame to make a profit is smaller.

Let's put an example, when you purchase a movie theater ticket, the ticket is not the movie itself, is just a permission to watch the movie, and lets say that instead of actually paying for a movie ticket you print a very similar one and access the theater or you give it away to everyone around you because you are so cool and believe in freedom, you are not physically robing anyone or breaking into the theater during the night, but you are decrementing the profit of the producers their investors and the theater.

As long as the company remains profitable no biggie, you could say, "you see... printing movie theater tickets doesn't hurt anyone look at X company they are still making profit" but this company makes a big mistake and invest into a crappy movie and they lost a lot of money, so much they declare in bankruptcy because they didn't had any savings. That is when a company say, "look if all the people that watched the previous movie had purchased the ticket we could have more saving to keep working in a different project".

Developing software specially games is not easy, is really expensive, not every product is successful even if it is technically good. You could use as an example free software but most of free software is supported or subsidized by hardware vendors.

I might used the wrong words before, but I meant that investors have the right to protect their profit not to profit no matter what.

So far we have only heard rumors, there is no official stance towards used games so those numbers might be overblown. Thankfully there is competition and they are not going to shoot themselves into the foot.

Piracy is a harsh word that is used broadly by media companies and although the motivation is different the effect of piracy or game borrowing is the same to them.

Some others have said that there are studies that show that people who uses piracy products are more prone to purchase it, but I have only read that study about music, and you are wrongfully applying the same logic to every media.

In music is logical since you listen to you music several times a week during many years, but with movies and video games you won't. Although we all have a favorite movie that we have watched many times in most occasions you play a game or watch a movie once or twice, so most people are not going to pay for a movie after they have seen it.

Just conclude you cannot compare software to a physical product.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE: Comment by jigzat
by phoenix on Mon 27th May 2013 17:49 in reply to "Comment by jigzat"
phoenix Member since:
2005-07-11

but developers have the right to protect their profit after all without that there would be no amazing games.


Nobody, nowhere, has a "right" to profit! Period.

Everyone has the option of going into business and trying to sell things. But nobody has a "right" to actually make money and stay in business.

If you have a product or service that people want to pay for, and that you can sell for more than it costs to produce, great!

But don't go complaining about your "right to profit" if nobody wants your product/service, or you can't sell enough, or you can't sell it for more than it costs to produce.

Adapt, or get out of the business. Simple as that.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[2]: Comment by jigzat
by jigzat on Tue 28th May 2013 18:21 in reply to "RE: Comment by jigzat"
jigzat Member since:
2008-10-30

investors DO have the right to protect their profit, is part of all business legislation across the world… well except communist countries but as the history has tell us many times communism doesn't work. Look at China the are supposed to be communist (socialist ) but in reality they are as capitalist as the USA or maybe more. If we have a communist economy where no one has the right to profit their investment we would still be playing mahjong or chess and we wouldn't be having this conversation.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[2]: Comment by jigzat
by Soulbender on Wed 29th May 2013 01:56 in reply to "RE: Comment by jigzat"
Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

Nobody, nowhere, has a "right" to profit! Period.


Andrew Ryan disagrees.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE: Comment by jigzat
by erak on Tue 28th May 2013 01:27 in reply to "Comment by jigzat"
erak Member since:
2006-09-24

developers have the right to protect their profit after all without that there would be no amazing games.

So if they didn't protect their profits before, how were they able to produce games?

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[2]: Comment by jigzat
by jigzat on Tue 28th May 2013 18:02 in reply to "RE: Comment by jigzat"
jigzat Member since:
2008-10-30

Internet has change the way we access information, in the past sharing was confined to a small number of people but today sharing means thousands of people, in the past there were limitations that gave them some type of "protection" internet was slow, storage was limited and burnable media was scarce. The other way of protection is actually charging more to those who actually pay.

Video games are not like movies where most of the time you can at least recover your investment in the theaters and after that is all profit, video games have a small window of opportunity to make a profit.

Reply Parent Score: 1