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 562722
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: Comment by jigzat
by Soulbender on Sat 25th May 2013 01:44 UTC 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[3]: Comment by jigzat
by WereCatf on Wed 29th May 2013 00:09 in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by jigzat"
WereCatf Member since:
2006-02-15

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.


That may be true in your country, but that's not true everywhere. Here in Finland, for example, EULAs are invalid except for the portions covered by copyright laws, so clicking on that agree - button does nothing. Secondly, the law states that if it quacks like a duck, walk likes a duck and sounds like a duck it is a duck, ie. if it's sold as a shelf product then it is a shelf product -- not a license -- and can be re-sold.

Just pointing this out because it seems you believe EULAs and the likes are the same all over the world.

Reply Parent Score: 2

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[3]: Comment by jigzat
by Soulbender on Wed 29th May 2013 02:09 in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by jigzat"
Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

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


Right but I'm also allowed to give my ticket to anyone else or even sell it.

Developing software specially games is not easy, is really expensive, not every product is successful even if it is technically good.


And that's different from, say, building cars or airplanes or stereos or computers? Sorry, software and games are not uniquely hard and expensive to make.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[3]: Comment by jigzat
by TM99 on Wed 29th May 2013 08:49 in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by jigzat"
TM99 Member since:
2012-08-26

Here's the deal, and perhaps this is just because you are younger than I. Or maybe you just don't know the history of that which you are attempting to speak about.

Video games may be 'software' but they have never ever been sold in the same business model as software.

An NES cartridge of Donkey Kong is a physical product. I can buy it, use it, destroy it, sell it, gift it, etc. I always have been able to do so with games on consoles. From the Atari 2600 to the Playstation 3. If I purchase the physical cartridge or DVD or CD, I own the product outright and Fair Use laws come into play legally.

Software on the computer has gotten to the point where it is not an object. It is considered a leased product that the physical medium simply gives you a means for installing. The license to use it is what has always mattered. Yet even then, I could transfer a license. I could sell Photoshop 7 used and someone could buy it and install it legally.

These are two distinctly different models and always have been. Until now... With the release of the Apple App store and casual gaming, the game development corporations are wanting to now go with the 'software' model of sales and licensing. With the release of the Xbox One, Microsoft has now provided them a means to do so on a grander scale.

What remains to be seen is whether Sony & Nintendo will follow Microsoft, and whether consumers will accept it in the marketplace.

Reply Parent Score: 2