Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 19th Jun 2013 23:02 UTC, submitted by M.Onty
Games "Microsoft has sensationally abandoned its controversial plans to restrict the sharing of XBox One games, and has also removed daily online authentication requirements for its forthcoming console", reports The Guardian. They had no choice. Still a good move.
Thread beginning with comment 565219
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[4]: Going to put this here
by Soulbender on Fri 21st Jun 2013 09:14 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Going to put this here"
Soulbender
Member since:
2005-08-18

Killing the used game industry is a good thing IMO


So are you also in favour of killing the used cars market, the used clothes market, the used furniture market and the used house market? Cuz, you know, it's the same thing as used games.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[5]: Going to put this here
by jonoden on Fri 21st Jun 2013 18:49 in reply to "RE[4]: Going to put this here"
jonoden Member since:
2012-02-13

"Killing the used game industry is a good thing IMO


So are you also in favour of killing the used cars market, the used clothes market, the used furniture market and the used house market? Cuz, you know, it's the same thing as used games.
"

No.. it really isn't. None of those physical goods are a parallel to digital content. The phytical medium (discs) are just a vehicle for the content in this case. If we are arguing to maintain client ownership over a copy of the content that is in turn only usable by one party at a time then it's possibly the same. I believe what detractors to the philosophy of the developer being able to monetize every person that plays their game are saying is that they want to maintain ownership and dollar value of the game they purchased and be able to transfer that ownership to another individual without the original content creator involved.

I suppose I really don't mind as I choose to always make sure when I buy software that the original creator sees some of the dollars I'm spending on the content. I want them to know I cared enough to buy what they created and contribute to the entire team that was responsible from the smallest line of code, to marketing, to the legal guys who signed the licensing deal for that physics framework. That's just me though, I'm sure I'm the minority. If I was a game developer I would want it that way. Lots of them do it for the love, but they definitely don't want to just give it away. The way they see how much people value their work is how many people bought the game and played it.

I see both sides of this story, I just choose to do things the way I want to do it and I will fight to make sure what I think is right for the content creator is the agenda that is pushed. As long as the pricing for the content is fair. AAA games cost MILLIONS and YEARS to produce. The more money that flows into the content creator's hands the better off the industry is. I know people are tired of hearing about Steam, but Steam proves that those type of systems can work where fair prices are traded for awesome service.

Edited 2013-06-21 18:52 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2

Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

No.. it really isn't. None of those physical goods are a parallel to digital content.


No...it really is. It's a product that you purchase. The fact that it happen to be "digital" is irrelevant.

I believe what detractors to the philosophy of the developer being able to monetize every person that plays their game are saying is that they want to maintain ownership and dollar value of the game they purchased and be able to transfer that ownership to another individual without the original content creator involved.


Yes, exactly. I bought it, I own it and what I do with it after the sale is of no concern whatsoever to the content producer and the seller. Every other product works like this and software is not special.

If I was a game developer I would want it that way.


I really don't give a shit what they want. Construction companies and workers would love it if everyone torn down houses and built new ones instead of selling the old houses but I don't see anyone arguing that we should do that.

As long as the pricing for the content is fair. AAA games cost MILLIONS and YEARS to produce.


So what? Do you think designing and manufacturing a car is cheap and done over the weekend?
Anyway, how much it costs to produce is irrelevant to my ownership of the product I have purchased.

The more money that flows into the content creator's hands the better off the industry is.


Well, you know, the more money that flows into the hands of construction workers the better off the industry is. Heck, if everyone built new houses all the time it would be a construction boom.

Edited 2013-06-22 01:48 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 3