surf dtoid with 
Rising (10+)
People you follow
send message
follow
followers
Thing is, there's not really much one can do about it, aside from simply not buying from them; that won't change anything, though, since others will end up purchasing games from them anyways. By others, I mean the people that have no clue where their money is going, or probably don't care.
And thus the death of honest business. The only way things would ever turn around is if developers were able to distribute their games more easily without having to turn to terrible corporations such as EA, since usually the developers are honest working people just doing a job that they love, but I guess it only takes one guy to say "Hey, we can make a shitload of money out of this." and start pulling dick moves like online passes all over.
I completely agree with you on every point. The thing is, what can you really do to change a business's ways when said business doesn't bother to listen to their customer's voices, only their wallets?
And thus the death of honest business. The only way things would ever turn around is if developers were able to distribute their games more easily without having to turn to terrible corporations such as EA, since usually the developers are honest working people just doing a job that they love, but I guess it only takes one guy to say "Hey, we can make a shitload of money out of this." and start pulling dick moves like online passes all over.
I completely agree with you on every point. The thing is, what can you really do to change a business's ways when said business doesn't bother to listen to their customer's voices, only their wallets?
@Blah - You know, there may perhaps be an avenue for recourse through the FTC, the Federal Trade Commission. They normally would handle things of this nature, such as inappropriate business practices. Though I'm not sure how you could construe it, or if it would fit into their criteria and purpose, as general as it is.
But at the same time...as bothersome as I find it in relation to our own industry, I'd rather the FTC focus on bigger problems in the grand scheme of things.
That's the thing for me with this issue: it's really small potatoes when you look at everything else going on. So it's hard, at least for me personally, to get really worked up over it.
But at the same time...as bothersome as I find it in relation to our own industry, I'd rather the FTC focus on bigger problems in the grand scheme of things.
That's the thing for me with this issue: it's really small potatoes when you look at everything else going on. So it's hard, at least for me personally, to get really worked up over it.
Hmm, let's agree that you own the game. You know what you not own? The multiplayer servers. You never paid for them. It is a service. So, as a service, the companies can decide who have access to their servers or not.
I do agree that in-disc dlc is bullshit and glad to see less and less people trying to put this trick.
I do agree that in-disc dlc is bullshit and glad to see less and less people trying to put this trick.
The capitalism street goes both ways. The reason that Online Passes are becoming more and more prevalent? Last year, used sales made up 40% of all of GameStop's software profit. That's two billion, three hundred and ninety four million dollars. So publishers implemented online passes.
It's not about ethics or anything. It's simply a response to market conditions. As a gamer, you get to choose to buy the game new at MSRP, buy the game used near launch for a little less, or wait. New games do get reduced in price all the time after they've been on the market for a little while.
As to why publishers can fix their prices? Because they're the publishers. Fixing the price is as easy for them as saying "Okay, we're selling our copies to the wholesale distributors at a price of X." Since you wholesalers can't go to another publisher for a copy of Modern Warfare 3 (but might be able to get a similar shooter), if they want to distribute copies of Modern Warfare 3 specifically, they have to pay whatever the publisher demands. Nothing says publishers have to meet what the market is willing to pay if there's enough demand there to warrant a higher price.
Not to mention the piracy angle. Think of the online pass as a form of DRM and it's a lot less painful. We were entering CD keys on Blizzard games a decade ago, and they weren't exactly crippling or invasive there. The PS3 and Xbox 360 are seeing a lot of piracy nowadays (not to mention how long the Wii's been cracked), and trying to stop it entirely is so futile it's not worth the effort. However, by implementing Online Passes, publishers have found the perfect way to combat piracy. They lock the pirates out of their servers unless they pay the $10 to justify being on there.
I know that this changes the way games are handled as property a bit, but that's the nature of any economy: Change. Your copy isn't worth quite as much, true, but countering the fact that you can't sell it for as much as you could ten years ago is the fact that most console games have free demos available to try. Ten years ago if you wanted a demo for a game, you had to buy OPM if you were a PS1 owner, and if you were a N64 owner you were shit out of luck.
It's not about ethics or anything. It's simply a response to market conditions. As a gamer, you get to choose to buy the game new at MSRP, buy the game used near launch for a little less, or wait. New games do get reduced in price all the time after they've been on the market for a little while.
As to why publishers can fix their prices? Because they're the publishers. Fixing the price is as easy for them as saying "Okay, we're selling our copies to the wholesale distributors at a price of X." Since you wholesalers can't go to another publisher for a copy of Modern Warfare 3 (but might be able to get a similar shooter), if they want to distribute copies of Modern Warfare 3 specifically, they have to pay whatever the publisher demands. Nothing says publishers have to meet what the market is willing to pay if there's enough demand there to warrant a higher price.
Not to mention the piracy angle. Think of the online pass as a form of DRM and it's a lot less painful. We were entering CD keys on Blizzard games a decade ago, and they weren't exactly crippling or invasive there. The PS3 and Xbox 360 are seeing a lot of piracy nowadays (not to mention how long the Wii's been cracked), and trying to stop it entirely is so futile it's not worth the effort. However, by implementing Online Passes, publishers have found the perfect way to combat piracy. They lock the pirates out of their servers unless they pay the $10 to justify being on there.
I know that this changes the way games are handled as property a bit, but that's the nature of any economy: Change. Your copy isn't worth quite as much, true, but countering the fact that you can't sell it for as much as you could ten years ago is the fact that most console games have free demos available to try. Ten years ago if you wanted a demo for a game, you had to buy OPM if you were a PS1 owner, and if you were a N64 owner you were shit out of luck.
First, you lead with the myth that the online passes devalue the games.
http://www.gamestop.com/xbox-360/games/gears-of-war-3/77663
http://www.gamestop.com/ps3/games/resistance-3/84131
http://www.gamestop.com/xbox-360/games/batman-arkham-city/76723
You may notice the preowned price for the games with passes is the same $5 discount as other preowned titles. Likewise, a high demand game still fetches the premium from Gamestop. (which, incidently, is mere violent assrape with lube as opposed to dry, the normal Gamestop business practice) So the fact that online passes are devaluing your game is still myth and shouldn't touch your article.
Second, the online portion as well as additional content is a service, not a good. You got the game that was in the package. You don't have the right to online content. Just as you don't have the right when you let your WOW account lapse. Buying a TV doesn't automatically entitle you to free HBO. Hell, let your Xbox 360 Gold membership lapse and it's frightening just how little of your Xbox 360 you have access to.
Finally, no. You don't own your games. Technically, you haven't owned your games since the NES. You LICENSE the software when you purchase, a right which any publisher reserves the right to strip your ability from playing the game at any time should you break terms of service. I really wish, anytime a gamer gets self entitled, they'd actually fucking READ what they agree to. It would make me less of an asshole when I tell you that any rights you as a consumer believe you have, you haven't had since Nintendo hit the scene. That's a long history of you being completely and totally clueless on this topic. 25+ years of ignorance, that's a long run of dumbass.
http://www.gamestop.com/xbox-360/games/gears-of-war-3/77663
http://www.gamestop.com/ps3/games/resistance-3/84131
http://www.gamestop.com/xbox-360/games/batman-arkham-city/76723
You may notice the preowned price for the games with passes is the same $5 discount as other preowned titles. Likewise, a high demand game still fetches the premium from Gamestop. (which, incidently, is mere violent assrape with lube as opposed to dry, the normal Gamestop business practice) So the fact that online passes are devaluing your game is still myth and shouldn't touch your article.
Second, the online portion as well as additional content is a service, not a good. You got the game that was in the package. You don't have the right to online content. Just as you don't have the right when you let your WOW account lapse. Buying a TV doesn't automatically entitle you to free HBO. Hell, let your Xbox 360 Gold membership lapse and it's frightening just how little of your Xbox 360 you have access to.
Finally, no. You don't own your games. Technically, you haven't owned your games since the NES. You LICENSE the software when you purchase, a right which any publisher reserves the right to strip your ability from playing the game at any time should you break terms of service. I really wish, anytime a gamer gets self entitled, they'd actually fucking READ what they agree to. It would make me less of an asshole when I tell you that any rights you as a consumer believe you have, you haven't had since Nintendo hit the scene. That's a long history of you being completely and totally clueless on this topic. 25+ years of ignorance, that's a long run of dumbass.
I think online passes kind of go hand in hand with game prices. Almost every game is sold at a premium, whether or not the game is actually worth that price. If developers/publishers really want to get me to buy more games new they should rethink their pricing strategy or provide content for buying new. As bad as EA can be, if you bought Bad Company 2 new you got access to ALL the DLC sans the Vietnam Expansion. You could buy used and still play online, just not on all the maps. Unfortunately, this seems to be the rare case now.
I wonder how many online passes these companies have actually sold so far? I have yet to buy one, or even think about buying one, but that's mostly because I tend to buy most of my games new. It seems that the mentality of how to make games has significantly changed over this generation. Online and DLC were first used to keep people playing their games for as long as possible or provide experiences that were greatly different from the game that shipped. Now most devs don't really care if you play or not, just as long as they get a bit of cash from anyone who so much as looks at their game before they try and get you with next year's iteration.
And to think we started off this generation with concepts such as game sharing in Warhawk, where you only needed ONE disc to get an entire LAN party going (load the game up, eject, pass the disc). Great blog BTW!!
I wonder how many online passes these companies have actually sold so far? I have yet to buy one, or even think about buying one, but that's mostly because I tend to buy most of my games new. It seems that the mentality of how to make games has significantly changed over this generation. Online and DLC were first used to keep people playing their games for as long as possible or provide experiences that were greatly different from the game that shipped. Now most devs don't really care if you play or not, just as long as they get a bit of cash from anyone who so much as looks at their game before they try and get you with next year's iteration.
And to think we started off this generation with concepts such as game sharing in Warhawk, where you only needed ONE disc to get an entire LAN party going (load the game up, eject, pass the disc). Great blog BTW!!
@Sheppy - So you judge the value of pre-owned games based on how much Gamestop is selling them for?
That's kind of shit logic. A more accurate assessment would be to compare the trade-in values of games with passes, and games without them. You call it a myth, and base it off Gamestop's resell prices?
Even if you're not selling to Gamestop and just to another person, the fact is that someone has to take an additional $10 hit, someone is losing more money than they should in the transaction -- either the buyer, or the seller. So a publisher can make money off of something they already made money off of.
As for the online part -- is anyone bothering to finish reading the article? This is twice now where someone has drudged up the same point I've already addressed and responded to.
Go ahead. Let Activision not provide the service then. Let's see how well their games sell.
Because this too is shit logic: you're trying to pass off online passes as a service charge, a service fee -- except only some of the customers are paying for it, used customers to be exact.
New customers don't have to pay the service fee, but used ones do? That is still consumer abuse. You're trying to put lipstick on a pig.
And finally, I don't remember signing or agreeing to anything when I bought Super Mario Brothers. There certainly was no pen and paper, and some kind of lengthy contract or licensing agreement, involved at the store when I handed them my money. So I'm not quite sure where you pulled that one from.
That's kind of shit logic. A more accurate assessment would be to compare the trade-in values of games with passes, and games without them. You call it a myth, and base it off Gamestop's resell prices?
Even if you're not selling to Gamestop and just to another person, the fact is that someone has to take an additional $10 hit, someone is losing more money than they should in the transaction -- either the buyer, or the seller. So a publisher can make money off of something they already made money off of.
As for the online part -- is anyone bothering to finish reading the article? This is twice now where someone has drudged up the same point I've already addressed and responded to.
Go ahead. Let Activision not provide the service then. Let's see how well their games sell.
Because this too is shit logic: you're trying to pass off online passes as a service charge, a service fee -- except only some of the customers are paying for it, used customers to be exact.
New customers don't have to pay the service fee, but used ones do? That is still consumer abuse. You're trying to put lipstick on a pig.
And finally, I don't remember signing or agreeing to anything when I bought Super Mario Brothers. There certainly was no pen and paper, and some kind of lengthy contract or licensing agreement, involved at the store when I handed them my money. So I'm not quite sure where you pulled that one from.
@Meteor - I'm not quite sure what you're trying to say with Gamestop's profits. 40%, 60%, 100% -- what does that have to do with the fact that publishers have already made money off of those games?
Not only that, but using Gamestop's used profits doesn't tell you how large the market is at all -- that simply tells you how many used games they've sold. If I sell one of my games to a friend, my used games sales profit is 100% -- even though it's one copy. Just because Gamestop makes a lot of money off used games doesn't mean the market is just some gigantic, colossal enterprise that is choking and strangling the poor publishers from making any money.
And no, they don't get to fix their prices because they're the publisher. They can't say, "you buy this game for this price, or I will punish you in some way or form for buying it in another avenue, especially if I don't get money for something I have already gotten money for." If a game is $40 new, and I want to buy it used for $25 from a friend, the publisher essentially says "fuck you, you pay what I tell you -- fuck the market."
That is not how it works.
And DRM is meant to stop people from stealing copies out of thin air. The online pass is cracking down on people selling their property. If online passes are the new form of DRM, then I'm even more against DRM.
Not only that, but using Gamestop's used profits doesn't tell you how large the market is at all -- that simply tells you how many used games they've sold. If I sell one of my games to a friend, my used games sales profit is 100% -- even though it's one copy. Just because Gamestop makes a lot of money off used games doesn't mean the market is just some gigantic, colossal enterprise that is choking and strangling the poor publishers from making any money.
And no, they don't get to fix their prices because they're the publisher. They can't say, "you buy this game for this price, or I will punish you in some way or form for buying it in another avenue, especially if I don't get money for something I have already gotten money for." If a game is $40 new, and I want to buy it used for $25 from a friend, the publisher essentially says "fuck you, you pay what I tell you -- fuck the market."
That is not how it works.
And DRM is meant to stop people from stealing copies out of thin air. The online pass is cracking down on people selling their property. If online passes are the new form of DRM, then I'm even more against DRM.
And if we really are going to try to pass off online passes as "service fees" (that only some of us have to pay), and this fee is included with the new price of the game:
I have already paid that fee then. I have already paid for that ticket, that place in the server. If I hand, or sell, that spot to someone else, that is also my right then.
I have already paid that fee then. I have already paid for that ticket, that place in the server. If I hand, or sell, that spot to someone else, that is also my right then.
@Revuhlooshun
The reason the amount matters is because it's so god-damned high. Games, unlike DVDs or books, have a strict shelf life. Beyond a month, any title but the biggest titles sees a large drop off in units sold. I bring it up because GameStop is one of the biggest North American distributors of console games. Saying they don't matter is as silly as saying HMV was completely irrelevant to music ten to fifteen years ago.
And yes, they can say what their game is worth. They're the ones who made it. Just like a car manufacturer can choose the price their cars are worth new or a book publisher can choose the price of their hardcovers. Activision could set the price of Modern Warfare 3 at two hundred bucks a copy, and there's not boo anyone could say about it... Because when Activision is selling to a distributor, they're taking a large chunk of that price right there. With a unique work like a book, movie, or game, the price is the price.
There is no market competition. There is nobody else making Modern Warfare 3. If you want a copy of Modern Warfare 3, you're going to be paying the price as dictated by Activision, unless stores find the copies not selling and have to sell them below cost later.
Yes, you can buy it off a friend. But he had to pay whatever price Activision decided was right, and if you can find someone willing to give you a great deal on it... More power to you. With an online pass, you know the price is "Whatever I found it at, plus $10 or Whatever I can find it at new."
And against DRM or not, it's not bloody well going away. Entering a 25-digit code once is a pretty easy form of it. If you don't like Online Passes, sooner or later you're either going to have to give up on your dislike of them or give up gaming.
I don't see them going away any time soon because right now the only people effected are people who don't really support the publishers anyway. A game publisher is no more likely to listen to the complaints of someone who purchases their games used than a car company like Ford is to listen to someone coming in with a fifteen year old Taurus and bitching about it.
Finally... People keep comparing used games to used cars, so let's get this one out of the way. If your used game is analogous to a used car, then the online pass is analogous to the service warranty that came with that car when it was bought new. Hey, guess what thing most car manufacturers don't allow people to transfer? If you guessed warranties, you get a gold star. In fact, most warranties which cover products aren't transferable.
Games have been the exception to the rule on such things, and publishers are finally realizing they shouldn't be. That's what's allowed GameStop to become the force it is and why GameStop pushes so hard for trade-ins in the first place. By my reckoning, it's been game publishers who've been doing things unlike the rest of the North American economy and moving towards online passes is them moving in line with everything else.
The reason the amount matters is because it's so god-damned high. Games, unlike DVDs or books, have a strict shelf life. Beyond a month, any title but the biggest titles sees a large drop off in units sold. I bring it up because GameStop is one of the biggest North American distributors of console games. Saying they don't matter is as silly as saying HMV was completely irrelevant to music ten to fifteen years ago.
And yes, they can say what their game is worth. They're the ones who made it. Just like a car manufacturer can choose the price their cars are worth new or a book publisher can choose the price of their hardcovers. Activision could set the price of Modern Warfare 3 at two hundred bucks a copy, and there's not boo anyone could say about it... Because when Activision is selling to a distributor, they're taking a large chunk of that price right there. With a unique work like a book, movie, or game, the price is the price.
There is no market competition. There is nobody else making Modern Warfare 3. If you want a copy of Modern Warfare 3, you're going to be paying the price as dictated by Activision, unless stores find the copies not selling and have to sell them below cost later.
Yes, you can buy it off a friend. But he had to pay whatever price Activision decided was right, and if you can find someone willing to give you a great deal on it... More power to you. With an online pass, you know the price is "Whatever I found it at, plus $10 or Whatever I can find it at new."
And against DRM or not, it's not bloody well going away. Entering a 25-digit code once is a pretty easy form of it. If you don't like Online Passes, sooner or later you're either going to have to give up on your dislike of them or give up gaming.
I don't see them going away any time soon because right now the only people effected are people who don't really support the publishers anyway. A game publisher is no more likely to listen to the complaints of someone who purchases their games used than a car company like Ford is to listen to someone coming in with a fifteen year old Taurus and bitching about it.
Finally... People keep comparing used games to used cars, so let's get this one out of the way. If your used game is analogous to a used car, then the online pass is analogous to the service warranty that came with that car when it was bought new. Hey, guess what thing most car manufacturers don't allow people to transfer? If you guessed warranties, you get a gold star. In fact, most warranties which cover products aren't transferable.
Games have been the exception to the rule on such things, and publishers are finally realizing they shouldn't be. That's what's allowed GameStop to become the force it is and why GameStop pushes so hard for trade-ins in the first place. By my reckoning, it's been game publishers who've been doing things unlike the rest of the North American economy and moving towards online passes is them moving in line with everything else.
This is a great blog and you present an interesting question as to ownership. I suspect that in the future we will increasingly see games being "licensed" for our personal use rather than directly buying them. We will buy a license, but not the game.
It will certainly clarify matters... though not to the benefit of the consumer unfortunately. :(
It will certainly clarify matters... though not to the benefit of the consumer unfortunately. :(
@Meteor - The 40% is irrelevant. That's simply how much they sell in relation to their own business, not the entire game market as a whole. If I sell only one game, and it's been used, my software profit is 100% from used games.
Am I crippling the software industry?
Publishers can say what their game is worth. Guess who has final say?
The market. Period. That is how our economy works. Point blank. Consumers ultimately decide how much something is worth when they pay for it. If Activision were to sell the game for $200, guess what would happen?
Consumers would say "Uhh, fuck that." They'll sell less copies, and then will have to drop the price accordingly until they reached one where it'd keep selling, in order to make up the development and publishing costs at the very least.
The market decides, not Activision. Activision changes its prices according to what the market tells them. Online passes are simply an excuse for publishers to try to circumvent basic, fundamental economic forces to their own advantage.
Now, I didn't say DRM or online passes were going away. But to compare the two is off base, I would say. I didn't steal my copy. The publisher put a game onto the disc (work by the developers which has already been paid for by the publisher, I might add), and I paid for that disc. I didn't just pluck it off from a store shelf. I didn't torrent it.
I bought it. But that's not enough for some publishers. And it's ludicrous.
Am I crippling the software industry?
Publishers can say what their game is worth. Guess who has final say?
The market. Period. That is how our economy works. Point blank. Consumers ultimately decide how much something is worth when they pay for it. If Activision were to sell the game for $200, guess what would happen?
Consumers would say "Uhh, fuck that." They'll sell less copies, and then will have to drop the price accordingly until they reached one where it'd keep selling, in order to make up the development and publishing costs at the very least.
The market decides, not Activision. Activision changes its prices according to what the market tells them. Online passes are simply an excuse for publishers to try to circumvent basic, fundamental economic forces to their own advantage.
Now, I didn't say DRM or online passes were going away. But to compare the two is off base, I would say. I didn't steal my copy. The publisher put a game onto the disc (work by the developers which has already been paid for by the publisher, I might add), and I paid for that disc. I didn't just pluck it off from a store shelf. I didn't torrent it.
I bought it. But that's not enough for some publishers. And it's ludicrous.
@Revuhlooshun
You're not a significant chunk of the retail sales for the entire games industry in North America. GameStop is, and they're gutting sales to the publisher by buying and then reselling the newest games as used, sometimes a day or two after launch. They've built a large portion of their business strategy around making sure the turnaround time from purchase to trade-in is as small as possible.
I'm not saying publishers are blameless in this. Because frankly, they're not. But Online Passes weren't just born in the mind of some bored marketing executive, they were a response to market factors like GameStop reselling their product and cannibalizing the market for their own ends, and we as gamers have allowed, even encouraged them to do so with the "buy it new, trade it in to buy another game new" attitude.
You can bet your ass if the DVD industry saw used copy turnarounds like the games industry there'd be a response. Or any industry, for that matter. Book publishers would be screaming bloody murder if Chapters was making 40% of its bank on used sales from people trading in old books to buy newer releases.
You're not a significant chunk of the retail sales for the entire games industry in North America. GameStop is, and they're gutting sales to the publisher by buying and then reselling the newest games as used, sometimes a day or two after launch. They've built a large portion of their business strategy around making sure the turnaround time from purchase to trade-in is as small as possible.
I'm not saying publishers are blameless in this. Because frankly, they're not. But Online Passes weren't just born in the mind of some bored marketing executive, they were a response to market factors like GameStop reselling their product and cannibalizing the market for their own ends, and we as gamers have allowed, even encouraged them to do so with the "buy it new, trade it in to buy another game new" attitude.
You can bet your ass if the DVD industry saw used copy turnarounds like the games industry there'd be a response. Or any industry, for that matter. Book publishers would be screaming bloody murder if Chapters was making 40% of its bank on used sales from people trading in old books to buy newer releases.
@Meteor - But if Gamestop was the only place you could buy games, then the 40% would be a fair indication as to the size of the U.S. games market.
But they are not the only chunk. Best Buy, Toys R Us, K-mart, Walmart, Target. Walmart, which has far, far more market reach than Gamestop as a whole, even though their sole focus is not games.
Gamestop makes a lot of money. But that's 40% of their own business, not the market as a whole. And as influential as they are, there are plenty of other bigger sharks in the tank which sell exclusively new games, or their used games margins are insignificant at this point.
Used games have been around for a long time. They were around in the PS1 and N64 days. Funcoland, EB, Rhino. Now it's suddenly a problem? The software industry was a broken, fruitless venture before?
And let's not mention that used games sales help fund the purchase of new games. This demonizing of used games really is harmful to the sale of new games really. It is extremely, extremely short sighted on the part of the publishers.
But they are not the only chunk. Best Buy, Toys R Us, K-mart, Walmart, Target. Walmart, which has far, far more market reach than Gamestop as a whole, even though their sole focus is not games.
Gamestop makes a lot of money. But that's 40% of their own business, not the market as a whole. And as influential as they are, there are plenty of other bigger sharks in the tank which sell exclusively new games, or their used games margins are insignificant at this point.
Used games have been around for a long time. They were around in the PS1 and N64 days. Funcoland, EB, Rhino. Now it's suddenly a problem? The software industry was a broken, fruitless venture before?
And let's not mention that used games sales help fund the purchase of new games. This demonizing of used games really is harmful to the sale of new games really. It is extremely, extremely short sighted on the part of the publishers.
@Revuhlooshun
Well, first. Yes, I read your article. Why didn't I respond to the on disc aspect? Because even the great ranting Jim Sterling has given the free pass on the concept of "encouraging new sales through content inclusion." Essentially, you want to nuetor any potential post consumer cuts and frankly, that's just being unreasonable and self-entitled. Sorry, it just is. I have no response for that beyond screaming that you want it all and a personal dickwetting from EA themselves.
Second, YES! It's a fucking myth! The tarde-in values have NOT been effected. Craigslist values have not gone down, nor has Ebay resellers. Gamestop is currently undergoing three seperate class action lawsuits related to willingly hiding the existance of the online pass from customers as a business practice. Your claim is that this is devaluing the content and there is NO EVIDENCE of this occuring aside from "well this COULD happen." And that is the very center of a very retarded rebutal.
And third,
"And finally, I don't remember signing or agreeing to anything when I bought Super Mario Brothers. There certainly was no pen and paper, and some kind of lengthy contract or licensing agreement, involved at the store when I handed them my money. So I'm not quite sure where you pulled that one from."
See, this is what's funny. Tell you what, allow me. Your use of a product is agreeing to the terms and services. Whether you signed something or not, by using the product, you have agreed. The ONLY media that has not had this limitation in the past 15 years has been books, thanks largely to Librarians and public libraries. You see, they fought to keep that legislation from passing towards books and thanks to eBooks, it's finally creeping in there. The concept of you actually owning media in this day and age is cute. We haven't owned our movies, music, dvds, or even video games in a good long time. Hell, that software running your computer, you think you OWN that? Nah, you paid Microsoft/Apple to let you use that. Hell, you don't even own your TV or DVD player anymore. You sure as hell don't own your DVR. It all goes back to RTFM, meaning Read The Fucking Manual. Your consumer rights that you're fighting for right now? You haven't had them in a long time.
Of course the obvious response to these rights being stripped from you is simple, return the game to the publisher. By law, they MUST offer a refund if you don't agree to the EULA and TOS. Provided, of course, that you didn't use it. Whether you signed a piece of paper or not, using the product is agreeing to this.
And as I said before, all of this was done long ago so that the Base10 chip in NES systems was legal. The further stripping occured during the formation of the DMCA. And if it offends you, don't support the industry. In fact, that's my response to all the bitchers. If these behaviors are NOT rewarded with loyal consumer money, guess what happens? They go away. It's an odd behavior, voting with your wallet like how Activision hasn't received any money from me in years. I'm not slowing them down but of course I know I find their behavior disgusting and I'm not supporting their endeavors. And no, I'm not stealing their games to "show them" either because that's the dumbest idea to show revolt. In essence, market dictates publisher behavior.
Of course this swings the other way too. Like how Ubisoft said they would spend a year without any DRM in their PC games to test consumer reaction and the response was essentially a 550% increase in software piracy for all their releases on the PC platform. So they returned with DRM essentially saying, "See? You're all thieves and this is why we can't trust you." Thus making people claim they're stealing just to show Ubisoft the error of their ways, ironically enough, their revolt didn't even approach the numbers of theft when they trusted PC gamers. So if the online passes encourage new game sales over used, then guess what's going to happen more often.
Well, first. Yes, I read your article. Why didn't I respond to the on disc aspect? Because even the great ranting Jim Sterling has given the free pass on the concept of "encouraging new sales through content inclusion." Essentially, you want to nuetor any potential post consumer cuts and frankly, that's just being unreasonable and self-entitled. Sorry, it just is. I have no response for that beyond screaming that you want it all and a personal dickwetting from EA themselves.
Second, YES! It's a fucking myth! The tarde-in values have NOT been effected. Craigslist values have not gone down, nor has Ebay resellers. Gamestop is currently undergoing three seperate class action lawsuits related to willingly hiding the existance of the online pass from customers as a business practice. Your claim is that this is devaluing the content and there is NO EVIDENCE of this occuring aside from "well this COULD happen." And that is the very center of a very retarded rebutal.
And third,
"And finally, I don't remember signing or agreeing to anything when I bought Super Mario Brothers. There certainly was no pen and paper, and some kind of lengthy contract or licensing agreement, involved at the store when I handed them my money. So I'm not quite sure where you pulled that one from."
See, this is what's funny. Tell you what, allow me. Your use of a product is agreeing to the terms and services. Whether you signed something or not, by using the product, you have agreed. The ONLY media that has not had this limitation in the past 15 years has been books, thanks largely to Librarians and public libraries. You see, they fought to keep that legislation from passing towards books and thanks to eBooks, it's finally creeping in there. The concept of you actually owning media in this day and age is cute. We haven't owned our movies, music, dvds, or even video games in a good long time. Hell, that software running your computer, you think you OWN that? Nah, you paid Microsoft/Apple to let you use that. Hell, you don't even own your TV or DVD player anymore. You sure as hell don't own your DVR. It all goes back to RTFM, meaning Read The Fucking Manual. Your consumer rights that you're fighting for right now? You haven't had them in a long time.
Of course the obvious response to these rights being stripped from you is simple, return the game to the publisher. By law, they MUST offer a refund if you don't agree to the EULA and TOS. Provided, of course, that you didn't use it. Whether you signed a piece of paper or not, using the product is agreeing to this.
And as I said before, all of this was done long ago so that the Base10 chip in NES systems was legal. The further stripping occured during the formation of the DMCA. And if it offends you, don't support the industry. In fact, that's my response to all the bitchers. If these behaviors are NOT rewarded with loyal consumer money, guess what happens? They go away. It's an odd behavior, voting with your wallet like how Activision hasn't received any money from me in years. I'm not slowing them down but of course I know I find their behavior disgusting and I'm not supporting their endeavors. And no, I'm not stealing their games to "show them" either because that's the dumbest idea to show revolt. In essence, market dictates publisher behavior.
Of course this swings the other way too. Like how Ubisoft said they would spend a year without any DRM in their PC games to test consumer reaction and the response was essentially a 550% increase in software piracy for all their releases on the PC platform. So they returned with DRM essentially saying, "See? You're all thieves and this is why we can't trust you." Thus making people claim they're stealing just to show Ubisoft the error of their ways, ironically enough, their revolt didn't even approach the numbers of theft when they trusted PC gamers. So if the online passes encourage new game sales over used, then guess what's going to happen more often.
@Sheppy - You're clearly not reading either the article, or the comments. I didn't even mention anything about on-disc stuff in my comment.
So how would you expect me to take the time to read that wall of yours?
Also, I'd be quite interested to see this research you've done, expelling this "myth." I'm sure you sat tirelessly comparing used game prices all across the country to support this "obvious" logic.
Online passes are fine guys. Just because your games are now worth $10 less doesn't mean you're actually going to lose any money. Thank god.
So how would you expect me to take the time to read that wall of yours?
Also, I'd be quite interested to see this research you've done, expelling this "myth." I'm sure you sat tirelessly comparing used game prices all across the country to support this "obvious" logic.
Online passes are fine guys. Just because your games are now worth $10 less doesn't mean you're actually going to lose any money. Thank god.
You know, it's funny. I'm browsing through my instruction manual for Dead Space 2, along with its online pass. I can't find a single thing in here telling me that I am licensing the game, not owning it. I got something about a 90-day warranty, but nothing with regards to "licensing" or "ownership."
That's because I own the thing. If I'm just "licensing" the game, and I do something with their game they don't like, why don't they just come and take it away then? Since I must be breaking this "licensing" agreement I cannot find anywhere on the box, on the pass, or in the manual.
"You never had rights, so fighting for them is stupid."
Even if that were true:
That's because I own the thing. If I'm just "licensing" the game, and I do something with their game they don't like, why don't they just come and take it away then? Since I must be breaking this "licensing" agreement I cannot find anywhere on the box, on the pass, or in the manual.
"You never had rights, so fighting for them is stupid."
Even if that were true:
@Revuhlooshun
I don't trade in my games. Every game I've ever bought, what I've paid is what I've paid. Even terrible titles like the Hellboy 2 tie-in PS3 game. When I pick up a game as a consumer and decide to buy it, I damn well take what I get and don't sweat the details. If it's a crappy game, I won't buy the developer's next title. Easy as pie.
But bitching about the title maybe being worth ten bucks less, if you choose to trade it in? Amidst talented studios like Bizarre Creations closing down?
C'mon. Jon Stewart is a Jew and a comedian. The fact you posted his image while talking about penny-pinching is irony writ large, and I think he could overlook the stereotype to laugh at the joke of your argument.
Take some responsibility for your purchases. Nobody's holding a gun to your head and demanding that you purchase your games. They're not gold or anything like that. You pay the price you choose to pay, knowing full well that in as little as two weeks, that title that you paid $59.99 for might well be worth less than $20 in trade in should you try to fund your next purchase.
You're a reasonably well-informed consumer with access to reviews. Frankly, given the coverage games get and their relatively miniscule price, you're better off than the average consumer. Don't expect me to feel pity the first time life hands you a shit sandwich and it's less than a hundred bucks.
Buying pieces of entertainment isn't fucking market speculation. You're buying something you think you'll enjoy, and the market is there for you to recoup most of your loss should the entertainment you just bought not be to your exacting standards. That's a far sight fucking better than most other industries.
If I go to trade in a used copy of a DVD or a book, I can't expect to get nearly eighty fucking percent of my initial expenditure back, even in trade.
I don't trade in my games. Every game I've ever bought, what I've paid is what I've paid. Even terrible titles like the Hellboy 2 tie-in PS3 game. When I pick up a game as a consumer and decide to buy it, I damn well take what I get and don't sweat the details. If it's a crappy game, I won't buy the developer's next title. Easy as pie.
But bitching about the title maybe being worth ten bucks less, if you choose to trade it in? Amidst talented studios like Bizarre Creations closing down?
C'mon. Jon Stewart is a Jew and a comedian. The fact you posted his image while talking about penny-pinching is irony writ large, and I think he could overlook the stereotype to laugh at the joke of your argument.
Take some responsibility for your purchases. Nobody's holding a gun to your head and demanding that you purchase your games. They're not gold or anything like that. You pay the price you choose to pay, knowing full well that in as little as two weeks, that title that you paid $59.99 for might well be worth less than $20 in trade in should you try to fund your next purchase.
You're a reasonably well-informed consumer with access to reviews. Frankly, given the coverage games get and their relatively miniscule price, you're better off than the average consumer. Don't expect me to feel pity the first time life hands you a shit sandwich and it's less than a hundred bucks.
Buying pieces of entertainment isn't fucking market speculation. You're buying something you think you'll enjoy, and the market is there for you to recoup most of your loss should the entertainment you just bought not be to your exacting standards. That's a far sight fucking better than most other industries.
If I go to trade in a used copy of a DVD or a book, I can't expect to get nearly eighty fucking percent of my initial expenditure back, even in trade.
And there is a clear difference between owning a copy of programming code, on a disc, and owning that code itself, along with the access to alter and replicate it, to which the DMCA you reference applies to. You know: The Digital Media Copyright Act.
It's talking about the source code.
It's talking about the source code.
@Meteor - So Jews are penny-pinchers? I get the point of your "joke", but it was a piss poor one in my opinion.
My argument is about penny-pinching? That is what you took away from it?
I bought the game. Period. If I sell you a dog, and you give me money for it, I don't get to have a say as to what the hell you do with it, and I don't get to try to grab some money if you sell it later.
Penny-pinching? Just who's argument is the joke around here?
When I paid $59.99, it devalued by $20 because the market, buyers, consumers said so. This argument is about hypocrisy, greed, and the erosion of basic market principles. It is about publishers and consumers being held accountable to the same agreed-upon terms.
When consumers try to circumvent it, it's an outrage! How dare you steal the game! How dare you not give every single cent to the publisher!
But when the publisher says: "Hey, that shit I already sold you? Yeah, I want a cut of it if you try to get rid of it, and a cut every time someone else tries to get rid of it." The response!
Fantastic!!!
What a joke.
My argument is about penny-pinching? That is what you took away from it?
I bought the game. Period. If I sell you a dog, and you give me money for it, I don't get to have a say as to what the hell you do with it, and I don't get to try to grab some money if you sell it later.
Penny-pinching? Just who's argument is the joke around here?
When I paid $59.99, it devalued by $20 because the market, buyers, consumers said so. This argument is about hypocrisy, greed, and the erosion of basic market principles. It is about publishers and consumers being held accountable to the same agreed-upon terms.
When consumers try to circumvent it, it's an outrage! How dare you steal the game! How dare you not give every single cent to the publisher!
But when the publisher says: "Hey, that shit I already sold you? Yeah, I want a cut of it if you try to get rid of it, and a cut every time someone else tries to get rid of it." The response!
Fantastic!!!
What a joke.
Also, I have yet to personally find a penny worth $10.00. I don't know what kind of bank account you're rolling with, or what sort of streets you walk down, but for the rest of us actually working and have bills and stuff, $10.00 is not "penny-pinching." I could eat for 4 or 5 days off $10.00, and am sometimes forced to every now and then.
If you have a used game worth $30.00, but it requires a $10.00 online pass, it drops the value by an entire third -- and that is $10.00 someone is going to have to pay. It's not going to pay itself. Either the seller has to pay for it by selling it for $20.00, causing the buyer to pay $30.00, or the buyer has to pay $30.00 and then another $10.00 to get all of the game.
If you have a used game worth $30.00, but it requires a $10.00 online pass, it drops the value by an entire third -- and that is $10.00 someone is going to have to pay. It's not going to pay itself. Either the seller has to pay for it by selling it for $20.00, causing the buyer to pay $30.00, or the buyer has to pay $30.00 and then another $10.00 to get all of the game.
@Revuhlooshun
You're right. This isn't about anything less than the fate of mankind and the sanctity of democracy!
What I take away from your argument is that you're willing to throw more and more hyperbole on the burner until any aspect which disagrees with your opinion is basically "OMG! Communism! Burn the heretic!"
I posited that you, as a consumer, were more than able to make an informed decision if you're worried about your bottom line and wished to spend your money in a way that was as efficient as possible, while also mentioning that some people, like myself, do not and also making an admittedly crass joke.
Your response is not to acknowledge that gamers are more well-informed than they've ever been, but to post an image of Gerard Butler as Leonidas crying, much as I imagine you do every time you look at yourself in the mirror. Perhaps you fight back those tears, I'm not certain. I'm sure it's all very manly. But basically the only parts of anything I've written which you've acknowledged are the Jew joke and a vague statement that the whole thing is about something greater than the free market and what we can get, while also admonishing the video game publishers for not being totally about the free market and what they can get.
No amount of facepalm images is going to make you look any more intelligent. Just an FYI.
So now I posit that the argument is over. This isn't worth continuing. Go ahead. You "win". Throw some confetti. I'm sure you're very proud of yourself, having picked the one sentence in each argument which held a grain of imperfection and responded to that, and only that rather than the response as a whole. Why pay attention to the argument as a whole when you can separate it piecemeal and then attack it from such a direction as to make all discussion meaningless?
You're right. This isn't about anything less than the fate of mankind and the sanctity of democracy!
What I take away from your argument is that you're willing to throw more and more hyperbole on the burner until any aspect which disagrees with your opinion is basically "OMG! Communism! Burn the heretic!"
I posited that you, as a consumer, were more than able to make an informed decision if you're worried about your bottom line and wished to spend your money in a way that was as efficient as possible, while also mentioning that some people, like myself, do not and also making an admittedly crass joke.
Your response is not to acknowledge that gamers are more well-informed than they've ever been, but to post an image of Gerard Butler as Leonidas crying, much as I imagine you do every time you look at yourself in the mirror. Perhaps you fight back those tears, I'm not certain. I'm sure it's all very manly. But basically the only parts of anything I've written which you've acknowledged are the Jew joke and a vague statement that the whole thing is about something greater than the free market and what we can get, while also admonishing the video game publishers for not being totally about the free market and what they can get.
No amount of facepalm images is going to make you look any more intelligent. Just an FYI.
So now I posit that the argument is over. This isn't worth continuing. Go ahead. You "win". Throw some confetti. I'm sure you're very proud of yourself, having picked the one sentence in each argument which held a grain of imperfection and responded to that, and only that rather than the response as a whole. Why pay attention to the argument as a whole when you can separate it piecemeal and then attack it from such a direction as to make all discussion meaningless?
@Meteor - What does being informed have to do with anything whatsoever?
As long as you're aware you're being screwed, then being screwed is alright?
I'm not quite sure why you've gone out of your way to be a Grade A asshole and shit on every blog I've ever written since I got here, with nothing ever positive to say about any of them, despite being around the blogs frequently. I'm not quite sure why. Do you just want to use my blogs to throw personal snipes?
I take your points. I refute them. You respond with personal attacks. If you want to take your ball and go home, or throw a tantrum because you don't like what I'm saying, then that is your right as an informed reader.
As long as you're aware you're being screwed, then being screwed is alright?
I'm not quite sure why you've gone out of your way to be a Grade A asshole and shit on every blog I've ever written since I got here, with nothing ever positive to say about any of them, despite being around the blogs frequently. I'm not quite sure why. Do you just want to use my blogs to throw personal snipes?
I take your points. I refute them. You respond with personal attacks. If you want to take your ball and go home, or throw a tantrum because you don't like what I'm saying, then that is your right as an informed reader.
If I had more time and an inclination towards another wall of text, I would rebut in full measure. Instead, I'm saving it for my own blog, but I will say this. If your copy of Dead Space 2 is anything like my copy of Hot Pursuit, read it again.
And when you read it, don't read it with the mindset of "I'm proving this fucker wrong." READ it with the intention of seeing how everything is VERY carefully worded. For example, in my copy of Hot Pursuit, the back of the manual claims the software content is protected under Copyright Law and is property of EA. In the warranted section, it directly refers to the game as the Recorded Medium and Manual. In other words, your disc is covered under warranty, not your game. WB is more direct and blatantly says, "You are a Licensee of this software, not an owner." The "source" referred to in the DMCA that you read refers directly to the material placed on the recorded medium, not the medium itself. So, for example, you can BUY a CD at Best Buy and technically own it. But the music placed on the CD is not yours, you didn't buy it. You own the medium the content is on, not the medium itself.
And when you read it, don't read it with the mindset of "I'm proving this fucker wrong." READ it with the intention of seeing how everything is VERY carefully worded. For example, in my copy of Hot Pursuit, the back of the manual claims the software content is protected under Copyright Law and is property of EA. In the warranted section, it directly refers to the game as the Recorded Medium and Manual. In other words, your disc is covered under warranty, not your game. WB is more direct and blatantly says, "You are a Licensee of this software, not an owner." The "source" referred to in the DMCA that you read refers directly to the material placed on the recorded medium, not the medium itself. So, for example, you can BUY a CD at Best Buy and technically own it. But the music placed on the CD is not yours, you didn't buy it. You own the medium the content is on, not the medium itself.
It should also be noted that, in the one case where First-Sale Doctrine has been agrued to carry on a licenser successfully, that decision was later overturned. In other words, there is no legal precedent (I searched, trust me) in which someone has argued software they purchased, they own it. In all cases post 1996, it has been decided that the consumer is a licensee if the software.
Excellent post, it wouldn't surprise me if some people in the comments were EA cash whores.... just kidding. But not really
@Sheppy - You are right when it comes to the source code. That is what the DMCA, the copyright, is referring to. With that, you have no argument with me. Buying a copy of a game does not entitle you to ownership of the game in and of itself -- it belongs to the copyright holders.
Just as when I buy a CD, I don't own the music. The music is owned either by the artist, or whoever has the master catalog.
But I do own that one, single CD. I own that individual copy, which the DMCA does not cover. If I were to take that copy, reproduce it, and sell it, that is when the DMCA comes in: I have gone from owning a copy to presuming ownership of the music itself with the right to profligate it, which is protected under copyright law -- that I do not own with my purchase.
There needs to be a distinction between code, and an individual copy of that same code. Even if there isn't, or hasn't been one (though again, the DMCA only covers source code), that doesn't mean there shouldn't be one.
I paid for that one copy, and with it, the ownership rights of that one, singular copy. To try to take a cut, and make money off of, for that same copy, without any additional work put in by the publisher, just runs against our entire way of business.
In my opinion, at least.
Just as when I buy a CD, I don't own the music. The music is owned either by the artist, or whoever has the master catalog.
But I do own that one, single CD. I own that individual copy, which the DMCA does not cover. If I were to take that copy, reproduce it, and sell it, that is when the DMCA comes in: I have gone from owning a copy to presuming ownership of the music itself with the right to profligate it, which is protected under copyright law -- that I do not own with my purchase.
There needs to be a distinction between code, and an individual copy of that same code. Even if there isn't, or hasn't been one (though again, the DMCA only covers source code), that doesn't mean there shouldn't be one.
I paid for that one copy, and with it, the ownership rights of that one, singular copy. To try to take a cut, and make money off of, for that same copy, without any additional work put in by the publisher, just runs against our entire way of business.
In my opinion, at least.
