Et tu EA?

[Owyn_Merrilin]

Maybe if games were actually good I'd buy things new. Until then, I haven't bought a new game since Mass Effect 2, and I won't buy a new game until Skyrim. EA games tend to blend together also. I'd rather just play Combat Arms and actually keep playing with a large amount of people for longer than 6 months. I guarantee you can't say that for 95% of all multiplayer games on Xbox Live.

The 10 dollar project doesn't stop you from picking up a game six months from now a stream or online or a at a big box etc..etc...etc... only the asinine used games racket.

What are your feelings on used books?

Frankly I don't buy used books I purchase new or use public library facilities

Wait a second, you use libraries, and you're judging me for buying used games? Hypocrisy, thy name is Normandyfoxtrot.

I have no issue with games rental, and a library is simply a literary form of public rental.

That's even worse. You have no problem with rental, which let's you pay someone $5-$10 bucks to have the game out for a weekend, and potentially beat it in that time, but you don't want people to buy used? The dev isn't getting any money from you either way. And don't bring up that old story about how rental places have to pay more. Blockbuster did it back in the 80's, but that was just to appease the film companies, who were really leery of the whole home video thing. There was never any legal reason for them to do so; the right of first sale states that whoever first buys a product can do whatever the heck they like with it. This includes selling it on or renting it out. That's right, the used market is not simply legal because there's no law against it; there's actually a federal law on the books which expressly protects it.

As you probably know now ethic and law often have little if anything to actually do with eachother. As for my support of rental, ultimately it comes to how the system is limited in it's nature.

Ethics really doesn't play into this, and in what little way it does, the morality of it is different depending on which side of the fence you sit on. For the most part, it's economics; as producers, the publishers try to separate their customers from as much money as they can for as little product as they can. As consumers, we try to separate the producers from as much product as we can for as little money as we can. Why is it that so many people on this site immediately jump to the defense of their economic opponents?

Personally, it's ethics to me what is right and what is wrong, I don't care about money once I have enough that I can eat I really don't care about the rest and since i don't and likely never will have anyone relying on my fore their survival I'm allowed the luxury of worry about ethics.

That doesn't even make any sense, at least in context. Care to elaborate?

 

[oplinger]

Why is it that so many people on this site immediately jump to the defense of their economic opponents?

I don't particularly feel that that sentiment is accurate. While yes we do try to get the most bang for our buck, I wouldn't liken them to blood rivals. We're not polar opposites. We want our moneys worth. They want our money yes. In most cases the company can tank, and really who cares? Not many. However we want games, If the publishers/developers tank, we don't get our games. It's a mild symbiotic relationship. It's not like bad people will burn if we don't pay. Many people we like will go down with EA. Sure the talent will spread, but not all of it will find work and we'll lose some of it.

It's up to both of us to find something reasonable. I think having people who buy used paying a insignificant sum of money to be reasonable.

 

[Normandyfoxtrot]

Maybe if games were actually good I'd buy things new. Until then, I haven't bought a new game since Mass Effect 2, and I won't buy a new game until Skyrim. EA games tend to blend together also. I'd rather just play Combat Arms and actually keep playing with a large amount of people for longer than 6 months. I guarantee you can't say that for 95% of all multiplayer games on Xbox Live.

The 10 dollar project doesn't stop you from picking up a game six months from now a stream or online or a at a big box etc..etc...etc... only the asinine used games racket.

What are your feelings on used books?

Frankly I don't buy used books I purchase new or use public library facilities

Wait a second, you use libraries, and you're judging me for buying used games? Hypocrisy, thy name is Normandyfoxtrot.

I have no issue with games rental, and a library is simply a literary form of public rental.

That's even worse. You have no problem with rental, which let's you pay someone $5-$10 bucks to have the game out for a weekend, and potentially beat it in that time, but you don't want people to buy used? The dev isn't getting any money from you either way. And don't bring up that old story about how rental places have to pay more. Blockbuster did it back in the 80's, but that was just to appease the film companies, who were really leery of the whole home video thing. There was never any legal reason for them to do so; the right of first sale states that whoever first buys a product can do whatever the heck they like with it. This includes selling it on or renting it out. That's right, the used market is not simply legal because there's no law against it; there's actually a federal law on the books which expressly protects it.

As you probably know now ethic and law often have little if anything to actually do with eachother. As for my support of rental, ultimately it comes to how the system is limited in it's nature.

Ethics really doesn't play into this, and in what little way it does, the morality of it is different depending on which side of the fence you sit on. For the most part, it's economics; as producers, the publishers try to separate their customers from as much money as they can for as little product as they can. As consumers, we try to separate the producers from as much product as we can for as little money as we can. Why is it that so many people on this site immediately jump to the defense of their economic opponents?

Personally, it's ethics to me what is right and what is wrong, I don't care about money once I have enough that I can eat I really don't care about the rest and since i don't and likely never will have anyone relying on my fore their survival I'm allowed the luxury of worry about ethics.

That doesn't even make any sense, at least in context. Care to elaborate?

If I approach a product I have a duty to ensure that the creator of such product is fully and properly compensated, just as a company should have the same duty to their consumer and frankly this is all immaterial to rather or not one party or another refuses to complete their portion of the bargain.

 

[Something Amyss]

I'm not defending nickel-and-diming in gaming. 10 bucks is hardly nickel and diming.

It's EXACTLY nickel and diming. You can justify it all you want, but it's just apologetics. From knocking down strawmen about people not liking choice to disingenuous claims about "reclaiming" "lost" money from the used market.

Sorry.

 

[DeadlyYellow]

Seriously, how are you people still surprised by this?

 

[Owyn_Merrilin]

Maybe if games were actually good I'd buy things new. Until then, I haven't bought a new game since Mass Effect 2, and I won't buy a new game until Skyrim. EA games tend to blend together also. I'd rather just play Combat Arms and actually keep playing with a large amount of people for longer than 6 months. I guarantee you can't say that for 95% of all multiplayer games on Xbox Live.

The 10 dollar project doesn't stop you from picking up a game six months from now a stream or online or a at a big box etc..etc...etc... only the asinine used games racket.

What are your feelings on used books?

Frankly I don't buy used books I purchase new or use public library facilities

Wait a second, you use libraries, and you're judging me for buying used games? Hypocrisy, thy name is Normandyfoxtrot.

I have no issue with games rental, and a library is simply a literary form of public rental.

That's even worse. You have no problem with rental, which let's you pay someone $5-$10 bucks to have the game out for a weekend, and potentially beat it in that time, but you don't want people to buy used? The dev isn't getting any money from you either way. And don't bring up that old story about how rental places have to pay more. Blockbuster did it back in the 80's, but that was just to appease the film companies, who were really leery of the whole home video thing. There was never any legal reason for them to do so; the right of first sale states that whoever first buys a product can do whatever the heck they like with it. This includes selling it on or renting it out. That's right, the used market is not simply legal because there's no law against it; there's actually a federal law on the books which expressly protects it.

As you probably know now ethic and law often have little if anything to actually do with eachother. As for my support of rental, ultimately it comes to how the system is limited in it's nature.

Ethics really doesn't play into this, and in what little way it does, the morality of it is different depending on which side of the fence you sit on. For the most part, it's economics; as producers, the publishers try to separate their customers from as much money as they can for as little product as they can. As consumers, we try to separate the producers from as much product as we can for as little money as we can. Why is it that so many people on this site immediately jump to the defense of their economic opponents?

Personally, it's ethics to me what is right and what is wrong, I don't care about money once I have enough that I can eat I really don't care about the rest and since i don't and likely never will have anyone relying on my fore their survival I'm allowed the luxury of worry about ethics.

That doesn't even make any sense, at least in context. Care to elaborate?

If I approach a product I have a duty to ensure that the creator of such product is fully and properly compensated, just as a company should have the same duty to their consumer and frankly this is all immaterial to rather or not one party or another refuses to complete their portion of the bargain.

No, you have a duty to see that the owner of that product is properly compensated. That whole license thing is the biggest lie a group of consumers have ever swallowed. To use an argument that directly involves intellectual property, let's say I have a book which I have legally acquired. If I decide to sell on the book, should the person I sell it to pay me, or should they send a money order to the author? Remember here that I'm the one who is losing a copy, and presumably an infinitely copyable digital version exists somewhere, from whence my copy was made.

 

[Pumpkin_Eater]

First off, no I would not.

Secondly, wow. It's been so long since I've bought a new game I'm completely out of the loop when it comes to how they are trying to nickle and dime us out of money.

20% of the game's value is too high to be called nickel and diming.

 

[oplinger]

I'm not defending nickel-and-diming in gaming. 10 bucks is hardly nickel and diming.

It's EXACTLY nickel and diming. You can justify it all you want, but it's just apologetics. From knocking down strawmen about people not liking choice to disingenuous claims about "reclaiming" "lost" money from the used market.

Sorry.

Well, define it how you want, I suppose since i'm saying 10 dollars is insignificant, it could very well be "nickel and diming"

However I don't see them destroying us bit by bit into poverty with it, So it doesn't fit wholly into my definition. Nor are they harassing us with it....so, eh it can go both ways. Have fun with your subjectivity terms though.

 

[oplinger]

Maybe if games were actually good I'd buy things new. Until then, I haven't bought a new game since Mass Effect 2, and I won't buy a new game until Skyrim. EA games tend to blend together also. I'd rather just play Combat Arms and actually keep playing with a large amount of people for longer than 6 months. I guarantee you can't say that for 95% of all multiplayer games on Xbox Live.

The 10 dollar project doesn't stop you from picking up a game six months from now a stream or online or a at a big box etc..etc...etc... only the asinine used games racket.

What are your feelings on used books?

Frankly I don't buy used books I purchase new or use public library facilities

Wait a second, you use libraries, and you're judging me for buying used games? Hypocrisy, thy name is Normandyfoxtrot.

I have no issue with games rental, and a library is simply a literary form of public rental.

That's even worse. You have no problem with rental, which let's you pay someone $5-$10 bucks to have the game out for a weekend, and potentially beat it in that time, but you don't want people to buy used? The dev isn't getting any money from you either way. And don't bring up that old story about how rental places have to pay more. Blockbuster did it back in the 80's, but that was just to appease the film companies, who were really leery of the whole home video thing. There was never any legal reason for them to do so; the right of first sale states that whoever first buys a product can do whatever the heck they like with it. This includes selling it on or renting it out. That's right, the used market is not simply legal because there's no law against it; there's actually a federal law on the books which expressly protects it.

As you probably know now ethic and law often have little if anything to actually do with eachother. As for my support of rental, ultimately it comes to how the system is limited in it's nature.

Ethics really doesn't play into this, and in what little way it does, the morality of it is different depending on which side of the fence you sit on. For the most part, it's economics; as producers, the publishers try to separate their customers from as much money as they can for as little product as they can. As consumers, we try to separate the producers from as much product as we can for as little money as we can. Why is it that so many people on this site immediately jump to the defense of their economic opponents?

Personally, it's ethics to me what is right and what is wrong, I don't care about money once I have enough that I can eat I really don't care about the rest and since i don't and likely never will have anyone relying on my fore their survival I'm allowed the luxury of worry about ethics.

That doesn't even make any sense, at least in context. Care to elaborate?

If I approach a product I have a duty to ensure that the creator of such product is fully and properly compensated, just as a company should have the same duty to their consumer and frankly this is all immaterial to rather or not one party or another refuses to complete their portion of the bargain.

No, you have a duty to see that the owner of that product is properly compensated. That whole license thing is the biggest lie a group of consumers have ever swallowed. To use an argument that directly involves intellectual property, let's say I have a book which I have legally acquired. If I decide to sell on the book, should the person I sell it to pay me, or should they send a money order to the author? Remember here that I'm the one who is losing a copy, and presumably an infinitely copyable digital version exists somewhere, from whence my copy was made.

Physical copies of books are not licensed. You really do own them. E-books are licensed however. So if you're selling a physical copy of a book, you get paid. It's yours. Can't do that with an E-book. ...Licensing is bullshit though. I can agree with that.

 

[Normandyfoxtrot]

Maybe if games were actually good I'd buy things new. Until then, I haven't bought a new game since Mass Effect 2, and I won't buy a new game until Skyrim. EA games tend to blend together also. I'd rather just play Combat Arms and actually keep playing with a large amount of people for longer than 6 months. I guarantee you can't say that for 95% of all multiplayer games on Xbox Live.

The 10 dollar project doesn't stop you from picking up a game six months from now a stream or online or a at a big box etc..etc...etc... only the asinine used games racket.

What are your feelings on used books?

Frankly I don't buy used books I purchase new or use public library facilities

Wait a second, you use libraries, and you're judging me for buying used games? Hypocrisy, thy name is Normandyfoxtrot.

I have no issue with games rental, and a library is simply a literary form of public rental.

That's even worse. You have no problem with rental, which let's you pay someone $5-$10 bucks to have the game out for a weekend, and potentially beat it in that time, but you don't want people to buy used? The dev isn't getting any money from you either way. And don't bring up that old story about how rental places have to pay more. Blockbuster did it back in the 80's, but that was just to appease the film companies, who were really leery of the whole home video thing. There was never any legal reason for them to do so; the right of first sale states that whoever first buys a product can do whatever the heck they like with it. This includes selling it on or renting it out. That's right, the used market is not simply legal because there's no law against it; there's actually a federal law on the books which expressly protects it.

As you probably know now ethic and law often have little if anything to actually do with eachother. As for my support of rental, ultimately it comes to how the system is limited in it's nature.

Ethics really doesn't play into this, and in what little way it does, the morality of it is different depending on which side of the fence you sit on. For the most part, it's economics; as producers, the publishers try to separate their customers from as much money as they can for as little product as they can. As consumers, we try to separate the producers from as much product as we can for as little money as we can. Why is it that so many people on this site immediately jump to the defense of their economic opponents?

Personally, it's ethics to me what is right and what is wrong, I don't care about money once I have enough that I can eat I really don't care about the rest and since i don't and likely never will have anyone relying on my fore their survival I'm allowed the luxury of worry about ethics.

That doesn't even make any sense, at least in context. Care to elaborate?

If I approach a product I have a duty to ensure that the creator of such product is fully and properly compensated, just as a company should have the same duty to their consumer and frankly this is all immaterial to rather or not one party or another refuses to complete their portion of the bargain.

No, you have a duty to see that the owner of that product is properly compensated. That whole license thing is the biggest lie a group of consumers have ever swallowed. To use an argument that directly involves intellectual property, let's say I have a book which I have legally acquired. If I decide to sell on the book, should the person I sell it to pay me, or should they send a money order to the author? Remember here that I'm the one who is losing a copy, and presumably an infinitely copyable digital version exists somewhere, from whence my copy was made.

In my opinion in a perfect would the author would always receive a portion of proceeds of a sale even if it's a secondary or tritary or hell even centray sale.

 

[Blindswordmaster]

But they're still fucking a legitimate consumer out of extra money. He didn't steal the game, he bought it a few months after it came out after someone else played it.
Also, DLC may be made between when the game is finished and shipped. You're getting extra stuff, not being denied a complete product.

You're not being denied a complete product, you're getting extra optional material that you do not need to play the functioning game. You're simply being charged for buying used, a measely 10 dollars, the person who bought new probably ended up giving them more than 10 dollars in the long run, and they got all the optional features as a bonus.

But which will you play more?
Also, Call of Duty has a campaign, but it's lasting quality is clearly multiplayer.

Doesn't matter which I play more, the game is still functional even if they gave me multiplayer over single player. But it's be silly for them to charge me for single player I don't want, they have to make it interesting for me. So they do it to multiplayer, as it costs upkeep. Also if I bought it for the multiplayer, then I'd give them the 10 bucks, as I'm still getting it cheaper than buying it new if I played my cards right.

But isn't multiplayer part of a functioning game? And am I not being denied part of a functioning part of a game?

No you're not being denied anything, you bought it used, which means you paid the developer and publisher nothing but you're still able to play a large portion of the game. So whatever entitlement you think you have you don't.

The multilayer costs money to upkeep with severs and all that nonsense, you gave them nothing so you don't get access to that function there's no arguing here. It's called intensive, buy two get one free, did you buy two? Yes? You get one free! No? You get nothing.

It's a big company with lots of people and they all worked hard to make a game and they want you to pay for it. Buying used means you didn't pay them at all.

That doesn't mean they get to treat me like a criminal. I'm well aware that publishers and developers make no distinction between those who pirate and those who buy games used, but we're not the same. Am I really a bad person just because I want to save a few bucks?

 

[Owyn_Merrilin]

Maybe if games were actually good I'd buy things new. Until then, I haven't bought a new game since Mass Effect 2, and I won't buy a new game until Skyrim. EA games tend to blend together also. I'd rather just play Combat Arms and actually keep playing with a large amount of people for longer than 6 months. I guarantee you can't say that for 95% of all multiplayer games on Xbox Live.

The 10 dollar project doesn't stop you from picking up a game six months from now a stream or online or a at a big box etc..etc...etc... only the asinine used games racket.

What are your feelings on used books?

Frankly I don't buy used books I purchase new or use public library facilities

Wait a second, you use libraries, and you're judging me for buying used games? Hypocrisy, thy name is Normandyfoxtrot.

I have no issue with games rental, and a library is simply a literary form of public rental.

That's even worse. You have no problem with rental, which let's you pay someone $5-$10 bucks to have the game out for a weekend, and potentially beat it in that time, but you don't want people to buy used? The dev isn't getting any money from you either way. And don't bring up that old story about how rental places have to pay more. Blockbuster did it back in the 80's, but that was just to appease the film companies, who were really leery of the whole home video thing. There was never any legal reason for them to do so; the right of first sale states that whoever first buys a product can do whatever the heck they like with it. This includes selling it on or renting it out. That's right, the used market is not simply legal because there's no law against it; there's actually a federal law on the books which expressly protects it.

As you probably know now ethic and law often have little if anything to actually do with eachother. As for my support of rental, ultimately it comes to how the system is limited in it's nature.

Ethics really doesn't play into this, and in what little way it does, the morality of it is different depending on which side of the fence you sit on. For the most part, it's economics; as producers, the publishers try to separate their customers from as much money as they can for as little product as they can. As consumers, we try to separate the producers from as much product as we can for as little money as we can. Why is it that so many people on this site immediately jump to the defense of their economic opponents?

Personally, it's ethics to me what is right and what is wrong, I don't care about money once I have enough that I can eat I really don't care about the rest and since i don't and likely never will have anyone relying on my fore their survival I'm allowed the luxury of worry about ethics.

That doesn't even make any sense, at least in context. Care to elaborate?

If I approach a product I have a duty to ensure that the creator of such product is fully and properly compensated, just as a company should have the same duty to their consumer and frankly this is all immaterial to rather or not one party or another refuses to complete their portion of the bargain.

No, you have a duty to see that the owner of that product is properly compensated. That whole license thing is the biggest lie a group of consumers have ever swallowed. To use an argument that directly involves intellectual property, let's say I have a book which I have legally acquired. If I decide to sell on the book, should the person I sell it to pay me, or should they send a money order to the author? Remember here that I'm the one who is losing a copy, and presumably an infinitely copyable digital version exists somewhere, from whence my copy was made.

Physical copies of books are not licensed. You really do own them. E-books are licensed however. So if you're selling a physical copy of a book, you get paid. It's yours. Can't do that with an E-book. ...Licensing is bullshit though. I can agree with that.

I'm glad to see you agree with the licensing bit -- there are too few people on the Escapist who do. Let's extend the book comparison for a bit. With that physical copy, you aren't given copyright. You have a hard copy, but you can't legally do anything with the contents of it except pass it on to another consumer, depriving yourself of that copy in the process. Is there any difference between that and the "licenses" that game companies supposedly sell us? Or are they really selling us a physical copy, and then claiming they sold us a license in order to damage the used market? I agree that E-books are sold as a license, but then so are games on Steam; there's no physical product sold in either case, and used sales are literally impossible.

 

[Snotnarok]

But they're still fucking a legitimate consumer out of extra money. He didn't steal the game, he bought it a few months after it came out after someone else played it.
Also, DLC may be made between when the game is finished and shipped. You're getting extra stuff, not being denied a complete product.

You're not being denied a complete product, you're getting extra optional material that you do not need to play the functioning game. You're simply being charged for buying used, a measely 10 dollars, the person who bought new probably ended up giving them more than 10 dollars in the long run, and they got all the optional features as a bonus.

But which will you play more?
Also, Call of Duty has a campaign, but it's lasting quality is clearly multiplayer.

Doesn't matter which I play more, the game is still functional even if they gave me multiplayer over single player. But it's be silly for them to charge me for single player I don't want, they have to make it interesting for me. So they do it to multiplayer, as it costs upkeep. Also if I bought it for the multiplayer, then I'd give them the 10 bucks, as I'm still getting it cheaper than buying it new if I played my cards right.

But isn't multiplayer part of a functioning game? And am I not being denied part of a functioning part of a game?

No you're not being denied anything, you bought it used, which means you paid the developer and publisher nothing but you're still able to play a large portion of the game. So whatever entitlement you think you have you don't.

The multilayer costs money to upkeep with severs and all that nonsense, you gave them nothing so you don't get access to that function there's no arguing here. It's called intensive, buy two get one free, did you buy two? Yes? You get one free! No? You get nothing.

It's a big company with lots of people and they all worked hard to make a game and they want you to pay for it. Buying used means you didn't pay them at all.

That doesn't mean they get to treat me like a criminal. I'm well aware that publishers and developers make no distinction between those who pirate and those who buy games used, but we're not the same. Am I really a bad person just because I want to save a few bucks?

No one is treating you like a criminal, let me explain this to you more simple.

You buy used game, money goes ONLY TO GAMESTOP and NOT EA.

You are saving a few bucks yes, but you are NOT paying EA for what they made, you are paying gamestop for the game. So the 10 dollars EA is asking you to pay, is to get something out of that used game sale because otherwise they get NOTHING. So if you want to save a few bucks, expect to get less content.

Think of it as buying a used gameboy, you saved a few bucks but you're missing the battery cover for it.

 

[oplinger]

Maybe if games were actually good I'd buy things new. Until then, I haven't bought a new game since Mass Effect 2, and I won't buy a new game until Skyrim. EA games tend to blend together also. I'd rather just play Combat Arms and actually keep playing with a large amount of people for longer than 6 months. I guarantee you can't say that for 95% of all multiplayer games on Xbox Live.

The 10 dollar project doesn't stop you from picking up a game six months from now a stream or online or a at a big box etc..etc...etc... only the asinine used games racket.

What are your feelings on used books?

Frankly I don't buy used books I purchase new or use public library facilities

Wait a second, you use libraries, and you're judging me for buying used games? Hypocrisy, thy name is Normandyfoxtrot.

I have no issue with games rental, and a library is simply a literary form of public rental.

That's even worse. You have no problem with rental, which let's you pay someone $5-$10 bucks to have the game out for a weekend, and potentially beat it in that time, but you don't want people to buy used? The dev isn't getting any money from you either way. And don't bring up that old story about how rental places have to pay more. Blockbuster did it back in the 80's, but that was just to appease the film companies, who were really leery of the whole home video thing. There was never any legal reason for them to do so; the right of first sale states that whoever first buys a product can do whatever the heck they like with it. This includes selling it on or renting it out. That's right, the used market is not simply legal because there's no law against it; there's actually a federal law on the books which expressly protects it.

As you probably know now ethic and law often have little if anything to actually do with eachother. As for my support of rental, ultimately it comes to how the system is limited in it's nature.

Ethics really doesn't play into this, and in what little way it does, the morality of it is different depending on which side of the fence you sit on. For the most part, it's economics; as producers, the publishers try to separate their customers from as much money as they can for as little product as they can. As consumers, we try to separate the producers from as much product as we can for as little money as we can. Why is it that so many people on this site immediately jump to the defense of their economic opponents?

Personally, it's ethics to me what is right and what is wrong, I don't care about money once I have enough that I can eat I really don't care about the rest and since i don't and likely never will have anyone relying on my fore their survival I'm allowed the luxury of worry about ethics.

That doesn't even make any sense, at least in context. Care to elaborate?

If I approach a product I have a duty to ensure that the creator of such product is fully and properly compensated, just as a company should have the same duty to their consumer and frankly this is all immaterial to rather or not one party or another refuses to complete their portion of the bargain.

No, you have a duty to see that the owner of that product is properly compensated. That whole license thing is the biggest lie a group of consumers have ever swallowed. To use an argument that directly involves intellectual property, let's say I have a book which I have legally acquired. If I decide to sell on the book, should the person I sell it to pay me, or should they send a money order to the author? Remember here that I'm the one who is losing a copy, and presumably an infinitely copyable digital version exists somewhere, from whence my copy was made.

Physical copies of books are not licensed. You really do own them. E-books are licensed however. So if you're selling a physical copy of a book, you get paid. It's yours. Can't do that with an E-book. ...Licensing is bullshit though. I can agree with that.

I'm glad to see you agree with the licensing bit -- there are too few people on the Escapist who do. Let's extend the book comparison for a bit. With that physical copy, you aren't given copyright. You have a hard copy, but you can't legally do anything with the contents of it except pass it on to another consumer, depriving yourself of that copy in the process. Is there any difference between that and the "licenses" that game companies supposedly sell us? Or are they really selling us a physical copy, and then claiming they sold us a license in order to damage the used market? I agree that E-books are sold as a license, but then so are games on Steam; there's no physical product sold in either case, and used sales are literally impossible.

It's a little different yes. ...If you don't accept the license on a game you can't play or install it. The company has more control with it. If they could do it to books i'm sure they would. They get us on the fact that "we agreed to the terms" which...really is true. We'd rather agree to the terms than not play games though, as most people don't seem to have a problem with the terms. Sadly a game is like an Ebook on a disk. Not a real book. It being digital media let's them kinda strong arm us into agreeing.

 

[Owyn_Merrilin]

But they're still fucking a legitimate consumer out of extra money. He didn't steal the game, he bought it a few months after it came out after someone else played it.
Also, DLC may be made between when the game is finished and shipped. You're getting extra stuff, not being denied a complete product.

You're not being denied a complete product, you're getting extra optional material that you do not need to play the functioning game. You're simply being charged for buying used, a measely 10 dollars, the person who bought new probably ended up giving them more than 10 dollars in the long run, and they got all the optional features as a bonus.

But which will you play more?
Also, Call of Duty has a campaign, but it's lasting quality is clearly multiplayer.

Doesn't matter which I play more, the game is still functional even if they gave me multiplayer over single player. But it's be silly for them to charge me for single player I don't want, they have to make it interesting for me. So they do it to multiplayer, as it costs upkeep. Also if I bought it for the multiplayer, then I'd give them the 10 bucks, as I'm still getting it cheaper than buying it new if I played my cards right.

But isn't multiplayer part of a functioning game? And am I not being denied part of a functioning part of a game?

No you're not being denied anything, you bought it used, which means you paid the developer and publisher nothing but you're still able to play a large portion of the game. So whatever entitlement you think you have you don't.

The multilayer costs money to upkeep with severs and all that nonsense, you gave them nothing so you don't get access to that function there's no arguing here. It's called intensive, buy two get one free, did you buy two? Yes? You get one free! No? You get nothing.

It's a big company with lots of people and they all worked hard to make a game and they want you to pay for it. Buying used means you didn't pay them at all.

That doesn't mean they get to treat me like a criminal. I'm well aware that publishers and developers make no distinction between those who pirate and those who buy games used, but we're not the same. Am I really a bad person just because I want to save a few bucks?

No one is treating you like a criminal, let me explain this to you more simple.

You buy used game, money goes ONLY TO GAMESTOP and NOT EA.

You are saving a few bucks yes, but you are NOT paying EA for what they made, you are paying gamestop for the game. So the 10 dollars EA is asking you to pay, is to get something out of that used game sale because otherwise they get NOTHING. So if you want to save a few bucks, expect to get less content.

Think of it as buying a used gameboy, you saved a few bucks but you're missing the battery cover for it.

Not if you bought one in decent condition. It's more like you bought a used Gameboy, but Nintendo has a deal with the seller to withhold the speakers, the headphone jack, and the battery cover until you give them a cut of the profit. It's not like you need any of those to play games...

[sub]I told you I was willing to argue this.[/sub]

 

[Vanbael]

I know that it sounds like a rip off, but its a way to help game companies turn a profit. what if you don't play online for a game like NFS Hot Pursuit, you got it used. Good for you, but if you do want to play online you better pony up to help keep the servers up.
Its also a way to encourage people to get games legitimately, new games always have the access code. I would have to say that used games, well they do feel nice but how are you benefiting the developer. EA knows their shit, and I respect them for it because its either pay up to keep the fair price of DLC and server cost, or you can pay 15 bucks for a mappack that has only 3 maps in it.

 

[Owyn_Merrilin]

Maybe if games were actually good I'd buy things new. Until then, I haven't bought a new game since Mass Effect 2, and I won't buy a new game until Skyrim. EA games tend to blend together also. I'd rather just play Combat Arms and actually keep playing with a large amount of people for longer than 6 months. I guarantee you can't say that for 95% of all multiplayer games on Xbox Live.

The 10 dollar project doesn't stop you from picking up a game six months from now a stream or online or a at a big box etc..etc...etc... only the asinine used games racket.

What are your feelings on used books?

Frankly I don't buy used books I purchase new or use public library facilities

Wait a second, you use libraries, and you're judging me for buying used games? Hypocrisy, thy name is Normandyfoxtrot.

I have no issue with games rental, and a library is simply a literary form of public rental.

That's even worse. You have no problem with rental, which let's you pay someone $5-$10 bucks to have the game out for a weekend, and potentially beat it in that time, but you don't want people to buy used? The dev isn't getting any money from you either way. And don't bring up that old story about how rental places have to pay more. Blockbuster did it back in the 80's, but that was just to appease the film companies, who were really leery of the whole home video thing. There was never any legal reason for them to do so; the right of first sale states that whoever first buys a product can do whatever the heck they like with it. This includes selling it on or renting it out. That's right, the used market is not simply legal because there's no law against it; there's actually a federal law on the books which expressly protects it.

As you probably know now ethic and law often have little if anything to actually do with eachother. As for my support of rental, ultimately it comes to how the system is limited in it's nature.

Ethics really doesn't play into this, and in what little way it does, the morality of it is different depending on which side of the fence you sit on. For the most part, it's economics; as producers, the publishers try to separate their customers from as much money as they can for as little product as they can. As consumers, we try to separate the producers from as much product as we can for as little money as we can. Why is it that so many people on this site immediately jump to the defense of their economic opponents?

Personally, it's ethics to me what is right and what is wrong, I don't care about money once I have enough that I can eat I really don't care about the rest and since i don't and likely never will have anyone relying on my fore their survival I'm allowed the luxury of worry about ethics.

That doesn't even make any sense, at least in context. Care to elaborate?

If I approach a product I have a duty to ensure that the creator of such product is fully and properly compensated, just as a company should have the same duty to their consumer and frankly this is all immaterial to rather or not one party or another refuses to complete their portion of the bargain.

No, you have a duty to see that the owner of that product is properly compensated. That whole license thing is the biggest lie a group of consumers have ever swallowed. To use an argument that directly involves intellectual property, let's say I have a book which I have legally acquired. If I decide to sell on the book, should the person I sell it to pay me, or should they send a money order to the author? Remember here that I'm the one who is losing a copy, and presumably an infinitely copyable digital version exists somewhere, from whence my copy was made.

Physical copies of books are not licensed. You really do own them. E-books are licensed however. So if you're selling a physical copy of a book, you get paid. It's yours. Can't do that with an E-book. ...Licensing is bullshit though. I can agree with that.

I'm glad to see you agree with the licensing bit -- there are too few people on the Escapist who do. Let's extend the book comparison for a bit. With that physical copy, you aren't given copyright. You have a hard copy, but you can't legally do anything with the contents of it except pass it on to another consumer, depriving yourself of that copy in the process. Is there any difference between that and the "licenses" that game companies supposedly sell us? Or are they really selling us a physical copy, and then claiming they sold us a license in order to damage the used market? I agree that E-books are sold as a license, but then so are games on Steam; there's no physical product sold in either case, and used sales are literally impossible.

It's a little different yes. ...If you don't accept the license on a game you can't play or install it. The company has more control with it. If they could do it to books i'm sure they would. They get us on the fact that "we agreed to the terms" which...really is true. We'd rather agree to the terms than not play games though, as most people don't seem to have a problem with the terms. Sadly a game is like an Ebook on a disk. Not a real book. It being digital media let's them kinda strong arm us into agreeing.

Keyword, strongarm. If any other industry tried to make you do that, the contract wouldn't hold up in court, because it would have been made under duress. There's such a thing as an invalid contract.

Edit: And I'd argue that if they were selling ebooks on discs, or even on micro SD cards, that they would once again be selling a physical product, which the buyer would then have every right to sell on. Think CDs, DVDs, and slot music cards. Oh, and while many people claim in these arguments that used DVDs are practically non-existant, it simply proves that they've never seen the inside of a pawn shop, a record shop, or heck, a thrift shop. I buy used DVDs all the time, and it's great.

 

[oplinger]

Maybe if games were actually good I'd buy things new. Until then, I haven't bought a new game since Mass Effect 2, and I won't buy a new game until Skyrim. EA games tend to blend together also. I'd rather just play Combat Arms and actually keep playing with a large amount of people for longer than 6 months. I guarantee you can't say that for 95% of all multiplayer games on Xbox Live.

The 10 dollar project doesn't stop you from picking up a game six months from now a stream or online or a at a big box etc..etc...etc... only the asinine used games racket.

What are your feelings on used books?

Frankly I don't buy used books I purchase new or use public library facilities

Wait a second, you use libraries, and you're judging me for buying used games? Hypocrisy, thy name is Normandyfoxtrot.

I have no issue with games rental, and a library is simply a literary form of public rental.

That's even worse. You have no problem with rental, which let's you pay someone $5-$10 bucks to have the game out for a weekend, and potentially beat it in that time, but you don't want people to buy used? The dev isn't getting any money from you either way. And don't bring up that old story about how rental places have to pay more. Blockbuster did it back in the 80's, but that was just to appease the film companies, who were really leery of the whole home video thing. There was never any legal reason for them to do so; the right of first sale states that whoever first buys a product can do whatever the heck they like with it. This includes selling it on or renting it out. That's right, the used market is not simply legal because there's no law against it; there's actually a federal law on the books which expressly protects it.

As you probably know now ethic and law often have little if anything to actually do with eachother. As for my support of rental, ultimately it comes to how the system is limited in it's nature.

Ethics really doesn't play into this, and in what little way it does, the morality of it is different depending on which side of the fence you sit on. For the most part, it's economics; as producers, the publishers try to separate their customers from as much money as they can for as little product as they can. As consumers, we try to separate the producers from as much product as we can for as little money as we can. Why is it that so many people on this site immediately jump to the defense of their economic opponents?

Personally, it's ethics to me what is right and what is wrong, I don't care about money once I have enough that I can eat I really don't care about the rest and since i don't and likely never will have anyone relying on my fore their survival I'm allowed the luxury of worry about ethics.

That doesn't even make any sense, at least in context. Care to elaborate?

If I approach a product I have a duty to ensure that the creator of such product is fully and properly compensated, just as a company should have the same duty to their consumer and frankly this is all immaterial to rather or not one party or another refuses to complete their portion of the bargain.

No, you have a duty to see that the owner of that product is properly compensated. That whole license thing is the biggest lie a group of consumers have ever swallowed. To use an argument that directly involves intellectual property, let's say I have a book which I have legally acquired. If I decide to sell on the book, should the person I sell it to pay me, or should they send a money order to the author? Remember here that I'm the one who is losing a copy, and presumably an infinitely copyable digital version exists somewhere, from whence my copy was made.

Physical copies of books are not licensed. You really do own them. E-books are licensed however. So if you're selling a physical copy of a book, you get paid. It's yours. Can't do that with an E-book. ...Licensing is bullshit though. I can agree with that.

I'm glad to see you agree with the licensing bit -- there are too few people on the Escapist who do. Let's extend the book comparison for a bit. With that physical copy, you aren't given copyright. You have a hard copy, but you can't legally do anything with the contents of it except pass it on to another consumer, depriving yourself of that copy in the process. Is there any difference between that and the "licenses" that game companies supposedly sell us? Or are they really selling us a physical copy, and then claiming they sold us a license in order to damage the used market? I agree that E-books are sold as a license, but then so are games on Steam; there's no physical product sold in either case, and used sales are literally impossible.

It's a little different yes. ...If you don't accept the license on a game you can't play or install it. The company has more control with it. If they could do it to books i'm sure they would. They get us on the fact that "we agreed to the terms" which...really is true. We'd rather agree to the terms than not play games though, as most people don't seem to have a problem with the terms. Sadly a game is like an Ebook on a disk. Not a real book. It being digital media let's them kinda strong arm us into agreeing.

Keyword, strongarm. If any other industry tried to make you do that, the contract wouldn't hold up in court, because it would have been made under duress. There's such a thing as an invalid contract.

Well technically, movies are protected in a very similar way. You don't own the movie. You own the license to own the movie and watch it privately. You agree by watching. You don't even get to click yes.

 

[Owyn_Merrilin]

Maybe if games were actually good I'd buy things new. Until then, I haven't bought a new game since Mass Effect 2, and I won't buy a new game until Skyrim. EA games tend to blend together also. I'd rather just play Combat Arms and actually keep playing with a large amount of people for longer than 6 months. I guarantee you can't say that for 95% of all multiplayer games on Xbox Live.

The 10 dollar project doesn't stop you from picking up a game six months from now a stream or online or a at a big box etc..etc...etc... only the asinine used games racket.

What are your feelings on used books?

Frankly I don't buy used books I purchase new or use public library facilities

Wait a second, you use libraries, and you're judging me for buying used games? Hypocrisy, thy name is Normandyfoxtrot.

I have no issue with games rental, and a library is simply a literary form of public rental.

That's even worse. You have no problem with rental, which let's you pay someone $5-$10 bucks to have the game out for a weekend, and potentially beat it in that time, but you don't want people to buy used? The dev isn't getting any money from you either way. And don't bring up that old story about how rental places have to pay more. Blockbuster did it back in the 80's, but that was just to appease the film companies, who were really leery of the whole home video thing. There was never any legal reason for them to do so; the right of first sale states that whoever first buys a product can do whatever the heck they like with it. This includes selling it on or renting it out. That's right, the used market is not simply legal because there's no law against it; there's actually a federal law on the books which expressly protects it.

As you probably know now ethic and law often have little if anything to actually do with eachother. As for my support of rental, ultimately it comes to how the system is limited in it's nature.

Ethics really doesn't play into this, and in what little way it does, the morality of it is different depending on which side of the fence you sit on. For the most part, it's economics; as producers, the publishers try to separate their customers from as much money as they can for as little product as they can. As consumers, we try to separate the producers from as much product as we can for as little money as we can. Why is it that so many people on this site immediately jump to the defense of their economic opponents?

Personally, it's ethics to me what is right and what is wrong, I don't care about money once I have enough that I can eat I really don't care about the rest and since i don't and likely never will have anyone relying on my fore their survival I'm allowed the luxury of worry about ethics.

That doesn't even make any sense, at least in context. Care to elaborate?

If I approach a product I have a duty to ensure that the creator of such product is fully and properly compensated, just as a company should have the same duty to their consumer and frankly this is all immaterial to rather or not one party or another refuses to complete their portion of the bargain.

No, you have a duty to see that the owner of that product is properly compensated. That whole license thing is the biggest lie a group of consumers have ever swallowed. To use an argument that directly involves intellectual property, let's say I have a book which I have legally acquired. If I decide to sell on the book, should the person I sell it to pay me, or should they send a money order to the author? Remember here that I'm the one who is losing a copy, and presumably an infinitely copyable digital version exists somewhere, from whence my copy was made.

Physical copies of books are not licensed. You really do own them. E-books are licensed however. So if you're selling a physical copy of a book, you get paid. It's yours. Can't do that with an E-book. ...Licensing is bullshit though. I can agree with that.

I'm glad to see you agree with the licensing bit -- there are too few people on the Escapist who do. Let's extend the book comparison for a bit. With that physical copy, you aren't given copyright. You have a hard copy, but you can't legally do anything with the contents of it except pass it on to another consumer, depriving yourself of that copy in the process. Is there any difference between that and the "licenses" that game companies supposedly sell us? Or are they really selling us a physical copy, and then claiming they sold us a license in order to damage the used market? I agree that E-books are sold as a license, but then so are games on Steam; there's no physical product sold in either case, and used sales are literally impossible.

It's a little different yes. ...If you don't accept the license on a game you can't play or install it. The company has more control with it. If they could do it to books i'm sure they would. They get us on the fact that "we agreed to the terms" which...really is true. We'd rather agree to the terms than not play games though, as most people don't seem to have a problem with the terms. Sadly a game is like an Ebook on a disk. Not a real book. It being digital media let's them kinda strong arm us into agreeing.

Keyword, strongarm. If any other industry tried to make you do that, the contract wouldn't hold up in court, because it would have been made under duress. There's such a thing as an invalid contract.

Well technically, movies are protected in a very similar way. You don't own the movie. You own the license to own the movie and watch it privately. You agree by watching. You don't even get to click yes.

Are you psychic or something? You responded to my edit before I even posted it. However, the claims they have at the beginning of the DVD are largely false; the right of first sale, which I mentioned earlier in the thread, invalidates the vast majority of them, at least in the US.

 

[stefman]

this may also help people save money, as in "is it really worth the money? can i afford to skip it to play something i really want to play?"