Hitman: Absolution May Require "Purchase" of Free Online Pass

[DTWolfwood]

So its free...and it isn't just included on install... sigh.

the statistic they get better be worth this silly hassle.

 

[DataSnake]

My guess is that it's some technicality for game ratings. The ESRB does hold publishers accountable for mods (see Hot Coffee and the "Oblivion Nude Mod"), so "it technically isn't on the disc" wouldn't fly with them. Thus, they don't bother with the whole rigamarole in the US. Maybe whoever rates games for Europe objected to Contracts mode but isn't willing to ban the game based on features not physically on the disc? It wouldn't be the first time something has been made downloadable instead of included to get past EU restrictions; copies of Windows 7 sold in Europe didn't include Internet Explorer, IIRC.

 

[DracoSuave]

To get a clearer count on how many people are playing without paying.

See this? This is bullshit.

If someone buys a used copy, they're not playing 'without paying.' They're not even playing without the publisher being paid.

That copy, that license, HAS been paid for, and the company doesn't lose anything for someone else using it.

Treating IP as real physical property, will only lead to faulty reasonings.

If a game would only consist of a finite amount of "copies" that a liciense can "give" to you, then even piracy would be entirely harmless, since no copy is being taken away from the publisher, just a new one made. And that's what copyright forbids. It's not about "taking away" something, but a monopoly that says that only a certain company is allowed to create or sell you more copies.

If you "buy" a piece of music, and then play it loudly in your restaurant, the IP holder can persecute you for not paying the extra licenses that you would have to pay for public performances. Because you don't OWN that piece of music, the IP owner does.

Or rather, the problem is, that NO ONE can "own" data, once it is out in the public. Creators can demand more copyright monopolies that allow them to make you pay for certain activities, consumers can demand more rights to share it, the public can demand Fair Use rights or lower Public Domain limits, but neither of these is about exclusive ownership of the data, they are all just lobbying for their own benefit.

What does piracy (which is morally analogous to counterfieting) have to do with resale of your own property? If you sell a used copy, one person is using it. If you make a copy and distribute ot, two people are using it. 1 != 2, no matter how much bullshit rhetoric you try to attach to it.

If you pay for a product, you get to sell that product.

If you pay for a license, then limitations on resale must be included in the contract.

Video game packaging does not inform the consumer that it is a license, nor does it include resale limitations. The point of sale similarly does not have you agree to any licensing or resale limitations. Therefore, any attempt to damage resalability is a sabotage of consumer rights.

The onus is on the publisher to communicate these things, and the publisher repeatedly fails to do so. Therefore the consumer cannot be expected to relinquish any of their rights.

It's actually very black and white here.

 

[mrdude2010]

This sounds like an attempt to monitor used games purchases in a meaningful way. Either that or they planned to include DRM and then realized it would piss people off.

Also, game companies don't have to find a way to stay profitable with the used games market, they're doing better than ever already, even with used games.

 

[Milanezi]

And it seems nothing happened after all?... I started playing yesterday, my account is north-american, but I'm playing the game from Brazil. They KNOW my IP is in Brazil, after all, there are many contents (ok, not that many anymore) that they keep me from accessing because they can trace my IP; in other words: it seems Hitman has no such requirement to play online. Just to make sure I also went in the MS Store but found nothing of the sort for sale, only a BIG BUNCH of weapons and clothing for 47

 

[Milanezi]

To get a clearer count on how many people are playing without paying.

See this? This is bullshit.

If someone buys a used copy, they're not playing 'without paying.' They're not even playing without the publisher being paid.

That copy, that license, HAS been paid for, and the company doesn't lose anything for someone else using it.

Treating IP as real physical property, will only lead to faulty reasonings.

If a game would only consist of a finite amount of "copies" that a liciense can "give" to you, then even piracy would be entirely harmless, since no copy is being taken away from the publisher, just a new one made. And that's what copyright forbids. It's not about "taking away" something, but a monopoly that says that only a certain company is allowed to create or sell you more copies.

If you "buy" a piece of music, and then play it loudly in your restaurant, the IP holder can persecute you for not paying the extra licenses that you would have to pay for public performances. Because you don't OWN that piece of music, the IP owner does.

Or rather, the problem is, that NO ONE can "own" data, once it is out in the public. Creators can demand more copyright monopolies that allow them to make you pay for certain activities, consumers can demand more rights to share it, the public can demand Fair Use rights or lower Public Domain limits, but neither of these is about exclusive ownership of the data, they are all just lobbying for their own benefit.

What does piracy (which is morally analogous to counterfieting) have to do with resale of your own property? If you sell a used copy, one person is using it. If you make a copy and distribute ot, two people are using it. 1 != 2, no matter how much bullshit rhetoric you try to attach to it.

If you pay for a product, you get to sell that product.

If you pay for a license, then limitations on resale must be included in the contract.

Video game packaging does not inform the consumer that it is a license, nor does it include resale limitations. The point of sale similarly does not have you agree to any licensing or resale limitations. Therefore, any attempt to damage resalability is a sabotage of consumer rights.

The onus is on the publisher to communicate these things, and the publisher repeatedly fails to do so. Therefore the consumer cannot be expected to relinquish any of their rights.

It's actually very black and white here.

Exactly, it's the very definition of "property" (to be able to use, enjoy and DISPOSE). As gaming company logic goes, no one should be able to sell their used cars, because that means someone else will use that car and the given dealer will "lose a sale" which means an impact on the automaker. See, the logic is actually SOUND, but you don't see VolksWagen saying you can't sell your car to someone else, because doing so goes against the principle of PROPERTY, it turns property into mere "possession" (mere right to use, and, to some extent, enjoy an item, but NEVER DISPOSE)...