Jimquisition: Used Games Have A Right To Exist

[Epona]

So in essence your argument is:

Waaaaah!!! Piracy is worse than trade-ins therefore trade-ins aren't hurting the industry at all!
Waaaaah!!! EA is a worse company than Gamestop (which they aren't, not by a long shot, at least EA actually funds games and many great games at that.), therefore all of Gamestop's bullshit nickle-and-dimeing and intentional working around the companies that actually makes the games are perfectly acceptable!
Waaaaah!!! I don't want the corporate fat cats at EA making money! I'd much rather give my money to the corporate fat cats at Gamestop!
Waaaaah!!! Murder is a worse crime than assault! Therefore punching random people on the street in the face isn't a problem at all!

Class act there Jim.

But alas, you're wrong.

You know who is really hurt by used games? All those smaller titles you talked about two weeks ago. They're the ones that can't afford great marketing, and thus can't push many unit at launch, but because of used sales, slow sales over time quickly regress to no new sales at all, because the games are being traded in is very high compared to the rate at which the game is being bought.

Fantastic. Could not have said it better myself

I still cant believe he wants to whine for 3 full episodes with these flawed arguments.

I'm sorry, I just find it amusing that you find this mans "arguments" to be "Fantastic" (even though he just uses rethorics and call Jim a baby) yet to condone Jim for his "flawed arguments", Jim pretty much using nothing but rethorics himself.

My amusement put aside, I have to ask you; Do you believe it's right to lose your right to sell something you own? Because all the other "arguments" put aside, this is a rather solid one.

Yeah because this is all new. No1 has ever made a pay as you go system for entertainment before.... cept since the invention of entertainment.

I'm sorry, but you didn't answer my question, you just referenced that there ARE places where you pay from time to time (such as movies), but they never sell you any property, so your argument (if it even was one?) is invalid.
Answer the question, please.

Cable TV

But putting that aside Movie tickets still count. A game in a box is just a movie ticket. It has a playtime and it has an end. Thoes that dont have an extra service, usually one that they pay for.

But putting that aside you are changing the question. There is no proberty involved in games. Do you pay for the disk or the entertainment on the disk? You ne to categorise it as entertainment rather than proberty. and all of a sudden its not a big issue that they try to change it as a pay as you go system.

Cable TV is a service. No property changes hands. A movie is a service, the ticket is just your proof of purchase which is ripped in half when you enter the screen room. It's not property that you keep because it has value.

A game is a product, ownership switched hands between the retailer and you. The publisher lost ownership when they sold it to the retailer. It's really simple and you have to go out of your way to pretend not to understand that.

When you misspelled "property" once I overlooked it but when you did it twice...well why?

First of all I am translating as a go here. And you are going to bat me with spelling?
I'm terribly sorry I wasn't born speaking English.

Second.
You dont own the product that you haven't bought. The producers choose to sell it to you in any way shape or form. As a combination of property and services (like cable TV. I used that as an example because of the hardware that comes with a service. I suppose cellphones would have been better).
Games are no different. Hardware and a service. Now that is really simple. Why do you think that your right of ownership trumps the producers?
You own the product you have bought correct, problem is you have bought an item with a connected service. And like I already said. If you dont pay the producers, you dont get the service.

1) That depends, did your browser put a red squiggly line under your misspelled words? If so then yes I am going to hassle you about spelling. If not then no I won't.

2) When you buy something ownership changes hands. Let me give you an example, what is the difference between renting a game from the local video store and BUYING a game from a big box retailer? The difference is that in the first scenario you don't own it and in the second scenario, you do. Where do you get this idea that if I buy a single player Mario game, Nintendo is providing me a service? Nintendo is selling me a product, not a service. If online multiplayer was attached then that is a service and sure, online passes are legal (we aren't talking about those though) but online passes are not necessary and they are a dick move that will drive customers away. So let EA have their online passes but when they fewer people are online.... Back to the ownership thing. EA may have a service attached but the product itself belongs to the consumer, not EA. If I sell you my car, I no longer have any rights to that car, same thing here. Closer to home, if I sell you my single player Mario game, I no longer have any rights to that game.

So they are not allowed to change the method of how they sell their property is what you are saying?

Or are you saying they are changing the terms of a sale retrospectively? If so I would like a single example.

Here is a fact. They can chose to make games all lease. They can do that. Right of property as you are going on about. What makes you think that you have greater rights of property than them?

And btw My spelling might not be perfect, but 2 can play that game

So let EA have their online passes but when they fewer people are online

What the fuck are you talking about? Did you even read the post you quoted?

Yes, they could choose to lease games but right now they are selling them, you buy a game in the aisle right next to where you buy a TV and the procedure is the same.

If you go into Wal Mart and ask to rent or lease a game, will they pull out a contract? Will there be a return date?

YOU ARE BUYING, NOT RENTING AND NOT LEASING. The game industry has you so brainwashed that you can't understand that the game is your property just as much as the TV is. You can't break any laws with the game or the TV but that doesn't alter ownership.

Online passes are perfectly legal but they are a dick move and in the end, they will only hurt the greedy publishers when there are fewer people online. People are content and without them, online multiplayer doesn't exist.

 

[Epona]

So in essence your argument is:

Waaaaah!!! Piracy is worse than trade-ins therefore trade-ins aren't hurting the industry at all!
Waaaaah!!! EA is a worse company than Gamestop (which they aren't, not by a long shot, at least EA actually funds games and many great games at that.), therefore all of Gamestop's bullshit nickle-and-dimeing and intentional working around the companies that actually makes the games are perfectly acceptable!
Waaaaah!!! I don't want the corporate fat cats at EA making money! I'd much rather give my money to the corporate fat cats at Gamestop!
Waaaaah!!! Murder is a worse crime than assault! Therefore punching random people on the street in the face isn't a problem at all!

Class act there Jim.

But alas, you're wrong.

You know who is really hurt by used games? All those smaller titles you talked about two weeks ago. They're the ones that can't afford great marketing, and thus can't push many unit at launch, but because of used sales, slow sales over time quickly regress to no new sales at all, because the games are being traded in is very high compared to the rate at which the game is being bought.

Fantastic. Could not have said it better myself

I still cant believe he wants to whine for 3 full episodes with these flawed arguments.

I'm sorry, I just find it amusing that you find this mans "arguments" to be "Fantastic" (even though he just uses rethorics and call Jim a baby) yet to condone Jim for his "flawed arguments", Jim pretty much using nothing but rethorics himself.

My amusement put aside, I have to ask you; Do you believe it's right to lose your right to sell something you own? Because all the other "arguments" put aside, this is a rather solid one.

Yeah because this is all new. No1 has ever made a pay as you go system for entertainment before.... cept since the invention of entertainment.

I'm sorry, but you didn't answer my question, you just referenced that there ARE places where you pay from time to time (such as movies), but they never sell you any property, so your argument (if it even was one?) is invalid.
Answer the question, please.

Cable TV

But putting that aside Movie tickets still count. A game in a box is just a movie ticket. It has a playtime and it has an end. Thoes that dont have an extra service, usually one that they pay for.

But putting that aside you are changing the question. There is no proberty involved in games. Do you pay for the disk or the entertainment on the disk? You ne to categorise it as entertainment rather than proberty. and all of a sudden its not a big issue that they try to change it as a pay as you go system.

Cable TV is a service. No property changes hands. A movie is a service, the ticket is just your proof of purchase which is ripped in half when you enter the screen room. It's not property that you keep because it has value.

A game is a product, ownership switched hands between the retailer and you. The publisher lost ownership when they sold it to the retailer. It's really simple and you have to go out of your way to pretend not to understand that.

When you misspelled "property" once I overlooked it but when you did it twice...well why?

First of all I am translating as a go here. And you are going to bat me with spelling?
I'm terribly sorry I wasn't born speaking English.

Second.
You dont own the product that you haven't bought. The producers choose to sell it to you in any way shape or form. As a combination of property and services (like cable TV. I used that as an example because of the hardware that comes with a service. I suppose cellphones would have been better).
Games are no different. Hardware and a service. Now that is really simple. Why do you think that your right of ownership trumps the producers?
You own the product you have bought correct, problem is you have bought an item with a connected service. And like I already said. If you dont pay the producers, you dont get the service.

1) That depends, did your browser put a red squiggly line under your misspelled words? If so then yes I am going to hassle you about spelling. If not then no I won't.

2) When you buy something ownership changes hands. Let me give you an example, what is the difference between renting a game from the local video store and BUYING a game from a big box retailer? The difference is that in the first scenario you don't own it and in the second scenario, you do. Where do you get this idea that if I buy a single player Mario game, Nintendo is providing me a service? Nintendo is selling me a product, not a service. If online multiplayer was attached then that is a service and sure, online passes are legal (we aren't talking about those though) but online passes are not necessary and they are a dick move that will drive customers away. So let EA have their online passes but when they fewer people are online.... Back to the ownership thing. EA may have a service attached but the product itself belongs to the consumer, not EA. If I sell you my car, I no longer have any rights to that car, same thing here. Closer to home, if I sell you my single player Mario game, I no longer have any rights to that game.

So they are not allowed to change the method of how they sell their property is what you are saying?

Or are you saying they are changing the terms of a sale retrospectively? If so I would like a single example.

Here is a fact. They can chose to make games all lease. They can do that. Right of property as you are going on about. What makes you think that you have greater rights of property than them?

And btw My spelling might not be perfect, but 2 can play that game

So let EA have their online passes but when they fewer people are online

What the fuck are you talking about? Did you even read the post you quoted?

Yes, they could choose to lease games but right now they are selling them, you buy a game in the aisle right next to where you buy a TV and the procedure is the same.

If you go into Wal Mart and ask to rent or lease a game, will they pull out a contract? Will there be a return date?

YOU ARE BUYING, NOT RENTING AND NOT LEASING. The game industry has you so brainwashed that you can't understand that they game is your property just as much as the TV is. You can't break any laws with the game or the TV but that doesn't alter ownership.

Online passes are perfectly legal but they are a dick move and in the end, they will only hurt the greedy publishers when there are fewer people online. People are content and without them, online multiplayer doesn't exist.

That you dont understand that you are buying a service along with the physical isn't their fault. You are told when you make accounts and when you are given codes. That you dont understand the product you are sold doesn't make them the bad guyes.

That you are whining brain washed just shows how far out you are.

Here is the thing! they dont let you sell your DLC either! go protest!

"So let EA have their online passes but when they fewer people are online"

"but when they fewer people are" is the key btw.

Ok tell me, when I buy Skyward Sword, what service am I getting with it?

 

[Epona]

So in essence your argument is:

Waaaaah!!! Piracy is worse than trade-ins therefore trade-ins aren't hurting the industry at all!
Waaaaah!!! EA is a worse company than Gamestop (which they aren't, not by a long shot, at least EA actually funds games and many great games at that.), therefore all of Gamestop's bullshit nickle-and-dimeing and intentional working around the companies that actually makes the games are perfectly acceptable!
Waaaaah!!! I don't want the corporate fat cats at EA making money! I'd much rather give my money to the corporate fat cats at Gamestop!
Waaaaah!!! Murder is a worse crime than assault! Therefore punching random people on the street in the face isn't a problem at all!

Class act there Jim.

But alas, you're wrong.

You know who is really hurt by used games? All those smaller titles you talked about two weeks ago. They're the ones that can't afford great marketing, and thus can't push many unit at launch, but because of used sales, slow sales over time quickly regress to no new sales at all, because the games are being traded in is very high compared to the rate at which the game is being bought.

Fantastic. Could not have said it better myself

I still cant believe he wants to whine for 3 full episodes with these flawed arguments.

I'm sorry, I just find it amusing that you find this mans "arguments" to be "Fantastic" (even though he just uses rethorics and call Jim a baby) yet to condone Jim for his "flawed arguments", Jim pretty much using nothing but rethorics himself.

My amusement put aside, I have to ask you; Do you believe it's right to lose your right to sell something you own? Because all the other "arguments" put aside, this is a rather solid one.

Yeah because this is all new. No1 has ever made a pay as you go system for entertainment before.... cept since the invention of entertainment.

I'm sorry, but you didn't answer my question, you just referenced that there ARE places where you pay from time to time (such as movies), but they never sell you any property, so your argument (if it even was one?) is invalid.
Answer the question, please.

Cable TV

But putting that aside Movie tickets still count. A game in a box is just a movie ticket. It has a playtime and it has an end. Thoes that dont have an extra service, usually one that they pay for.

But putting that aside you are changing the question. There is no proberty involved in games. Do you pay for the disk or the entertainment on the disk? You ne to categorise it as entertainment rather than proberty. and all of a sudden its not a big issue that they try to change it as a pay as you go system.

Cable TV is a service. No property changes hands. A movie is a service, the ticket is just your proof of purchase which is ripped in half when you enter the screen room. It's not property that you keep because it has value.

A game is a product, ownership switched hands between the retailer and you. The publisher lost ownership when they sold it to the retailer. It's really simple and you have to go out of your way to pretend not to understand that.

When you misspelled "property" once I overlooked it but when you did it twice...well why?

First of all I am translating as a go here. And you are going to bat me with spelling?
I'm terribly sorry I wasn't born speaking English.

Second.
You dont own the product that you haven't bought. The producers choose to sell it to you in any way shape or form. As a combination of property and services (like cable TV. I used that as an example because of the hardware that comes with a service. I suppose cellphones would have been better).
Games are no different. Hardware and a service. Now that is really simple. Why do you think that your right of ownership trumps the producers?
You own the product you have bought correct, problem is you have bought an item with a connected service. And like I already said. If you dont pay the producers, you dont get the service.

1) That depends, did your browser put a red squiggly line under your misspelled words? If so then yes I am going to hassle you about spelling. If not then no I won't.

2) When you buy something ownership changes hands. Let me give you an example, what is the difference between renting a game from the local video store and BUYING a game from a big box retailer? The difference is that in the first scenario you don't own it and in the second scenario, you do. Where do you get this idea that if I buy a single player Mario game, Nintendo is providing me a service? Nintendo is selling me a product, not a service. If online multiplayer was attached then that is a service and sure, online passes are legal (we aren't talking about those though) but online passes are not necessary and they are a dick move that will drive customers away. So let EA have their online passes but when they fewer people are online.... Back to the ownership thing. EA may have a service attached but the product itself belongs to the consumer, not EA. If I sell you my car, I no longer have any rights to that car, same thing here. Closer to home, if I sell you my single player Mario game, I no longer have any rights to that game.

So they are not allowed to change the method of how they sell their property is what you are saying?

Or are you saying they are changing the terms of a sale retrospectively? If so I would like a single example.

Here is a fact. They can chose to make games all lease. They can do that. Right of property as you are going on about. What makes you think that you have greater rights of property than them?

And btw My spelling might not be perfect, but 2 can play that game

So let EA have their online passes but when they fewer people are online

What the fuck are you talking about? Did you even read the post you quoted?

Yes, they could choose to lease games but right now they are selling them, you buy a game in the aisle right next to where you buy a TV and the procedure is the same.

If you go into Wal Mart and ask to rent or lease a game, will they pull out a contract? Will there be a return date?

YOU ARE BUYING, NOT RENTING AND NOT LEASING. The game industry has you so brainwashed that you can't understand that they game is your property just as much as the TV is. You can't break any laws with the game or the TV but that doesn't alter ownership.

Online passes are perfectly legal but they are a dick move and in the end, they will only hurt the greedy publishers when there are fewer people online. People are content and without them, online multiplayer doesn't exist.

That you dont understand that you are buying a service along with the physical isn't their fault. You are told when you make accounts and when you are given codes. That you dont understand the product you are sold doesn't make them the bad guyes.

That you are whining brain washed just shows how far out you are.

Here is the thing! they dont let you sell your DLC either! go protest!

"So let EA have their online passes but when they fewer people are online"

"but when they fewer people are" is the key btw.

Ok tell me, when I buy Skyward Sword, what service am I getting with it?

Well if they are making at account system. Then they changing it to entertainment, making it a full service.

Ok, let me simplify it. What service did I get when I bought Super Mario Galaxy?

Games are a product, if there is an online counterpart THAT and only that is a service. The game itself remains a product except in cases where the online portion IS the game (an MMO).

For Example, I still own Populous: The Beginning even if the official online counterpart has long been dead and I can play Populous: The Beginning right now without needing to ask permission from EA. I don't know how much clearer I can be.

 

[Epona]

So in essence your argument is:

Waaaaah!!! Piracy is worse than trade-ins therefore trade-ins aren't hurting the industry at all!
Waaaaah!!! EA is a worse company than Gamestop (which they aren't, not by a long shot, at least EA actually funds games and many great games at that.), therefore all of Gamestop's bullshit nickle-and-dimeing and intentional working around the companies that actually makes the games are perfectly acceptable!
Waaaaah!!! I don't want the corporate fat cats at EA making money! I'd much rather give my money to the corporate fat cats at Gamestop!
Waaaaah!!! Murder is a worse crime than assault! Therefore punching random people on the street in the face isn't a problem at all!

Class act there Jim.

But alas, you're wrong.

You know who is really hurt by used games? All those smaller titles you talked about two weeks ago. They're the ones that can't afford great marketing, and thus can't push many unit at launch, but because of used sales, slow sales over time quickly regress to no new sales at all, because the games are being traded in is very high compared to the rate at which the game is being bought.

Fantastic. Could not have said it better myself

I still cant believe he wants to whine for 3 full episodes with these flawed arguments.

I'm sorry, I just find it amusing that you find this mans "arguments" to be "Fantastic" (even though he just uses rethorics and call Jim a baby) yet to condone Jim for his "flawed arguments", Jim pretty much using nothing but rethorics himself.

My amusement put aside, I have to ask you; Do you believe it's right to lose your right to sell something you own? Because all the other "arguments" put aside, this is a rather solid one.

Yeah because this is all new. No1 has ever made a pay as you go system for entertainment before.... cept since the invention of entertainment.

I'm sorry, but you didn't answer my question, you just referenced that there ARE places where you pay from time to time (such as movies), but they never sell you any property, so your argument (if it even was one?) is invalid.
Answer the question, please.

Cable TV

But putting that aside Movie tickets still count. A game in a box is just a movie ticket. It has a playtime and it has an end. Thoes that dont have an extra service, usually one that they pay for.

But putting that aside you are changing the question. There is no proberty involved in games. Do you pay for the disk or the entertainment on the disk? You ne to categorise it as entertainment rather than proberty. and all of a sudden its not a big issue that they try to change it as a pay as you go system.

Cable TV is a service. No property changes hands. A movie is a service, the ticket is just your proof of purchase which is ripped in half when you enter the screen room. It's not property that you keep because it has value.

A game is a product, ownership switched hands between the retailer and you. The publisher lost ownership when they sold it to the retailer. It's really simple and you have to go out of your way to pretend not to understand that.

When you misspelled "property" once I overlooked it but when you did it twice...well why?

First of all I am translating as a go here. And you are going to bat me with spelling?
I'm terribly sorry I wasn't born speaking English.

Second.
You dont own the product that you haven't bought. The producers choose to sell it to you in any way shape or form. As a combination of property and services (like cable TV. I used that as an example because of the hardware that comes with a service. I suppose cellphones would have been better).
Games are no different. Hardware and a service. Now that is really simple. Why do you think that your right of ownership trumps the producers?
You own the product you have bought correct, problem is you have bought an item with a connected service. And like I already said. If you dont pay the producers, you dont get the service.

1) That depends, did your browser put a red squiggly line under your misspelled words? If so then yes I am going to hassle you about spelling. If not then no I won't.

2) When you buy something ownership changes hands. Let me give you an example, what is the difference between renting a game from the local video store and BUYING a game from a big box retailer? The difference is that in the first scenario you don't own it and in the second scenario, you do. Where do you get this idea that if I buy a single player Mario game, Nintendo is providing me a service? Nintendo is selling me a product, not a service. If online multiplayer was attached then that is a service and sure, online passes are legal (we aren't talking about those though) but online passes are not necessary and they are a dick move that will drive customers away. So let EA have their online passes but when they fewer people are online.... Back to the ownership thing. EA may have a service attached but the product itself belongs to the consumer, not EA. If I sell you my car, I no longer have any rights to that car, same thing here. Closer to home, if I sell you my single player Mario game, I no longer have any rights to that game.

So they are not allowed to change the method of how they sell their property is what you are saying?

Or are you saying they are changing the terms of a sale retrospectively? If so I would like a single example.

Here is a fact. They can chose to make games all lease. They can do that. Right of property as you are going on about. What makes you think that you have greater rights of property than them?

And btw My spelling might not be perfect, but 2 can play that game

So let EA have their online passes but when they fewer people are online

What the fuck are you talking about? Did you even read the post you quoted?

Yes, they could choose to lease games but right now they are selling them, you buy a game in the aisle right next to where you buy a TV and the procedure is the same.

If you go into Wal Mart and ask to rent or lease a game, will they pull out a contract? Will there be a return date?

YOU ARE BUYING, NOT RENTING AND NOT LEASING. The game industry has you so brainwashed that you can't understand that they game is your property just as much as the TV is. You can't break any laws with the game or the TV but that doesn't alter ownership.

Online passes are perfectly legal but they are a dick move and in the end, they will only hurt the greedy publishers when there are fewer people online. People are content and without them, online multiplayer doesn't exist.

That you dont understand that you are buying a service along with the physical isn't their fault. You are told when you make accounts and when you are given codes. That you dont understand the product you are sold doesn't make them the bad guyes.

That you are whining brain washed just shows how far out you are.

Here is the thing! they dont let you sell your DLC either! go protest!

"So let EA have their online passes but when they fewer people are online"

"but when they fewer people are" is the key btw.

Ok tell me, when I buy Skyward Sword, what service am I getting with it?

Well if they are making at account system. Then they changing it to entertainment, making it a full service.

Ok, let me simplify it. What service did I get when I bought Super Mario Galaxy?

Games are a product, if there is an online counterpart THAT and only that are a service. The game itself remains a product except in cases where the online portion IS the game (an MMO).

For Example, I still own Populous: The Beginning even if the official online counterpart has long been dead and I can play Populous: The Beginning right now without needing to ask permission from EA. I don't know how much clearer I can be.

Oh you were prevented from selling your used copy of Super Mario Galaxy? I wasn't aware.

Oh wow, I am done with you.

 

[Ashley Blalock]

A couple of points that kind of jump all over the place.

A wrestler already took the title of the people's champion so I guess Jim has to take the title of the gamers champion. On a topic like used games we need all the people in the vanguard of the fight we can get so I'm happy to see Jim in the fight.

Publishers could make money off of used games but that's not their big plan to make lots of money with the least amount of effort. If I buy a used game for the X-Box 360 I don't get all the down loadable content the original owner might have purchased. So if a developer kept putting out new content to buy even if it was micro transactions that's more chances to make a little extra even after the original owner got bored and got rid of the game. But developers rather just slightly change a game and charge you $60 for almost the same game with only with a few changes. Instead of charging $5 to add Cam Newton to the Panthers in Madden Football they rather charge me $60 for the same players as last release except now it's a new QB.

If you think a place like Game Stop is evil because they don't offer you enough money you need to watch a show called Pawn Stars. People always go into the pawn shop thinking they should get the top price and Rick always has to explain it might go for $1000 at action, but they would have to take the risk and put up the fees for the auction. If they want to walk away with money and no risk he can offer them $500 and he'll take the risk of reselling it. People always have the choice of taking the trouble and expense to sell used games at auction or a want ad, but it's not Game Stop being evil to say if you want to sell it right now we can't offer what it goes for on e-Bay.

Used games can be more useful than just reselling. A friend switched over to X-Box 360 from Playstation and I let him borrow Halo 2. He was sure Halo was over rated and wouldn't have normally touch the series, but after borrowing my game he's pre-ordered the new games in the Halo series. Another friend lost his job and he was going crazy with nothing to do, so I gathered up some old games I wasn't playing and let him have them, it gave him something to do and cheered him up.

 

[Epona]

So in essence your argument is:

Waaaaah!!! Piracy is worse than trade-ins therefore trade-ins aren't hurting the industry at all!
Waaaaah!!! EA is a worse company than Gamestop (which they aren't, not by a long shot, at least EA actually funds games and many great games at that.), therefore all of Gamestop's bullshit nickle-and-dimeing and intentional working around the companies that actually makes the games are perfectly acceptable!
Waaaaah!!! I don't want the corporate fat cats at EA making money! I'd much rather give my money to the corporate fat cats at Gamestop!
Waaaaah!!! Murder is a worse crime than assault! Therefore punching random people on the street in the face isn't a problem at all!

Class act there Jim.

But alas, you're wrong.

You know who is really hurt by used games? All those smaller titles you talked about two weeks ago. They're the ones that can't afford great marketing, and thus can't push many unit at launch, but because of used sales, slow sales over time quickly regress to no new sales at all, because the games are being traded in is very high compared to the rate at which the game is being bought.

Fantastic. Could not have said it better myself

I still cant believe he wants to whine for 3 full episodes with these flawed arguments.

I'm sorry, I just find it amusing that you find this mans "arguments" to be "Fantastic" (even though he just uses rethorics and call Jim a baby) yet to condone Jim for his "flawed arguments", Jim pretty much using nothing but rethorics himself.

My amusement put aside, I have to ask you; Do you believe it's right to lose your right to sell something you own? Because all the other "arguments" put aside, this is a rather solid one.

Yeah because this is all new. No1 has ever made a pay as you go system for entertainment before.... cept since the invention of entertainment.

I'm sorry, but you didn't answer my question, you just referenced that there ARE places where you pay from time to time (such as movies), but they never sell you any property, so your argument (if it even was one?) is invalid.
Answer the question, please.

Cable TV

But putting that aside Movie tickets still count. A game in a box is just a movie ticket. It has a playtime and it has an end. Thoes that dont have an extra service, usually one that they pay for.

But putting that aside you are changing the question. There is no proberty involved in games. Do you pay for the disk or the entertainment on the disk? You ne to categorise it as entertainment rather than proberty. and all of a sudden its not a big issue that they try to change it as a pay as you go system.

Cable TV is a service. No property changes hands. A movie is a service, the ticket is just your proof of purchase which is ripped in half when you enter the screen room. It's not property that you keep because it has value.

A game is a product, ownership switched hands between the retailer and you. The publisher lost ownership when they sold it to the retailer. It's really simple and you have to go out of your way to pretend not to understand that.

When you misspelled "property" once I overlooked it but when you did it twice...well why?

First of all I am translating as a go here. And you are going to bat me with spelling?
I'm terribly sorry I wasn't born speaking English.

Second.
You dont own the product that you haven't bought. The producers choose to sell it to you in any way shape or form. As a combination of property and services (like cable TV. I used that as an example because of the hardware that comes with a service. I suppose cellphones would have been better).
Games are no different. Hardware and a service. Now that is really simple. Why do you think that your right of ownership trumps the producers?
You own the product you have bought correct, problem is you have bought an item with a connected service. And like I already said. If you dont pay the producers, you dont get the service.

1) That depends, did your browser put a red squiggly line under your misspelled words? If so then yes I am going to hassle you about spelling. If not then no I won't.

2) When you buy something ownership changes hands. Let me give you an example, what is the difference between renting a game from the local video store and BUYING a game from a big box retailer? The difference is that in the first scenario you don't own it and in the second scenario, you do. Where do you get this idea that if I buy a single player Mario game, Nintendo is providing me a service? Nintendo is selling me a product, not a service. If online multiplayer was attached then that is a service and sure, online passes are legal (we aren't talking about those though) but online passes are not necessary and they are a dick move that will drive customers away. So let EA have their online passes but when they fewer people are online.... Back to the ownership thing. EA may have a service attached but the product itself belongs to the consumer, not EA. If I sell you my car, I no longer have any rights to that car, same thing here. Closer to home, if I sell you my single player Mario game, I no longer have any rights to that game.

So they are not allowed to change the method of how they sell their property is what you are saying?

Or are you saying they are changing the terms of a sale retrospectively? If so I would like a single example.

Here is a fact. They can chose to make games all lease. They can do that. Right of property as you are going on about. What makes you think that you have greater rights of property than them?

And btw My spelling might not be perfect, but 2 can play that game

So let EA have their online passes but when they fewer people are online

What the fuck are you talking about? Did you even read the post you quoted?

Yes, they could choose to lease games but right now they are selling them, you buy a game in the aisle right next to where you buy a TV and the procedure is the same.

If you go into Wal Mart and ask to rent or lease a game, will they pull out a contract? Will there be a return date?

YOU ARE BUYING, NOT RENTING AND NOT LEASING. The game industry has you so brainwashed that you can't understand that they game is your property just as much as the TV is. You can't break any laws with the game or the TV but that doesn't alter ownership.

Online passes are perfectly legal but they are a dick move and in the end, they will only hurt the greedy publishers when there are fewer people online. People are content and without them, online multiplayer doesn't exist.

That you dont understand that you are buying a service along with the physical isn't their fault. You are told when you make accounts and when you are given codes. That you dont understand the product you are sold doesn't make them the bad guyes.

That you are whining brain washed just shows how far out you are.

Here is the thing! they dont let you sell your DLC either! go protest!

"So let EA have their online passes but when they fewer people are online"

"but when they fewer people are" is the key btw.

Ok tell me, when I buy Skyward Sword, what service am I getting with it?

Well if they are making at account system. Then they changing it to entertainment, making it a full service.

Ok, let me simplify it. What service did I get when I bought Super Mario Galaxy?

Games are a product, if there is an online counterpart THAT and only that are a service. The game itself remains a product except in cases where the online portion IS the game (an MMO).

For Example, I still own Populous: The Beginning even if the official online counterpart has long been dead and I can play Populous: The Beginning right now without needing to ask permission from EA. I don't know how much clearer I can be.

Oh you were prevented from selling your used copy of Super Mario Galaxy? I wasn't aware.

Oh wow, I am done with you.

Because you have no argument. You are dont like that that the publisher are changing their sales method to leases. Fair enough. Dont buy them. But dont go around crying snot saying that they prevent you from selling your old games, because that is a lie.

Are you on drugs? I was talking about ownership and you are talking about everything else, move the goal post much? Now go away, I am not going to waste my time with someone who can't decided what they want to argue about.

 

[Therumancer]

Hmmm, well I think there are points missing from this week's episode. One is simply the whole $60 price tag and how it's the trade ins that help to justify that cost. Another is quite simply that if the Publisher is willing to support a game on release, what differance does it make who is actually playing the game? From their perspective there is no differance between the initial purchuser and the guy who bought the game used, one guy in their infrastructure is one guy in their infrastructure... as opposed to a guy who paid nothing expecting support and server use and so on (ie a pirate).

To be honest I don't think Jim has gone far enough here, really I think the problem is the casual gamers flodding the market. People who agree with the gaming industry because they are overall pretty dumb and don't think this kind of thing through, or don't really understand it to begin with. That's one of the reasons why there is a divide between the casuals and the serious gamers, while in theory there should be room for both in the gaming, it becomes difficult to address serious issues when the people who understand it get drowned out by the bleating of wallet-laden sheep. Of course then again this is an enviroment that the gaming industry intentionally created by luring in the casual market so they could exploit it.

There is no defense of the gaming industry with it's billions of dollars going after used games, no more than there is a defense for a lot of other things they do. It's pure greed, directed at an audience of people who really just don't know any better, and can't bear the thought of going without the next "Call Of Duty" or "Madden" or whatever no matter the reasons.

Sorry if that's not nice, but how else do you define a movement of people who pretty much rally behind someone taking away their property rights. I find it very disturbing when I see people argueing for less freedom and control over what they have paid for.

 

[Epona]

So in essence your argument is:

Waaaaah!!! Piracy is worse than trade-ins therefore trade-ins aren't hurting the industry at all!
Waaaaah!!! EA is a worse company than Gamestop (which they aren't, not by a long shot, at least EA actually funds games and many great games at that.), therefore all of Gamestop's bullshit nickle-and-dimeing and intentional working around the companies that actually makes the games are perfectly acceptable!
Waaaaah!!! I don't want the corporate fat cats at EA making money! I'd much rather give my money to the corporate fat cats at Gamestop!
Waaaaah!!! Murder is a worse crime than assault! Therefore punching random people on the street in the face isn't a problem at all!

Class act there Jim.

But alas, you're wrong.

You know who is really hurt by used games? All those smaller titles you talked about two weeks ago. They're the ones that can't afford great marketing, and thus can't push many unit at launch, but because of used sales, slow sales over time quickly regress to no new sales at all, because the games are being traded in is very high compared to the rate at which the game is being bought.

Fantastic. Could not have said it better myself

I still cant believe he wants to whine for 3 full episodes with these flawed arguments.

I'm sorry, I just find it amusing that you find this mans "arguments" to be "Fantastic" (even though he just uses rethorics and call Jim a baby) yet to condone Jim for his "flawed arguments", Jim pretty much using nothing but rethorics himself.

My amusement put aside, I have to ask you; Do you believe it's right to lose your right to sell something you own? Because all the other "arguments" put aside, this is a rather solid one.

Yeah because this is all new. No1 has ever made a pay as you go system for entertainment before.... cept since the invention of entertainment.

I'm sorry, but you didn't answer my question, you just referenced that there ARE places where you pay from time to time (such as movies), but they never sell you any property, so your argument (if it even was one?) is invalid.
Answer the question, please.

Cable TV

But putting that aside Movie tickets still count. A game in a box is just a movie ticket. It has a playtime and it has an end. Thoes that dont have an extra service, usually one that they pay for.

But putting that aside you are changing the question. There is no proberty involved in games. Do you pay for the disk or the entertainment on the disk? You ne to categorise it as entertainment rather than proberty. and all of a sudden its not a big issue that they try to change it as a pay as you go system.

Cable TV is a service. No property changes hands. A movie is a service, the ticket is just your proof of purchase which is ripped in half when you enter the screen room. It's not property that you keep because it has value.

A game is a product, ownership switched hands between the retailer and you. The publisher lost ownership when they sold it to the retailer. It's really simple and you have to go out of your way to pretend not to understand that.

When you misspelled "property" once I overlooked it but when you did it twice...well why?

First of all I am translating as a go here. And you are going to bat me with spelling?
I'm terribly sorry I wasn't born speaking English.

Second.
You dont own the product that you haven't bought. The producers choose to sell it to you in any way shape or form. As a combination of property and services (like cable TV. I used that as an example because of the hardware that comes with a service. I suppose cellphones would have been better).
Games are no different. Hardware and a service. Now that is really simple. Why do you think that your right of ownership trumps the producers?
You own the product you have bought correct, problem is you have bought an item with a connected service. And like I already said. If you dont pay the producers, you dont get the service.

1) That depends, did your browser put a red squiggly line under your misspelled words? If so then yes I am going to hassle you about spelling. If not then no I won't.

2) When you buy something ownership changes hands. Let me give you an example, what is the difference between renting a game from the local video store and BUYING a game from a big box retailer? The difference is that in the first scenario you don't own it and in the second scenario, you do. Where do you get this idea that if I buy a single player Mario game, Nintendo is providing me a service? Nintendo is selling me a product, not a service. If online multiplayer was attached then that is a service and sure, online passes are legal (we aren't talking about those though) but online passes are not necessary and they are a dick move that will drive customers away. So let EA have their online passes but when they fewer people are online.... Back to the ownership thing. EA may have a service attached but the product itself belongs to the consumer, not EA. If I sell you my car, I no longer have any rights to that car, same thing here. Closer to home, if I sell you my single player Mario game, I no longer have any rights to that game.

So they are not allowed to change the method of how they sell their property is what you are saying?

Or are you saying they are changing the terms of a sale retrospectively? If so I would like a single example.

Here is a fact. They can chose to make games all lease. They can do that. Right of property as you are going on about. What makes you think that you have greater rights of property than them?

And btw My spelling might not be perfect, but 2 can play that game

So let EA have their online passes but when they fewer people are online

What the fuck are you talking about? Did you even read the post you quoted?

Yes, they could choose to lease games but right now they are selling them, you buy a game in the aisle right next to where you buy a TV and the procedure is the same.

If you go into Wal Mart and ask to rent or lease a game, will they pull out a contract? Will there be a return date?

YOU ARE BUYING, NOT RENTING AND NOT LEASING. The game industry has you so brainwashed that you can't understand that they game is your property just as much as the TV is. You can't break any laws with the game or the TV but that doesn't alter ownership.

Online passes are perfectly legal but they are a dick move and in the end, they will only hurt the greedy publishers when there are fewer people online. People are content and without them, online multiplayer doesn't exist.

That you dont understand that you are buying a service along with the physical isn't their fault. You are told when you make accounts and when you are given codes. That you dont understand the product you are sold doesn't make them the bad guyes.

That you are whining brain washed just shows how far out you are.

Here is the thing! they dont let you sell your DLC either! go protest!

"So let EA have their online passes but when they fewer people are online"

"but when they fewer people are" is the key btw.

Ok tell me, when I buy Skyward Sword, what service am I getting with it?

Well if they are making at account system. Then they changing it to entertainment, making it a full service.

Ok, let me simplify it. What service did I get when I bought Super Mario Galaxy?

Games are a product, if there is an online counterpart THAT and only that are a service. The game itself remains a product except in cases where the online portion IS the game (an MMO).

For Example, I still own Populous: The Beginning even if the official online counterpart has long been dead and I can play Populous: The Beginning right now without needing to ask permission from EA. I don't know how much clearer I can be.

Oh you were prevented from selling your used copy of Super Mario Galaxy? I wasn't aware.

Oh wow, I am done with you.

Because you have no argument. You are dont like that that the publisher are changing their sales method to leases. Fair enough. Dont buy them. But dont go around crying snot saying that they prevent you from selling your old games, because that is a lie.

Are you on drugs? I was talking about ownership and you are talking about everything else, move the goal post much? Now go away, I am not going to waste my time with someone who can't decided what they want to argue about.

I have been saying what I have always been saying. Publisher own their games before they sell them. They can chose the method of how they sell them. They can change it to a lease if they want. And you can only chose to do that with the games you own as well.

When you buy code a put it in you have made an account understanding full well what that means.

That you are resorting to ad hominum only show how little you have to stand on.

Yes, that's it. I have little to stand on (except the stacks of games that I OWN), so go celebrate your victory. Bye.

 

[Epona]

Hmmm, well I think there are points missing from this week's episode. One is simply the whole $60 price tag and how it's the trade ins that help to justify that cost. Another is quite simply that if the Publisher is willing to support a game on release, what differance does it make who is actually playing the game? From their perspective there is no differance between the initial purchuser and the guy who bought the game used, one guy in their infrastructure is one guy in their infrastructure... as opposed to a guy who paid nothing expecting support and server use and so on (ie a pirate).

To be honest I don't think Jim has gone far enough here, really I think the problem is the casual gamers flodding the market. People who agree with the gaming industry because they are overall pretty dumb and don't think this kind of thing through, or don't really understand it to begin with. That's one of the reasons why there is a divide between the casuals and the serious gamers, while in theory there should be room for both in the gaming, it becomes difficult to address serious issues when the people who understand it get drowned out by the bleating of wallet-laden sheep. Of course then again this is an enviroment that the gaming industry intentionally created by luring in the casual market so they could exploit it.

There is no defense of the gaming industry with it's billions of dollars going after used games, no more than there is a defense for a lot of other things they do. It's pure greed, directed at an audience of people who really just don't know any better, and can't bear the thought of going without the next "Call Of Duty" or "Madden" or whatever no matter the reasons.

Sorry if that's not nice, but how else do you define a movement of people who pretty much rally behind someone taking away their property rights. I find it very disturbing when I see people argueing for less freedom and control over what they have paid for.

Can't you see how bad the used industry is hurting the big publishers. Just try to imagine having to live off of 221 Million dollars a month, profit. Why that's pocket change for most people, that's one trip to McDonalds! Surely your property rights can take a back seat so that these CEO's can buy a new Yacht (which they will OWN).



You are exactly right, it's embarrassing to see people shooting themselves in the foot and saying "it's for the greater good because I can't live without games". Nevermind that there were plenty of games coming out before all this anti-used BS started. They remind of drug addicts, they will do ANYTHING for their next fix and the game companies manipulate this addiction.

 

[Dastardly]

I would love to have the difficulty of making 999 Million dollars in profit in 3 months. Oh woe is the big publishers. Even though I am not religious, I think I'll go pray for the big publishers because 999m is just not enough profit!

Difficulties?! HA HA The used game market is WHY there are so many gamers today and WHY they can make that much money. What's that, 4 BILLION in a year. They have nothing to whine about.

And?

What part of that money did they not earn? Did they not create, market, and distribute a product? Did people not agree to the price at the time of purchase? The amount of money they've made doesn't change situation. (It just makes it easier for the intellectually lazy to blame them, because "They're rich.")

Also, how much of that money goes in pockets, and how much is reinvested into the next big game (the money comes from somewhere)?

No one blames Food Mart X for printing coupons, or for rewarding repeat business by having those goofy scan cards that print customized coupons for you. It's something they do so that you'll choose them over the other Food Mart. What's wrong with a publisher trying to make sure that a new copy of the game has more stuff than a used copy of the game?

It's not about them needing the money. It's about them having a good, intelligent reason to want to encourage new purchases over used. Used sales are their competition, and it is the nature of the market to want to compete[/i] with one's competition.

You can compete by offering a better product or a lower price. Yes, they can (and should) lower the price... but the used guys can always beat that price, since they have no overhead. So they can try to "make a better product," right? Well... then the used product will be better, too, so it's back to square one. Unless they can find a way to improve the new product that doesn't carry over to the used product.

 

[Epona]

I would love to have the difficulty of making 999 Million dollars in profit in 3 months. Oh woe is the big publishers. Even though I am not religious, I think I'll go pray for the big publishers because 999m is just not enough profit!

Difficulties?! HA HA The used game market is WHY there are so many gamers today and WHY they can make that much money. What's that, 4 BILLION in a year. They have nothing to whine about.

And?

What part of that money did they not earn? Did they not create, market, and distribute a product? Did people not agree to the price at the time of purchase? The amount of money they've made doesn't change situation. (It just makes it easier for the intellectually lazy to blame them, because "They're rich.")

Also, how much of that money goes in pockets, and how much is reinvested into the next big game (the money comes from somewhere)?

No one blames Food Mart X for printing coupons, or for rewarding repeat business by having those goofy scan cards that print customized coupons for you. It's something they do so that you'll choose them over the other Food Mart. What's wrong with a publisher trying to make sure that a new copy of the game has more stuff than a used copy of the game?

It's not about them needing the money. It's about them having a good, intelligent reason to want to encourage new purchases over used. Used sales are their competition, and it is the nature of the market to want to compete[/i] with one's competition.

You can compete by offering a better product or a lower price. Yes, they can (and should) lower the price... but the used guys can always beat that price, since they have no overhead. So they can try to "make a better product," right? Well... then the used product will be better, too, so it's back to square one. Unless they can find a way to improve the new product that doesn't carry over to the used product.

If you make a billion dollars profit in 3 months, don't whine that the used market is killing you.

So the used stores have no overhead? The government must buy the games from the seller and the government must also pay for the utilities and labor costs. Wow, I never knew that.

 

[Dastardly]

If you make a billion dollars profit in 3 months, don't whine that the used market is killing you.

If you respond to a post, don't forget to read the post to which you're responding.

But fine. Who said that? Who is the one making a billion dollars and saying the used market is killing them? Name them and link to your sources, I'll gladly investigate. Just give me the company's name, the link to the sales figures, and the name of the person quoted as saying the used market is killing them.

Shouldn't be too hard to do.

 

[Ariyura]

So in essence your argument is:

Waaaaah!!! Piracy is worse than trade-ins therefore trade-ins aren't hurting the industry at all!
Waaaaah!!! EA is a worse company than Gamestop (which they aren't, not by a long shot, at least EA actually funds games and many great games at that.), therefore all of Gamestop's bullshit nickle-and-dimeing and intentional working around the companies that actually makes the games are perfectly acceptable!
Waaaaah!!! I don't want the corporate fat cats at EA making money! I'd much rather give my money to the corporate fat cats at Gamestop!
Waaaaah!!! Murder is a worse crime than assault! Therefore punching random people on the street in the face isn't a problem at all!

Class act there Jim.

But alas, you're wrong.

You know who is really hurt by used games? All those smaller titles you talked about two weeks ago. They're the ones that can't afford great marketing, and thus can't push many unit at launch, but because of used sales, slow sales over time quickly regress to no new sales at all, because the games are being traded in is very high compared to the rate at which the game is being bought.

Fantastic. Could not have said it better myself

I still cant believe he wants to whine for 3 full episodes with these flawed arguments.

I'm sorry, I just find it amusing that you find this mans "arguments" to be "Fantastic" (even though he just uses rethorics and call Jim a baby) yet to condone Jim for his "flawed arguments", Jim pretty much using nothing but rethorics himself.

My amusement put aside, I have to ask you; Do you believe it's right to lose your right to sell something you own? Because all the other "arguments" put aside, this is a rather solid one.

Yeah because this is all new. No1 has ever made a pay as you go system for entertainment before.... cept since the invention of entertainment.

I'm sorry, but you didn't answer my question, you just referenced that there ARE places where you pay from time to time (such as movies), but they never sell you any property, so your argument (if it even was one?) is invalid.
Answer the question, please.

Cable TV

But putting that aside Movie tickets still count. A game in a box is just a movie ticket. It has a playtime and it has an end. Thoes that dont have an extra service, usually one that they pay for.

But putting that aside you are changing the question. There is no proberty involved in games. Do you pay for the disk or the entertainment on the disk? You ne to categorise it as entertainment rather than proberty. and all of a sudden its not a big issue that they try to change it as a pay as you go system.

Cable TV is a service. No property changes hands. A movie is a service, the ticket is just your proof of purchase which is ripped in half when you enter the screen room. It's not property that you keep because it has value.

A game is a product, ownership switched hands between the retailer and you. The publisher lost ownership when they sold it to the retailer. It's really simple and you have to go out of your way to pretend not to understand that.

When you misspelled "property" once I overlooked it but when you did it twice...well why?

First of all I am translating as a go here. And you are going to bat me with spelling?
I'm terribly sorry I wasn't born speaking English.

Second.
You dont own the product that you haven't bought. The producers choose to sell it to you in any way shape or form. As a combination of property and services (like cable TV. I used that as an example because of the hardware that comes with a service. I suppose cellphones would have been better).
Games are no different. Hardware and a service. Now that is really simple. Why do you think that your right of ownership trumps the producers?
You own the product you have bought correct, problem is you have bought an item with a connected service. And like I already said. If you dont pay the producers, you dont get the service.

1) That depends, did your browser put a red squiggly line under your misspelled words? If so then yes I am going to hassle you about spelling. If not then no I won't.

2) When you buy something ownership changes hands. Let me give you an example, what is the difference between renting a game from the local video store and BUYING a game from a big box retailer? The difference is that in the first scenario you don't own it and in the second scenario, you do. Where do you get this idea that if I buy a single player Mario game, Nintendo is providing me a service? Nintendo is selling me a product, not a service. If online multiplayer was attached then that is a service and sure, online passes are legal (we aren't talking about those though) but online passes are not necessary and they are a dick move that will drive customers away. So let EA have their online passes but when they fewer people are online.... Back to the ownership thing. EA may have a service attached but the product itself belongs to the consumer, not EA. If I sell you my car, I no longer have any rights to that car, same thing here. Closer to home, if I sell you my single player Mario game, I no longer have any rights to that game.

So they are not allowed to change the method of how they sell their property is what you are saying?

Or are you saying they are changing the terms of a sale retrospectively? If so I would like a single example.

Here is a fact. They can chose to make games all lease. They can do that. Right of property as you are going on about. What makes you think that you have greater rights of property than them?

And btw My spelling might not be perfect, but 2 can play that game

So let EA have their online passes but when they fewer people are online

What the fuck are you talking about? Did you even read the post you quoted?

Yes, they could choose to lease games but right now they are selling them, you buy a game in the aisle right next to where you buy a TV and the procedure is the same.

If you go into Wal Mart and ask to rent or lease a game, will they pull out a contract? Will there be a return date?

YOU ARE BUYING, NOT RENTING AND NOT LEASING. The game industry has you so brainwashed that you can't understand that they game is your property just as much as the TV is. You can't break any laws with the game or the TV but that doesn't alter ownership.

Online passes are perfectly legal but they are a dick move and in the end, they will only hurt the greedy publishers when there are fewer people online. People are content and without them, online multiplayer doesn't exist.

That you dont understand that you are buying a service along with the physical isn't their fault. You are told when you make accounts and when you are given codes. That you dont understand the product you are sold doesn't make them the bad guyes.

That you are whining brain washed just shows how far out you are.

Here is the thing! they dont let you sell your DLC either! go protest!

"So let EA have their online passes but when they fewer people are online"

"but when they fewer people are" is the key btw.

Ok tell me, when I buy Skyward Sword, what service am I getting with it?

Well if they are making at account system. Then they changing it to entertainment, making it a full service.

Ok, let me simplify it. What service did I get when I bought Super Mario Galaxy?

Games are a product, if there is an online counterpart THAT and only that are a service. The game itself remains a product except in cases where the online portion IS the game (an MMO).

For Example, I still own Populous: The Beginning even if the official online counterpart has long been dead and I can play Populous: The Beginning right now without needing to ask permission from EA. I don't know how much clearer I can be.

Oh you were prevented from selling your used copy of Super Mario Galaxy? I wasn't aware.

Oh wow, I am done with you.

Because you have no argument. You are dont like that that the publisher are changing their sales method to leases. Fair enough. Dont buy them. But dont go around crying snot saying that they prevent you from selling your old games, because that is a lie.

Are you on drugs? I was talking about ownership and you are talking about everything else, move the goal post much? Now go away, I am not going to waste my time with someone who can't decided what they want to argue about.

I have been saying what I have always been saying. Publisher own their games before they sell them. They can chose the method of how they sell them. They can change it to a lease if they want. And you can only chose to do that with the games you own as well.

When you buy code a put it in you have made an account understanding full well what that means.

That you are resorting to ad hominum only show how little you have to stand on.

I'll take a stab at this. You're argument is stop whining because publishers are changing game models to a leasing policy? Or that they can if they want to because they own it? That's really beside the point because most of us can agree they can govern the online part of their games however they want. If you don't agree with it then you don't need to use it, but when talking about a physical entity that you own is something completely different.