HQ stream isn't working. Please fix. I seem to have this problem every week with the Jimquisition.
Did you actually read the thread?phreakdb said:i find it hilarious that everyone is so willing to wave around first sale doctrine, and yet..... they don't take into account that it doesn't guarantee services attached to the product. It's called a matchmaking service for that reason.
What a bunch of ill informed cretins. Noone is telling you to 'subsidize' EA games. Funny thing is, you are saying 'subsidize my want for games, by dropping the whole legal grey area question'. First Sale Doctrine in relation to video game has yet to be ruled on. Hell, on any form of computer software.
As for GameStop's practices? they are crappy, and I will be glad for the day that they go belly up. That way I no longer have to subsidize their practice of selling used to morons who can't tell that they are gladly ripping themselves off by dealing with GameStop.
Firstly, I got done playing Super Mario games circa 1991 or so. Secondly, I can be sure that if I buy a game new, I am getting a fresh (hopefully) undamaged product. Thirdly, I can be sure it's not stolen property. Fourthly, I can return my broken new game to Wally world, and exchange it for an equally mint copy. Fifthly, I can be sure that I contributed something to a series of games I find enjoyable (considering I generally only play games that have been proven to be worth it, or that I have played before and personally enjoyed, OR have been recommended by a friend or have been reviewed very well by someone who is actually more worried about a game's quality than whatever little bit of money they can get from a studio for saying it is good). Sixthly, I know my monetary contribution made it into the right 'corporate fatcat' pocket that it belonged in.Crono1973 said:Did you actually read the thread?phreakdb said:i find it hilarious that everyone is so willing to wave around first sale doctrine, and yet..... they don't take into account that it doesn't guarantee services attached to the product. It's called a matchmaking service for that reason.
What a bunch of ill informed cretins. Noone is telling you to 'subsidize' EA games. Funny thing is, you are saying 'subsidize my want for games, by dropping the whole legal grey area question'. First Sale Doctrine in relation to video game has yet to be ruled on. Hell, on any form of computer software.
As for GameStop's practices? they are crappy, and I will be glad for the day that they go belly up. That way I no longer have to subsidize their practice of selling used to morons who can't tell that they are gladly ripping themselves off by dealing with GameStop.
No one has said that online passes violated the First Sale Doctrine, we just think online passes are stupid and greedy but they have every legal right to impose fees for online play, it will only hurt them in the end.
First Sale Doctrine allows resale of video games until ruled otherwise. The First Sale Doctrine is inclusive, not exclusive.
Hey buddy let me ask you something. If I buy Super Mario Galaxy II from Gamestop for $34.99 (minus 10%) and you buy it from Wal Mart for $49.99, who got ripped off?
1) Irrelevant, Super Mario Galaxy was only an example.phreakdb said:Firstly, I got done playing Super Mario games circa 1991 or so. Secondly, I can be sure that if I buy a game new, I am getting a fresh (hopefully) undamaged product. Thirdly, I can be sure it's not stolen property. Fourthly, I can return my broken new game to Wally world, and exchange it for an equally mint copy. Fifthly, I can be sure that I contributed something to a series of games I find enjoyable (considering I generally only play games that have been proven to be worth it, or that I have played before and personally enjoyed, OR have been recommended by a friend or have been reviewed very well by someone who is actually more worried about a game's quality than whatever little bit of money they can get from a studio for saying it is good). Sixthly, I know my monetary contribution made it into the right 'corporate fatcat' pocket that it belonged in.Crono1973 said:Did you actually read the thread?phreakdb said:i find it hilarious that everyone is so willing to wave around first sale doctrine, and yet..... they don't take into account that it doesn't guarantee services attached to the product. It's called a matchmaking service for that reason.
What a bunch of ill informed cretins. Noone is telling you to 'subsidize' EA games. Funny thing is, you are saying 'subsidize my want for games, by dropping the whole legal grey area question'. First Sale Doctrine in relation to video game has yet to be ruled on. Hell, on any form of computer software.
As for GameStop's practices? they are crappy, and I will be glad for the day that they go belly up. That way I no longer have to subsidize their practice of selling used to morons who can't tell that they are gladly ripping themselves off by dealing with GameStop.
No one has said that online passes violated the First Sale Doctrine, we just think online passes are stupid and greedy but they have every legal right to impose fees for online play, it will only hurt them in the end.
First Sale Doctrine allows resale of video games until ruled otherwise. The First Sale Doctrine is inclusive, not exclusive.
Hey buddy let me ask you something. If I buy Super Mario Galaxy II from Gamestop for $34.99 (minus 10%) and you buy it from Wal Mart for $49.99, who got ripped off?
All of that taken into consideration, I will reiterate, that I myself am an Independent IT Consultant/Troubleshooter with a very small and loyal client base. While I can hardly afford the time to play a game, those I do play, I research thoroughly, and they all generally fall into simulations/strategy games, and i have probably 3 I have installed and play at any one time (One of my constants is Masters of Orion 2/Galactic Civilizations, another is Civilization series).
Furthermore, I play PC games. You get more out of your money in the way of 'oooooh shiny-flashy'. I mean, assassin's creed on pc vs console is just so much more eye candy (though the gameplay got dull halfway through). I find also that PC games have better support and patches for free. I also don't have a problem with overpriced games, and i can find all of my good old games that i like to play through... good old games.
Ok. so I rambled. Anyway, the core thing is, I know my money went where it was supposed to go, and I also know that when I buy new from wal-mart, it is guaranteed new.
Nah, that was my gift to the public.sleeky01 said:I presume you are going to want the additional 30 sec that you took to type this post back as well?Verlander said:I stopped watching this show after a couple of episodes, and thought I'd give it another shot. Wow. Talk about pandering to the stupid masses.
The whole argument here is "they did something bad, so they can't be upset when I do something that seems less bad from my perspective!!". What awful logic. By that train of thought, Josef Fritzl was forgiveable because Hitler was worse.
I feel cheated out of seven minutes of my life listening to an (for want of a better word) "argument" that any 12 year old could successfully obliterate. Thank God I gave up on this show so early on.
I feel your pain its just like what happened with Sierra when Vivendi/Activision took over :-(BgRdMchne said:When I saw the Bullfrog logo, I got a little depressed. Then I thought of what EA did to Origin Systems and I cried a little.
On topic: This whole episode was irrelevant to me, as I'm mostly a PC gamer and the industry managed to shut down the used game market there a long time ago.
Also, where I'm from, it's an infraction to put money into someone else's parking meter. Big Bro gets more money from tickets than from the meters.
Ford would say so. But I'm on your side!ImSkeletor said:Thank you Jim for speaking the truth. It ticks me off that people say that I am as bad as people who PIRATE just because I LEGALLY sell my games and buy used games. Am I a bad person if I freaking sell my car to someone after I buy it?
The only problem is that when you buy a ticket, you're buying * admittance*, not a copy of a movie. You're buying the privilege to see the movie just once.Hitchmeister said:Do more research. You buy a movie ticket and it turns out you don't like it, are you allowed to resell that? No you suck it up and learn to accept that there will be an occasional bomb, and try to learn to avoid them.
Really bad comparison. No I don't actually own the movie. I'm paying for the right to watch it.Hitchmeister said:Do more research. You buy a movie ticket and it turns out you don't like it, are you allowed to resell that? No you suck it up and learn to accept that there will be an occasional bomb, and try to learn to avoid them.Inkidu said:Sometimes someone doesn't do enough research or it just doesn't turn out as advertised. So what? I should keep it forever?
I just realized something. It struck me like a bolt of lightning.Crono1973 said:1) Irrelevant, Super Mario Galaxy was only an example.
2) True that, I buy new too when the packaging is important to me but it isn't always important to me.
3) This is really a concern for you? As long as you don't steal and you aren't buying it from a thief then that should be good enough for you.
4) You can return an unplayable game to Gamestop too. Even better, you can return a game to Gamestop for any reason in the first 7 days (I think it's 7 days) and get a full refund in the form of a store credit. Try that at Wal Mart. Take back Super Mario Galaxy II, tell them you don't like it and want Black Ops instead.
5) Fair enough but you could also do that by buying the DLC or the sequel on Day one. Happens all the time.
6) Fair enough but this goes back to 5.
Yeah I like PC games more too because of the faster loading times, better graphics and of course, the keyboard and mouse. You can't buy PC games used anymore and that is because those "fatcat" publishers have used DRM to fight the used market and won. They will do the same to the console market if people let them. I would encourage people not to let them.
- Maybe because there are no license fees to pay on PC like there is with the big three.phreakdb said:I just realized something. It struck me like a bolt of lightning.Crono1973 said:1) Irrelevant, Super Mario Galaxy was only an example.
2) True that, I buy new too when the packaging is important to me but it isn't always important to me.
3) This is really a concern for you? As long as you don't steal and you aren't buying it from a thief then that should be good enough for you.
4) You can return an unplayable game to Gamestop too. Even better, you can return a game to Gamestop for any reason in the first 7 days (I think it's 7 days) and get a full refund in the form of a store credit. Try that at Wal Mart. Take back Super Mario Galaxy II, tell them you don't like it and want Black Ops instead.
5) Fair enough but you could also do that by buying the DLC or the sequel on Day one. Happens all the time.
6) Fair enough but this goes back to 5.
Yeah I like PC games more too because of the faster loading times, better graphics and of course, the keyboard and mouse. You can't buy PC games used anymore and that is because those "fatcat" publishers have used DRM to fight the used market and won. They will do the same to the console market if people let them. I would encourage people not to let them.
I was cruising through wal mart the other night, and I noticed that some of the games i saw in the 360/ps3 case for 50-60 bucks, were 30-40 for pc. For the same game. With better graphics and everything.
Maybe, the fact that DRM killed the used PC Games sector, allowed them to make the money they wanted. Now, I'm not saying that the price stuck for every game at that, but as the general rule, that's what it was.
Maybe, the lack of a used game market, as well as the lack of having to give everyone a cut off of the game's sale (console company, gamestop shelving fee, etc.) caused this phenomenon to occur?
I dunno. I think there is something there though.
The game industry thinks it's special and many gamers will disregard your examples saying "they aren't the same as games" because those examples are devastating to their argument. It's the internet equivalent of them putting their fingers in their ears, dancing around and singing "can't hear you, can't hear you".Ashley Blalock said:Okay if I buy a brand new book release read the book in 3 days and then sell that book to a used book store I'm a horrible evil person who is bringing about the death of printed books.
If I buy a new toaster and keep it long enough before selling it then I'm not an evil person who is dooming the toaster industry.
So what is this magical cut off date on games? I'm I putting developers and publishers out of business if I sell a game a month later? Six months later? A year later? Do I have to keep the game forever even though the publisher stopped making new copies and has moved on to a sequel of the game?