Strazdas said:
We're talking about the US, and a Judge could not do that because of the DMCA. For example, it is a "fair use" to make a backup copy of a Blu-Ray disc. However, under the DMCA it is illegal to sell a product to actually make that backup. This is dumb, but that is the current law. No Judge is going to compel a company in the US to remove their DRM system.
US law system works on precedent. Judges are told to use common sense and not blindly follow the laws, and in thoery they should do that. in practice, we get this. a Judge CAN dismiss some parts of DMCA as irrelevant to situation, however due to corporations holding up everything nowadays that would be a professional suicide. Pretty much like aknowledging that a politician lied, noones is going to elect him again.
A normal Judge is not going to "dismiss" part of a law in the US. I really don't see any influence from corporations in this situation. There's not much evidence that Judges (outside of case like patents in East Texas) in the US are influenced like this. Politicians are through lobbying. Certainly in this case the Judge is making a ruling based on the laws. Those laws were definitely influenced by corps though.
noone will offer free resale services. though some of those may be paid with ads. You already got huge super easy lending library. we call it piracy (wrongly, as its not piracy, but hey the media forms dictionary nowadays it seems). It is good that product does not degrade, it means we can go past the resource monopoly powers. and no, that is not a problem. that is only a problem for those that want to cling to old and practically obsolete models of online trade.
What's the alternative to this "practically obselete model of online trade"? I don't see much difference between copyright on and off-line. In the physical world you can produce CDs and DVDs extremely cheaply compared to the millions of dollars spent on making them. Online that reproduction drops to nearly zero. In both cases we are creating a special monopoly for restricted distribution of a work so that the creators are compensated.
Look, if first sale applied then you'd simply have The Pirate Bay for used games. The cost of transferring a Steam code from one person to another is pretty cheap - pretty similar to arranging a torrent. There's really not much overhead there. Piracy is really easy but a large number of people don't do it because it's clearly immoral and illegal. Swapping used titles for free would be both legal and moral. The barrier there is much, much lower than piracy. It would be huge.
Publishers will make their investment back easily, if they publish items people want to keep. sure, if you buy crysis, play it for 5 hours and never pick it up again, the game is CERTAINLY NOT WORTH 60 dollars.
You only get to determine that value proposition for yourself though. If you don't want to pay $60 for that experience, then don't. Just wait; that's what I do. I think I paid like $10 for Crysis 2 and that was fine. You don't have some weird right to immediately have access to whatever you want at whatever price YOU determine. I'd say there are definitely pieces of media that are worth $60 even if they're only 2 hours long. I mean, are the Twilight books worth more than "Heart of Darkness" because of the number of words in them? Ridiculous.
and its used market is huge. while games where people want to keep them wont cause big resale market. so what this does is encourage people to make good games instead of 5 hours spectacles. how is that a bad thing?
I'd rather artists just make what they want and then I determine if I want to buy it at that price. Not every piece of media has to 40 hours long. I'll take some Spec Ops: The Line with my Skyrim. The dumb need to avoid resale actually made Spec Ops worse by encouraging the devs to waste time on pointless multiplayer. I'd say that Spec Ops is worth $50 or $60 even though it's short.
indy market lives not because people are forced to pay for them, but because people want to. you cna get any indie game illegaly easier than legally. but peopel still buy them. why? becasue they want to support the developers. it is beneficial to the egoistic users to support good developers.
Yeah, I feel good about giving money to indies. But indie isn't just a guy in his garage. Sometimes they actually employ a good number of people and relying on a basically patronage model isn't always going to work. The standard model also supports good developers.
nothing wrong with having a short game. plenty of wrong with asking the same amount of money for it as a game you can play for years. I haven't played journey, but i heard good things about it. was it going for 60 dollars though? if you are selling your short game for, say, 10 dollars, most people wont bother reselling even if they can because the resale value will be not worth the effort (aka i can get paid more in the time i spend setting up the resale if i did something useful).
I think 'Journey' was $20, which apparently is a huge ripoff. I only played it for like 6 hours. I paid $35 for Skryim and played over 100 hours. I paid like $10 for Crusader Kings II and played over 100 hours. The 'Journey' devs are clearly "plenty wrong" here. What? That's nonsense. If you don't like the price of game, then don't buy it at that price. The physical used game market is a small drag on games that aren't meant to be played 100+ hours. I don't see why those games have to be punished. That doesn't make them bad games. I spent like 30+ hours in Saints Row 3, but Journey was actually worth more. A huge digital used game market will hurt smaller, quality games.
it is stupid to buy 200+ games that you are not playing. you should not have bought them to begin with. if the situation is you bought them, played, didnt like/dont wnat to return, then sure sell them off, just like with any other good.
I have a list of over 200+ games i want to play too. but guess what - i dont own them. i buy the game when i start playing them, till then all they are is a list of words.
I meant my total library. I do have a large number of unplayed games, but I buy games when they're on sale. I always have plenty of stuff lined up and can jump from genre to genre. Works for me. I have 200+ in my library that are finished. There's too many games to really go back to old ones very often, I just don't have the time. I like playing new stuff(at least to me, I play old games sometimes). I feel like I've definitely gotten what I've paid for on those.
if you get all the games you want for less than 10 dollars, woudl you bother reselling them, knowing that you would get maybe 5 dollars for it? if the asnwer is no, your whole point you made previuosly is moot.
What? I think if I could trade my games for other games, I would. You're acting like this would work the way it does at Gamestop. Online you wouldn't need a middleman making money in the process. It would be really easy to facilitate anonymous gamers trading directly. I'd even do what you're describing - that's 50% off.
Also that onloy works if you buy everything at sales blindly,. try searching for what you want instad of what they offer and you see that you end up hitting the 60 dolalrs for an album barrier a lot.
Wow, thanks for the advice, I'll stop just drooling and buying everything during Steam sales blindly. I follow gaming very closely and know exactly what I want. I buy the games that I know I want to play when they reach the price I want to pay for them or lower. It's working out great for me, so I don't need this kind of sage advice.
that is a problem of publishers. they dont udnerstand how the market works. or well maybe they do and are abusing it as much as they can. physical sales always should cost more because it adds costs of printing, shipping and paying a cut for the local distributior. if all of that were to be taken away we could easily cut 20-40% of the price without making ANY loss to the publisher. but they wont do that because then the local retailers woudl throw a fit and god forgive we anger this 1% of gamers that refuse to buy digital.
And yet PC exclusives still often start at $50 or $60 with no retailers to piss off. That's becuase you're talking nonsense. Only the minimum price of a product is determined by the production costs. In the real world market, the price is determined by what the market will bare. If people want to pay $60 or more for CODX, then Activision should sell it at that price. After sales decrease, they lower the price. You seem to want to enforce some weird centralized pricing scheme.
actually, many MMOS allow you to trasnfer service time to other accounts, therefore pretty much trasnfering license.
Which would make sense for many MMOs where you buy time or ISKs and stuff. In GW2 you just buy the title for however much and get access to the servers for free. If you could transfer that over and over again ArenaNet continue getting the money needed to actually run the game. This worked in the first Guild Wars. When you buy, they'll provide you with a server for as long as you play - but that business model is based on NOT having every copy be used infinitely on the server. But, hey, that's apparently antiquated thinking, even though it works and it's a model created specifically for the internet.
And my point earlier is that those things are all difficult enough that 99% of gamers don't mess with them. The stuff you are listing are all really small markets.
You are very wrong here. Stuff like gold sales on Ebay are HUGE markets and in games that support some sort of official version (for example Eve Online) this spans for over half of their players (according to CCP statistics for their game).
Yeah, you really proved me wrong by bringing up the excellent, but rather small EVE. It's great that EVE created a way to have in-game assets be traded easily and use those to pay for access to the game. That model won't work for every game in existence. ArenaNet wanted to avoid having players deal with monthly subscriptions and not use F2P methods. It works for them because there is no first sale.
