Sony Patent Hammers GameStop Share Price

[V da Mighty Taco]

Yes, 4 years later, with an optional patch that people could opt out of. Seeing the problem with your false equivalency?

No. Since the patch means you either get the Linux option and not being able to play your legally purchased games, or play your games and no Linux. That's eliminating choices right there.

No, you are fully allowed to play your legally obtained games. You just can't play them using the online service Sony provided. So, if you chose to keep Linux, you can freely, so long as you don't then try and go online.

Oh, you want both Linux and online play? Are you familiar with the phrase "having your cake and eating it too?"

Wrong. New games come with the at-the-time-of-launch newest PS3 patch on the disk that you have to install in order to play the game, offline or not. The majority of PS3 titles would be unplayable on a Linux-capable PS3.

 

[008Zulu_v1legacy]

]No, you're simply saying that the lack of a third choice to take that doesn't require you to actually acknowledge that you don't own the online service being provided is "decreasing options". That option never existed. So, gamers still have the option to continue using their Ps3 for Linux. However, they must acknowledge that choosing that comes with a consequence.

Having a consequence to a choice isn't limiting choice, its called "living on earth".

You still haven't defended why Sony took away the choice.

When the PS3 was released you "could have your cake and eat it" too, as you put it. Now you can't. All I want you to explain is Why.

 

[Epona]

What I would love to see from this development is developers and such getting a cut of GameStop's used game revenues. Sony says they don't want to use it, but have it in case developers wish to use it. Now imagine a developer holding GameStop hostage saying they want a small % of their used game sales otherwise the disc is going to be locked. It may be a shady business practice but it would be good for the consumer and the developer... which means it won't be happening.

How would it be good for the consumer?

It gives them better quality games.

The scary part is the PS4 will come out and play all games, including used ones. Then one day they'll remove it as a feature the same way they did to backwards compatibility in the PS3.

And when people buy it far more after the removal than before it, then that will completely validate the idea, and prove that playing used games, like backwards compatability, is not worthwhile to gamers.

All of us, me included, can be blamed for buying digital games that can't be resold. Maybe shit just got real and we need to stop and think before we buy the next Steam or PSN game.

However, wasn't there a ruling in Europe about people being able to resell their digital games? This would be in conflict with that ruling, wouldn't it?

Devaluing the value of something to a resellers customer is in no way in legal conflict with the right of the buyer to resell something. You can resell the game if you want - the fact that what you're selling will be utterly useless to other people is of no legal consequence.

No-one but you is under any form of legal obligation to make what you're selling attractive to people.

How does holding Gamestop hostage make better games?

It isn't a matter of a product ACCIDENTALLY becoming worthless after the first sale, it's purposely made worthless after first sale. That would be a pro-active move to kill the used market.

Yes, its purposefully being made worthless after the first usage (Thats important, after the first usage, not the first sale). You know what else is worthless after the first sale? A ticket to the movies. And thats purposeful, too - they're deliberately barring the person you sold the ticket to from entering to see the movie.

But they set up a deliberate system called theatre times to prevent reselling. And yet, people aren't taking theatre chains to court because of this practice.

See, the difference you are not getting, is the difference between a theatre chain getting a lawyer and suing to prevent the reselling of the ticket, and the theatre chain just not letting the person who bought the ticket off you see the movie.

Yes, Software companies are legally obligated to let consumers re-sell their stuff. But they are not under a single obligation in this world to make sure that game works for the person who the first person sold the game to.

Your argument is faulty, going to a see a movie is a service and a game is a product. The bottom line is that there isn't a ruling that you have to be able to resell your movie tickets but there is a ruling that you must be able to resell your digital games. That will of course extend to physical games too if a system like this is implemented.

 

[Epona]

People FIND the money by selling back their old games. You take that away and game sales will drop.

People will cut corners in all sorts of places rather than go without their hobbies, whether they can trade or not. People will always find money to game, the same as they'll ALWAYS find money to drink, even in dire straights.

When a game costs $70 (next gen prices) with no possibility of getting it used, selling it back or renting it...sales will go down. You sound like Sony about 6 years ago "People will work 2 jobs to buy the PS3". You are as wrong as they were. People don't shit money, they trade in their old games to buy new ones because they have to.

Really you think next gen games are going to cost 70 dollars?

Prices dont go up with every generation. And if by some failure of braincells somewhere they DO go up, I will laugh even harder as a PC user.

Well, PS1 games were $40, PS2 games were $50 and PS3 games are $60. XBOX games were $50 and 360 games are $60. See a trend here? PC games went up this gen too and for less reason. They claimed the jump to $60 was because of console license fees but soon they dropped that lie and just said that the games were more expensive to make so they could charge PC gamers $60 too. Now that the standard price of PC games is the same as console games, that will continue into next gen. Why were you going to laugh again?

 

[gorfias]

Get me a Steam-style digital storefront, continue to provide the capacity/capability to store games on my hard drive, and offer reasonable sale prices (again, ala Steam) and I wouldn't lose any sleep over my inability to sell/buy used games.

'Course, at the rate Steam seems to be moving towards a living room approach I may not need to worry about what Microsoft or Sony decide to do.

Ditto. I recently bought Velvet Assasin from Steam for $1.25. At that price, why do I care about used vs new?

1) Everyone, including Sony needs to catch up to Steam
2) I can do without worrying whether or not I can sell a game to make money for new games if the price is cheap
3) Make the price cheap after the game has had its initial run. Games I wouldn't pay $10 for, even new, I can't pass up when they're wicked cheap, even if I don't think I'll get to play though them.

If I saw Velvet Assassin used for $5.00, I wouldn't buy it. Even if I did, the developer would make no money. With terabytes of storage available, let me download it cheap. Developers make money, and I get a title I can mess around with.

 

[theultimateend]

This also quite nicely outlines that the entire monetary system hangs on the balance of people freaking the fuck out, very solid system that.

Well to be fair money is really just a confidence trade. It has no inherent value. The same can be said about the value of stocks or anything else that leads back to money.

I'm pretty sure most economic crises end up being centered around people suddenly not trusting the value of their currency for one reason or another.

Well, PS1 games were $40, PS2 games were $50 and PS3 games are $60. XBOX games were $50 and 360 games are $60. See a trend here? PC games went up this gen too and for less reason. They claimed the jump to $60 was because of console license fees but soon they dropped that lie and just said that the games were more expensive to make so they could charge PC gamers $60 too. Now that the standard price of PC games is the same as console games, that will continue into next gen. Why were you going to laugh again?

They being Activision/EA?

Every single PC game I was going to buy this year was 10 dollars cheaper than console >.>...

Just because the latest Call of Duty isn't dirt cheap doesn't mean the entire world jacked up their prices.

 

[Epona]

This also quite nicely outlines that the entire monetary system hangs on the balance of people freaking the fuck out, very solid system that.

Well to be fair money is really just a confidence trade. It has no inherent value. The same can be said about the value of stocks or anything else that leads back to money.

I'm pretty sure most economic crises end up being centered around people suddenly not trusting the value of their currency for one reason or another.

Well, PS1 games were $40, PS2 games were $50 and PS3 games are $60. XBOX games were $50 and 360 games are $60. See a trend here? PC games went up this gen too and for less reason. They claimed the jump to $60 was because of console license fees but soon they dropped that lie and just said that the games were more expensive to make so they could charge PC gamers $60 too. Now that the standard price of PC games is the same as console games, that will continue into next gen. Why were you going to laugh again?

They being Activision/EA?

Every single PC game I was going to buy this year was 10 dollars cheaper than console >.>...

Just because the latest Call of Duty isn't dirt cheap doesn't mean the entire world jacked up their prices.

Skyrim was/is $60 on PC too. What multiplat games were $10 cheaper on PC?

 

[theultimateend]

This also quite nicely outlines that the entire monetary system hangs on the balance of people freaking the fuck out, very solid system that.

Well to be fair money is really just a confidence trade. It has no inherent value. The same can be said about the value of stocks or anything else that leads back to money.

I'm pretty sure most economic crises end up being centered around people suddenly not trusting the value of their currency for one reason or another.

Well, PS1 games were $40, PS2 games were $50 and PS3 games are $60. XBOX games were $50 and 360 games are $60. See a trend here? PC games went up this gen too and for less reason. They claimed the jump to $60 was because of console license fees but soon they dropped that lie and just said that the games were more expensive to make so they could charge PC gamers $60 too. Now that the standard price of PC games is the same as console games, that will continue into next gen. Why were you going to laugh again?

They being Activision/EA?

Every single PC game I was going to buy this year was 10 dollars cheaper than console >.>...

Just because the latest Call of Duty isn't dirt cheap doesn't mean the entire world jacked up their prices.

Skyrim was/is $60 on PC too. What multiplat games were $10 cheaper on PC?

Far Cry 3, Assassin's Creed 3 are two off the top of my head that were 10 dollars cheaper.

Dishonored MSRP'd for 60 but I never saw it higher than 49.99.

Maybe steam taints my view of prices but the only game this year I bought that was 60 bucks on the PC was Skyrim >.>...

Saint's Row 3 was another that was cheaper on PC.

I could probably find a bunch. I only buy console exclusives on console because of the price difference.

Not to mention XCom was 25% off within a month for PC and its actually a great game (too hard for my blood but good).

Edit: So yeah it does look like I was wrong, Skyrim wasn't cheaper.

 

[ZeoAssassin]

Regarding the digital pricing. If I recall....games could easily be far less then $50 but as far as i was aware gamestop is keeping the prices (and thus the digital taking over faster) high because they threaten to simply not stock games that undercut them that much.

 

[Epona]

What I would love to see from this development is developers and such getting a cut of GameStop's used game revenues. Sony says they don't want to use it, but have it in case developers wish to use it. Now imagine a developer holding GameStop hostage saying they want a small % of their used game sales otherwise the disc is going to be locked. It may be a shady business practice but it would be good for the consumer and the developer... which means it won't be happening.

How would it be good for the consumer?

If GameStop was willing to share part of their used game profits, we may not see crap like online passes. The online pass system was put in effect because companies were feeling shafted about the huge profit margins GameStop was making off used games. If they received maybe a fraction of that, things like online passes could go away and cheaper (or maybe no) DLC. The company would still be making money off the game and even if they didn't do away with online passes or DLC, some of that money could be put to try something new and unique. I was thinking of the best and as I said, it probably wouldn't work out that way.

1) No other industry gets money for used sales, it would set a terrible precedent and would affect used sales everywhere, not just Gamestop. Sooner of later the greedy publishers would try to get money for used on eBay or Amazon. Other industries may start demanding that they get paid for used sales too because the game industry is not special and if they can get money from used sales, why can't car manufacturers?

2) Online passes exist because publishers are greedy, don't blame consumers. Buying used is not a crime nor is it anything to be ashamed of, it is a consumer right.

 

[SinisterGehe]

Soo... What if you console breaks, bricks, kicks the bucket or just destroys itself? Or if it gets stolen?

Have they thought about these issue? Because I can see spree of customer support cries and law suits coming their way.

Also no one who been in to these ideas has had their stock prices go up. This is an idea that will hurt EVERYONE. Specially the customers.

 

[Epona]

Soo... What if you console breaks, bricks, kicks the bucket or just destroys itself? Or if it gets stolen?

Have they thought about these issue? Because I can see spree of customer support cries and law suits coming their way.

Also no one who been in to these ideas has had their stock prices go up. This is an idea that will hurt EVERYONE. Specially the customers.

The same thing that happens now with digital downloads on the PS3, you deactivate the old console and activate a new one.

 

[V da Mighty Taco]

Yes, 4 years later, with an optional patch that people could opt out of. Seeing the problem with your false equivalency?

No. Since the patch means you either get the Linux option and not being able to play your legally purchased games, or play your games and no Linux. That's eliminating choices right there.

No, you are fully allowed to play your legally obtained games. You just can't play them using the online service Sony provided. So, if you chose to keep Linux, you can freely, so long as you don't then try and go online.

Oh, you want both Linux and online play? Are you familiar with the phrase "having your cake and eating it too?"

Wrong. New games come with the at-the-time-of-launch newest PS3 patch on the disk that you have to install in order to play the game, offline or not. The majority of PS3 titles would be unplayable on a Linux-capable PS3.

And it says the patch thats required on the box, right? So you know it won't work on your system.

At this point, you may as well complain about not being able to play a legally purchased 360 game on your PC. Yes, you legally bought it, but it says clearly on the box its incompatible with your system.

No, the game's box doesn't mention the patch at all. The console's box itself also never mentions that games will be locked out if you don't update to the latest patch.

Your metaphor is also a wildly different case. Games for the Xbox 360 are specifically designed to run on Xbox 360 hardware and software, not the customizable assortment of hardware that a PC can have. The PS3 games not being able to run on a PS3 is a completely different matter, especially when said patch has nothing to do with the game's development and was just thrown in last-minute in order to force the update. Your comparing apples to oranges.

 

[MeChaNiZ3D]

Oh, right. Because publishers individually being able to lock used games is going to result in so much less restriction of used games sales.

Let's be serious, all big publishers, who practically do this anyway, are going to use this if it's implemented. But here's the thing - that might end in better proliferation of games that DON'T use it. And that would be pretty good. Sony might actually be helping large publishers to realise the stupidity of their position.

Or...no, it'll probably just kill used games and we'll all be reamed for cash as publishers that formerly wouldn't bother now have the convenience of DRM without having to put it in themselves. PS4 games at least.