New Xbox requires an always-on connection to block used games

[tmcd35]

So where do you stand on car parking tickets? Is it okay to give it to another driver if you don't need to use up all the time on the ticket you paid for? What is it we are actually purchasing? The media and it's contents, or the right to use the contents? If it's the later is it right to sell it on?

 

It's not a unique problem to gaming. All aspects of the entertainment industry are struggling with this. If I purchase a book and give it to you to read then that is lost potential income for the author. Indeed I'm sure in the cover of most books there is a clause (often ignored) expressly forbidding this. The whole point of copyright law is that the creative developer of the work retains ownership on giving permission for making such copies and can thus profit off it.

 

Like I say, If I've ever done it in the past, I at least acknowledge that what I'm doing is wrong and don't try to hide behind silly excuses like "pirates spend more money on original media than non pirates". That might be so, but is doesn't justify your actions.

[SYNACK]

@X-13, Are you seriously arguing that, regardless of media (movies, music, games, etc), someone who has put in a lot of time and effort creating an original creative work should not be properly compensated for their time, effort and creativity?

 

As for greedy publishers. There does seem to be a post iOS trend back towards indie developers that download only gaming seems to have invigorated. This can only be viewed as a good thing.

 

 

 

Two wrongs don't make a right - as the old saying goes.

 

 

Of course it is! And if I've ever done it, I've done it knowingly!

 

iOS has brought the exploitation back into the market, 33% of everything off the top and terms that prevent you from selling it cheaper elsewhere.

 

Games publishers do get compensated, you buy a chair from a furniture maker, you have a chair. If you chose to sell it to someone else later the maker has still been paid for that chair.

 

This pay per use stuff has been invented by the media companies - thanks Sony, BMG, Apple - where you buy a chair and they will let you sit in it but if you get up they take it back.

 

With the games, stores should be paying a higher premium for rentable copies and also renting licence fees just like they do for DVDs based on the amount of rentals.

 

The sole thing where I can see it being not smarmy WRT games is those with online content that requires maintenance, in that case the one off cost or even a small subscription for the on going service. Titles like Alan Wake were also fine as these soled for a lower initial cost (about 50%), the first chapter of four and a voucher for the second and if you liked it you could buy the last two separately totalling up to a standard full game cost.

 

This licence thing is a big load of BS, sure, can't perform it, can't pass it off as your own work but you can pass the original off to someone else when you are done. Authors aren't so smarmy, they even had dens of state sponsored piracy that they called libraries. All these morally inept scholars would come and bask in the collected culture, sometimes even buying their own copies of works that they really liked.

 

Media companies now are different, you need to buy it to try it out and if you don't like it too bad, what happened to civilisation where the shareing of knowledge and culture became some socially unacceptable harracy.

 

[TechMonkey]

But the bottom line is it is illegal to stop a consumer selling on something they have bought. This includes software. So it doesn't matter what the companies think, it is the law. This has been the same for VHS tapes, CDs, DVDs, books, box sets, clothes, cars, houses, whatever. Someone buys something they have a right to sell it on after use and the original company has no claim on any part of that sale.

 

The artists should be compensated but there are better targets as stated by X-13. You don't see the Monet estate demanding a cut from the latest sale of his paintings. It is a very recent idea that has been thought up by media companies to try and maximize what they can squeeze out of a customer. Do you really think the artists will see a penny of these extra sales? I bet you 90% will go to the Publisher for miscellaneous expenses.

 

As for car parking tickets, yes I stick them on the ticket machine. I have paid for an allotted time so if I do not use all that time then I have the right to dispose of it as I see fit and if I want to gift it to someone as they are only needing a quick 5/10 mins then I do not see that should be a problem. Especially as the carparks often don't give out change, charge silly prices forcing you to need change and often have random time brackets.

[sted]

If I purchase a book and give it to you to read then that is lost potential income for the author. Indeed I'm sure in the cover of most books there is a clause (often ignored) expressly forbidding this.

 

id arque that giving someone a book youve read is actually a good thing for the pubnlisher. Lets say i give away one of my discworld books because ive managed to find a hardcover version so no longer need the paperback (granted i now get them all on kindle but this is what i used to do) i pass it to someone i think might like it they then go out and buy the rest of the series that surely is a net gain to the publisher and they probably wouldnt of bought the 1st book anyway so at no loss they have made lots of sales.

 

i can sort of see where publishers are coming from with not liking 2nd hand games but as others have said tough as locking it down to 1 console is a bit draconian what if i want to take halo5 say to a friends house and play it there as they have a bigger tv or whatever i then couldn't unless i lugged the console as well and added to their network etc.

 

Yes piracy is an issue but the more restrictive you make it the more its worth copying it in the first place. Look at drm'd music you have to jump through hoops to get it to play where as if you downloaded a "free" copy it would just work or blueray/dvd where you have to sit thorough 30mins of you wouldn't steel a car etc the pirate version has none of this so all they are doing is making piracy a "better" option by effectively disadvantaging genuine customers

[localzuk]

I'm not sure what the argument is here. The EU has already ruled that when someone buys software, they buy a perpetual license to it (unless it is a subscription license), and included in that is a legal right to sell that perpetual license on.

 

Once someone sells you something, they lost the right to control it in any way. The recent laws preventing things like rooting or unlocking in the USA go against their concepts of freedom so they are a bit odd, and I doubt they'll hang around for an overly long time.

 

Also, it has been shown time and time again that the arguments that second hand sales, rentals or even piracy mean lost sales or reduced profits. In the past, I've pirated movies and games, and later bought them - if they were any good.

 

Some games, I've bought multiple copies to support that franchise. I think I've now bought at least 4 copies of most of the Command & Conquer games. I've bought about 30 or so copies of Minecraft (and given them away). I've bought about 5 licenses for EV: Nova, etc...

 

So, the issue as far as I can see is not that the consumer is damaging the game companies but that the game companies are damaging themselves.

[SYNACK]

Freakonomics » If Public Libraries Didn’t Exist, Could You Start One Today?

[tmcd35]

@localzuk, The arguement is as per the OP and the idea that Sony and Microsoft want to include some kind of DRM in next gen consoles and the merits or other whys of that. I'm effectively posting that I understand the rational MS and Sony have behind doing this and that I agree (if not 100% completely adhere to) the principles of copyright.

@everyone else, are saying that we are happy with the status quo then? New games costing £50-£60?

 

In terms of online distribution then, where do we stand with selling on our unwanted copies? And why, if it is, should it be any different to physical media.

 

The recent rise in indie gaming, as with indie music artists, is showing that in the long run downloading new original games at around £10-£20 new is the way the industry will ultimately go. Out problem, as with the music industry, is that big publishers have too large a grip on distribution and that even in the UK and US the Internet isn't at a stage to support online distribution to all potential end users.

[localzuk]

@tmcd35 - problem is, controls or not, Microsoft and Sony are legally required to allow for second hand sales of software. Oracle learned this last year.

 

Also, are you really thinking that prices will come down with this change? If they do, I'll be *very* surprised.

[SYNACK]

@everyone else, are saying that we are happy with the status quo then? New games costing £50-£60?

 

The recent rise in indie gaming, as with indie music artists, is showing that in the long run downloading new original games at around £10-£20 new is the way the industry will ultimately go. Out problem, as with the music industry, is that big publishers have too large a grip on distribution and that even in the UK and US the Internet isn't at a stage to support online distribution to all potential end users.

 

1) try 70 pounds + and not really, if it was remotely close to what the US paid, fine

 

2) and films will all be produced with three amature actors and a cellphone. There will still be a market for big emersive games even if that is not you, I'd take CoD over angry birds every day of the week.

[CAM]

1) Publishers are not your friends. They are there to wring every penny they can out of you, just look at Bobby Kotick and his comments "Turn a £50 sale into a £150 sale." If anything, the suits running these publisher companies show that they hate gamers with outlandish claims and only tolerate them for their wallets. They also screw over the very studios and developers that created them. *COUGH*NCSOFT*COUGH*

 

2) Publishers have been getting away with borderline theft lately. Games are deliberately released unfinished, features scrapped to be bought later on and now this no re-sell malarky.

 

3) Ever been to a fair and seen old cartridges for sale? Can't sell modern day games heritage as easily. Say goodbye to your memories...now they have been rehashed as £10 titles on download services. I've bought old carts cheaper then what publishers offer today for classic titles.

 

4) Publishers distrust their consumers. Ubisoft made an outlandish claim that 90% of PC titles sold were "pirated" to justify increasingly intrusive DRM. They offer no respect to their consumers and the communities that grow up round their titles.

[SYNACK]

4) Publishers distrust their consumers. Ubisoft made an outlandish claim that 90% of PC titles sold were "pirated" to justify increasingly intrusive DRM. They offer no respect to their consumers and the communities that grow up round their titles.

 

Supreme Commander 2 was the end of my PC gaming, the SecureROM DRM crippled a top of the line C2D (at the time) worse than iTunes. That and it was that comped I couldn't trust it anymore. I then brought an Xbox to escape the insanity.

[Ghostgame]

@tmcd35 - problem is, controls or not, Microsoft and Sony are legally required to allow for second hand sales of software. Oracle learned this last year.

 

Also, are you really thinking that prices will come down with this change? If they do, I'll be *very* surprised.

 

They may be required but I have a nasty feeling they will make sure that they get a cut of profit from second hand games (e.g passes to play the game online) You already have this with EA. You want to play multiplayer on you second hand Mass Effect3? You going to have to buy a pass before you can do that

[featured_spectre]

I think the online pass is reasonable though, it is tied to an account, so the person could buy the game, play it, pass it on, and if he wanted it back, could carry on as before. Make the passes £5 rather than £10 and everyone should be happy.

[Ghostgame]

Its going to be a bit much if Microsoft/Sony say you have to pay a subscription fee for multi-player in general and then put full content or game activation passes on top of that for second-hand games, especially if the publisher also requires you to buy a pass.

 

Thats the bit im not looking forward to.

[TechMonkey]

Its going to be a bit much if Microsoft/Sony say you have to pay a subscription fee for multi-player in general and then put full content or game activation passes on top of that for second-hand games, especially if the publisher also requires you to buy a pass.

 

Thats the bit im not looking forward to.

 

 

& thatis what happens. Look at Live. It was meant to be the one stop subscription and sign up to get everything you needed. Then companies started wanting to see what their users were doing so created their own subscription services (Uplay & the like) and then you have to buy passes to get things. Once someone gets away with something everyone wants to pile on in to get a cut, company to company, level to level.

[CAM]

They need to be wary of the MMORPG trap. When MMO games were subscription dominated, players would only run one or two subs alongside each other. Either your product appealed to the player and fell in that pool of subs or the player cut it loose.

 

Imagine if you had to pay a sub for the network then each individual game or series of games? What if you have three games you want to play but each had a sub plus the network fee? Only really leaves room for 1-2 titles active at once. But for some reason, publishers want to charge subs on top of network fees to help get their cut, and charge DLC and charge full whack for titles.

 

DLC alone is a bugbear and something I used to support but have grown weary of. I've started asking why I was paying £50-60 for a partial game and another £50-60 of expansions and maps of often dubious quality. I've start to not purchase DLC now unless it really appeals or happens to fall in a very good sale simply because it has become so expensive. 50p for a hat or a skin? Sure! £8 for the same? Err no thanks, even worse when you pay a sub (Here's looking at you XBL...).

[X-13]

Its going to be a bit much if Microsoft/Sony say you have to pay a subscription fee for multi-player in general

 

You mean like Microsoft are doing now?

 

 

created their own subscription services (Uplay & the like)

 

Oi. Uplay is decent.

 

I get a few cool freebies for games I'm already playing, by playing the games.

 

Also, it's free and not necessary.

[TechMonkey]

Oi. Uplay is decent.

I get a few cool freebies for games I'm already playing, by playing the games.

Also, it's free and not necessary.

 

I've not used it enough to know but I though Live was meant to mean the end to signing up endlessly to different services, to be a one shop for everything. Why do I need to resign in to a service when I clearly have an easily identifiable identity there on the console!

[localzuk]

UPlay is necessary - it is part of the DRM for all new Ubisoft games afaik. ie. You can't play Ubisoft games without it.

[Ghostgame]

You mean like Microsoft are doing now?

 

I have no issue with paying for xbox live. It helps fund a good secure system and pays for future add-ons.

 

What I don't want is to pay for that, pay them to activate my second hand game and then pay the publisher to activate multiplayer.

[X-13]

I though Live was meant to mean the end to signing up endlessly to different services, to be a one shop for everything.

 

Live was meant to be another way for Microsoft to make money. [The PC version of an Xbox game doesn't require a XBL subscription to get online]

 

 

Why do I need to resign in to a service when I clearly have an easily identifiable identity there on the console!

 

You don't. You set it up and it logs in automatically based on your gamertag.

 

UPlay is necessary - it is part of the DRM for all new Ubisoft games afaik. ie. You can't play Ubisoft games without it.

 

Huh... I didn't know this.

 

I've had a Uplay account since it was released and never noticed it... Then again, I play offline a lot of the time, which means it CAN'T pick up my Uplay details and I've never been blocked.

 

I have no issue with paying for xbox live. It helps fund a good secure system and pays for future add-ons.

 

I do. XBL isn't much better than PSN anymore. Even down to security.

 

Live accounts are hacked all the time, once that's gone, you're whole account is. [There's also stories of Microsoft ignoring blatant fraud. Like the account suddenly being used to buy lots of things in China.]

 

Charging for XBL may have made sense back when it launched, but now there's no reason.

 

Sony, Nintendo and every PC manufacturer don't charge you to get online.

 

What makes it worse is that it's a P2P connection and you aren't using any mocrosoft servers.

[localzuk]

Huh... I didn't know this.

 

I've had a Uplay account since it was released and never noticed it... Then again, I play offline a lot of the time, which means it CAN'T pick up my Uplay details and I've never been blocked.

 

Try something like Anno 2070 - some game functionality is lost when UPlay loses connection.

[X-13]

Try something like Anno 2070 - some game functionality is lost when UPlay loses connection.

 

Wait... PC or console? I know the PC version of Uplay got outed as a rootkit.

[localzuk]

Wait... PC or console? I know the PC version of Uplay got outed as a rootkit.

 

PC. Only insane people use consoles.

[X-13]

Only insane people use consoles.

 

Guess I'm insane then...

 

 

This is probably why we have different views on Uplay. The console version is decent enough.