icon to pop-up a window with pricing information.
 |
 |
|
Games are Licensed, Not Sold Says US Court and What's Next On My Backlog? |
940 views |
|
I just finished up Aliens vs Predator (as best as I can as an achievement whore). I'll be doing a review on that soon.
Thanks to some great lowball sales here in the trade section, I managed to snag a few games that I can work on. Can't wait to dive into some Red Dead Redemption finally. I've played about an hour, and I love westerns so I'm hoping I stay more interested in this than GTA4. Red Faction is also on my short list. Star Ocean might have to wait since I'll be doing 2nd and 3rd playthroughs on it. It isn't going anywhere.  Also picked up that Lara Croft XBLA game. Interesting and lot better than I thought it would be. Look for reviews (if you care!) soon. I had to revisit this post because I read this and it just annoys the hell out of me. http://games.ign.com/articles/112/1120315p1.html Games are licensed, not sold. The understanding that this all started with Auto CAD software, this could be bad depending on how this is interpreted by game companies and how it may affect used game sales and rentals. I rent from Gamefly and I'm already going to be screwed out of playing a lot of games online. So, potentially they may be forced out of renting some or all games? Obviously this is a worst case scenario. But we've already seen what EA is doing to prevent "losing" money in the used game market and a few companies following suit. You get EA and Activition on that bandwagon and who else would follow suit? Especially if people are still buying up the games and they are making money by the truckloads. I used to manage an independent video game store. I firmly believe that the games you buy are yours to do what you want with. You bought it. You own it. If its a game like an MMO that you agree to the EULA to play, well, you may own the physical game, but you don't own the virtual property. I don't physically or digitally sign any EULA to play my 360 games. I may agree to MS's terms when playing on Xbox Live, but I don't ever recall signing or agreeing to anything that lets my play Banjo-Kazooie, used or not. |
 |
Posted in Video Games |
 Comments (Total Comments: 16) |
|
|
chopper731
- 09-14-2010, 11:43 AM
|
It makes sense that video games are licensed. If you look at it from a software standpoint then it makes perfect sense. You aren't buying the code, artwork and all the other intellectual property to a game when you buy it. You are obtaining a license to use (play) the software. Sure, the physical disc, case and manual are yours to do whatever you want with but not the software itself.
I don't see the future of used game sales as all doom and gloom. If the publishers and/or developers push too hard against used game selling/trading then piracy with go up without a doubt. They know this. I think paying for an "online pass" is a valid way to approach their conundrum of the strong secondhand market. It costs good money to maintain those servers and patch a game. I think what the price of that "online pass" should be can definitely be debated though. |
|
Thomas96
- 09-14-2010, 12:56 PM
|
@chopper731 At first I felt like it was wrong to say that video games are licensed.. but I have to agree with you. What you said makes perfect sense.
|
|
BrandoCalrisian
- 09-14-2010, 12:59 PM
|
|
Thank you so much, Mike M., for bringing this to my attention.
I'm going to be quite vulgar here because of the utter rage brewing inside. Apologies in advance. This same argument could apply to used movies in all formats, music cd’s, printed books, magazines, comic books, and lots of other things...aren't they intellectual property, too? What about something as simple as artwork you hang on a wall? You see, this is a slippery slope, but the publishers don't need a court to change things. F--k, what will happen to rentals or used sales of ANYTHING entertainment related? Here's a thought. If you don't want people to trade their games in, and/or you want a piece of the action, instead of going through the f--king, corrupt court, with an out-of-touch judge who never even played Super Mario Brothers, AND PISSING OFF EVERYONE IN THE PROCESS EVEN MORE, f--king do something about it to change your industry. 1) Publish digital-only content and downloadables tied to a user account. Market will determine the price, which probably will be lower. AND, NEVER MAKE A DISK AGAIN! 2) Charge people to play online, or you have to buy a new game to play online, or access certain features. EA, you beat us to that. 3) Still publish the disks, but HAVE A F--KING TRADE IN PROGRAM YOURSELVES. 4) Maybe you can charge people to play your games for a week, with a digital download, like renting a movie? Maybe it's $10 and you beat it and move the f--k on? If you want a full copy forever, then you pay something like $39.95. WHY HASN'T THIS BEEN DONE YET? 5) Make games with better replay value so people don't ever trade them in. I don't give two craps and a stroke about this f--king ruling affecting ANYTHING. In the future, I see gamers getting together, trading and buying games at swap meets, like a black market. It's my f--king disk and I can use it like a Frisbee or give it to a friend if I want. As long as I'm not mass producing copies and selling them I have no moral scruples at all. If I can’t sell it, do I own if forever? Could I sell my license? Rage... |
|
kilm
- 09-14-2010, 01:20 PM
|
To number 4 of the above poster, they are kinda doing that with Onlive, where you can buy access to a full game for a set duration for cheaper than if you buy it for unlimited access.
|
|
Retom7
- 09-14-2010, 01:30 PM
|
|
I still disagree with the court's decision. I don't sign an agreement when I purchase the game, click okay when I first play it, etc. It's my copy of their product. Aside from copying and reproducing copies, I should be able to sell it to someone else. I can do that with books, magazines, dvds, and just about anything else that's tangible.
Video game companies that are smart will find a way to put value-added content into games, such as DLC or unlockable online play, but it still has to be reasonable. I understand that they want a piece of the used market sales, and maybe the solution is for Gamestop and others to give a certain % of the profit back to those companies, BUT, it should still be my copy to do with as I please. The idea of paying for something that has limited use or that they could collect back from me at any time is ridiculous. I have no intention of paying for a temporary pass for a game. I also have no intention of buying any game that requires an internet connection to play. I just really hope the future of video games isn't the same future shared with the music industry... $15 for a worthless piece of plastic wrapped in a plastic case containing paper covers? No wonder people switched to pirating music. If CDs came down to a price that was more reasonable, music sales would be much better than they are now. Who is going to pay $15 for 1 or 2 songs on an album? Who is going to pay $60 for a temporary gaming pass? Video game companies should realize that the future is in DLC. You buy a game and get X with it. You enjoyed X, so you go out and buy Y to go along with it. DLC I understand. Of course, that is unless the DLC is needed to complete a game or unlock data that's already included on the game I purchased... then it's a con. |
|
BrandoCalrisian
- 09-14-2010, 01:39 PM
|
|
@Kilm, yes, they did something similar with Fable on XBox Live, in which you could download the first chapter for free, and then pay for each additional chapter as you went through. I liked this because I realized that I didn't like the game, and didn't want to purchase anymore of it.
But, I'm talking about something for consoles, like a digital rental service, in which you rent the entire game for a week. So, they give you full access right off. Or, maybe you just pay for one full play through on one difficulty mode with no time limit? For some of the popular titles, I would really like this feature. I would pay $19.95 for this feature. Some games you just buy the disk, play through it, and don't want to own the thing forever. I personally like how things work now without any changes, but I'm just a greedy consumer I guess. |
|
ackbar7
- 09-14-2010, 02:37 PM
|
It does seem like insanity that in the case of music the courts ruled that you do own the cd and can sell it as you wish, as long as you are not making illegal copies. Did the judge explain how this intellectual property is different? What makes the obvious precedent invalid here? This ruling is infuriating, and really does illustrate how out of touch the courts are not just with the society as a whole, but the already established rule of law.
|
|
Spyder187
- 09-14-2010, 03:01 PM
|
Basicly it seems that whats going on is that it feels like certain game devs are trying to force you to purchase their crappy games and be stuck with them rather than be able to try it before you buy it...
|
|
BrandoCalrisian
- 09-14-2010, 06:00 PM
|
|
I think it's time to go outside again...
|
|
Schizophriend
- 09-14-2010, 08:55 PM
|
What makes a video game so different than a movie? Movies have been sold used since they were created.
I don't understand how video games are any different. Sure they may be a bit more complex with all the code and whatnot, but thats why we pay $60 for a game and $20-ish for a movie. This is dumb. I disagree completely. |
|
willardhaven
- 09-14-2010, 09:55 PM
|
Just stop buying from companies who don't value their customers enough to treat them as owners of their products. Most games suck now anyway.
|
|
mike.m
- 09-14-2010, 10:31 PM
|
|
@chopper731 - I agree 100% if we're talking software (not video games) or MMO's. When it comes to Red Dead Redemption. I bought it. I should be able to sell it. Or, I should be able to buy a game used with no penalty other than "extras" a publisher wants to prohibit me from having as a result of not buying it new. I played Mass Effect 2 without Cerebus and I'm ok with that. I don't believe that used games will just up and disappear from store shelves, but I see a push down roads that I don't agree with in retail.
@Retom7 - I absolutely agree with you. Digital media is a tough sell to the entire masses though. It is the future, but for some reason its not something that consumers have completely embraced. That's why phones still aren't a viable mass market gaming systems yet. @willardhaven - I'm not sure who you are implying we should stop buying from? Publishers, or retailers? As for most games suck? Completely disagree. I'm not nostalgic. I love how video games have progressed. I'll play a classic or a favorite every once in a while, but I'd much rather play Call of Duty 4 than Doom. |
|
Thomas96
- 09-15-2010, 07:56 AM
Updated 09-15-2010 at 08:07 AM by Thomas96 |
|
If devs want people to buy games new then the price of the game needs to come down about 15 dollars. 44 or 45.99 is a good price for a new game. when you start off at that price, at least for the first week you'll get more sales. I think they should do that for the first month. Is it just me or are the devs worried about the big box stores doing used games? Because if you got the big box stores doing used games, then that will impact their sales. Gamestop was the only major retailer doing used games and there was never a problem until best buy threw their name into the hat for used games. Also, amazon got in on the used game market too...
|
|
nddave
- 09-15-2010, 08:24 AM
|
I disagree with the first poster. If a game is sold/purchased that game comes with the online features regardless of who owns it. This is a greedy attempt to get more money whether codes or new game purchases.
|
|
mike.m
- 09-15-2010, 10:00 AM
|
|
@nddave - not necessarily. This is where things get fuzzy. An MMO for example, sure you own the physical copy of the game, but you don't own anything actually in the game. Your character, items, etc all belong to that company. Can you sell it all, technically breaking their EULA? Yes, but it isn't yours to sell or profit on legally.
Now if it comes to a "standard" video game. I bought my copy of Super Street Fighter IV. I own it and nobody has the right to tell me what I can and can't do with it. |
|
UjnHunter
- 09-15-2010, 10:08 AM
|
The court did NOT rule that Games are Licensed. Reading comprehension. Look it up. They ruled that the AutoCAD Software this guy was selling was Licensed based on the Original Agreement.
|
| Recent Blog Entries by mike.m |
|
Mike.M's Bloated Chathole
