Oh and i forgot to mention one key aspect, at least for me it is, i can keep the game(DISC) and/or book(following the previous mentioned example) for generations trough generations, if the console is playable i can spin it the times i want, or my relatives for that matter, because the DISC=ACCESS, but with digital that is not the case at all, i dont have the ACCESS, the provider does, as long as they run the servers/key, NO DISC= NO ACCESS, PROVIDER=ACCESS, which is my main qualm about it,we not having the control over the access.
Are publisher just taking too much advantage of gamers?
(93 posts)-
Posted 7 months ago #
-
@YoungZer0
I just don't think we actually own the data. We buy the access, be it a physical disc or a download link.
I may not like it, but there's a lot I don't like about the industry these days.
[EDIT]
And with reference to the OP, I care not what 'extras' may or may not be on the disc, and may or may not be unlocked based on which 'version' I buy. So long as I'm still getting access to the full game that I paid for, I don't care if I'm denied a few costumes or one extra MP map or some bullshit like that. It's just the way it is and it looks set to remain that way because people are still buying these games!
Posted 7 months ago # -
@Deacon: What you think doesn't matter. The only thing that matters is what the law says.
Posted 7 months ago # -
sorry just testing if my forum account was working again.
Posted 7 months ago # -
The law isn't going to give you rights to something that was never sold to you in the first place.
What you bought: access
What you didn't buy: dataYour ownership claim on the data is non-existent. "The law" won't magically give it to you simply because you refuse to acknowledge what it is your money is actually buying. So, sure, you can go about quoting 'the law' but the application of it here is misplaced.
Again: "the law" won't make you the owner of the car for the taxi ride you just paid for. Why? Because you didn't pay for that when you handed over your money - you paid for something else. Ownership of the vehicle wasn't what the transaction was about. Quoting law, accurate or otherwise, is going to serve no benefit to you here.
Until you learn what you are actually buying (access, not ownership) then all your assumed arguments based on ownership are going to fall over. Every time.
To go back to the victim-fuelled plea of the OP - you pay for access to data under specific terms when you pay money for a game.
Therefore, if there is data that you have not bought access to then you are not entitled to it. Even if it's stored on the same media (the media is a red-herring in all of this talk, by the way, it's irrelevant). You are not being taken advantage of so long as you appreciate WHAT YOU ARE BUYING when you hand over your money. The belief that you pay money and ownership of all data is transferred to you is utterly wrong.
This goes for digital too. Download a trial of a game on XBL/PSN and you're typically downloading the entire game's data. But your trial is free, right? So for the price of 0.00 you get LIMITED ACCESS to that data - even though you downloaded ALL of the game's data. When you pay more you are granted GREATER ACCESS to the DATA - this is provided to you by means of an unlock key. The terminology is a pretty big clue here. It couldn't be plainer: it's a KEY. It UNLOCKS ACCESS to DATA so that you can have ACCESS to it. Even though you have already acquired those zeroes and ones already. You haven't gone off and grabbed loads more data - you paid for greater access to data you have already acquired.
This principle is exactly the same in the context of 'on the disc DLC'.
This is how it works, people. I know it's quite radical for some of you to accept and it's a bitter pill for many of you to swallow. But this is how it works.
Stop arguing about how 'the law' and 'rights' serve you based on the presumption of ownership. It's a waste of time. Because YOU DON'T OWN the data. That's not what you paid for. That's not what the transaction was about.
You don't own the DATA. (You don't own the data)
And stop arguing about how you must be the owner because you've been selling discs second hand for years. That's completely backwards logic. Just because nobody has forcibly stopped you from doing something does not mean you automatically have the right to do it. You're just ASSUMING those rights. Be wary of assuming too much.
If you want to take ownership of the data then it's simple: Just buy the PUBLISHER and all their assets. That's going to set you back more than 60 bucks though :).
JM
Posted 7 months ago # -
I have the right to sell my games and the publisher can't stop me even if they wanted to :)
Posted 7 months ago # -
I agree with everything you said here JM, and you're absolutely correct of course, but there's a non-legal issue as well...
If we feel like a vendor is turning a reasonable profit, then as customers we don't mind, and we pay happily. Customer, vendor, publisher, developer... Everybody wins!
If we feel like we are being nickel and dimed, or that we are being asked to pay over the odds, then we should vote with our wallets and refuse to pay, in which case that little bit of greed fucks everybody, customer, vendor, publisher and devs alike.
So where is the line? I say if the game you have access to is enough to justify the purchase, then it's okay. The problem is that the publishers are trying to get too close to that cut off line where we get pissed off.
I want them to focus only on pleasing me the customer, and selling me a game that will make me jizz my shorts. But in reality, they have to make money, and it's probably never been tougher for pubs and devs, so I can't really begrudge them tryiung to maximise their profit.
It still leaves me with an ugly feeling. They're no longer trying to make the best possible game, in order to sell the most copies and make the most money. That model is dead. - They're now trying to solve an optimisation problem: Make the game that makes the most money with the least effort, and sell as much DLC as possible, even if you lift it straight out of the game.
Posted 7 months ago # -
"I have the right to sell my games..."
No you don't. Typically that 'right' is expressly forbidden. You are so used to selling a game on you have ASSUMED this right. You are, in fact, wrong.
Additionally those games are not 'yours' as you do not own the game itself, it is still owned by the publisher. You merely have access to their product - under their terms.
"..and the publisher can't stop me even if they wanted to :)"
For the most part this has been true. But don't assume someone's inability to stop you doing something equates to them giving permission for you to do it.
Digital delivery is a means by which publishers are asserting their GENUINE right over your ASSUMED right. This IS NOT a change in rights, it's an enforcement of the ones that exist already.
JM
Posted 7 months ago # -
If we feel like we are being nickel and dimed, or that we are being asked to pay over the odds, then we should vote with our wallets and refuse to pay
Absolutely!
So where is the line? I say if the game you have access to is enough to justify the purchase, then it's okay. The problem is that the publishers are trying to get too close to that cut off line where we get pissed off.
That line differs for everyone. The thing is we have a glass-half-empty and glass-half-full approach to things.
Let's say a game has extra content - like a bonus mission - on 360 and lacks it on PS3. Glass-half-full says "this is extra". Glass-half-empty says "You're deliberately withholding something from me". The reality is consistent, but the perception can be polar opposites. The difference is perception.
So, on-disc DLC. Are you getting extra when you pay more? Or is the publisher deliberately withholding content from you? Depending on whether your glass is half-full or half-empty both views are true.
Thing is, most of this stuff is optional. But business is business. Are you gonna wait until that map pack goes free in 6 months time? Unlikely - a lot of gamers want stuff Day-1. Of course publishers know this. And of course they're going to exploit that to make money. Money talks. And gamers show that they complain a lot but still throw their money at publishers anyway. Remember the Modern Warfare 2 Dedicated Servers boycott? Gamers sent Activision a very powerful message when they failed to carry out their boycott. Because, y'know, OMG!! MW2!! DAY1!!!!
I want them to focus only on pleasing me the customer, and selling me a game that will make me jizz my shorts. But in reality, they have to make money, and it's probably never been tougher for pubs and devs, so I can't really begrudge them tryiung to maximise their profit.
Bingo. And if you recall early developer conferences from this generation there was considerable talk about the generation of new revenue streams. Stuff like Horse Armour and DLC for Guitar Hero has generated huge amounts of revenue. People buy it. They complain, sure, but they buy it.
It still leaves me with an ugly feeling. They're no longer trying to make the best possible game, in order to sell the most copies and make the most money. That model is dead.
That's a romantic ideal. And any dev or publisher that makes quotes to that effect is schmoozing you. Telling you what you want to hear. So you buy their game.
They're now trying to solve an optimisation problem: Make the game that makes the most money with the least effort, and sell as much DLC as possible, even if you lift it straight out of the game.
Pretty much. That's their right. And ours is to vote with our wallets.
JM
Posted 7 months ago # -
I really want to see which law, any law for that matter, stating that it prohibits the user to sell something that was sold to him in the first place, because in my knowladge there is not any law that states this, an original SALE means a change of property, in this case being for the ACCESS of an specific contain, being this contain data (game), music (CD), information (book), creation of the imagination (paiting, book), movies (DVD / Blue ray),etc, all of this contains, are intelectual property, i mean the things that are contain on those physical objects, we own the access to that contain , and for that we do own the physical object, we dont own the contains, which is the intelectual property, of course this until we make an infrignment of the copyright law, i really want to see which law indicates that is not legal to sell, gift, keep it, broke it,ect, something that was acquired through a SALE, and neither of them are established on the copyright law, if there isnt any law that especifically forbidden this, then is only a mere opinion and nothing more.
Posted 7 months ago # -
"I really want to see which law, any law for that matter, stating that it prohibits the user to sell something that was sold to him in the first place"
You're assuming ownership. You're not the owner.
Yes, the law protects legitimate owners. But as you're not the owner then quoting law isn't going to be relevant to you.
And really, stating "in my knowledge" doesn't add much substance. Many people claim to 'know' that they "bought the game so it's mine and I can do as I please".
People also 'knew' the earth was flat and that the sun revolved around the earth.
What people 'know' ain't necessarily so.
JM
Posted 7 months ago # -
Again you put words a have never , ever said, i said we own the ACCESS= DISC, iam the legitimate owner of the DISC and the ACCESS but not the data or intellectual property, i do not pretend to own the data or contain and neither i want it to, is the creation of the creator not mine, but i do want to control the ACCESS, and the only way to do it, is owning a physical device, the ACCESS is owned by me, because the book, the physical disc, or any physical object tha contain the intellectual property, is my property, by legitimacy through the sale act, hence the SALE passed that property to me, not the property of the data or contain, which is protected by the copyright law, of course until there is from the end user part any infrigment of this copyright law, in digital this is not the case hence the discussion, and hence my problems with it, but dont put words i didnt said, i legitimate bought through a SALE the DISC, which passed the PROPERTY of the ACCESS to the end user, not the data, which is copyright protected.
therefore again i want to see any law that indicates i cannot sale, keep, gift, donate, broke, etc that physical object i did obtain through a SALE.
p.s
"And really, stating "in my knowledge" doesn't add much substance. Many people claim to 'know' that they "bought the game so it's mine and I can do as I please"Iam being humble,because i dont know everything and neither i pretend to, you should try it more often instead of putting words i didnt said.
Posted 7 months ago # -
ACCESS is ACCESS
DISC is DISC
ACCESS is not DISCThe media is completely irrelevant.
You do not get to govern access. The owner governs the access. You are not the owner.
Your choices regarding access are as follows:
- Take it
- Leave itIt ain't yours. So laws regarding ownership are not going to serve you, they're going to serve the people that own it: the publishers.
You do not own the data. That isn't what was sold to you. You're still showing that you do not understand what your money is buying.
JM
Posted 7 months ago # -
I see we're now on the topic of whether or not you have the right to sell used games. You do, at least in europe. Even digital ones.
http://curia.europa.eu/jcms/upload/docs/application/pdf/2012-07/cp120094en.pdf
Posted 7 months ago # -
@JM
Isn't the Access and whether you can sell it on up for debate? Recent European court win by a German company who are buying and reselling licences for big commercial software. Obviously this has a long way to go with appeals etc. So nothing is set in stone by a long way.Edit: Actual details posted above by Talkar :)
Posted 7 months ago # -
ACCESS is not DISC
Ok try to play the game without the disc then, of course all the non digital games, you cant because DISC= ACCESS , the user controls the ACCESS , because this was passed onto him/her through the sale act, by legitimacy, therefore the end user decide, when and where he/she plays the game, not the provider, hence the problems with digital, becuase they decide and/or controls the ACCESS, not the end user.
"You do not own the data. That isn't what was sold to you. You're still showing that you do not understand what your money is buying"
Are you sure you read and digest what i did said, i did said i dont own the data or pretend to own it, thats the Authors/developers creation, protected by copyright law, what the SALE passed to me, by legitimacy, is the physical object, i do own the physical objetc and the access to the DATA, throughout the SALE act, , DISC=ACCESS to the data,PHYSICAL OBJECT= ACCESS TO DATA, examples book: information, thoughts, imagination , cd: music, dvd: movies, paitings: imagination work of the creator, art, etc.
Therefore show me a law, any law at that, that states i cannot sell, or do for that matter anything that is not prohibit on the copyright law, to a physical object, being a book, a game in a disc, a painting, etc.
Posted 7 months ago # -
You pay for access to the data.
The data is provided to you on either:
a: on disc
b: digitallya and b HAVE NO IMPACT on access. It is the same regardless.
However, you and many others are very used to taking your disc and selling it. You have awarded yourselves a right you were never given.
When something is delivered digitally the means of selling it on in such a convenient fashion.
And we get disillusioned people saying "WAAAH! Digital is taking away my rights". No they're not. Your rights have not changed at all. You have the same rights as you had before. You have the same access as before.
The media and method of delivery ARE NOT A FACTOR HERE.
You just believe they are because digital stops you from selling something you didn't own. Whereas physical delivery still allows you to ignore that detail and sell something you don't own anyway.
As I mentioned before, this plea of rights is equivalent to a robber complaining about the introduction of padlocks.
Talkar & DrDamn: Enterprise software licencing such as Oracle software is a world apart from end user software licencing. The overlap in relevance is minute and the date of that document is amusing :) . The document still doesn't explicitly give rights to the non-owner of the software to resell their software licence (not the software, the software licence) it say it can't be opposed in that context. That's not the same thing. But people like to interpret "you can't stop me" as "you've given me permission" when it suits them to.
JM
Posted 7 months ago # -
Yes they do have and impact IMHO, the physical object is the key to the access, the end user can keep it and play it whenever and wherever he/she wants, the key is at their hands, or control if you will.
With digital everything is under and account, an account that is controlled by the provider, they can block your account, they can ban you, then can do anything they want, we only asset is to believe in their good willing in doing business, but thats different to having the key or control in your hands, iam not saying is not they right to do it, yes they can, but changing from physical to digital has an impact, a negative one in that, why they cannot implement something like PSN/XBLA were you have your games saved on the console?, so it doesnt matter if you are connected or not to an account, you can still play the games, why is it have to be something like Steam for example or always connected?, that is where my worries lies, that way they own the access to the games, i know is in their right to do it, but that doesnt make it more moral or more reassurance to the end user.
Like i said i wish for the user to keep the control in the access of the game, nothing more nothing less, the game is the authors/developers creating and rightly so, i dont have any rights over it, is just that i want to access the games i did purchase at my leaxure(dont know if i wrote it right change it to willing), like in physical times.
Posted 7 months ago # -
JM.
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/118245-EU-Court-Legalizes-Selling-Used-Digital-Games
http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2012/07/03/crikey-eu-rules-you-can-resell-downloaded-games/
The link i provided is a media press document, here is the full legal document:
http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=124564&pageIndex=0&doclang=EN&mode=lst&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=177748As you can see, it doesn't matter if it is a game or WoW. As long as it is a computer program:
Article 4(2) of Directive 2009/24/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2009 on the legal protection of computer programs must be interpreted as meaning that the right of distribution of a copy of a computer program is exhausted if the copyright holder who has authorised, even free of charge, the downloading of that copy from the internet onto a data carrier has also conferred, in return for payment of a fee intended to enable him to obtain a remuneration corresponding to the economic value of the copy of the work of which he is the proprietor, a right to use that copy for an unlimited period.
Articles 4(2) and 5(1) of Directive 2009/24 must be interpreted as meaning that, in the event of the resale of a user licence entailing the resale of a copy of a computer program downloaded from the copyright holder’s website, that licence having originally been granted by that rightholder to the first acquirer for an unlimited period in return for payment of a fee intended to enable the rightholder to obtain a remuneration corresponding to the economic value of that copy of his work, the second acquirer of the licence, as well as any subsequent acquirer of it, will be able to rely on the exhaustion of the distribution right under Article 4(2) of that directive, and hence be regarded as lawful acquirers of a copy of a computer program within the meaning of Article 5(1) of that directive and benefit from the right of reproduction provided for in that provision.
Posted 7 months ago # -
Talkar iam more worried about the access than the sell part, although it is a nice precedent for future things, we might have a long way to reach.
Posted 7 months ago # -
"Yes they do have and impact IMHO"
You HO is wrong. The media is a form of delivery. Your access is not governed by the method of delivery. Your access is governed by the owner.
The method of delivery, whether digital, physical or carrier pigeon MAKES NO DIFFERENCE. It is irrelevent.
You are still attached the to notion that you ARE ABLE to (but not permitted to) sell something nice and easily when it's in your hands on a disc. But this isn't as easy when it's digital. Because of this difference you are still thinking that your access is different. But in doing so you are still demonstrating you don't understand what your access is in the first place. You're are still coming at this from your own personal prefernce of "I want to resell this" - that's not what your access is about. You're mixing and matching points and making connections that don't exist. The key components have been explained very clearly in very simple terms. At this point it is apparent you don't care for the reality of how things work, you only care about how you can get your own way and see things only the way you prefer to see them - regardless of reality.
Your perception is at fault here. Stop attaching ACCESS to MEDIA. They have no bearing on one another.
You are STILL not grasping the core concept that governs how this works. You might as well be telling me how dolphins govern the workings of an internal combustion engine. The two are not relevant to one another. Your HO is letting you down. It's also not that H either, regardless of your tone.
Talkar: I reiterate: 'not opposing' is a very long way from 'permission granted'. People tend to interpret things like that in a way that suits their personal preferences.
JM
Posted 7 months ago # -
"You are STILL not grasping the core concept that governs how this works"
And you still aren't grasping basic laws that prove your non-existent argument. You keep keep repeating the same inane viewpoint with nothing to back it it. You haven't provided a single law stating that what you claim has any actual basis in the law itself, and unless it's stated by law, it isn't law.
"You also still haven't answered my previous question.
"You are still attached the to notion that you ARE ABLE to (but not permitted to) sell something nice and easily when it's in your hands on a disc. But this isn't as easy when it's digital."
Yep, you are. Entirely at your own whim and discretion.
And the law backs it up. Please show us a law that proves otherwise.
Posted 7 months ago # -
I'm not actually answerable to you. If you hadn't noticed. Maybe you've ASSUMED that I am. False assumption on your part. It's ok - that seems to be happening a lot around here. It's a shame that so many lose sight of their assumptions and feel like they have a right to something when they don't.
Sadly, my viewpoint isn't inane. There's decades of REAL WORLD evidence (including plenty probably within arms reach of you) that demonstrate how this has, does and will work. If you're interested in checking them you'll check them. If you want to be contrarian you won't. If you want to be selective you'll ignore the decades of evidence and pick out a semi-relevant exception here or there and try to argue that the exception is the norm. Twisting and turning it so you can hammer your belief in myth at the expense of reality.
None of that changes how this works in the real world. But keep slamming your fists as much as you like. It won't actually change anything. Then you can slam your fists some more about how things don't change.
There could be a lesson to be learned from that, but something tells me that won't happen. :)
JM
Posted 7 months ago # -
You're answerable to your assumptions of the truth, which have been proven by QUOTABLE law.
And yet you continue to waffle off your claims with absolutely nothing to back them up.
We're still waiting for you to provide this "evidence".
"None of that changes how this works in the real world."
The way the laws have been applied in the real world prove you to be wrong. The EU courts will trample on any company that abuses rights relating to the ownership of goods. You can practically walk into the small claims court and the companies will be grovelling at their feet and doing everything they ask. They won't be allowed trade here otherwise.
Posted 7 months ago # -
"You HO is wrong. The media is a form of delivery. Your access is not governed by the method of delivery. Your access is governed by the owner"
Sony, microsoft, and/ or nintendo, cannot block or control the user its ACCESS to a physical game that is not connected digitally, and is not becuase they dont want or the dont feel obligated, is because legally and technically they cannot do it, because with legitimacy the end user bought it through the act of SALE , which transfered the user the ACCESS= DISC to the game or data, so yes the ACCESS in the end is governed by the METHOD OF DELIVERY= DISC=DIGITAL= ACCESS,neither sony, microsoft or nintendo owns the game neither, of course the ones developed by them yes, but the third party games they do own only a license, if they can do it, i mean control the user with their physical game his/ her ACCESS to the physical game, show me a law, or any law that has rules over this, please, i mean they can block it whenever, wherever they want, as they can do it digitally, in digital form they can, and is in their rights becuase they are the owners of the servers/account or in this case the METHOD OF DELIVERY, but in physical they can´t, because they dont own the physical object, the end user does.
Therefore In reality the access is governed by THE METHOD OF DELIVERY, and for that the owner, which in physical (DISC, BOOK whatever) is the end user or the people that bought it through the act of SALE, but in digital the provider owns the account and the servers, they are the owners of the ACCESS indeed, hence the problem in this, and in neither of this cases, i mean physically, digitally, the provider owns the game, unless is their IP or they are the real authors of course, they have only a license, but they do own the account or server, hence in reality the METHOD OF DELIVERY= ACCESS.
Posted 7 months ago # -
"hence in reality the METHOD OF DELIVERY= ACCESS."
Nope. You've just twisted reality because you refuse to detatch yourself from your need to insist that there's a difference between digital and physical as far as your rights are concerned. There isn't any difference. But if you acknowledge that there is, the rest of your self-centered argument implodes.
"The way the laws have been applied in the real world prove you to be wrong."
And the millions (possibly billions) of instances that have been applied in the real world prove that selected exceptions are not the norm.
And the next time you hear about something like on-disc DLC and digital delivery, for example, you see just how much reality cares about your selective exceptions.
JM
Posted 7 months ago # -
"The way the laws have been applied in the real world prove you to be wrong. The EU courts will trample on any company that abuses rights relating to the ownership of goods. You can practically walk into the small claims court and the companies will be grovelling at their feet and doing everything they ask. They won't be allowed trade here otherwise."
Too bad we don't all live in places where consumer laws protect people and their right. I live in a place where laws are made/bought for big companies to protect their intrests. Yeah for Capitalism :(
As for the subject of ownership, by law(again depends on where you live), users have little to no rights. We don't own anything. But I would like to see Sony come into my home and tell me that I can't use my PSx or PS2. Or Sega tell me that I broke the law by having my NA Saturn moded to play JPN Saturn games.
PS JM stop being a tool. While there may not be a difference between rights, there is a huge difference between useage. And that is what they mean by acsess. Like the Saturn thing. Do I have the right to do it? Am I going to keep on playing those games?
Posted 7 months ago # -
"hence in reality the METHOD OF DELIVERY= ACCESS."
Nope. You've just twisted reality because you refuse to detatch yourself from your need to insist that there's a difference between digital and physical as far as your rights are concerned. There isn't any difference. But if you acknowledge that there is, the rest of your self-centered argument implodes"
No man iam not twisting anything in reality, if you want to prove your point, then show me how i can access in digital form the games that are on the providers servers, as i do with physical games?, i mean as the legally owner of the ACCESS, which is pretty much whenever and wherever i want , and for the time i want ( i mean in 80 years in the future), as i do right now as an owner of the physical object, which granted me the control of the ACCESS like i mentioned, if you can show me that or any Law that says in digital form iam the owner of the access or controller if you will, like the SALE principle and the FIRST SALE RULE back the owner the ACCESS of the data in the physical media of delivery, then i will say physical = digital, and that you are right and iam wrong all along, until then PHYSICAL is not DIGITAL, because in reality the METHODS OF DELIVERY govern the ACCESS.
Posted 7 months ago # -
At some point tho, and it has already started happening, media companies will shift their focus away from selling ownership to selling limited time usage liscening. That templet will be the backbone for digital sales. It will/is all rolled up neatly into a EULA that most of us click without reading. We bascily give up any rights, and enable the companies to make and or change the rules as they see fit. These EULA are written to fully protect the companies interest.
Our only choice is to show the resolve it take to not purchase these products. Just don't buy 'em. That is the only power we have and is the only message the companies will understand or listen to.
But I doubt many of us will stop buying media at any point.
Posted 7 months ago # -
I will do OG , i have a heck of backlog, from all the previous gens and this gen too, i can live without games for long, i have a nice stack, i did prepare myself for the apocalypse ;)
Posted 7 months ago #
Reply »
You must log in to post.