This is a split board - You can return to the Split List for other boards.

Topic for people who 100% support the ban on used games for future consoles

#161kingofall214Posted 2/9/2013 10:44:08 AM
TheBaronBoom posted...

I did read your post but I wanted to keep my post brief (so much for that)
And what you say is true.... but if a game sells badly whos fault is that? Me? for buying used? Gamestop? for not shoving the game down my throat while it was new?
The publisher? for not making the disk blue or gold? No if a game sells badly its the devs fault for making a subpar product. Why should I be force to pay full price for a game that only JUST intrigues me?
AND they do stop making games after a time.... so if you didn't buy FF17
in a reasonable ammount of time....well that your fault so no FF17 for you!
Unless you're saying that publishers should continue to make games indefinitly?
or should we just switch to digital? After the network the console devs created is long gone and your Fancy Xbox720 or ps4 suffers a (inevitable) crash what then if you wanted to play that ps4 cult classic....well you'd better hope that sony is 1: still making games... and 2: releases your favorite game on the ps5 or 6


You can't say that as used games are taking sales. There is no evidence leaning ether way but I am more inclined to believe that people won't care that they have to pay $5 more because they won't have the used option.

This is hypothetical but accurate.

A game costs $60 new at retail. The store only paid lets say $30 because thats how retail works. The publisher got paid $30 for that game.

When a customer pays $60 it is split so the store can buy more copies. Now instead of just paying $30 to the publisher to get more new copies gamestop instead gives 20 to anyone who sells them the game. and then resells it for $55. The person who just sold the game made $20 off the piece of plastic that has someone else's work on it. Gamestop just made $35 that had someone else's work on it if they sell it. This cycle continues.

If they blocked used sales then Instead of your money going to Gamestop and the guy who sold it, it would go to the people WHO MADE THE DAMN GAME.

Now if they managed to block used games if a game does horribly it's because it was a bad game. Nobody was buying it so no stores bought more.

When you go to the movies do you go and see a movie that just intrigues you? Do you demand your money back or get to sell your ticket if it was bad? What makes you think that just because you didn't like the game you shouldn't have to pay full price or get your money back?

Seeing as this is the year 2013 and I can get a copy of FF7 (A 16 year old game) right now off of PSN right now I am not worried in the slightest about not being able to get an older game in the future. You can get NES games from the freaking 80's on Nintendo's handhelds and consoles.

And if in your hypothetical situation Sony is out of business in the far future then guess what? You can grab a copy offline free of charge. It's perfectly legal as the game would be considered abandon ware.
---
http://psnprofiles.com/kingofall214
#162user_ptPosted 2/9/2013 10:58:35 AM(edited)
Person who 100% support the ban on used games for future consoles reporting in.

EDIT
lol jk, it will be awful if future consoles ban used games, and I believe gaming companies will have even less profits
#163Seifer_usPosted 2/9/2013 10:48:45 AM
kingofall214 posted...
You mean if games stop using a dated medium other companies will follow suit? That must be why the music industry has a booming used CD market. Oh wait no CD's are dead and itunes is where it's at. Hmm no used music.


There is still a market for used CDs, but apparently you have no idea it exists. Come visit me in Japan, and I'll show you a largely booming used and new CD industry.

Well the DVD industry is totally succeeding. Oh wait no they moved onto streaming services like hulu and netflix.


DVDs have been surpassed by Blu-Ray. Netflix and Hulu are NOT how the major movie studios measure success. They are paid a small licensing fee, but they still need physical media (or ticket sales) to make the money that keeps them in business, and believe it or not there are still enough people paying for that option.

Well at least FYE is still booming. No wait that ain't true ether.

Blockbuster? Nope.


At any rate, I think you've completely misunderstood what I said. I have no inherent problem with digital only products. My problem is with not being able to resell those products in the same way we do with physical products. You seem to have come under the mistaken impression that I want everything to be physical media.

You never owned the game data. You never owned the song. You never owned the movie. The only thing you owned was the Piece of plastic it was on. If you owned it you could do anything you want with it. Make copies and put it online? perfectly legal if you owned the data. But you don't and you never have. The data belongs to the person who made it. You just get to use it. Hence the term license.


This is the first correct (and relevant) thing you've said. You're absolutely right, and that's exactly what I'm complaining about. We should have never started purchasing anything without having full ownership of the contents.

What I'm suggesting is that we be entitled to full ownership of both the physical media AND exactly one copy of the data it contains (plus one copy for backup as permitted by law). I'm also suggesting that we build a working used market for digital content (something some companies are already working on doing with iTunes) and make it illegal for companies to make that option unavailable or unviable to us as consumers.
---
PSN ID: Shawnji
Trophy List: http://psnprofiles.com/Shawnji
#164kingofall214Posted 2/9/2013 10:49:52 AM
masterarbiter44 posted...
kingofall214 posted...
masterarbiter44 posted...
kingofall214 posted...
Seifer_us posted...
My main problem with banning used games is that it would set a precedent for other industries. If it eventually becomes a case of me not being able to sell my own home to someone because they need shelter and I need money, I think I'll just shoot myself and be done with this beaurocratic nonsense.

In my opinion, we've already gone too far by not having a secondhand market for digital property; because, for some reason, when it's digital it ceases to be your property and you're merely licensing it. At some point we all just kind of silently agreed that was okay, I guess? The rights of consumers should never have been brushed aside like this in the first place, and it's only been tolerated because of mass technological ignorance.


You mean if games stop using a dated medium other companies will follow suit? That must be why the music industry has a booming used CD market. Oh wait no CD's are dead and itunes is where it's at. Hmm no used music.

Well the DVD industry is totally succeeding. Oh wait no they moved onto streaming services like hulu and netflix.

Well at least FYE is still booming. No wait that ain't true ether.

Blockbuster? Nope.

You never owned the game data. You never owned the song. You never owned the movie. The only thing you owned was the Piece of plastic it was on. If you owned it you could do anything you want with it. Make copies and put it online? perfectly legal if you owned the data. But you don't and you never have. The data belongs to the person who made it. You just get to use it. Hence the term license.


The difference is at any time, for what ever reason, people can take away a digital license. However, a similar principle does exist for physical media, but they can never take the physical media away from you. Effectively making yours forever until you desire to sell it. That doesn't just apply to video games. Even in the music business people still purchase their music on vinyl records, and yes, they are still being made.


Nope. Not even close to true. At least not for video games. You can lose the ability to re-download your games (which is a service that you aren't entitled to) but if for example you bought AC3 digitally and have it on your hard drive even if your account is shut off you can still play that game.


Why not? The way things are now, the person who owns the license has the right to revoke it at anytime, for any reason.


No they have to have a reason to revoke your license. They can't just say whelp we are going to take your license away. We don't like you.

What possible motivation would they have to do this? It's not like they need more licenses to sell and are running out and so they stole yours.
---
http://psnprofiles.com/kingofall214
#165Lord ZhouYuPosted 2/9/2013 10:51:24 AM
WIth the rate at which games are pushed out on to shelves, then pulled off to make room for the next big thing, games that are available now won't be so in the near future, and I'll be doing a lot more in terms of emulation and hacking.

Besides the necessity it would become, it's a fun way to reject the direction of the market today in general. The focus is in online multiplayer interaction, cheap and simple games built around buy-as-you-go models, downloads and checks rather than cartridges, discs, and keys, and licenses over ownership. It almost reminds me of communism. Almost.
---
Romney Ryan 2012. Never forget the righteous, honest man the United States denied itself in favor of socialism and racism.
#166masterarbiter44Posted 2/9/2013 10:55:23 AM
kingofall214 posted...
kingofall214 posted...
masterarbiter44 posted...
kingofall214 posted...
Seifer_us posted...
My main problem with banning used games is that it would set a precedent for other industries. If it eventually becomes a case of me not being able to sell my own home to someone because they need shelter and I need money, I think I'll just shoot myself and be done with this beaurocratic nonsense.

In my opinion, we've already gone too far by not having a secondhand market for digital property; because, for some reason, when it's digital it ceases to be your property and you're merely licensing it. At some point we all just kind of silently agreed that was okay, I guess? The rights of consumers should never have been brushed aside like this in the first place, and it's only been tolerated because of mass technological ignorance.


You mean if games stop using a dated medium other companies will follow suit? That must be why the music industry has a booming used CD market. Oh wait no CD's are dead and itunes is where it's at. Hmm no used music.

Well the DVD industry is totally succeeding. Oh wait no they moved onto streaming services like hulu and netflix.

Well at least FYE is still booming. No wait that ain't true ether.

Blockbuster? Nope.

You never owned the game data. You never owned the song. You never owned the movie. The only thing you owned was the Piece of plastic it was on. If you owned it you could do anything you want with it. Make copies and put it online? perfectly legal if you owned the data. But you don't and you never have. The data belongs to the person who made it. You just get to use it. Hence the term license.


The difference is at any time, for what ever reason, people can take away a digital license. However, a similar principle does exist for physical media, but they can never take the physical media away from you. Effectively making yours forever until you desire to sell it. That doesn't just apply to video games. Even in the music business people still purchase their music on vinyl records, and yes, they are still being made.


Nope. Not even close to true. At least not for video games. You can lose the ability to re-download your games (which is a service that you aren't entitled to) but if for example you bought AC3 digitally and have it on your hard drive even if your account is shut off you can still play that game.


No they have to have a reason to revoke your license. They can't just say whelp we are going to take your license away. We don't like you.

What possible motivation would they have to do this? It's not like they need more licenses to sell and are running out and so they stole yours.


You're telling me that you don't think they can come up with a reason? Besides, it doesn't matter, the point is that they have that power.
---
It's about the games, not about the hardware
#167hurley4Posted 2/9/2013 10:58:23 AM
It's important to keep in mind that the people that complain about a block on used games, are not gamers. These people are actually complaining about having their ability to duplicate games and play them for free taken away. These topics aren't even necessary...You're arguing against people that aren't helping the gaming industry, so if they stop playing games, it makes no difference!
---
PSN: ChristianFour
#168lxcainxlPosted 2/9/2013 11:00:27 AM
Quick question (in regards to several people discussing licensing):

Have any of you written or otherwise been involved in a licence? (end-users nonwithstanding)
---
~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~
Signatures are a waste of time and space; that is why I am leaving mine blank.
#169true_gamer80Posted 2/9/2013 11:03:16 AM
hoepefully if this takes place it weeds out all the idiots that plague online nowadays.

I really hope this all is true....I long for a day where pretty much every online game wasnt plagued by idiots.
---
Real Hip Hop...I miss the 90's-Puppets Of Chaos - Tru Dat
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AqxBDN-cv08
#170kingofall214Posted 2/9/2013 11:04:14 AM
Seifer_us posted...
Kingofall214 posted...
You never owned the game data. You never owned the song. You never owned the movie. The only thing you owned was the Piece of plastic it was on. If you owned it you could do anything you want with it. Make copies and put it online? perfectly legal if you owned the data. But you don't and you never have. The data belongs to the person who made it. You just get to use it. Hence the term license.


This is the first correct (and relevant) thing you've said. You're absolutely right, and that's exactly what I'm complaining about. We should have never started purchasing anything without having full ownership of the contents.

What I'm suggesting is that we be entitled to full ownership of both the physical media AND exactly one copy of the data it contains (plus one copy for backup as permitted by law). I'm also suggesting that we build a working used market for digital content (something some companies are already working on doing with iTunes) and make it illegal for companies to make that option unavailable or unviable to us as consumers.


Complete ownership of the data would give you the right to do whatever you want with it and that isn't going to happen but I think I know what you mean. I think you mean you should have the right to sell off you license to use the product to someone else. That I can understand and even agree with but the problem is how would you go about setting that up. How would you ensure that if someone sells there license to someone else that the seller doesn't somehow get to keep playing (as he would still in a sense have the data)
---
http://psnprofiles.com/kingofall214