I'm on the other end I think. I'm pretty tired of this 'property' argument, and people somehow feeling the right to do whatever they want with their game copy.

Sure, consumer rights etc, but really, is it so much to ask that when people spend money on a game, that that money actually goes to the publisher/developer of that game? I personally think that's pretty reasonable.

(that does not mean I like split up games like base + buy extra parts etc)

And that's exactly what happened with the original sale of the game, what happens with subsequent re-sale doesn't, or at least shouldn't, concern the publisher/developer.

Those items are legally viewed as property and are covered under right to resale. I don't see why if I have a garage sale that I should be cutting game dev's a special right or privilege by sending them something nobody else gets. Or if I were to be fair, why I should have to figure out who is entitled to getting cut in on the sale of a lamp, baseball cards, or some old jeans.

Unless we are prepared to argue that resale should not be a right, or that we should be cutting everyone in on the resale game, then I don't see why its a tired argument. I don't think its immoral to want workers to get fair compensation, but I also don't think its in any way fair for them to be getting special treatment, which is basically what it would be if they were to be getting resale compensation.

these days its a non-issue seeing that they have work their way around the issue by creating a product that can not be resold. Given that its tied to a great deal of beneficial things for the consumer I'm not sure if thats good or bad, but its what we have.

That's where I disagree.

Why should money that some other guy spends on the game of that developer, never go to that developer? How does that make sense?

Then given what I said above, that should probably change. I feel no inherent right to resale when I buy a game from a developer.

And especially when it's going to cut away a large part of the money they might make off their game, only to see most of it go to places like Gamestop, Ebay etc, and the smaller part of it that actually stays in consumers hands to probably not even being re-spent on the same developer, there's no sense in that in my opinion.

Again, I don't think it's unreasonable to expect money that's spent on a game, to go that game's developer/publisher. If that means cutting out the resale, so that mass used markets don't siphon money away from that, i don't see the problem. If that means you don't get to buy that game on release because it costs too much, have some patience and wait till it's down to a level you can buy it for, without reselling it after you're done.

And how are people to accomplish this? Stores might have a nice list of what games have dues to whom, but what about normal people selling their stuff? How do they know who the ever changing rights owners are? And what laws do we make saying stores can do this and people can do that? And how do we say games we do this for but, lamps, couches, old clothes, they all get exception? Do these people have the right to destroy or throw away this same property or is selling the only way to purge their lives of excess? Its a absolute, multi-layered nightmare to actually accomplish what you are suggesting.

I think it's a kind hearted thing to want, and more power to you, but not practical in any way.

It's simple. They do what they've already been doing and are trying to expand upon even more. They make their game more like a service. Put more and more of their game 'online', currently under the guise of multiplayer functionality, and give the people a one time use code to access it, linking it to that person with an account of some kind. They're even doing it on consoles now with the 'Online Pass'. And you see some developers even starting to include parts of the single player experience into that key now.

And the thing is, the more prevalent good quality internet access becomes, the more feasible it is. It's exactly the internet that has made it possible to have this kind of enforcement, where before it would have been unrealistic/impossible. On the other hand, the internet was also partly responsible for the used market to get out of hand, with used copies no longer being a local market with limited access/supply but a global thing these days.

to quote myself from a bit ago I personally was not talking about the future, but the past when it comes to used game sales, they are basically going extinct out side of the console world for the very reasons you have suggested.

I have grave concerns about many of them, not because they don't benefit the developer, but because many of them come with inherent risks in terms of long term access to the product the consumer has purchased, and some of them involve possible loss of content for mankind, all for the "benefit" of the developer. If I agreed with any of them I would be buying my games elsewhere.

Your basically arguing that DRM should be a practice because its financially advantageous for the developer. I am willing to follow you up to the point that its a nice thought for devs to get more for their efforts. I am not willing to follow you to the point where they get to exercise that nice thought as a right at consumer expense.

Without going into UbiSoft specifically, I think this blurb from the article sums it up: Each publisher has to find out its level of tolerance for piracy, balanced with the potential of driving away some number of customers as a result of the efforts of protecting their IPs. The industry will figure it out sooner or later, likely later. In the meantime, consumers will continue to vote with their money. <shrug>

Because the developer was already paid once, he already got his money for his job, he doesn't deserve any money for any further sales.

If you want to go that way then why only the developer should get money from the used sales ? shouldn't the original shop where the first copy was bought also deserve some money from used sales, and the replicator or the transporter, shouldn't all the peoples involved some way or another in the creation, duplication, distribution also get some money from used sales why would the developer be the only one magically entitled to receive more money for a job he was already paid for.

Don't get me wrong, I completely agree it should not come at too high a cost, or inconvenience to the Consumer. I would personally say that it should become practice to make a game DRM free after 'x' years or something like that, and anyone who already has a copy of that game linked to them, should get that without having to pay for it again. (made more feasible because people would have a copy linked to them)

I'm not saying it's without it's flaws, especially right now. But I can see why they do it, and why, perhaps, it may even be a necessary step. I do not think losing the right to resale on a game is a big deal, at all.



And this seems perfectly reasonable yes. I'm certainly not agreeing with some (*cough* most) of the steps Ubisoft have taken in this regard, but on the right of resale, I think it's over-rated, and simply doesn't fit the market of games in the worldwide market we have today.


I do agree that obviously, the more prevalent it becomes, it should start affecting the prices, or at least the amount/quality of games that we keep getting, which is more what I think of when I think of a large used market. Stuff like this doesn't necessarily just affect the prices of the games that come out, but also the feasibility of making games, having them published, and the amount of money that can be put in to them. (There's other ways of course as well like the indie way)

Good and replayable games that people don't want to sell. One of the things I would argue is that it pegs publishers into designing a certain type of game. There's not many story based games that are really that replayable, and a *lot* of single player based games are story based. And to be honest, if you want to extend that line of thinking, then MMO's, or rather the few that work, like World of Warcraft are *the* example of a game good enough to play and 'lasts' for a long time. The addition of working a long time on something means you build up something that you don''t necessarily want to give up either (unless they trivialize it later like they tend to do) .

I agree, no doubt they'll find something else to complain about. I'm just saying that on the point of resale, I think it's a reasonable point to make.

Not really, as now we are in a situation where we have the worst of both worlds. There is still some resistance against full DD. There is miss-trust against its intangible nature. Investors want to protect their investment (DRM), and there are a lot of resistance against service based gaming. Therefore there are still a lot physical sales as well as digital, and there are not yet a precedence of different pricing of day 1 sales.

There are some evidence of this model are working, but it is so far it is limited to a genre which is only online, free to play, but it is a different model completely. There is a shift still needed, it maybe more evident in producers like Paradox, which have more then 90% sales digital now, and also have lower prices. Granted there are also different production costs, but I think it will be liberating if games could drop the physical aspect completely.

What kind of awkward logic is this?

If you ever create a product that costs $100, I'll buy a copy off you for the $1 you sell it for, and keep reselling that copy to every single person that decides to use that product. That's fine right? You already got paid.

The math os obviously off on that one, but the point is that what you're saying is ridiculous. By your logic, a single copy sold already means they got paid.

And no, the transporter etc shouldn't get money for resales.... why the hell would they? They get paid for what they do. Just like a developer should get paid when someone decides to buy their product.

its extreme end logic but people do like to cry out, "hey I was involved too! where is my cut?" Publishers might want some of the action too.

I'm not sure I understand your $100 dollar example. How do you keep reselling a single item of something over and over. Is it rental? You cant sell something you don't have because once you sell it its gone. That person then has the right to sell it and yeah thats how it works with everything else. again why do these people get special rights?

The great thing about this is Ubisoft only has about 2 or 3 games that I want to play and I already own/pirated them. All their upcoming titles look kind of shit or something in which I wouldn't be interested. Ass Creed seems to be the only thing that is holding this evil franchise up at the moment and about as many people will play their Tom Clancy games as have done so in the past, which is to say no one.

So go ahead, Ubisoft, load your games up with as much security as you want. I haven't nor will I in the near future, care about your crappy and convoluted products.