Fellow Paradoxians, are you a bit surprised by the outcry at E3 ?

[Holy.Death]

The console crowd might me a little behind the times?

The console crowd might be a little behind the times, but their world is coming crashing down. The PC gamers also roared against Steam or being forced - more or less - to play online, to have their games tied to their account, etc. In the end people adjusted themselves to new ways. People opposing the change are now a minority, a vocal one, but not powerful enough to do anything about it. Console players shall do the same or they'll be cut off from what they like. Still, there are two main competitors right now and it looks like Sony is going to get the upper hand due to how Microsoft is handling their product.

 

[meowmeow12345]

 

[MondoPotato]

If i buy a bike i expect myself to be able to sell it once i don't need it anymore, if i buy a car i expect to be able to sell it once i don't need it anymore and if i do buy a game i expect myself to be able to sell it once i don't need it anymore. It doesn't make the game developer any money, but neighter does selling your BMW . If i buy a game it should be mine and i should be able to do what i want with it, including selling it

This often used analogy isn't really correct.

When you purchase a BMW, you physically own that vehicle, so you can sell it all you want. It doesn't give money back to the manufacturer when you resell it, and the manufacturer can't ask for any kickbacks to them because it is a physical sale of the ownership of the product, specifically that individual vehicle. A vehicle, like many things you buy in a store, is considered property of the seller, and when you buy it, they transfer that property to you.

When it comes to games (or any software really), you're not buying, you're renting. You don't own it, the developers/publishers do. You just rent it (licence it) for a set amount of time, or other criteria depending on the nature of the licence. Retailers have the right to sell you the licence, but you agree to the terms of that licence with the developer/publisher. If you 'buy' a game, it is not yours, and you can't do what you want with it. You agree to that licence when you put your money on the table. The only thing you are actually claiming property of is the physical medium used to transfer the data, which is the CD the data is written on. GameStop or WalMart don't have permission to sell you video games, they have permission to transfer licences to you.

Going back to the car analogy, If you rent a BMW you're not able to sell it or loan it to your neighbour once you don't need it anymore. You have to give it back to the rental dealership once the terms of your licence have expired. If you want to drive it again, you have to pay for a new licence.

Now, you may not agree with or like how software licencing/selling works... but that's the way it works. If you're not willing to agree to the licencing, than don't buy a licence for the software, or only accept open-source free-use licences that do grant full ownership of the property. Nobody is willing to do that, of course... so maybe do something about getting laws changed so the legal rights of ownership apply to the compiled binaries or code, and the included media itself.

Of course, that'd be quite the uphill battle... there are good reasons why software sales and licencing was designed in the way it is. Once again going back to the BMW, the reason BMW sells you the physical property and doesn't just licence its use is because

a.) Buying a car is a huge expense and people would go crazy if they didn't actually have ownership rights to said property.
b.) It's very hard for the average purchaser to take the car home, disassemble it, reverse-engineer, and build an exact replica which they can then in turn sell.

Even still, auto manufacturers do licence and copyright the technology used in the vehicle because there are people out there who can duplicate it. With software on the other hand, it's extremely easy to duplicate the code, build it, and turn around and sell it or give it away, nowadays more than ever. Because of that, software has to be rigidly licenced to protect both the developers and the software marketplace in general.

On topic of the conversation though... yeah, I think people did really over-react to the situation. I'm not surprised about the overreaction though, and can totally understand why people were quite upset. Taking a new game to play over at a buddies house is a time honoured tradition among gamers, and one most don't want to see restricted.

 

[Swazi]

even tho businesses and development thing differ from one another, the thing is believing that used games sales is rightfully developers money or publishers money is like saying that time people spend on hard earned vacations or sick days is lost money...
and there are economic researches how many money is lost on those sick days and on those holidays and so on, but you cant really believe that there should be no off day because it's ''lost money''... we can measure the money lost on holidays, and we can measure used sales, but its wrong to take that money into account, because if you do solution is to take away peoples rights....
now the right way to combat used games is to make games that you don't want to sell, and games that last longer than 4 hours to complete...

 

[meowmeow12345]

Fez 2 isn't going to be on Xbone.
'Fish was blunt when asked by Polygon which platforms he's considering for the game, saying simply, "Not Xbox," a position driven by his experiences with the original Fez on Xbox Live Arcade. A patch released for that game last year turned out to have a save-corrupting bug and Microsoft demanded "tens of thousands of dollars" to test and re-certify a follow-up patch, which was ultimately never released.'

Skulls of the Shogun indie dev was highly upset with himself for making it an XBLA and Win 8 exclusive.
'"I personally would like to go back in time and kick myself in the balls," says Pfeifer. "I'd just like to have that year and a half of my life back." But there is some hope. Skulls of the Shogun: Bone-a-Fide Edition is headed for Steam, with new content and Tanuki Monk. With any luck, things will turn around for Skulls of the Shogun, now that its definitive edition is in beta release. It's going on full sale in July, but preorders can be had over here, at $11.99 a pop.'

Microsoft hates everything indie, which is why I've chosen Sony and PC over Microsoft.

 

[meowmeow12345]

I also don't care that they took back the always online BS and no lending games disgrace. It was their dream to have a superior console that was also not available to a majority of the human population, and I hope they succeed with that.

 

[newtlord]

I feel that the point about not legally owning the games is a non-starter. Yes, I know that, in the legal sense, I don't own the game; however, the fact that I shell out fifty bucks for a game and am then informed that it isn't even mine is one of the things being complained about. Yes, I am aware it is the way it is, that it is the direction things are moving in. That doesn't make it right. If enough people make a fuss- and back that fuss with the decision of where to spend money- a trend can be changed. Perhaps it won't be enough in this case- perhaps it is inevitable that in the future we will be unable to play the games we paid for when our internet connection isn't working-, but the only way anything is every inevitable for certain is if no one makes the attempt to stop it. That attempt is being made in the case of the x-box, and I feel a bit of over-reaction here may be quite healthy for the industry.

 

[JNSPDX]

This often used analogy isn't really correct.
Going back to the car analogy, If you rent a BMW you're not able to sell it or loan it to your neighbour once you don't need it anymore. You have to give it back to the rental dealership once the terms of your licence have expired. If you want to drive it again, you have to pay for a new licence.

Now, you may not agree with or like how software licencing/selling works... but that's the way it works. If you're not willing to agree to the licencing, than don't buy a licence for the software, or only accept open-source free-use licences that do grant full ownership of the property. Nobody is willing to do that, of course... so maybe do something about getting laws changed so the legal rights of ownership apply to the compiled binaries or code, and the included media itself.

I might be completely wrong, but didn't European Court of Justice already rule that you are allowed to sell your licence/Game?

 

[User29]

I might be completely wrong, but didn't European Court of Justice already rule that you are allowed to sell your licence/Game?

psh, everyone knows europe doesn't matter to the xbox lol, they are little more than uncivilized barbarians

 

[LodovicoAriosto]

I think Steam could face similar legal problems with denial of ownership rights as well.

The problem with MS reaction is that it was decided by one disgruntled guy to withdraw the policy but for vengeance he also wanted other features removed as well, such as family sharing. The purpose is to drive one portion of the gamers against another so that people who could cope with restrictions are angry at those who succeeded in creating pressure on MS to revert restrictions because they will lose some features, allibistically claimed to be inseparable parts of removed DRM.

 

[desertfalcon]

This often used analogy isn't really correct.

When you purchase a BMW, you physically own that vehicle, so you can sell it all you want. It doesn't give money back to the manufacturer when you resell it, and the manufacturer can't ask for any kickbacks to them because it is a physical sale of the ownership of the product, specifically that individual vehicle. A vehicle, like many things you buy in a store, is considered property of the seller, and when you buy it, they transfer that property to you.

When it comes to games (or any software really), you're not buying, you're renting. You don't own it, the developers/publishers do. You just rent it (licence it) for a set amount of time, or other criteria depending on the nature of the licence. Retailers have the right to sell you the licence, but you agree to the terms of that licence with the developer/publisher. If you 'buy' a game, it is not yours, and you can't do what you want with it. You agree to that licence when you put your money on the table. The only thing you are actually claiming property of is the physical medium used to transfer the data, which is the CD the data is written on. GameStop or WalMart don't have permission to sell you video games, they have permission to transfer licences to you.

Legally you are correct, however the legal aspects of purchasing a game are different than the reality. When somebody buys a game they are for the most part buying the game to play indefinitely unless a subscription is involved. They may not own it de jure but they do own it de facto. Even if the publisher has the right to revoke the license they never really bother with this since it would just result in terrible publicity. The EULA has so many ridiculous anti consumer rules that if any company actually tried to enforce the rules there would be a huge consumer rights movement which would hurt the developer more in the long run. As it is now most people don't bother complaining about the EULA since it's pretty much just seen as a joke.+

 

[GreatSlayer]

I might be completely wrong, but didn't European Court of Justice already rule that you are allowed to sell your licence/Game?

Yes.

Legally you are correct, however the legal aspects of purchasing a game are different than the reality. When somebody buys a game they are for the most part buying the game to play indefinitely unless a subscription is involved. They may not own it de jure but they do own it de facto. Even if the publisher has the right to revoke the license they never really bother with this since it would just result in terrible publicity. The EULA has so many ridiculous anti consumer rules that if any company actually tried to enforce the rules there would be a huge consumer rights movement which would hurt the developer more in the long run. As it is now most people don't bother complaining about the EULA since it's pretty much just seen as a joke.+

A lot of restrictions and paragraphs in most EULA's violate customer rights laws in several countries. As long as you know your rights by law, you don't even need to read it. You're not allowed to override a law with a contract.

 

[unmerged(237533)]

Quite a few comments so far, and I've read a lot that I would like disagree with so I hope you'll excuse my not individually quoting everyone. Here are the main points that annoy me:
1) Console gamers live in the past of gaming and PC gaming is better/cheaper
I love PC gaming. I'm on the bloody Pdox forum so dah. But console games are designed for one gaming engine, that delivers the same performance as a very good gaming computer, for a third of the money. You can play with friends in the same actual room. You have way fewer bugs, and it breaks down less. They are far less complex. Console games may not do strategy as well, but they are perfect RPG machines (KOTOR, Mass Effect, GTA, Deus Ex, Morrowind...). So less snootiness please.

2) Everyone who complains has the internet so why are they whining?
Not everyone has fast internet. Not everyone has their console in reach of their internet. What if your internet goes down? What if you are serving your country abroad? This last one was basically answered by somebody at microsoft saying 'well if you're in a submarine, you're fucked, sorry'.

3) The new Xbox is being maligned by nutters.
Microsoft wants to decisively shift the balance away from you owning a console and games, to being an online subscriber, who rents, buys and shares games in a controlled environment. They want to control ever more of your experience once the console is shipped, and to integrate as many aspects of your commercial and technological activity as possible, namely so they can profit from it. The Xbox does not want to just be your games console, it also wants to be your telephone, tv box, music and video player, online browser, shop, and as far as I can tell your goddamned doctor (it measures heart-rate!?!) Everyone who has a phone laptop and ipod, and I'm guessing they do, already has those services, and done far better and conveniently. The PS4 is at least equal in performance, has none of the stuff pissing people off, and costs $100 less.

Just to qualify all this, I would also like to point out that until now I have used an Xbox/Xbox 360, and when I get a new console, it will be the PS4.

 

[meowmeow12345]

2) Everyone who complains has the internet so why are they whining?
Not everyone has fast internet. Not everyone has their console in reach of their internet. What if your internet goes down? What if you are serving your country abroad? This last one was basically answered by somebody at microsoft saying 'well if you're in a submarine, you're fucked, sorry'.

It's not available in most countries, anyways. So if you live is most countries you can't play it whatsoever.

 

[LodovicoAriosto]

the sole purpose of existence of MS or any other corporation is profit, not the widest audience of possible customers. If MS, Sony, Valve etc. think they can squeeze more money in total from less people they will do it. This becomes a stronger trend when there is oligopoly or monopoly situation in the marketplace. Monopoly usually resctricts market size.

Unless pressed hard by customer organizations, press or laws, they always prefer restricting people's ownership rights so that every single person needs to get his own copy directly from the corporation IF they think it will make more profit this way.

So they have no problem with leaving behind people with slow connection, people traveling a lot, people in poorer countries, people who do not want spyware etc. if they think it will make them more profit in the end by squeezing more money from monopoly fanboys. By data mining their personal data they can offer them more products and build their loaylty so screw the rest - they are too unstable. IMO this is a symptom of rotten market structure. If somebody succeeds in penetrating even the most remote markets such as millions of village people in Bangladesh as an extreme example they will make huge profits by sheer economy of scale. But do not expect monopolies to venture in this risky operation, they want their safe monthly profits from "sophisticated" customers (=customers who have been thoroughly exposed to marketing and profiled so they are predictable).

While a mature customer is a very unloyal one - by definition. So the cpmpanies build tribes around their brands to blur rationality and those tribesmen chant together that there is no other way than theirs (=the company's which they praise) and always say that any opposition is just a loud minority. Turns out it is not, eh? At least in case of MS so far.

 

[1alexey]

(in addition to the irony of seeing people complaining loudly on the Internet about lacking Internet connection....)

So, on those ''console games'' I keep hearing about (y'know, the ones into which, instead of killing hundred of thousands of ennemy soldiers over the course of a game, you kill a couple of hundreds in a more artisanal way...), it's apparently a huge deal to not be able to buy used games, sell used games, being unable to loan their games....

The introduction was sarcastic (I do play from time to time console games), but anyone else think that the console crowd might me a little behind the times ? I mean, Paradox (espically via STEAM) pretty much does the same as the X-One, and no one died over it....

Exept you do not deal with Valve, you deal with M$, EA and other crap companies, on consoles, that are closed system unlike PC and console developer get`s a monopoly at distributing their games.

Besides Steam never requires you to check in every 24 hours. Nor does it have more questionalbe features, like Origin that has the right to spy on you according to ELUA.

And consoles are not PCs. People explicitly prefer consoles over PCs for their differences(less dependent on internet, used games, simplicity of usage due to less crappy DRM(just get the disc in) ). Why would you buy 400 or 500$ PC(console), that get`s much crapier deals, more expencive games, has less of game libery, and is less functional than actuall PC? Right, you don`t.

Arent you able to do that though? The limits dont seem particularly bad. Being able to share games with 10 people without giving them a physical copy is really sweet. Its just a bunch of internet crybabies doing what they do best.

The 2nd hand market is detrimental to the gaming industry making great single player experience games in the same way as piracy is tbh.

That is, as rumours say a glorified beta acces, where you can play a game for up to an hour, and then have to purchase.

You really should not try jumping to judgement before M$ actually go out and officially declare their stance, since it is way too good to be true, that you can buy one game per 10 players. If publishers whine about the fact that you can lend 1 physical copy, who would belive they will sudenly give you 10 copies to lend arround?

 

[desertfalcon]

2) Everyone who complains has the internet so why are they whining?
Not everyone has fast internet. Not everyone has their console in reach of their internet. What if your internet goes down? What if you are serving your country abroad? This last one was basically answered by somebody at microsoft saying 'well if you're in a submarine, you're fucked, sorry'.

I agree that not everybody has internet all the time, but even oversees most bases have internet access. The military relies heavily on the internet, As long as they have a space to put a satellite dish they will have internet. It might not be the fastest connection but it would still allow them to play single player games and honestly, you wouldn't have much time to play video games anyway. As for the submarine comment that was pretty stupid. First off you can get internet access on submarines so you wouldn't be screwed, Microsoft just made their own system seem worse than it is. Secondly, they should know that a large chunk of Americans are very sensitive towards their military and that it would offend those people. It would be stupid of them to make such a major change due to such a small minority but they shouldn't be dicks about it either.

I could probably live with always on and DRM protection on console games, but I don't use the console much and it's much easier to keep my 360 wired to the internet than it is my laptop which is almost always on the go. I'm glad that Sony pretty much forced microsoft to take a step back though since this could've been a slippery slope. As long as the always on connection doesn't require people to use a server (think sim city) than it wouldn't be much of a hassle really.

 

[digital_soda]

No offense podcat, but I doubt you would like it if I let 10 of my friends run in offline mode to play my accounts games without having to ever buy them. Going on to say on to say how the 2nd hand industry is tantamount to piracy in hurting sales is a contradiction to your first comment.

 

[unmerged(39030)]

No offense podcat, but I doubt you would like it if I let 10 of my friends run in offline mode to play my accounts games without having to ever buy them. Going on to say on to say how the 2nd hand industry is tantamount to piracy in hurting sales is a contradiction to your first comment.

That was a feature on the X-box one if the game company allows it then it is not piracy any way you look at it. That how ever has been changed so that is no longer a feature. From the gaming industries view point the second hand market might as well be piracy in that they never see a dime out of it. Another counter point for those that make the used car analogy. Cars are not intellectual property Games are. The laws are different.
someone somewhere wrote the music for the game made the art and programed the AI. None of those people will ever see a dime from you selling your game. Same with the music industry yet no one says anything when they sue someone for violating their intellectual property. The EULA in most every game makes it pretty clear the game does not belong to you. Yet people continue to pirate and steal games. Thus to a point game companies at some point are forced to put controls in place to combat the practice. Is why so many problems in the gaming industry are self inflicted. I will miss the days of not always having to be online to play but I know those days are coming. Because so many people can't wait for a sale to buy a game ,or figure that everyone is doing it so why not.

 

[nett40]

...
a.) Buying a car is a huge expense and people would go crazy if they didn't actually have ownership rights to said property.
b.) It's very hard for the average purchaser to take the car home, disassemble it, reverse-engineer, and build an exact replica which they can then in turn sell.
...

Conc.: a.) - I bought all my Paradox titles on Impulse (GameStop). Because that ensured easy availabilty and no need for a breakable CD/DVD. However, Impulse turned into GameStop and now none of Paradox's new games are available on that platform in Europe, only in North America. It's like my Paradox Car (Volvo) isn't allowed to drive on European roads anymore... :wacko:

Conc.: b.) - Skilled japanese engineers did exactly that and created some of the worlds largest companies by copying British, German and American cars, motorbikes etc. :ninja: