Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
This whole situation is rather amusing and sad. Second hand sales are completely legitimate, and first-sale doctrine protects that right.
First-sale doctrine was established in Bobbs-Merrill Co. v. Straus in 1908. Bobbs-Merrill, a book publisher, attempted to limit the consumer's ability to sell their books second hand by putting in a license agreement at the beginning of the book. The court ruled that you couldn't limit the right of the consumer to resell a book by contractual obligations like that. It's rather sad that 100 years later game publishers are trying to pull the same nonsense.
Piracy got mentioned because people see a bonus to this type of DRM. Yes it affects piracy, but it's aimed at used game sales. When DRM effected piracy it was sorta O.K. because piracy is wrong, but used games are our right. What they're doing is make it so we can't sell the entire physical game anymore, by separating it online and a physical media.Having read the comment by Michael Capps I'm more annoyed with some of the responses in this thread about piracy. (crap DRM is a sepeate issue & I hate it just as much as everyone else)
If they thought of it, then they were serious about it. It just goes to show what extreme companies are willing to go through to get the extra buck they want.The guy has picked out a really bad example to illustrate his point, paying extra to unlock the final boss thing is a joke anyway as the huge majority of games sold are never finished. I suspect there are many worse ideas out there, as well as a few more credible solutions.
The games are rubbish and I've already shown this in my previous post.The problem is most developers are not selling millions of copies of their games, in fact a lot of games will only sell in the tens of thousands, not necessarily because they are rubbish but due to the way the market is structured. It has become a necessity for survival, developers need to sell directly to each person willing to buy the game. Honestly, some of the people ranting here about greedy developers just have no fucking clue at all.
used games are our right.
What they're doing is make it so we can't sell the entire physical game anymore, by separating it online and a physical media.
If they thought of it, then they were serious about it. It just goes to show what extreme companies are willing to go through to get the extra buck they want.
The games are rubbish and I've already shown this in my previous post.
Marvel vs Capcom 2 on Xbox = $59 used
Gears of War on 360 = $29 used / $39 new
If Gears2 is the epitome of todays AAA games, then it's easy to see why so many people are selling games they played
or just renting them and beating the game within a weekends worth of time.
Our good games today, were comparably bad games back in the day. There simply isn't a reason to continue to own sub par games when there isn't any replay value.
WTF? Well, if it comes down to that, it will have a negative effect on sales. Yes, I know that only 20% or so know about DRM and are enthusiasts in this arena, but I see a HUGE stink over this if it were to happen.
I know I won't buy any game that goes for this crap.
Steam has a good idea. I liked the whole download early and play on release day thing. And it's easy to control piracy for most part. And no used games. A digital distribution system works great.
Although a discount for a digital copy would be better. You are eliminating the middle man, packaging, etc...
You don't think bandwidth is a middle man?
Bandwidth is NOT a middleman. Bandwidth is not even human. The ISP providing the bandwidth however, may or may not be.You don't think bandwidth is a middle man?
For digital distribution, the middlemen would be things like Steam or Impulse.You don't think bandwidth is a middle man?