Coelacanth said on September 23:
I've seen this argument a few times now and I disagree with it. Why shouldn't you be able to sell that piece of software to someone else and have the serial key (and thus access to the updates) go with it? At that point, it's off your system. And what difference does it make if someone else gets the updates? It's no different than if you kept the game and updated it yourself. I fail to see the logic of that argument about the man hours or the IP assets. This is really the only thing that currently bothers me about Stardock's business model.
I moved this from the original topic as the moderators are clearly tired of that discussion and I expect it will be locked soon.
Coelacanth, the problem with your argument is that the EULA for most software these days specifically prohibits the resale or transfer of the software license by the original purchaser. The rationale for this is that the company distributing the product only makes money on it once: when the original sale is conducted; why should the company subsidize your efforts to make a few bucks back by continuing to support the product for a third party?
That would be the theory of business taught by morons in universities. The other theory is that you produce the best possible product at the lowest possible price.
Companies that follow the second tend to take over their markets. Business is more than a demand curve, Walton and Ford knew business.
Its not news, and its not my problem... Its our problem. It is the consumer's problem.
Let us all look at the root issue here, why is the issue of not refunding a game even present?
I mean, with consol games you're allowed to resell them right?so maybe the finger shouldn't be pointing at the software companies, but to the consumer who for some reason, everyone thinks is innocent. The large majority of the gaming public has at least pirated one game n their lives, and there is a large amount of people who do it without a care in the world. Don't blame the developers for this issue, blame pirates for the fact you're not getting what you should.
To be honest, games, they are not expensive. You have people nowdays that'll spend at least 5 dollers a day on a cup of coffee at their local starbucks, or people that'll smoke a pack a day because of an addiction which has no benifit to them. Why is it that people think they are so hard done by if they don't like a video game. It's like saying you want a refund after watching a dissapointing movie. Point is, video games are created not by CEO's, they are created by people just like you and me, people who go home everyday, worried about money, their family and kids. These are some of the people who gets paid when we do the honest thing and pay for things the proper way. If we all just shared and re-sold our games, companies make no money, people lose jobs and lives are destroyed, all because you didn't want to spend a few hours worth of your paycheque to help support a lifestyle and industry all we all enjoy.
Some people may not agree with me here, but in the end, companies have to make money, or else this whole industry will fall...
So the people that did nothing deserve to be punished because some pirates are making slight cuts into corporate profits?
A used game has an opened box, likely in less than perfect condition. The manual has been thumbed through, the pages are curled. The person buying the used game is expecting it to work, but they probably don't give a shit about the condition of the packaging. The person that sells the used game is someone that either didn't like it or doesn't collect, and prefers to recoup part of his costs to purchase other things. Maybe those recouped funds go straight back into new games. Maybe, with no resales, he buys less to start with because there is more of a risk with that increased cost. Perhaps the people buying used copies wont be interested in new copies enough to spend that same amount of money on new copies. Perhaps they'll pirate instead, a rather impressive number of pirates claim they do so because there isn't any advantage to buying them with so few even bothering with a real manual. Used game buyers might have more in common with pirates than new game buyers. Perhaps, by banning resales, the pc game market will shrink, and entertainment will be had elsewhere. There is a rather wide and substantial variety of things to do.
I collect, I even keep the games I can't stand. I never sell any used games because I have a mental defect and can't get rid of a boring fuck of a game just because I wont play it even if hell freezes over. I don't buy used games either, for a more rational reason. People are fucking retards and can't seem to grasp the concept of not scratching the goddamned cd. If I did sell them though, I know exactly where that money would be going, back into more entertainment.
If there's a net loss for the industry in that scenario, it's minuscule.
Here is a guy with his head on straight.
Since games are patched and not books, you must concentrate only on the retail version of the game and not on the patched version of the game (after all, your CD contains only the retail version) when using your analogy.
Revisions of books are published too (you may have heard somebody in a movie bragging about owning a first edition). However, book publishers do not offer a pamphlet of revisions to people that own the original because it is not feasible to do so. With software and the internet, it is very much feasible to offer patches as they are highly accessible. The anology is not perfect, but I still do believe it is valid.
And free of charge for books owners?
Of course not, I opted not to go into detail because I assumed the reader could infer the obvious, but I am usually wrong when I assume that. When you download a patch for a piece of software, you don't get a brand new copy of the game but with the changes made, you can a little installer that makes the necessary changes. Obviously this is different, so in that regard the analogy does not match, but none of this has anything to do with copyright law. Copyright law would see each individual item as seperate pieces of work, and protect each separately. For the books, that means each book and each revision are separate pieces of work. For the software, that means the game and the patch files are both separate pieces of work. In all cases everything is protected by copyright. Perhaps the solution for software companies is to support the second-hand sale of physical version of its games but not to support patches and downloads for the second-hand user.
I repeat, the anology is not perfect, but I still do believe it is valid.
EDIT: I should also point out that patches being offered for free is a courtesy of software companies... they don't have to do it. For example, Apple charged users $20 to update iPod Touches to the 2.0 software.
is uber unfair ofcourse...
but then again... this is one of the reasons why pirates exist
the loop that goes on forever..... every so called "solution only makes the loop longerr....
pretty fun rlly:
Solution:
implemented:
more pirtes, less customers:
D.O.H.:
[e digicons]:rofl:[/e] [e digicons]:rofl:[/e] [e digicons]:rofl:[/e] [e digicons]:rofl:[/e]
Without meaning to point out the obvious, I think I should say that Stardock fully supports this concept. You can, in fact, resell your copy of Sins or any other Stardock game to another person and that person can use that copy; s/he just won't be able to patch it up to the current version. I don't think they actually encourage the existence of grey-market sales, but there is no real restriction that prohibits it; at least, there isn't one that I'm aware of.
At this point I think you're just trying to argue for the sake of arguement. Of course it's not fair to the honest person, but what in life is this way? It's the way of the world, where honest people are always left behind. I'd hardly call it slight cuts either, if even 50 000 people steal a game, that's a hell of a lot of money in lost revenue, enough revenue that could hire at least 2 people... Or fire 2...
In a perfect world we wouldn't need a police force, we'd be able to do what we wanted if we all were honest, but that really is not the case, you need to wake up to reality and see that the world we live in, is not just, it's not free, and developers are really not the first people in existance who are trying to protect themselves.
Ask yourself, how would you feel if you had a company and every year somebody broke in and stole 50 000 worth of your stock, you'd do something to protect yourself.
I don't understand how stealing relates to this topic. As I tried to point out earlier consumers already have the right to resale within the law. The only time within computer software that right doesn't exist is when it is prohibited by agreement between the parties.
IBM was the subject of an anti-trust action a number of years back when they were prohibited from continuing to only offer equipment and software rentals. They too had adopted the attitude that they were the only game in town therefore business would be done as they dictated. At least back then.
And why did this action take place? Because many corporations in the US and elsewhere felt vulnerable and at risk to IBM. Computers were becoming more and more essential to the ongoing operations of companies yet they couldn't own the assets. Hence the pressure to force IBM to change.
With regard to this practice of a single non-transferrable license to use software that is what is being forced on the consumer market. Consumers are often under represented in government and in regulation. Especially here in the US. Businesses negotiate their own software licensing with software companies including the right to transfer all ownership rights it has, even in its licensing agreements.
Do you really think that ownership of software licenses isn't transferrable to businesses? It is only towards the consumer that some software companies have been acting this way.
You're making the mistake of assuming those 50,000 pirated copies represent people that would actually buy the game anyway.
How would I feel if someone broke in and stole 50,000 worth of my stock? I'd be pretty pissed, especially since the stock that's missing would have to be replaced at my expense. How would I feel if 50,000 people copied my software and used it without paying? I'd be pretty pissed, but I wouldn't be out of pocket to replace it, and I wouldn't feel I need to make my honest customers jump through hoops and punish them for it either. I'm not saying piracy is right or justified: it isn't. But it doesn't necessarily represent lost sales or revenue.
Thats the issue with pirating... nobody knows the real numbers, because its so hard to find out. There is nothing being stolen with piracy either, its being pirated... so it falls under different laws. You can't really compare the two.
Some people even argue that piracy helps the industry. I would argue you that with an anecdote: Four days ago I pirated SINS and I LOVED it. I loved it so much that earlier today I went out and bought my very own copy from Walmart. Plus, I've told everybody I know and my friends are buying it. This happens all the time.
If I am just arguing for the sake of argument, then it comes naturally (I might even hold it up as a talent of mine). In American law and values, the consumer is what is protected... Laws and ideas that allow the business to get away with shoddy practices are counter to American ideals. I don't like them, even if YOU are okay with getting shafted because some other guy pirates games.
Quoting Zubaz, reply 14I believe that there are good arguments for not reselling software but let me take it one step more.If you like a game, don't you want to reward the company so that they make more games? Reselling a game you liked instead of forcing a new sale distorts the metrics that go into the question of "Do we make more things like X or do we have to close up shop?"
I follow you, although
Hi
but sometimes people are not in a position to buy brand new, be it clothing, houses, music, videos/movies, etc. etc. . People with less means sometimes cannot afford the direct market. An indirect or secondary market of used items is therefore desirable in society overall.
For posterity, I like Stardock, Ironclad, and Impulse, but I must admit that the system *is* *still* DRM protected. Friendlier, absolutely.
On a related yet narrowly focussed note, I have purchased IL-2 at least 6 times... thats once for every new version they ever came out with. Only the newest version is playable online with anybody else on a standard server of course. Given my inordinate expenditures, I am compelled to cite this as a fine example where I feel substantially slighted if someone tells me I cannot resell the copies of my game. I damn well will if I want to.
(!)
On a bigger picture note, I believe it most important for a company to conduct its business in upstanding and civil terms. That in itself can compel people to support them.
At its worst, yes, there are pirate networks that can damage sales of entertainment product. At its best, piracy allows folks not normally able to or *not willing to* to try a piece of software. I do not pursue piratted copies of software, but I have utilized such - when I am able, if I continue to utilize such, I most certainly buy it. 100% of the time. Piracy is both good and bad; in equal nullifying measure? I do not know... but I suspect so.
(Btw, good discussion in this thread, on both sides/all sides.)
This relates to piracy because it's the reason you can't resell. People buy the game, copy is and return it.
50 000 is not a lot of people, and it's why I used such a low number...
We're trying to compare something to something else which is totally unrelated, and there are people here that are finding holes in everything. I know it's not a perfect annalogy. I for one don't care if you find a hole in my examples, due to the fact it's just an example and we'll never find a similar thing to compare this to...
you guys may all be honest people here, and I totally agree it's not fair. The large majority of people, are not honest, and it comes though in everyday life. The fact is, in today society, you can't trust anyone. It's just the nature of the world.
The only games I play on PC anymore are strat games, I moved over to consol a long time ago because I find FPS's RPG's and all the rest rather boring after some meaningful time. Beauty of consol games, I can exchange them for credit at stores.
I'm sure we all agree here that we all feel shafted right, maybe instead of argueing we can come up with an idea of how to please everyone, companies and consumers. There is always middle ground. Companies have to make money or there is no industry so it's important that they are protected, not just us, the consumer.
My idea, a small license exchange fee you pay to the company when you resell a game. Covers the developers (they'll get money for the service they provide <updates>) also covers the reseller, they get to resell the game...
Support cost should be for the lifetime of the product supported via the Serial number. Kinda like a car warranty that's transferrable via the VIN. Perhaps have a mechanism where the email address or something associated to the serial number can be changed to the new person who buys the game.
Stardock is convinced that the costs incurred by that feature would exceed the additional game sales generated by it. I can only speak for myself in saying that I'd be much less inhibited about purchasing games from them if I knew I could make my money back in the event of not liking the game.
Real world examples? The Political machine retails for $20. A single support call costs what? $10? So if you sell TPM for $10 and then they pay $10 to transfer the support. . . they could have bought a new game. If we are talking about the GalCiv2 bundle ($60) maybe the argument changes some. Thoughts?
You're still looking at this wrong. If the transferrability feature increases game sales, and consequently revenue, you don't have to recoup the cost of transferred support (or at least you don't have to recoup it at 1 to 1). What percentage of your users really need a $10 support call? That's not rhetorical btw, I'm genuinely curious.
Let's go the other way (because I don't know the support structure). How much are used PC games going for? How much would the used PC game buyer pay to get the support?
Your contention isn't that the software company make any money on the resale but that they increase initial sales because the inital buyer knows that they can dump it with good concience or that there will be a market for the used game and they'll be able to dump it at all?
If you bought a boxed copy of Sins of a Solar Empire in the United States, you DO have the legal right to resell it and no EULA can get around that. Restricting the right of first sale through technological measures is an actionable offense in a court of law.It's called the first sale doctrine and it was established by the US Supreme Court when they ruled that a copyright holder only has the right to control the sale of a copyrighted work the first time around. It's also codified in the copyright act of 1976 (17 U.S.C.§109).I realize that the EULA says you can't resale but the EULA also makes the assumption that the software here is licensed and not sold. Most federal circuits in the United States have ruled the opposite; that boxed software is a good that is sold and not a license. That makes a lot of standard boilerplate EULA provisions legally unenforceable.
But then, second hand user isn't entitled to patch/updates since they aren't in the boxed software
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
Sign in or Create Account
