New Xbox basically kills off used games

[downtown]

If this isn't a message to start going PC then I don't know what is.

It's certainly a start, but the start up costs for a legitimate PC gaming rig are a lot more than that of an Xbox or a Playstation. How robust is the secondhand software market anyway? I don't see many computer games at secondhand stores.

I'm probably a minority (although apparently exactly the kind of consumer Microsoft really wants) in that I use my xbox for a lot of things besides gaming, things I'd rather not use a PC for.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

It's certainly a start, but the start up costs for a legitimate PC gaming rig are a lot more than that of an Xbox or a Playstation. How robust is the secondhand software market anyway? I don't see many computer games at secondhand stores.

I'm probably a minority (although apparently exactly the kind of consumer Microsoft really wants) in that I use my xbox for a lot of things besides gaming, things I'd rather not use a PC for.

As for a legitimate PC gaming rig's cost, yes and no. It can be a huge investment, but you have options that significantly reduce the cost. If you build it yourself then you have the freedom to include only the things you need/want and not all of the fancy bells and whistles of say, an overpriced Alienware rig. But not everyone wants to build a computer and there is certainly a misconception that building a PC is difficult (it really isn't) and I can understand that even if I don't agree with it. But all things considered, you can get a really good gaming PC for <$700 (even less if you reuse things like monitor, mouse, keyboard dvd drives, speakers, etc) and since you can easily swap out parts, that rig can cost you less to maintain in a cutting-edge state over the years than buying a new console (or three) every generation.

 

[Farm Boy]

Yea, but if you buy any amount of games at all for that console it eats up and surpasses the PC's price remarkably fast. There are a crapton of free and nearly free first rate titles on the PC. The monitor is a massive part of the cost anyhow. If you're going to hook it up to a high def TV to do you movies/gaming on, it won't need to be a first-tier computer to run games at a resolution the TV can handle for the approximate market cycle of a console system anyhow.

 

[Maniacal]

PC games don't need to be bought second hand when they frequently go on sale for as little as ~$5.

A PC gaming rig will cost more than an Xbox One or PS4, but not that much more and you'll make the money back in savings from digital sales.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

Shoot I hadn't even considered all of the freeware games PC's have to offer. There's also the fact that though consoles are getting better at providing PC-esque services (like, say, streaming Netflix), there are very few things that a console does better than a PC does - especially when you use your big flatscreen TV. We use a laptop hooked up to our TV to browse the web from the couch and use all of the services of the net that don't have dedicated console apps.

 

[warpus]

It's part of a larger trend--look at how the contracts are set up for ebook readers or for digitally-downloaded games. You don't actually own anything any more, you are buying a right from the company to use their product as they see fit.

That's pretty much how purchasing software or movies has always worked, though. You are paying for a license that allows you to view the content - and not for the content itself. Sure, you might be getting physical artifacts along with that - a DVD, a box, a manual, or whatever else, but the main purchase is a license that allows you to use the media.

That makes sense, right? How else could it work?

As for this move, I hope that Sony doesn't follow suit. It would make sense for them not to follow suit - I think they could win over a lot of XBOX fanboys and get them to buy the PS4 instead.

It doesn't affect me (for nwo), because I'm a PC and Nintendo gamer. I own a PS3, but I bought it to be used as a BR player mostly.. It's set up in my bedroom, and I have a couple games, but I rarely use it as a gaming console

 

[hobbsyoyo]

The thing about fanboys is that they will not be deterred from fanning it up.

 

[NBAfan]

You know Steam, that bastion of used games.

Who cares when PC games are dirt cheep?

 

[Tarquelne]

. How robust is the secondhand software market anyway? I don't see many computer games at secondhand stores.

Short answer: fine online.

Long answer:

Even before consoles finding used PC software in a brick & moratar was rare.

I used to buy most games used, or trade, then sell the game on. All online. If I couldn't sell or trade a game it was generally a very old one.

eBay coming along pretty much ended that - most people wanted to auction their games.
I reduced the number of games I bought. I suspect eBay's much better now.

But I've pretty much switched to Steam or a similar outfit. It's easy enough to wait for the prices to come down, and they actually do. Steam also has those short-run sales. I might pay less from eBay or somewhere else, but (IME) not much less, and the established services more reliable.

If there's a niche game, or a game I want to play now - maybe to play with a less-patient friend - I pay full price. Thats happened once in the last year. if i played massive-multiplayer games I doubt this would work. The last couple years I've waited for Christmas and bought a bunch of games all at once at year-old game Christmas-sale prices. Very nice. If one turns out to be a dud I shrug and load-up another.

 

[Antilogic]

That's pretty much how purchasing software or movies has always worked, though. You are paying for a license that allows you to view the content - and not for the content itself. Sure, you might be getting physical artifacts along with that - a DVD, a box, a manual, or whatever else, but the main purchase is a license that allows you to use the media.

That makes sense, right? How else could it work?

As for this move, I hope that Sony doesn't follow suit. It would make sense for them not to follow suit - I think they could win over a lot of XBOX fanboys and get them to buy the PS4 instead.

It doesn't affect me (for nwo), because I'm a PC and Nintendo gamer. I own a PS3, but I bought it to be used as a BR player mostly.. It's set up in my bedroom, and I have a couple games, but I rarely use it as a gaming console

Well, I don't think the original producers of the content were able to effectively kill a second-hand market like this before. So it is getting more restrictive.

And yes, software transactions have usually had some sort of licensing system (I don't want to say always because somebody could dig up some obscure old software that was sold on some 80s machine that was an exception, but otherwise I would say always). But other products in the yesteryears didn't. For all the benefits modern technology has, it's slowly taking ownership out of the hands of the consumers.

(If this is confusing anyone, the starting point for my comments should not be taken as the start of software sales, but rather some more distant point.)

 

[Farm Boy]

A not insignificant portion of those massive multiplayer games are also free if you wait. Short list of examples: Tera, Rift, Everquest, League of Legends, Mechwarrior Online - all free to play. All a bit grindy(as per the free to play model of selling convenience rather than content), and occasionally you just get one that sucks - but at least you can figure out before shelling out $60 bucks that the game you were interested is a stink pile.

 

[warpus]

Well, I don't think the original producers of the content were able to effectively kill a second-hand market like this before. So it is getting more restrictive.

And yes, software transactions have usually had some sort of licensing system (I don't want to say always because somebody could dig up some obscure old software that was sold on some 80s machine that was an exception, but otherwise I would say always). But other products in the yesteryears didn't. For all the benefits modern technology has, it's slowly taking ownership out of the hands of the consumers.

(If this is confusing anyone, the starting point for my comments should not be taken as the start of software sales, but rather some more distant point.)

I agree that things are getting restrictive, but there is no way around a system where you're paying for a license as opposed to something that you own, when it comes to digital media. That's just a consequence of the nature of what digital media is - something that you could in theory make an exact copy of.

We should be pushing for more fair use rights, which a lot of us are.. I initially responded though because I thought you made it sound like the issue was that we were paying for a license to use something, as opposed to actually outright owning it. Which I don't think is the issue.. The issue I think is the erosion of our fair use rights, which should be on everyone's radar.

 

[illram]

In my conversation with Traitorfish, we are not necessarily limiting ourselves to just software, but products more generally. Restrictive licenses have been part of software transactions for as long as I can remember and they are only getting more restrictive. But the first sale doctrine, and the concepts we are discussing have existed long before computers and software existed.

Say you purchase a car, you then extensively modify it, put some new tires on, a new speaker system, repaint it, etc., and then you resell it. You didn't need a special dispensation from the original manufacturer to make those modifications and then to sell the car "used" (let's say you drove it for a few years) to someone else. The manufacturer didn't get a cut off your used car sale. Nor, do I think, does the original manufacturer have a right to prohibit your subsequent transaction.

I'll be perfectly honest, I was and still might be really confused by the point you are trying to make.

You guys might be talking past each other. First sale does not require the person selling the used product to alter it in any way. All first sale means is that the original seller, once they have sold it, has no right to any future profits from that copy. E.g., a seller cannot double dip and take a piece of future sales. They have relinquished their rights in the physical copy they have transferred.

As you note licensing has been around for a while. MS's scheme basically just puts that principle into practice by digitally preventing anyone from violating the license in the first place.

The trend, unfortunately, looks bleak (in the US at least) for carving out any "right" to transfer digital copies that you own, whether it's via fair use or the first sale doctrine or some other copyright exception, so long as the distributor locks those copies up with a tight license agreement.

 

[Antilogic]

You guys might be talking past each other. First sale does not require the person selling the used product to alter it in any way. All first sale means is that the original seller, once they have sold it, has no right to any future profits from that copy. E.g., a seller cannot double dip and take a piece of future sales. They have relinquished their rights in the physical copy they have transferred.

As you note licensing has been around for a while. MS's scheme basically just puts that principle into practice by digitally preventing anyone from violating the license in the first place.

The trend, unfortunately, looks bleak (in the US at least) for carving out any "right" to transfer digital copies that you own, whether it's via fair use or the first sale doctrine or some other copyright exception, so long as the distributor locks those copies up with a tight license agreement.

It's a strong possibility there is a collective (or at least on my part) misunderstanding of the discussion points.

Here's perhaps a naïve statement: I don't believe prior software licenses conflicted with the first sale doctrine. As in, I could resell my old disc copy of Civilization II to somebody else and there would be nothing in the license agreement that would entitle Microprose (I think that was the manufacturer at the time) to charge an additional fee to use the software.

 

[warpus]

The thing about fanboys is that they will not be deterred from fanning it up.

Yeah, you've got a point there, but I think some of them will. If it's a lot easier and/or free to bring over a PS4 game to a buddy's house to play with other bros, and XBOX fanboys see this.. some of them will jump ship. Maybe not many, but these are potential new customers for Sony

 

[Gelion]

You don't actually own anything any more, you are buying a right from the company to use their product as they see fit.

Bingo. Its also your own fault. You'll buy the newest games without considering the policy of companies that produce them. You don't "vote with your wallet", you don't organise gamer "consumer unions". Therefore companies will do whatever they want. Enjoy

EDIT: I mean the collective "you", not you you

 

[Terxpahseyton]

Here's perhaps a naïve statement: I don't believe prior software licenses conflicted with the first sale doctrine. As in, I could resell my old disc copy of Civilization II to somebody else and there would be nothing in the license agreement that would entitle Microprose (I think that was the manufacturer at the time) to charge an additional fee to use the software.

I am really only busting your arse over weather those licenses can be considered a form of property or weather being licenses they by definition are no property.
As has become apparent by now, licenses seem to (at least according to the 9th circuit) exclude the first-sale-doctrine. In turn, this doctrine only applies to property (like a car I buy). That software-licenser as you say nevertheless complied with said doctrine at first was then in effect only a matter of convenience increasingly obsolete by now due to the advancement of technology.
That is how I understood Traitorfish and that is what I felt you tried to differentiate / blurry the line to property by making use of the first-sale-doctrine which we can now assume to be irrelevant to a software-license.

also

I'll be perfectly honest, I was and still might be really confused by the point you are trying to make.

is always a great things to say, great meaning it calls for me honoring you for it (yeah maybe a bit over the top but such apparent leaps for mutual understanding are something to be cherished on the Internetz IMO)

 

[Goodfella]

Yeah, you've got a point there, but I think some of them will. If it's a lot easier and/or free to bring over a PS4 game to a buddy's house to play with other bros, and XBOX fanboys see this.. some of them will jump ship. Maybe not many, but these are potential new customers for Sony

I guarantee Sony will do the same thing though.

 

[Maniacal]

Sony has already said they won't, although it will be up to the publishers to decide if they do want to.

 

[Gelion]

Here's another example. Lets take books. Imagine in say 20 years books are avaliable only in online format and authors (producers) have the right to decide what version of the book they prefer. If Tolkien were to publish LoTR in 2030's he'd have right to say: "I don't like the way the book ends, lets change it so that Frodo dies in Mordor". As a user of "LoTR digital book" you'd have to smile and nod at every change of what you already own because of intellectual property rights. You'll no longer have the freedom to have the product as it was sold to you. Now, books are not published that way yet, why should games be? In most of services the "client is always right". Shouldn't the gamer also "be right" and have have the right to keep what he bought?