New Xbox basically kills off used games

[warpus]

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?

That is a rather extreme and not so good example, but yes, fair use rights are important. I don't think fair use would apply to a publisher deciding to change a part of a story, though... and I'm not really convinced that it should, either.

 

[Gelion]

That is a rather extreme and not so good example, but yes, fair use rights are important. I don't think fair use would apply to a publisher deciding to change a part of a story, though... and I'm not really convinced that it should, either.

Yes, it was a crude example, but it keeps the main point. Atm, as a Steam user (for example) I no longer have the rights to keep my games unupdated, its Steam that decides to install the latest patch, not me. Same for reselling games, I do not need approval to resell what I bought previously be it an old game CD or a gold coin I inherited from my uncle. What it does is remove some of my property rights to freely buy and sell goods.

As far as books content it is also an example taken to the extreme. My main problem with it is the inability of an average user to choose the versions/information sold to him. Now I can buy previous editions of LoTR on paper with all the flaws and their charm. Why take this right away from me? The right to choose.

 

[innonimatu]

Unfortunately Microsoft is quite likely to get away with thus, because all the big entertainment groups and doing it. Competition? What competition? All the rentiers agree that the best business model is one that extracts steady flows of payments.

Mark my works, the mass of the plebians in the USA will soon have fewer actual legal property rights (I'm not even talking about how little they own anyway) than the soviets did in the USSR. That won't prevent them from continuing to parrot the old tired "land of the free" talk.

 

[warpus]

Yes, it was a crude example, but it keeps the main point. Atm, as a Steam user (for example) I no longer have the rights to keep my games unupdated, its Steam that decides to install the latest patch, not me.

You can turn off auto updates actually. I think this is possible with most games on there, but I could be wrong.

Same for reselling games, I do not need approval to resell what I bought previously be it an old game CD or a gold coin I inherited from my uncle. What it does is remove some of my property rights to freely buy and sell goods.

I agree that re-selling physical copies of games should fall under fair use rights. It isn't your property though and you shouldn't think of it like that. The physical disc and anything that you can touch - yes - but when you buy a game you are really only paying for the license. The physical stuff is bonus. The property that you own isn't really 'the game'. It's just stuff. The game belongs to the publisher.

As far as books content it is also an example taken to the extreme. My main problem with it is the inability of an average user to choose the versions/information sold to him. Now I can buy previous editions of LoTR on paper with all the flaws and their charm. Why take this right away from me? The right to choose.

Yep, fair use rights, etc. The cooler the game publisher, the more of a choice they will give you in terms of what sort of rights you retain.

 

[Gelion]

innonimatu, it is hard to argue with that typing this message on a MIcrosoft computer. What option is there? I don't care much about the US as for the rest of the world combined. Would be nice if my rights actually stayed on the level they were a few years back. Really like some of my old games like Civ 2 to remain the same.

You can turn off auto updates actually. I think this is possible with most games on there, but I could be wrong.

Most games? Thats exactly my point. Your right to turn off updates is diminishing.

I agree that re-selling physical copies of games should fall under fair use rights. It isn't your property though and you shouldn't think of it like that. The physical disc and anything that you can touch - yes - but when you buy a game you are really only paying for the license. The physical stuff is bonus. The property that you own isn't really 'the game'. It's just stuff. The game belongs to the publisher.

Sure, I have no problem with that, its perectly normal. What I don't understand is why I have to consult the publisher to transfer my licence (sell the old disk) to someone else? Two I don't understand why I have to submit (involuntary!) to a change of product by the whim of publisher. I bought it as is and I want to have the option to make it better if I want to. Or not.

Yep, fair use rights, etc. The cooler the game publisher, the more of a choice they will give you in terms of what sort of rights you retain.

Cool publishers are dying off. Why? Consumers don't care. This allows the not-so-cool guys to get away with things that were considered immoral a few years back. Sad? I think so.

 

[Tarquelne]

You can turn off auto updates actually. I think this is possible with most games on there, but I could be wrong.

As of the last time I looked into it, auto-update occasionally turns itself back on.
IMO it's the only major problem with Steam - I wish I'd mentioned it above.

OTOH, if you wait awhile to buy a game it's not as much of an issue.

 

[warpus]

Most games? Thats exactly my point. Your right to turn off updates is diminishing.

As far as I know you can do it with all games, but I don't really know as it's never been an issue for me.

You can also easily copy your game to another folder, where steam will be unable to update it. I don't really see a fair use issue here, although if the auto-update setting re-setting itself "bug" is not really a bug.. then yeah.

Cool publishers are dying off. Why? Consumers don't care. This allows the not-so-cool guys to get away with things that were considered immoral a few years back. Sad? I think so.

Most consumers don't care because most consumers don't really understand the situation.

I don't agree that cool publishers are dying off, though. There exist a significant and I believe growing number of smaller studios who care about our fair use rights pumping out quality games. They are getting community support via kickstarter campaigns or just word of mouth. We totally need to support companies like that if we want to "win" this "fight", but.. there are also bigger companies like Paradox and Valve who I would put in the same category.

 

[Terxpahseyton]

What it does is remove some of my property rights

You need to read some more of this thread.
You have no property rights. Games are not a subject of property rights, that is the whole deal.

 

[Zelig]

Okay, first off, my thoughts after reading the OP, and none of the rest of the thread:

People who get all worked up about how not allowing used games is sort of moral affront are full of it. It's essentially just a price hike. Given that game prices are pretty much at an all-time low taking inflation into account, I don't have much of a problem with game publishers trying to at least keep the real price steady.

Practically speaking, used prices for digital goods are silly, it's like selling used mp3s. The utility of used digital goods doesn't change at all, and prices drop over time even for purely digital products. (ie. See Steam sales.)

Obviously, there are going to be X number of users that won't pay more than $Y for games - as long as this segment of users are profitable, it doesn't make any sense to abandon them - older console games currently don't get steep discounts like Steam does, partially because of the used game market which already fulfills this need. I suspect publishers who don't allow used games will lower their prices over time, they still come out ahead if they sell news games for the same reduced price as used games used to sell for.

Second, my most pressing questions about the new xbox:

When can I get a new Kinect for my PC?

When can I get a new controller for my PC?

It will be interesting to see if anyone challenges this as a violation of the 1st sale doctrine. The precedent on this is currently murky. There are a lot of companies who make a lot of money on second hand sales (e.g., Gamestop) so there are well-monied interests with the resources to challenge this practice. (They tried and failed in the 9th circuit.)

I doubt it, used sales have been stomped out in like 95% of digital goods already without any significant legal problems.

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

If you look at the hardware and software underpinnings of the xbox, MS is at the point where in another generation they could stick a full desktop OS into a tablet which is fully compatible with this generation of xbox games and controllers.

 

[azzaman333]

Good luck stopping it. Even if you ragequit Xbox in protest, all of your buddies are still going to buy it and all the games. It's not going anywhere.

Unfortunately, as downtown said, there is not going to be any pressure on them to off 'steam-esque' sales of older games. They just won't, ever, because they don't have to because people will pay what they have to pay to play their games. This is really going to hurt a lot of consumers and may drive down the entire industry a bit by stabbing a knife into the resale markets, but the biggest companies (EA, Microsoft, Sony, etc) are still going to make fat enough profits off of what remains that they won't have to change their ways.

There are already semi-frequent sales for xbox live content such as DLC. Not to the same extent or as often as Steam, but it does happen.

 

[God of Kings]

This is why I do not play much video games, either on console or on the PC. I do not like the always-online aspect (or it requiring a prior Internet connection). I do like to buy, trade, sell, and rent used games. I value my privacy strongly.

When I want a game, I want to own my own copy of it. I want more than just the rights to play it.

I do not care about discounts. I do not have much gaming friends. I have a very limited taste in video games. I have a very busy life.

In short, I am very much a former gamer.

 

[Luckymoose]

Most games? Thats exactly my point. Your right to turn off updates is diminishing.

If your console is connected to the internet, it will auto-update the game. Steam has an option to turn off patching. Why? Because Valve understands modding communities and patching issues. People hating on Steam as some kind of tyrant of PC gaming is beyond me. Steam saves me so much money and unifies so much of my activity without a monthly fee.

 

[Aroddo]

Personally, the most creepy thing about the new XBox is that Kinect will always be on and online.
With that you have LITERALLY the Big Brother telescreen in your home, straight from 1984.

MS doesn't even think there's anything wrong in listening to private conversations to determine personalized ads. I give it zero days before governments will demand access to their logs.

 

[classical_hero]

Okay, first off, my thoughts after reading the OP, and none of the rest of the thread:

People who get all worked up about how not allowing used games is sort of moral affront are full of it. It's essentially just a price hike. Given that game prices are pretty much at an all-time low taking inflation into account, I don't have much of a problem with game publishers trying to at least keep the real price steady.

Well certainly not here in Australia. http://www.jbhifionline.com.au/game/ps3.htm

Many games cost near $100 when they should be so much cheaper considering the factors here, but they are always expensive, which is why I normally don't bother with console games.

 

[Mise]

Frustrated with the Xbox One? That’s okay, because Microsoft isn’t building its next system for you.

Sony made a conscious effort at its PlayStation 4 reveal event to position the new hardware as a console for gamers. Almost everything the company showed was directed at this core audience. The hardware specifications, the exclusive games, the presence of industry heavyweights such as Mark Cerny and Jonathan Blow all added to the idea that this was a ‘hardcore’ event.

...

The launch of Kinect signalled a fundamental shift of the Xbox brand, however, towards a new form of interactive hardware. Microsoft wants the Xbox One to be the intermediary solution for all content consumption, including live and on-demand TV, music and games. It’s why the push for apps such as Netflix, Xbox Music and ESPN has been so strong in recent times.

Basically, if you're a "gamer", then you should buy a PS4, but if you want your console to be an "entertainment hub" as well, then buy an Xbox.

 

[Zelig]

Well certainly not here in Australia. http://www.jbhifionline.com.au/game/ps3.htm

Many games cost near $100 when they should be so much cheaper considering the factors here, but they are always expensive, which is why I normally don't bother with console games.

What's your point? You haven't listed any historical prices of games, so your post has no applicability to whether games are more expensive than they were in the past.

Accounting for inflation, a $60 game in Australia in 1993 is pretty much exactly the same price as a $100 game today.

 

[Mise]

I don't understand why it matters what the price was in 1993, or at any other time in history.

 

[Traitorfish]

What's your point? You haven't listed any historical prices of games, so your post has no applicability to whether games are more expensive than they were in the past.

Accounting for inflation, a $60 game in Australia in 1993 is pretty much exactly the same price as a $100 game today.

Thing is, though, in the UK, a new game was around £40-45 in 1993, and is around £40-45 today, while if they kept up with inflation they would be around £80. What's happening in the UK that the cost of games can reduce almost by half, that isn't happening in Australia?

 

[downtown]

Frustrated with the Xbox One? That’s okay, because Microsoft isn’t building its next system for you.



Basically, if you're a "gamer", then you should buy a PS4, but if you want your console to be an "entertainment hub" as well, then buy an Xbox.

That's what puzzled me about this. Wouldn't a more casual gamer be far more likely to utilize the used game economy than a hardcore guy?

 

[NBAfan]

That's what puzzled me about this. Wouldn't a more casual gamer be far more likely to utilize the used game economy than a hardcore guy?

That's what I'm thinking. I'm pretty sure that the poor parents that see this are thinking, "what? All those games we bought are now worthless!?"