Support NeoGAF

[PepsimanVsJoe]

AutoCAD costs in the realm of $4,000. I imagine Autodesk is very protective of their software.

 

[Vanillalite]

Please clarify. I don't mean to sound like a prick, but I am honestly curious

I'm posting from Ubuntu 10.04 right now. I'm not against other stuff. I mean I dual boot with Win 7, and love the OS. That being said I've become increasingly aware of licensing over the past year or so.

 

[wizword]

Fuck the US government. This is big time bullshit.

 

[eznark]

The used market is actually pretty abusive in terms of pricing unless you do all your trades one-on-one. Gamestop is certainly not helping poor gamers.

You have got to be kidding me. The ability to get $20-30 for games you're done with is incredibly important to many high-school/college age gamers. Buying used games doesn't help the wallet a lot, buy selling used games most certainly does.

(The poor thing was a joke)

 

[wizword]

And to think, there are people who still sneer in disbelief when you suggest that companies really do want to take ownership of everything possible away from the customer.

In an ideal corporate fantasy world, nobody would own anything and merely lease property from their corporate entity overlord :lol Best way to control monetization of consumer units :lol

This is completely the governments fault. Corporoate want to hold their assets. Doesn't mean that government has the right to enforce these rules.

 

[Somnid]

You have got to be kidding me. The ability to get $20-30 for games you're done with is incredibly important to many high-school/college age gamers. Buying used games doesn't help the wallet a lot, buy selling used games most certainly does.

(The poor thing was a joke)

But you rarely get back what it's worth and in any corporate thing you are guaranteed not to because they take a cut. Though if you are a revolving door gamer who's not building a collection you should really be using gamefly or some other renting solution as you would pay a lot less for a lot more.

 

[charlequin]

If you read the OP or several posts, this only affects digital content.

Video games are digital content, dude. :lol All that means is that this doesn't affect books or vinyl records. It covers CDs, DVDs, and all software.

It won't have any affect on games. Game companies don't care if people sell used games on Ebay.

This isn't the "can game companies forbid people from selling things on eBay" decision, it's the "can you impose arbitrary licensing restrictions via an EULA" decision.

The used market is actually pretty abusive in terms of pricing unless you do all your trades one-on-one. Gamestop is certainly not helping poor gamers.

As someone who was a "poor gamer" not all that long ago himself and still associates with many others, this is total nonsense.

 

[B.K.]

This isn't the "can game companies forbid people from selling things on eBay" decision

The way some people are acting, you'd think it is.

 

[Somnid]

As someone who was a "poor gamer" not all that long ago himself and still associates with many others, this is total nonsense.

I spent 4 years with no income. I'm well aware as it took me a few $30 "rentals" to figure I was getting raw deals and I was better off keeping it.

 

[Branduil]

And people wonder why piracy is exploding.

 

[eznark]

I spent 4 years with no income. I'm well aware as it took me a few $30 "rentals" to figure I was getting raw deals and I was better off keeping it.

This is just turning into a used game argument so it's not really on target. Getting money back for something you're never going to play again is hardly a raw deal. Better than getting nothing for it ever.

If I know my games lose all value the minute I buy them, I will buy fewer games. Simple as that.

 

[charlequin]

The way some people are acting, you'd think it is.

::blink::

Yes, people are correctly identifying that this decision, within the jurisdiction it covers, allows companies to restrict sales on eBay as well as many other things. This response is even more of a non-sequitur than your first.

I spent 4 years with no income. I'm well aware as it took me a few $30 "rentals" to figure I was getting raw deals and I was better off keeping it.

Your own inability to utilize the resource in an effective way is not representative of everyone's experience. If you were still buying $50 new games in the first place I'm going to politely suggest you were (ahem) doing it wrong.

 

[Drkirby]

Reselling a recent game to gamestop is almost always a bad idea. The only stuff I give to them is clearance stuff bought with the intention to resell to them, and stuff I get at goodwill that upon further inspection I declare not fit for normal sale.

They are great for getting bargains if you know where to look though. I love how gamestop list the bulk of their inventory online and its price. No other B&M used game store offers me that.

 

[PataHikari]

The used market is actually pretty abusive in terms of pricing unless you do all your trades one-on-one. Gamestop is certainly not helping poor gamers.

No the new game market is abusive in terms of pricing. The used game market makes the prices fair.

 

[IMACOMPUTA]

FREEDOM ISN'T FREE

 

[Palette Swap]

Couldn't a case be made against the misleading wording used when such EULAs are in effect?

Having the EULA say you can use a license for as long as it pleases its owner is one thing and as much as I hate it, I get how it could be considered valid. However, telling people they're "buying a game" (or a song) while they won't effectively own it seems downright dishonest to me.


I still don't get consumers who want the used game market to disappear. I understand wanting it to evolve, to be less concentrated or more fairly priced but having it disappear won't bring about any kind of good change to consumers. Hell, I'm not even sure it would benefit publishers or developers in the long runs.

(full disclosure: I don't buy used games at all. I usually wait for new games to drop in price)

 

[Hitokage]

In [the courts] view, US "first sale" protections don't apply to Vernor, because he didn't buy the software from a legitimate "owner." That, in turn, is because the architecture firm had only "licensed" the software, and that license could indeed allow a software company to prevent resale, lending, and even removal from the Western Hemisphere.

So how does one know when it's a "license" or a "sale"? (In other cases, courts have ruled that simply calling something a "license" doesn't make it so.) In today's ruling, the judges laid out a test:

"We hold today that a software user is a licensee rather than an owner of a copy where the copyright owner (1) specifies that the user is granted a license; (2) significantly restricts the user’s ability to transfer the software; and (3) imposes notable use restrictions."

How is a tautology a test?

 

[subversus]

I still don't get consumers who want the used game market to disappear. I understand wanting it to evolve, to be less concentrated or more fairly priced but having it disappear won't bring about any kind of good change to consumers.

Since Gamestop are pricks and don't want to share their profit with publishers, yes there are some customers who are against used games. And yes, used games could be very good for everybody but since one side is greedy there's no way to solve this issue without doing harm.

 

[loosus]

While I understand being a licensee when a signed contract is involved, signed contracts usually have a sunset date, a date in the foreseeable future that all parties know that the contract is ending.

Essentially, this is a never-ending use license. I just can't see how that can hold up over the longer term. "Remember back thirty years ago when you agreed to that use license? Yeah, we're gonna be needing you to continue to follow that." Seems unreasonable.

 

[Dorrin]

Publishers and developers are only going to end up fucking themselves if they go down this path. I see them going digital only(and it won't be like steam) or full game lockout codes for single use and I'm telling you right now that the inability for a consumer to recoup any costs from a purchase to use towards another purchase is going to result in lower total sales and and slower growth or decline in the industry.

You think you can't pay off a project like Mafia II now? Wait until the consumer has to buy it for $60 with no hope of getting anything back out of it.

 

[Kai Dracon]

The thing about Steam and similar PC digital content services is that while you can't sell or trade old games, the ecosystem is fast adapting to make up for that. Prices - outside of Activision, ha ha - tend to be fairer for the content up and down the scale. The promise of regular sales, packages, and daily specials encourages people to be more sensible and thrifty with their purchases. They will still buy a really hot new game, but generally only the ones they truly want right now, and will play enough to get their $40 - $50 out of.

"Big Pub" wants used game sales to go away on consoles however, without changing their practices. Steam would be a dismal failure, I think, if every game outside of a tiny number of budget titles was $60 and there were never any discounts, packages, or daily specials.

One problem that will have to be solved though, IMHO, is one-player-per-license. The PC is increasingly becoming Home Theater PC for many people, in the living room, and PC style DRM and digital services don't account for this most of the time. The inability for everyone in the family or house to play a game on the same PC - or for one person to "loan" a person in the same house a copy of the game to play themselves is a built-in limitation that consoles have always been superior to. But big publishers on consoles are dangerously close to breaking this too, as they push towards one-use license codes that are attached to a single user's online account and profile. It still doesn't completely break the usability of current consoles - for instance, with Mass Effect 2, one person can use the Cerberus code on their account and download all the content accessible to anyone on the same physical console. I feel though there are probably machinations inside Big Pub to begin locking online play period to one user on consoles (and eventually DLC).

After all, we have to do something about all those unethical pirates who visit someone else's house and play their games without paying for them, or that little gang of thieves who claim to be merely a family's three children who are sharing the same copy a game amongst themselves.

In point of fact, can't we do something about loafers who watch someone else's satellite TV while they're in the same living room? Come on, there /has/ to be a way to install meters in eyeballs that credit viewing time of valuable Signed Rights and Content to the appropriate person's account...

 

[ethelred]

Since Gamestop are pricks and don't want to share their profit with publishers, yes there are some customers who are against used games. And yes, used games could be very good for everybody but since one side is greedy there's no way to solve this issue without doing harm.

Gamestop aren't being greedy pricks, they're engaging in private transactions with free individuals who are exercising their own rights to sell property they own to a third party. Fuck your skewed view of consumer rights. Once I buy a game from a publisher, I own it. It is my property. I can sell it to someone else whenever I fucking please and the publisher deserves absolutely zero cut of that. If Gamestop should provide publishers kickbacks for selling something that they own, that's no different than claiming that I should be obligated to send Activision a piece of the action when I go on eBay and sell something I own. Even the most barebones, rudimentary respect for consumer property rights should suggest that someone can do with it as they will and the original owner's claim to it does not last in perpetuity.

The only customers who are against a used game market are self-loathing consumers who oppose their own rights. It's like a battered wife who supports her husband's right to beat her, or a pre-suffragette raging against the 19th Amendment.

 

[Safe Bet]

The right of resale should be sacrosanct.

If I want to sublet my apartment I should be able to considering no matter who I allow to live at the residenc all the penalties associated with breaking the original rental/lease agreement still hang over my head.

 

[Prime crotch]

I guess the idea is to go the route of software licensing, and service providing.

Gamestop aren't being greedy pricks, they're engaging in private transactions with free individuals who are exercising their own rights to sell property they own t a third party. Fuck your skewed view of consumer rights. Once I buy a game from a publisher, I own it. It is my property. I can sell it to someone else whenever I fucking please and the publisher deserves absolutely zero cut of that. If Gamestop should provide publishers kickbacks for selling something that they own, that's no different than claiming that I should be obligated to send Activision a piece of the action when I go on eBay and sell something I own. Even the most barebones, rudimentary respect for consumer property rights should suggest that someone can do with it as they will and the original owner's claim to it does not last in perpetuity.

The only customers who are against a used game market are self-loathing consumers who oppose their own rights. It's like a battered wife who supports her husband's right to beat her, or a pre-suffragette raging against the 19th Amendment.

holy crap, you're alive

 

[Version 3.0]

The implications of this are ridiculous. There are EULA's out there that say you'll destroy your game if the company goes out of business or if the publisher says so.

I realize this isn't exactly a revolution-inspiring topic, but I'm passionate about it. When the government makes it legal to step on people's rights, that's when people feel justified in going outside the law.

 

[ZealousD]

How is a tautology a test?

I'm not sure what you're getting at? Basically, game makers just can't start calling current console games "licenses" and thus make the entire used games market illegal. That would fit the bill for the first criteria, but not the other two. But if in the next generation, console games include CD-keys or DRM? That would be a pretty significant barrier to transferring the content to a new owner. Then they can be called licenses. That's the current state of PC games.

 

[ZealousD]

The implications of this are ridiculous. There are EULA's out there that say you'll destroy your game if the company goes out of business or if the publisher says so.

I certainly don't like this ruling either, but to be fair...

1.) If the company goes out of business, they can't exactly litigate against you for not follwing the EULA.
2.) A publisher saying that all of their customers should destroy all their games would have a PR backlash of epic proportions.

 

[Vorador]

EULA's are one of the worst thing to happen in business. I known they're necesary, but they're basically idiotic.

1º To actually read the eula and accept or deny it, you need to open the game or in PC case begin to install it.
2º If the game is opened, technically is used.
3º Acording to the 99% of eula's, an used game cannot be resold. And most stores won't return your money. So if you don't accept the eula you threw your money to the toilet.

And they get away with it. Mindboggling.

 

[Safe Bet]

I guess the idea is to go the route of software licensing, and service providing.

If I contract a service I should be able to resell that service to whomever I wish.

 

[Foxix Von]

This is fucking insulting.

 

[FLEABttn]

3º Acording to the 99% of eula's, an used game cannot be resold. And most stores won't return your money. So if you don't accept the eula you threw your money to the toilet.

And they get away with it. Mindboggling.

Not all do that.

World of Warcraft: "If you reject the terms of this agreement within thirty (30) days after your purchase, you may call (800) 757-7707 to request a full refund of the purchase price."

However, a game like Dawn of War 2: "By installing, copying, or otherwise using the software (or, in the event you have purchased the software as contained on a DVD-ROM, by opening the packaging materials thereof), you acknowledge that you have read this software license agreement and agree to be bound by its terms".

An EULA like that is crap because you can't actually read the terms without opening the packaging, which according to the EULA is a sign that you've read and agreed to the terms. That's some contracts bullshit there and one that like I am surprised hasn't been taken to court.

If I contract a service I should be able to resell that service to whomever I wish.

Get that in your contract then.

 

[kiunchbb]

This is stupid, how can they enforce EULA when it is forced upon us?

If I purchase a game for $60 and decided to refuse the EULA, I don't get any refund.

It destroy any retaining value that a game will have, everyone will just re-buying madden and COD every years because no one will risk their $60 trying new innovated games.

Does this also mean end of gamefly? Too bad Gamefly's stock isn't public yet, otherwise it will be interesting to see the impact to their stock price, and what legal expert think about the chance of this ruling get appeal.

 

[Vorador]

World of Warcraft: "If you reject the terms of this agreement within thirty (30) days after your purchase, you may call (800) 757-7707 to request a full refund of the purchase price."

However, a game like Dawn of War 2: "By installing, copying, or otherwise using the software (or, in the event you have purchased the software as contained on a DVD-ROM, by opening the packaging materials thereof), you acknowledge that you have read this software license agreement and agree to be bound by its terms".

An EULA like that is crap because you can't actually read the terms without opening the packaging, which according to the EULA is a sign that you've read and agreed to the terms. That's some contracts bullshit there and one that like I am surprised hasn't been taken to court.

I expect to see worse cases from now on, since this case sets a very dangerous precedent that removing consumer rights on the EULA can be enforceable in court, and the content of those EULA's isn't regulated. They can put whatever shit they think of, sue if not comply, and put this case as precedent.

 

[Version 3.0]

I certainly don't like this ruling either, but to be fair...

1.) If the company goes out of business, they can't exactly litigate against you for not follwing the EULA.
2.) A publisher saying that all of their customers should destroy all their games would have a PR backlash of epic proportions.

I agree. But according to this ruling, we'd all be legally bound to do anything they stick in that EULA. I'm not speaking hypothetically; that is actually in the EULA of games we already own.

 

[FLEABttn]

I expect to see worse cases from now on, since this case sets a very dangerous precedent that removing consumer rights on the EULA can be enforceable in court, and the content of those EULA's isn't regulated. They can put whatever shit they think of, sue if not comply, and put this case as precedent.

The first bold is actually the main point of contention. If they are presenting you a contract in which they state you are receiving a service as opposed to a product, then no rights have been removed as you don't own it. You don't own the cable service coming to your house, as such, you have no right to resell your service to the neighbor next door. We see the decision the courts have made on that.

The second bold though is something that needs to be addressed. If EULA's are contracts with one party being absent from the negotiating table, the government should probably be going after companies that are putting out contracts that state "to read the contract, you must agree to it first." That's just deceptive.

 

[Slavik81]

Not all do that.

World of Warcraft: "If you reject the terms of this agreement within thirty (30) days after your purchase, you may call (800) 757-7707 to request a full refund of the purchase price."

However, a game like Dawn of War 2: "By installing, copying, or otherwise using the software (or, in the event you have purchased the software as contained on a DVD-ROM, by opening the packaging materials thereof), you acknowledge that you have read this software license agreement and agree to be bound by its terms".

An EULA like that is crap because you can't actually read the terms without opening the packaging, which according to the EULA is a sign that you've read and agreed to the terms. That's some contracts bullshit there and one that like I am surprised hasn't been taken to court.

It has been. Though the validity of shrink wrap contracts is still not clear in the general case.

 

[ReyBrujo]

I hope nobody is surprised, especially those working for software companies.

 

[FLEABttn]

It has been. Though the validity of shrink wrap contracts is still not clear in the general case.

Needs to be clarified. We're just going to have a clusterfuck of stupid until then.

 

[itsgreen]

How does that work with mergers? or aquisitions or something...

Because the party that had the licenses doesn't exist anymore and the newly formed organisation doesn't have any.

Kind of makes software have a lower value...

 

[fernoca]

Some more details need to be added to the OP; to avoid more confusion.
Some are just jumping and talking about Gamestop and used game sales without checking the links.

 

[Noshino]

The right of resale should be sacrosanct.

If I want to sublet my apartment I should be able to considering no matter who I allow to live at the residenc all the penalties associated with breaking the original rental/lease agreement still hang over my head.

Yah... no, it doesn't work that way all the time. Hell, there are many condominiums, communities and associations that will not allow you to sell the property unless they approve of the people moving in.

If I contract a service I should be able to resell that service to whomever I wish.

You are in a roll, huh?

Since when you can resell services?... those are usually tied to contracts.

 

[Safe Bet]

Since when you can resell services?....

When I contract a service I should be able to resell that contract of service providing the expectations of service remain unchanged.

It's common sense...

..there are many condominiums, communities and associations that will not allow you to sell the property unless they approve of the people moving in.

In effect, membership into the association is the thing being sold not the property itself.

 

[charlequin]

EULA's are one of the worst thing to happen in business. I known they're necesary, but they're basically idiotic.

They're not actually necessary though.

 

[Captain Sparrow]

I'll throw some fuel into the fire.

Without a used game market, perhaps we would have lower game prices. I buy all of my games new and don't sell them. Gamespot provides ZERO value to me since all they are doing is hurting the sales of who I buy direct from.

 

[charlequin]

Without a used game market, perhaps we would have lower game prices.

:lol Good one.

 

[Pureauthor]

I'll throw some fuel into the fire.

Without a used game market, perhaps we would have lower game prices.

How the - who - what?

 

[To Far Away Times]

I'll never understand, why those who know the least about technology, are the ones creating the laws to govern it.

 

[Noshino]

When I contract a service I should be able to resell that contract of service providing the expectations of service remain unchanged.

It's common sense...

Well, I have never heard of the ability of reselling services, if you don't mind given me an actual example of it?

In effect, membership into the association is the thing being sold not the property itself.

When looking into the property itself is always the main priority, second is the surroundings, and third the association/community itself, and most of the times they tend to be advertised that way as well.

Anyway, I don't this is the right analogy, specially since it proves that the act of "reselling" is not always as easy and free as some of you make it out to be.

 

[Safe Bet]

Well, I have never heard of the ability of reselling services, if you don't mind given me an actual example of it?

If I contract a lawn service for a year but end up selling the property halfway through the contract shouldn't I be able to sell the remainder of that service contract to the new homeowner?

Sorry about the hypothetical.

Just woke up...

..specially since it proves that the act of "reselling" is not always as easy and free as some of you make it out to be.

Agreed

 

[Cheerilee]

If I contract a lawn service for a year but end up selling the property halfway through the contract shouldn't I be able to sell the remainder of that service contract to the new homeowner?

Sorry about the hypothetical.

Just woke up...

That depends on the wording of the contract and whether or not the person you contracted for service is okay with you switching out for someone else.

You can't just hand over your copy of the contract and walk away, otherwise the person you sold it to can simply stop making payments on it. The service will rack up debt, and then the service provider will come after you for the money because your signature is on their copy of the contract.

You and the purchaser have to approach the service provider together and ask to have your signature removed and another one put in it's place. The person you contracted is under no obligation to just let you do that. Contracts are binding and you can get stuck by them.

You might get around that problem by signing a new contract with the new building owner, saying that he has to make regular payments to you for lawn mowing, and you get to keep making payments on your old contract in order to provide it. Or you could more simply contractually bind the new owner into making the payments on your contract (there's not usually anything stopping someone from paying someone else's bill). But it's still your contract and you are on the hook if something goes wrong.