• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
  • Hi Guest. We've rebooted and consolidated our Communities section, so be sure to check it out and subscribe to some threads. Thanks!

EA disabling purchased copies of Rock Band iOS? [Yes / No / Maybe / Bear's Driving!]

Flachmatuch

Member
Dec 22, 2005
3,388
0
0
Steam sales make sense and enhance profits so why don't we envision a future where they are commonplace?
Steam will either be eliminated, or will have to submit itself to these rules also. It's a bit longer term of course, but this is what has to happen.

Different companies, different ethics, different models of operation.
There is only one capitalism and one globalised market. If you don't use the best tactics available, you're going to be eliminated by someone who does. That's the way it goes. There is one way - to know the market so well that you continuously stay one step ahead of your competitors, and this is how markets are supposed to work, but limitless accumulation makes this only a short to mid term possibility. Like Nintendo in this generation for example. But in the longer term, the general corporate tactics (basically what MS is doing) has to work out :-/

Also. There is no such thing as "ethics" when you're talking about corporations. Well, this is an exaggeration, there can be ethics for smaller or more traditional companies - but having any kind of "ethics" is a market *disadvantage*. Something you pay for with profits. That "inefficiency" has to be eliminated by market competition.
 

Tacitus_

Member
Dec 7, 2008
17,977
0
0
Steam will either be eliminated, or will have to submit itself to these rules also. It's a bit longer term of course, but this is what has to happen.
To what rules?
There is only one capitalism and one globalised market. If you don't use the best tactics available, you're going to be eliminated by someone who does. That's the way it goes. There is one way - to know the market so well that you continuously stay one step ahead of your competitors, and this is how markets are supposed to work, but limitless accumulation makes this only a short to mid term possibility. Like Nintendo in this generation for example. But in the longer term, the general corporate tactics (basically what MS is doing) has to work out :-/

Also. There is no such thing as "ethics" when you're talking about corporations. Well, this is an exaggeration, there can be ethics for smaller or more traditional companies - but having any kind of "ethics" is a market *disadvantage*. Something you pay for with profits. That "inefficiency" has to be eliminated by market competition.
You're arguing that fucking the consumer up the ass is a market advantage. Even more, you're arguing that this'll work in the longer term.
Bollocks.
 

RedNumberFive

Banned
Oct 6, 2006
9,556
0
0
Chicagoland
You're arguing that fucking the consumer up the ass is a market advantage. Even more, you're arguing that this'll work in the longer term.
Bollocks.
With the defense of online passes, anti-used games, and chunks of game content being obviously ripped out for DLC, it would appear that most GAFfers don't seem to mind.
 

Flachmatuch

Member
Dec 22, 2005
3,388
0
0
To whatever efficient rules competition spreads.

You're arguing that fucking the consumer up the ass is a market advantage. Even more, you're arguing that this'll work in the longer term.
Bollocks.
Well yeah, of course it is. What the hell are you thinking? Fucking end customers and labour in the ass, in addition to externalising everything that's possible is how you make money. There are a few cases when being unethical is bad for business (when there's high profile exposure that's bad for PR), but it's general practice. Doh. But really, I do not wish to convince anyone, believe whatever makes you feel comfortable :)
 

Tacitus_

Member
Dec 7, 2008
17,977
0
0
With the defense of online passes, anti-used games, and chunks of game content being obviously ripped out for DLC, it would appear that most GAFfers don't seem to mind.
Minor inconveniences compared to a timed killswitch.
To whatever efficient rules competition spreads.

Well yeah, of course it is. What the hell are you thinking? Fucking end customers and labour in the ass, in addition to externalising everything that's possible is how you make money. There are a few cases when being unethical is bad for business (when there's high profile exposure that's bad for PR), but it's general practice. Doh. But really, I do not wish to convince anyone, believe whatever makes you feel comfortable :)
Yeah, agreed to a point. But Steam is efficient. GOG is efficient. Only EA is doing this. What competitive advantage will it grant them? Horror stories like these will (or rather, should) drive users away from their DD service, Origin.
 

Flachmatuch

Member
Dec 22, 2005
3,388
0
0
Minor inconveniences compared to a timed killswitch.


Yeah, agreed to a point. But Steam is efficient. GOG is efficient. Only EA is doing this. What competitive advantage will it grant them? Horror stories like these will (or rather, should) drive users away from their DD service, Origin.
At this point in time, you are right. I am talking about the longer term, when the market is much more predictable and manageable and the pressure for higher rates of profit outweighs the pressure for increase in overall market size and individual market share. Things will be OK while things are mostly in flux and large corporations still can't foresee what's going to happen, but that doesn't last very long. EA just acted too fast. But this will imo become standard practice in the longer run.
 

BigDug13

Member
Dec 20, 2006
20,191
0
0
At this point in time, you are right. I am talking about the longer term, when the market is much more predictable and manageable and the pressure for higher rates of profit outweighs the pressure for increase in overall market size and individual market share. Things will be OK while things are mostly in flux and large corporations still can't foresee what's going to happen, but that doesn't last very long. EA just acted too fast. But this will imo become standard practice in the longer run.
That's when gaming as we know it will experience its second crash. People are bailing on traditional cable because of how bad they get fucked. People will bail on gaming because of how bad they get fucked.
 

Flachmatuch

Member
Dec 22, 2005
3,388
0
0
That's when gaming as we know it will experience its second crash. People are bailing on traditional cable because of how bad they get fucked. People will bail on gaming because of how bad they get fucked.
TBH I don't know. Maybe. I think the pressure to transform what have been products (a form that keeps some exchange value) to services (that is purely use value) is a general, clearly observable trend and obviously something that's good for profit. So I think it's pretty obvious that that's what (large) business wants - and not just in video games. (This is a somewhat silly example, but if electric light was invented today, business would prefer arrangements in which you have to pay for a light *service*, by time used, differentiated by time of day, regardless of actual costs of electricity or the appliance etc. Business has learned a LOT since the time of Edison :) )

Whether it can be achieved or not or how the market would react, I do not know, but I think the trend and the "will" is pretty clear.
 

Tacitus_

Member
Dec 7, 2008
17,977
0
0
TBH I don't know. Maybe. I think the pressure to transform what have been products (a form that keeps some exchange value) to services (that is purely use value) is a general, clearly observable trend and obviously something that's good for profit. So I think it's pretty obvious that that's what (large) business wants - and not just in video games. (This is a somewhat silly example, but if electric light was invented today, business would prefer arrangements in which you have to pay for a light *service*, by time used, differentiated by time of day, regardless of actual costs of electricity or the appliance etc. Business has learned a LOT since the time of Edison :) )

Whether it can be achieved or not or how the market would react, I do not know, but I think the trend and the "will" is pretty clear.
Yeah, and such services can be good. But treating paid for software licenses as rents that have a hidden timeout like EA is doing isn't good.
 

boiled goose

good with gravy
Oct 30, 2007
12,848
1
0
I want to strongly echo the posts highlighting the need for needed regulation of online media and services.

These license terms are broken.
Anyone can sell something and terminate the license whenever they want to.

Clearly, there are problems if you are paying form something you don't really know what it is.
 

Flachmatuch

Member
Dec 22, 2005
3,388
0
0
So far the competition has been spectacularly bad at spreading efficient rules though.
Good point. Well that's because I used the wrong expression. I mean well known and generally accepted ways of doing business that maximise profit, because this is what investors are looking for, especially in markets that are past the point of initial "exploration" and expansion and have "stabilised" in the sense that they don't have too much unpredictability in how exactly they work. In this case, it's not the detailed knowledge and specialist understanding of the particulars of a market that's the most powerful tool for profit expansion but generic extra-market techniques (mergers, shrinking labour costs through outsourcing, marketing etc etc). (These are always important of course, but there's a point when they become all-important.) Controlling market exchanges and skimming them as much as possible or even straight out denying you the right to resell what you bought or through forcing you to buy new versions each year are such techniques and you can see them used more and more widely.

Yeah, and such services can be good. But treating paid for software licenses as rents that have a hidden timeout like EA is doing isn't good.
I absolutely disagree, I think the trend itself is much, much worse than EA's misstep. You are much more dependent in this way on the goodwill of the "service provider" and have less autonomy and economic power, and the result will be more concentration and centralisation of these. Basically, you used to have control over something and now you don't. Video games are just a tiny piece of the entire puzzle, but they are imo representative of where things are going.

But then, I may be completely wrong about this. Don't take me too seriously.
 

TheSeks

Blinded by the luminous glory that is David Bowie's physical manifestation.
Feb 14, 2009
56,116
0
800
WTF @ thread title.

Someone update me, are they not shutting it down after all?
 

Tacitus_

Member
Dec 7, 2008
17,977
0
0
I want to strongly echo the posts highlighting the need for needed regulation of online media and services.

These license terms are broken.
Anyone can sell something and terminate the license whenever they want to.

Clearly, there are problems if you are paying form something you don't really know what it is.
Those terms are sadly needed for legitimate reasons (for example, the company going under). What we need is a precedent that rules that the companies need to provide the service for a "reasonable" amount of time.

Good point. Well that's because I used the wrong expression. I mean ways of doing business that maximise profit, because this is what investors are looking for, especially in markets that are past the point of initial "exploration" and expansion and have "stabilised" in the sense that they don't have too much unpredictability in how exactly they work. In this case, it's not the detailed knowledge and specialist understanding of the particulars of a market that's the most powerful tool for profit expansion but generic extra-market techniques (mergers, shrinking labour costs through outsourcing, marketing etc etc). (These are always important of course, but there's a point when they become all-important.) Controlling market exchanges and skimming them as much as possible or even straight out denying you the right to resell what you bought or through forcing you to buy new versions each year are such techniques and you can see them used more and more widely.



But then, I may be completely wrong about this. Don't take it too seriously.
Ah, but Steam shows that you can have extraordinary profits without the kind of assholery EA is pulling. Of course, Steam has its own drawbacks, like not being able to resell your games, but it provides so many good reasons to use it that the impact of not being able to sell your games (like you could sell your used PC games anyway, lol) is a minor negative.
Also, Valve has provided statistics that state that the sales they have provide nice legs and profit boosts for games that are on sale - exactly the problem game companies are trying to fix on consoles.

I absolutely disagree, I think the trend itself is much, much worse than EA's misstep. You are much more dependent in this way on the goodwill of the "service provider" and have less autonomy and economic power, and the result will be more concentration and centralisation of these. Basically, you used to have control over something and now you don't. Video games are just a tiny piece of the entire puzzle, but they are imo representative of where things are going.
Yeah, I was basing that on there being good service providers. Something like Netflix for games would be awesome.
 

Flachmatuch

Member
Dec 22, 2005
3,388
0
0
Ah, but Steam shows that you can have extraordinary profits without the kind of assholery EA is pulling. Of course, Steam has its own drawbacks, like not being able to resell your games, but it provides so many good reasons to use it that the impact of not being able to sell your games (like you could sell your used PC games anyway, lol) is a minor negative.
Also, Valve has provided statistics that state that the sales they have provide nice legs and profit boosts for games that are on sale - exactly the problem game companies are trying to fix on consoles.
Again, this is how it is *now*, while there's still market expansion and competition for market share. Once things stabilise and profits will need to grow through increasing margins, not increasing revenue, this will have to change.

Yeah, I was basing that on there being good service providers. Something like Netflix for games would be awesome.
Well I think the logic of the market will slowly turn these "good" service providers to ones that are only "acceptable" for consumers but are more profitable. My main argument is that past a point of development, the more general rules and pressures of markets override individual advantages that come from understanding the specifics of a particular market and so companies are forced to adopt these generic tools (what I called "rules") to survive. That is what competition does. But again, this is only what I think, I may be totally wrong about everything I said.
 

Tacitus_

Member
Dec 7, 2008
17,977
0
0
Well I think the logic of the market will slowly turn these "good" service providers to ones that are only "acceptable" for consumers but are more profitable. My main argument is that past a point of development, the more general rules and pressures of markets override individual advantages that come from understanding the specifics of a particular market and so companies are forced to adopt these generic tools (what I called "rules") to survive. That is what competition does. But again, this is only what I think, I may be totally wrong about everything I said.
That we shall see. I believe that as long as there will be these "good" service providers providing pressure, some bad practices won't take root. For example, EA tried to do limited redownloads when they first launched their DD service and it failed spectacularly.
Even if the EA mindset somehow becomes the majority, the European Union won't look kindly at anti consumer behaviour if it gets out of hand.
 

Flachmatuch

Member
Dec 22, 2005
3,388
0
0
That we shall see. I believe that as long as there will be these "good" service providers providing pressure, some bad practices won't take root. For example, EA tried to do limited redownloads when they first launched their DD service and it failed spectacularly.
Even if the EA mindset somehow becomes the majority, the European Union won't look kindly at anti consumer behaviour if it gets out of hand.
Yep, we'll see :) I just explained what I think is happening.
 

Flachmatuch

Member
Dec 22, 2005
3,388
0
0
An interesting current issue that is imo somewhat related to this problem and demonstrates the trends I talked about is Kirtsaeng v. John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

"The outcome of the case is expected to be of major importance to the future of the so-called “gray market” for goods — items bought overseas at prices below their level in the U.S., and then returned to the U.S. for resale. The market for such goods runs into the tens of millions of dollars annually. At issue in the newly granted case is a practice of buying college textbooks in their cheaper editions abroad, then bringing them back to sell to students. This is done under the first-sale doctrine, but copyright owners insist that federal law does not allow it."

( http://www.scotusblog.com/?p=143279 )


Regardless of one's opinion on the details of the case, the pressures and interests are pretty obvious imo.
 

I H8 Memes

Member
Jun 19, 2011
11,405
1
0
Again, this is how it is *now*, while there's still market expansion and competition for market share. Once things stabilise and profits will need to grow through increasing margins, not increasing revenue, this will have to change.

You say this as if Steam has to follow the normal rules of corporate assholary. They don't. They are privately owned and are free to run their business however they want. They don't have to show growth like a publicly traded company does. They dont constantly have to chase unrealistic increases of profit. Unlike a publicly traded company, making 10 million dollars of profit 4 years in a row wouldn't be considered a bad thing that devalues their company.
 

Durante

Member
Oct 1, 2006
48,836
1
0
peter.metaclassofnil.com
TBH I don't know. Maybe. I think the pressure to transform what have been products (a form that keeps some exchange value) to services (that is purely use value) is a general, clearly observable trend and obviously something that's good for profit. So I think it's pretty obvious that that's what (large) business wants - and not just in video games. (This is a somewhat silly example, but if electric light was invented today, business would prefer arrangements in which you have to pay for a light *service*, by time used, differentiated by time of day, regardless of actual costs of electricity or the appliance etc. Business has learned a LOT since the time of Edison :) )
I don't know if I agree. The internet (at least as a product for the general consumer) was invented quite recently, and yet methods that sell access based on the actual costs involved (bandwidth) have largely won out over those based on time or transfer volume metering.
 

Flachmatuch

Member
Dec 22, 2005
3,388
0
0
You say this as if Steam has to follow the normal rules of corporate assholary. They don't. They are privately owned and are free to run their business however they want. They don't have to show growth like a publicly traded company does. They dont constantly have to chase unrealistic increases of profit. Unlike a publicly traded company, making 10 million dollars of profit 4 years in a row wouldn't be considered a bad thing that devalues their company.
Maybe not Steam, of course. For example Nintendo is somewhat independent from both hardware manufacturers and third party developers and publishers etc and so they're less dependent on other participants in the market. But DD is something that depends to a large extent on support of a number of large publishers, who will sooner or later be able to either influence Steam's policy or building alternatives and withdrawing from using (and thus supporting) Steam. It's a longer term issue of course, but I don't see how it's avoidable. I mean, Steam itself can stay awesome, but maybe it'll only be selling Valve games but not EA or Activision. It may be bad in the short term for the big publishers, but they have more control in the longer term.


I don't know if I agree. The internet (at least as a product for the general consumer) was invented quite recently, and yet methods that sell access based on the actual costs involved (bandwidth) have largely won out over those based on time or transfer volume metering.

I think this makes sense because you can sell higher level and more costly services under the service model better with this arrangement. Handling the internet as basic infrastructure would make sense, because so many other services depend on it. Also, I'm not sure about this, but aren't mobile phone data plans (which is the direction things seem to be going nowadays) often more volume based?
 

adamsappel

Member
Aug 22, 2005
14,207
0
1,315
53
www.tehbias.com
Love how sites like the Verge simply report that there was an "error" without any of the actual happenings with this situation. Gotta keep that ad money flowing I guess
This is another wide-open door for videogame journalists to prove they are more than just press release recyclers and paid fanboys. Start asking the tough questions, not just "Tell us about your awesome new game!"
 

Flachmatuch

Member
Dec 22, 2005
3,388
0
0
This is another wide-open door for videogame journalists to prove they are more than just press release recyclers and paid fanboys. Start asking the tough questions, not just "Tell us about your awesome new game!"
Games journalism is just pure marketing, nothing else. And it's not just games, quite a bit of non-games journalism is also turning into marketing and PR and "perception management". I just don't think you're supposed to be asking "tough questions" from the people who basically pay your salary :-/ Also...what kinds of "tough questions" should games writers ask? Most of them have no experience in anything concerning journalism, be it writing, critical thinking, analysis (economic or otherwise), and they're not even supposed to have any. How do you even get the experience to understand critical issues and ask critical questions when you're working for IGN or whatever? Who do you learn from, Kieron Gillen? Who do you look up to and emulate? Why would games "journalists" have any idea about "journalism"? It sounds impossible to me, borderline ridiculous in fact. You don't just start asking good questions out of the blue. It takes a lot of time to even learn how to ask them and what to ask - who would you learn this from? Which journalist, which publication?
 

metsallica

Member
Jun 6, 2004
9,639
0
1,320
Back with a carefully-worded twist (that makes all the difference):

"On July 31st, our Rock Band games will no longer be available on the App Store, and you won't be able to purchase songs. Tap for more info."

Just got that via push from Rock Band and Rock Band Reloaded. Cause a mini-kerfuffle and we get to continue playing, just not buying. Was that so hard, EA?
 

Dead Man

Member
Aug 24, 2007
54,266
0
0
Back with a carefully-worded twist (that makes all the difference):

"On July 31st, our Rock Band games will no longer be available on the App Store, and you won't be able to purchase songs. Tap for more info."

Just got that via push from Rock Band and Rock Band Reloaded. Cause a mini-kerfuffle and we get to continue playing, just not buying. Was that so hard, EA?
Yeah, should not have been that complicated.
 

Rapstah

Member
Jul 20, 2009
13,184
0
0
Back with a carefully-worded twist (that makes all the difference):

"On July 31st, our Rock Band games will no longer be available on the App Store, and you won't be able to purchase songs. Tap for more info."

Just got that via push from Rock Band and Rock Band Reloaded. Cause a mini-kerfuffle and we get to continue playing, just not buying. Was that so hard, EA?
No "dear rockers" or "thanks for rocking out with us" this time?