DISCLAIMER: I am certainly not the only asshole in the world... which only goes to say I am not the only asshole spewing shit allover the place. But at least my shit is controlled shit, only messing up the shoes of people wanting to step in it. So fuck you and your shoes. You walked in here.
---------------------------------
This is the first time I'm actually going to connect my disclaimer to what I'm talking about today. It is true. I do spew a lot of crap, though mostly in the form of offensive stories and such, but sometimes I actually look at the world and wonder if the crap I spew is museum worthy art in comparison to some.
Let's take into account Exhibit A. (It is my only exhibit, so I don't know why I said it like that...)
http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2010/09/10/09-35969.pdf
((NOTE: TO READ THE ABOVE YOU NEED ADOBE READER. IT IS A FREE DOWNLOAD.))
Now, I'm not going to bore you, unless you really want to read through all twenty-five pages of lunacy they've passed through law, but here is the skinny. Some dude bought a disc containing a program, after a while, he realized he didn't use it ever and re-sold the program on eBay. The company who made the program saw his re-sale and they sued him and lost.
Basically, their argument was that he was only given a license to USE the program. His resale of said program denied them their rights as owners of the original progam to make a profit on their program. They state that unlike second-hand clothing and such, the only thing he actually owned was the disc it was printed on, not the program inside. They owned patents and copyrights on every part of the program, and therefore it is illegal for him to profit off of it.
They lost the suit, so they didn't get money for the ordeal... but it put into motion an appeal on copyright and patent law that states that it IS, in fact, illegal to re-sell any media products. The appeal was posted in June, and AGREED UPON on September 10th. Meaning from now on, you can't re-sell any of your video games, movies or music that you bought. You don't like it? Fuck you. You bought it.
So, from here on out there will be problems occurring. It takes the United States about two years to cause a new law to be enforced. So Gamestop and eBay have about a year and a half of free time to do what they want, but they'll probably start cracking down earlier than that. This does mean that both eBay and Gamestop (and other second hand media outlets) will lose a LOT of their business. For Gamestop this means a loss of 43% of its profits.
(NOTE: I understand that it sucks... but think like this: Halo: Reach just came out and is selling at $59. Someone sells it back because it's the same shitty ass game every other Halo is, just shinier, and gets back $35. Gamestop sells the brand new product for $55 because it's used. Someone comes into the store and contemplates the game, then sees the one for five bucks off. Bungie loses ALL THE PROFITS OF A BRAND NEW GAME, and Gamestop just made $20 in pure profit. Bungie has every right to claim foul over this.)
(CONTINUED NOTE: The best part is that a group of lawyers thought about making a "Profit Sharing" program where Gamestop would send companies 25% of the profits them make off of their games, to serve as a licensing fee... Gamestop said "NO! FUCK YOU, GAME COMPANIES! WE SELL YOUR SHIT AND YOU GIVE US NOTHING TO DO SO! WE WILL RE-SELL YOUR SHIT AND MAKE OUR PROFITS THAT WAY!" Again, sound logic... until now.)
(CONTINUED NOTE: After that debacle, game companies started adding in a way to gain five bucks back from used sales by LOCKING online capability unless you have an internet code for it. This was a great idea, but apparently they were just buying time until this bill passed.)
WHAT THIS MEANS FOR THE REST OF US!
Not only does this work on video games, but you cannot re-sell movies or music anymore, either. If you bought the CD, only liked one song on it, and decided you want to put it on eBay? NOPE. If you bought a movie you saw a few years back, but didn't really remember that it sucked and nostalgia was just playing games with you, and decided you want to sell it to Amazon.com? NO WAY, JOSE!
I am a fan of the video game industry under normal circumstances. I am one of those weirdos that agree with them that the games are an interactive art form. But damn you, Game Industry. You guys are assholes. Now I can't re-sell my N*Sync collection! Wait... did I say that out loud?
I think you're misdirecting your anger on this issue. The game industry was not involved with this directly; the software in question from the case you cite is AutoCAD, a design software intended for engineers. The person had purchased copies of AutoCAD from an architect's office and proceeded to resell the software on eBay. This action is what sparked the developer to sue the individual. The court upheld the individual's right to sell the software, but then the developer appealed the decision, which was then reversed some time last week. As a result of the wide range that this ruling encompasses, this trickles down into all digital content, thereby involving video game software as well.
ReplyDeleteA lot of people working in the game industry don't mind used game sales that strongly (I'm one of them). While it does cut into sales on some level, the concept is not new and it could cut much deeper. If anything, I would be flattered that someone cared enough to purchase a game that I worked on on any level, new or used.
Now, pulling a DLC purchase for something that is already on the physical disc itself...that is something worth raging over from select individuals of the game industry (read: business executives). But for this issue? I wouldn't place my anger over the game industry on this one; they were merely pulled into this ongoing battle.
Note: I agree having to pay for something already on the disc is frustrating. But only if I was the initial purchaser of said product. If they locked it out so that they could gain a profit off of used sales, I'm ok with it.
ReplyDeleteTake into account THQ's idea in UFC. When you buy the game brand new, they give you a code to unlock the online services of the game. It's already on the disc, and you're using their servers. You paid THEM for the game, and therefore they have given you license to use their servers.
BUT, when someone has bought the game used, they didn't pay THQ for the use of their servers. Therefore I agree with THQ for making them pay $10 to get the usage of the online capabilities.
I DON'T AGREE, however, with what EA has done with a bunch of their games. Apparently, they've already put ON THE DISC time-unlocked product (such as map packs in Battlefield: Bad Company 2) that if you bought the game, you get a code to unlock. This is product that ANYONE WITH THE GAME already owns, and does not need EA's servers to use. Yet EA has made it so that you can't unlock this without the initial code, and therefore you have to BUY the code for $5.
On a seperate note, though many independent game makers would be proud of their product being bought by anyone... you have to understand that the COMPANY thrives off of the product, and not making any money at all is not a fair trade.
ReplyDeleteHence why I agreed with the initial profit sharing idea the game companies tried to pass onto Gamestop (and other used game companies).
I understand that the margin of profit loss on the game company's side isn't as offset as it may sound, but you are re-selling a license that isn't exactly yours to sell. Hence this ruling in the first place.
Very true. Especially in the case of AutoCAD, where each individual license normally retails at US$4000, you can imagine why Autodesk might be a little miffed about someone else re-selling one of their licenses (let alone the fact that AutoCAD is a professional tool intended for use in the work field).
ReplyDelete