On Thu, Sep 25, 2008 at 1:11 AM, Max Battcher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On a side note however, I've been arguing that killing the current > trade-in market (albeit preferably via DDNs rather than draconian DRM) will > benefit gaming in the long run because the only remaining game-targeted > retailer (GameStop) has degenerated into not much more than a pawn shop. > You can't count on GameStop today to have a new copy of a game any more > than > 2 months old, much less 2 years, and because of that you can barely count > on > other retailers to have anything more in stock. GameStop has started to > focus their stock of new games on games that are more likely to come back > (be resold), and thus has perpetuated and exacerbated a "mainstream > accessible contemporary hits only" mentality in gaming. > That's true - GameStop is a repository of all sorts of IMHO unsavory practices, many of which revolve around the whole "pawn shop" mentality. Penny Arcade regularly complains about the whole "we only stock enough to meet the preorders" absurdity. And I really wouldn't shed a tear for Gamestop if it went away: I'm mainly a PC gamer, and Gamestop hardly carries PC games now, so I've long ago moved to Amazon and DDNs for my purchases. But here's more wierdness: according to this article http://www.gamespot.com/news/6136091.html, GameStop stopped doing *any* used PC game trade-in business back in 2005. The used game market is almost entirely for console-based games, not PC games. So why, then, is the trade-in killing DRM targetted only at PC games? AFAIK, the Xbox 360 versions of Mass Effect and Bioshock are not saddled with the activation/install limits. > Has anyone ever seen a bookstore that had a used bookstore in the back and > modified what it stocked up front based upon how many copies it had of the > same book in used form in the back? It's absolutely bizarre... Agreed. Without any serious B&M retail competition, they can apparently get away with that, at least until more people start shopping online. > There is absolutely something to be said for always having the > latest updates and having someone host an always available backup from a > DDN... I have no problem using a DDN and at this point basically prefer > it. In some ways, I do, too. Except I find it galling that I cannot trade/sell/gift/donate games purchsed that way. Not that I've ever actually traded a game in or have much desire to. But the way it takes away our fair use rights under the first sale doctrine. (FYI for anyone not familiar: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-sale_doctrine). I see the assult on used software as a slippery slope to attacks on used music/dvd resale and then eventually books. I already regularly see people assuming that they only have a "license" to listen to the music on the CD they bought, and do not actually own it. > I still think that the DDNs could provide more features, though. I like > Gas-Powered/Stardock's Gamer's Bill of Rights and think it is certainly a > start, but there are other things that would be nice to see. I like it too, as a nice start. But it's realy pretty wishy-washy on its wording for many of the rights it lists: Several listed rights say "Gamers have a right to demand <xxxx>". This is NOT the same as saying "Gamers have a right to <xxxx>". All it boils down to is that we're allowed to *strongly ask* for <xxxx>. Gee thanks! > For instance, > I think the DDNs could promote healthy sorts of resale/trade-in. Yes, I noticed this was glaringly missing from the Gamer's Bill of Rights when I first saw it. > Right now, > I can let my brother play my Steam games by letting him borrow my login > information (at my own risk, admittedly), but it would be nice if I could > simply from Steam "Loan these games to Steam friend x" or "Give these games > to Steam friend y". Adding in simple arbitration for game trades could be > cool and it would be simple from there to create an after-market for game > trading and even use that to put extra money into the pockets of the > DEVELOPERS, rather than, say, the GameStop Pawn Shop empire. This would be great, but I doubt it will ever happen. > Mass Effect probably wouldn't have had as bad DRM if it weren't for EA > buying Bioware/Pandemic. Score one more for nearly a monoculture in > publishing and EA's weird love affair with DRM right now. I got Mass > Effect > for the 360. At the moment I'm favoring 360 purchases over PC purchases, > for a variety of reasons, including not having to worry about DRM. > Yes, I largely blame EA, another rather all-around repugnant company. On Thu, Sep 25, 2008 at 3:48 AM, Charlie Bell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote: > On 25/09/2008, at 10:51 AM, Bryon Daly wrote: > > I was planning on buying Spore, but the "only 3 installations for a > > game you > > purchased" deal is where I've drawn my line in the DRM sand. > > They've binned that policy now. No, not really. All they did really was bump up the limit to 5 installs. This comic http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/comics/stolen-pixels/5243-Stolen-Pixels-21-A-Heartwarming-Reconciliation is over the top, but the accompanying text captures my sentiments. On Thu, Sep 25, 2008 at 11:08 AM, Alberto Monteiro <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > wrote: > So, the ethical and logical thing to do is to buy the official > game, and then buy the pirated version, as if this was an > enhancement :-) > Yeah, some people do that. And then EA says to itself: 1) "See, people don't care about the nasty DRM since they are still buying the game". 2) "Look at all these people pirating our game on the torrents!!!! We need stronger DRM! We obviously won't lose sales as proven by #1! _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
