On Fri, Sep 26, 2008 at 3:57 AM, Max Battcher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Bryon Daly wrote: > > ... 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. > > I thought GameStop got out of used PC sales not because of DRM but due to a > falling market at the time. We've had GameStop stores locally drop PC > games > entirely and I'm under the impression that GameStop would have dropped out > nationally if it weren't for a sizeable chunk of Games for Windows > marketing > cash from Microsoft. I don't know if that is entirely true, but I'm > willing > to bet it's not far off the mark... Probably true. But my overall point here was that the nasty DRM fails to stop piracy in any serious way, and the supposed other reason was to stop the secondary sale market. Except that there is no appreciable secondary sale market. What are they actually achieving here? > The remaining issue is that game consoles are locked down and there is no > feasible access to creating your own discs, but CD and DVD duplication on > the PC is easy and cheap... I might be mistaken, but I'm under the impression that someone with a PC can duplicate the console game disks as well. Not everyone with a console will have a PC, but I'd bet a huge hunk do. It wouldn't be quite as easy a process, but I'm betting it's done. > Most modern labyrinthine DRM packages are hacks > to make the PC market more like the console market. On the one hand the > "easy" answer is to switch to sterile computing environments more like > consoles (the "trusted computing" platforms) or to figure out better ways > of > dealing with piracy (potentially including outright ignoring it and > accepting it as a natural loss)... but neither answer is actually "easy" > and no one has a good solution just yet. PCs wouldn't be PCs if pushed > into > the monocultures that trusted computing implies, and no one has very good > ideas that would work across the board when it comes to dissuading pirates > or upselling pirated copies. Stardock seems to be doing quite well with their very minimal DRM. > I take it that it does imply some sort of listening/promotion of gamer > concerns... So maybe it just means "gamers can strongly ask" and > "companies > shall strongly listen", but it's way better than the companies that ignore > polls, public discussions, and sometimes censor free speech on their own > forums to ignore their own problems. The fun part about listening is that > it can lead to sympathizing and who knows where that could lead in some > cases. > Yes, I should have said that I believe they have their heart in the right place as far as the gamer's bill of rights. Any dialog at all is far better than none. It just struck me as funny that the rights were presented more as "it'd be nice to haves". :-) > > This would be great, but I doubt it will ever happen. > > I think it will happen. I figure that at some point a) people are going to > band together and demand there first sale doctrine rights in a court of > law, > or b) some company is going to open up this support, grab a bunch of sales > from happy customers, and goad other companies to follow suit. Yeah, I guess either of those might do it, but again, I see the chance of either of those ever happening and working out as desired is extremely slim. > Unfortunately I don't have a crystal ball, so all of > this is entirely speculation, but I'm of the opinion that you talk about > cool ideas long enough and you never know who will hear or how the ball > will > get rolling... Yes, definitely. I'm just worried there is so much consumer apathy to the issue that EA won't ever have to really listen and respond. -Bryon _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
