Originally posted by: Red Irish
Originally posted by: MStele
2. PC gaming will never die...its distribution system will simply change. DRM won't be a problem once we get rid self-sustained media. Remember, we don't buy games, we license them, so this idea that we somehow have a right to play these games forever is moot. True, we got away with it for 15 years, but laws are laws and it was wrong then, and its wrong now. Games are supported till they aren't. Its all about opportunity costs.
Was this always the case? Did we always purchase a licence rather than a copy? Why shouldn't I be able to play a game for as long as I want? Games are released as buggy ports at high prices and frequently remain unfixed, that's not about opportunity costs, its about selling what you advertised. Laws are laws, but we make them and change them, not the developers.
3. Gamestop sucks. They are anti-PC since they can't resell used games and screw the developers out of their money. Even for console players, gamestop represents a evil force. Developers/producers get zero money from the sale of used games. You want to get rid of a stain on the gaming market, we need to boycott these guys. Babbages rocked, gamestop sucks, and EB somehow got assimilated by gamestop on the way. Gamestop are Borg.
In the absence of a second-hand market, prices will remain higher for longer. To be honest I couldn't care less if the developer/producer sees any money from the second sale, I like to be able to buy games at lower prices. Destroying the second-hand market is, was and will remain the true purpose behind DRM. If, as you say, the developers were able to survive without this newfound source of revenue for 15 years, haven't they simply become greedy? If they have become greedy, they have also proved willing to alienate many previously loyal customers and caused grief by implementing DRM that occasioned a number of rather nasty side-effects on people's systems. Moreover, you would hardly imagine that the world is currently gripped by an economic crisis given the price of new releases.
My replies in bold. Nice first post.
Thanks for the comments. Not really much to add as some of the others have done a good job, but I wanted to say a couple other things about this topic.
2. This was always the case. The Fair Use Act was implemented in response to protect end users from being accused of piracy (we don't own the software) by allowing them to make one backup. Floppy disks were notorious for failing and the fair use act protected the end user from having to purchase replacement media, which was usually about 5-10 percent of the original purchase price. Today, media failure is virtually nonexistent. In my opinion, the day will soon come where we will stop using generic open ended licensing in exchange for set time. For example, when you buy a game you might get a (arbitrary) ten year license, whereas companies like steam will be required to provide downloads for that program for ten years from license issue, assuming the platform is still viable (no Win98, etc). After that, they can stop supporting it. This is the biggest worry against online distribution. The whole "what if i can't get to my games anymore?" argument stems from the currently open ended license agreement.
But you might say, well thats BS. Maybe so, but then again many applications are sold with one year licensing, as are most corporate applications, which are renewed annually. Its only gaming that hasn't come full circle yet. Consider us spoiled.
3. Commercially, the used game market hurts sales more than piracy. When a game is first released, it will sell X units from the start, which is usually based on hype and the fanbase, but after the first month or so sales drop fast. This is will all media types. The problem is, most companies rely on residual profit to pay for other games. Take GTAIV for example. In the first month they sold alot of games, no worries there. Rockstar did pretty good financially as did their partners. But after that, gamestop was selling maybe 1 new for every 2 or 3 used, yet for the used the developer gets nothing. So, whereas they would have still sold three (used games aren't that much cheaper at first), those 3 games would have benefitted the industry. But gametop pockets all teh profits from the used games, and Rockstar loses out on much potential profit. That is why console games cost 10 dollars more than PC games. That extra money pays for the loss. This is the sole reason why Gamestop doesn't like pc games. Its not that they don't sell...PC games sell consistantly....its just that it doesn't fit their business model. Gamestop wouldn't even stock them if Microsoft wasn't pushing so much for it. Best Buy sells tons of PC games. The idea that they don't sell is BS. Noone buys PC games from gamstop because they used to open and gut the boxes to stop shoplifting, and I will NEVER buy a PC game with the seal broken. Codes are too easily stolen. It isn't about newfound revenue, its about actually having the power to stop something thats been going on for many many years.
As for the price of games, your right the price might stay higher longer, but then again they might not. All games usually come down to a $19.99 price point sooner or later. Remember this isn't greed, its business. Gaming is a hobby, and to get the best support for our hobby, we need to give incentives. DRM might seem like a bad thing, but its somewhat new and will have growing pains.
Have a good day
Facebook
Twitter