Looks like you don't get to own your games anymore.

[paperfist]

I think since my copy of a game is worthless to me since I don't own it they should start costing $1.

I guess we still have the Supreme Court to fall back on...

 

[Powermoloch]

I'm not a huge fan with DLC and steam. Just thinking that all of my games being in some server miles away gives me the creeps.

As for me being a deal finder. I usually buy games in the 5-10 dollar range. Never at full price when its released and I avoided titles with steam/GFWL :thumbsup:. I just hate the idea having my saves or requiring to play single player games online (a whole different issue altogether).

I like my physical media, as long I can use them for my pure enjoyment (pop in the disc and play). I would have no problems what ever their doing...until they drive me crazy with DRM problems :thumbsdown:

 

[Jumpem]

I think since my copy of a game is worthless to me since I don't own it they should start costing $1.

I guess we still have the Supreme Court to fall back on...

$50 a license isn't a bad price. Some software licenses cost $30-40k and you don't own them outright either.

 

[paperfist]

$50 a license isn't a bad price. Some software licenses cost $30-40k and you don't own them outright either.

Yeah I know, but I'm not buying into the philosophy of it being okay. Others have pointed out that a car for example you own. What's the difference? One is physical and the other digital, but why should I not own what I just purchased? I didn't intend to rent it, lease it or borrow it. I paid $50-60 to own it as my own.

They should stop called it a purchase if this case is going to stick and just call it what it actually is a rental.

 

[RavenSEAL]

Ok...so...if i buy a game/software...I can't do shit with it after i no longer want to use it because some judges in california got paid underneath the table by ass-o-holic corporate giants? This country is now officially going down hill, next thing you know, you won't be able to resell cars or even houses. WTF is happening to common sense and logic? Are corporations really that far up our governments ass right now? Sorry for the cursing, but this just grind my gears.

 

[wirednuts]

im torn between buying steam games and the real discs. on one side, you can resell discs and you know the physical media will always work (unless the game needs online activation every time to even play single player, in which case i dont buy those games). on the other hand, steam games are harder to lose and the convenience is incredible (reformat os and still have saved games in tact).

so basically, right now i just buy the sports games and such on physical media because i know ill be reselling it at the end of the year. but if this law is upheld then there is hardly any reason to buy physical media, which is sad.

ive said it all along. sell on physical media, dont put anything but basic drm on it (generic cd checks), and include some collectible memorabilia inside the package to convince people to buy the real product. add that with good multiplayer modes (where you must have a valid product key to play) and it is PLENTY to get people to buy.

 

[RavenSEAL]

im torn between buying steam games and the real discs. on one side, you can resell discs and you know the physical media will always work (unless the game needs online activation every time to even play single player, in which case i dont buy those games). on the other hand, steam games are harder to lose and the convenience is incredible (reformat os and still have saved games in tact).

so basically, right now i just buy the sports games and such on physical media because i know ill be reselling it at the end of the year. but if this law is upheld then there is hardly any reason to buy physical media, which is sad.

ive said it all along. sell on physical media, dont put anything but basic drm on it (generic cd checks), and include some collectible memorabilia inside the package to convince people to buy the real product. add that with good multiplayer modes (where you must have a valid product key to play) and it is PLENTY to get people to buy.

Isn't that what they already do....?

 

[Sho'Nuff]

Yeah I know, but I'm not buying into the philosophy of it being okay. Others have pointed out that a car for example you own. What's the difference? One is physical and the other digital, but why should I not own what I just purchased? I didn't intend to rent it, lease it or borrow it. I paid $50-60 to own it as my own.

They should stop called it a purchase if this case is going to stick and just call it what it actually is a rental.

The difference is that with software, the bargain is for a license and not for outright ownership. If you bought a single user "license" to use a car, and not the car itself, would there be any question that you could not "resell" the car? You can't sell what you do not own. Another clear example is a rental apartment. You pay to have physical possession of the property, to occupy it, and to use it, but you do not own it (and therefore cannot sell the property). The lease might be transferable, sure. But the leaseholder cannot transfer more than he has.

I'm surprise that a fundamental concept of property law, i.e., the "bundle of sticks" (meaning that there are several distinct rights in property) is not more well known. That concept is at the core of the English (and American) system of property, and originated almost 800 or 900 years ago.

Also, if you want to own all the rights in a piece of software, I'm sure that you could negotiate a price that the publisher would be willing to accept. I'm also sure that it would be higher than the list price of most software titles.

 

[LumbergTech]

No longer matters to me.
I just got fucked over with Wings of Prey. And Starcraft 2 was fun but its not really a new game and sure as hell wasnt worth 60 bucks.

I dont think I'll be buying games ever again. Which means I really dont need Windows. So from now on its Linux and open source software for me. Good luck to everyone else in this mad world of customer butt-fucking. Maybe one day many years from now, things will turn around and be good again.

I don't mean anything personal by this but you seem to be perpetually pissed off about games. Maybe it is better that you just quit as you are saying.

 

[ImpulsE69]

90% of the console/pc software I buy is used. We knew this was coming, I really detest DLC due to it is the beginning of all this and disguised as "convenience". Most of the time the price is the same (unless there are sales). Screw em, I'll just pirate everything. Sooner or later they'll either have to throw everyone in jail, quit making anything at all, or someone will come to their senses. Or we wait another 20 years while the old regime dies off.

 

[BoberFett]

The difference is that with software, the bargain is for a license and not for outright ownership. If you bought a single user "license" to use a car, and not the car itself, would their be any question that you could not "resell" the car? You can't sell what you do not own. Another clear example is a rental apartment. You pay to have physical possession of the property, to occupy it, and to use it, but you do not own it (and therefore cannot sell the property). The lease might be transferable, sure. But the leaseholder cannot transfer more than he has.

I'm surprise that a fundamental concept of property law, i.e., the "bundle of sticks" (meaning that there are several distinct rights in property) is not more well known. That concept is at the core of the English (and American) system of property, and originated almost 800 or 900 years ago.

Also, if you want to own all the rights in a piece of software, I'm sure that you could negotiate a price that the publisher would be willing to accept. I'm also sure that it would be higher than the list price of most software titles.

Cars are full of computers running a massive amount of software nowadays. Would you really be surprised if buried in that huge packet of crap you sign when you purchase a new car if a license agreement snuck in?

The idea would not be for the car manufacturers to prevent second-hand sales. Their goal is to get a chunk of the cash every time it happens. Sell your car? The new owner needs to pay the manufacturer a license in order to use it. At first it will be slipped in as a whiz-bang "security feature" that uses fingerprint ID to start the car. They'll do an update for free at first, just to get the public used to the feature, but eventually it will start costing quite a bit of money.

It will happen. It's what companies do, try to squeeze their customers for every penny. And when they've done that, they try to squeeze money out of people who aren't their customers.

 

[MagickMan]

Lets say I buy a Dell laptop, use it for a year and then decide to sell it. If I wipe the hard drive and re-install the original OS, it would be illegal to sell due to this ruling?

That is correct, if MS goes to this, you can only sell it sans the OS.

 

[WhipperSnapper]

Maybe we'll all end up playing classic FPS games and open source games. Perhaps the gaming industry will commit suicide with draconian restrictions.

 

[spinejam]

Hypothetically speaking, I still prefer retail boxed games b/c of the possibility that Steam could go bankrupt someday or be acquired by another company and screw everyone!

 

[Craig234]

90% of the console/pc software I buy is used. We knew this was coming, I really detest DLC due to it is the beginning of all this and disguised as "convenience". Most of the time the price is the same (unless there are sales). Screw em, I'll just pirate everything. Sooner or later they'll either have to throw everyone in jail, quit making anything at all, or someone will come to their senses. Or we wait another 20 years while the old regime dies off.

You have an ignorant, irresponsible attitude. Creating games costs money, and they need to be compensated to make them. Don't compensate them - your approach - no games.

I'd feel bad about buying a used game, in that I'm enjoying a game and want to support it being made, and buying it used gives zero directly to those who made it.

The fact you say you will pirate makes you a thief, it's simple, who would hurt the industry.

 

[Wyndru]

They could go bankrupt, or just decide to shutdown the Steam service because it's no longer profitable.

That would suck if steam ever went offline for good. I've never looked in the steam client options, but is there a way to make a local back-up of a game, then restore it off of a disc on another computer not connected to the inet?

I figure you could just copy the game data folders, but I don't know if there are reg hooks that it needs or not.

 

[BoberFett]

You have an ignorant, irresponsible attitude. Creating games costs money, and they need to be compensated to make them. Don't compensate them - your approach - no games.

I'd feel bad about buying a used game, in that I'm enjoying a game and want to support it being made, and buying it used gives zero directly to those who made it.

The fact you say you will pirate makes you a thief, it's simple, who would hurt the industry.

Oh look, Big Copyright's biggest tool has joined the conversation.

I thought you were against accumulation of wealth? Oh, I guess you're just a lying idiot.

 

[Ross Ridge]

That would suck if steam ever went offline for good. I've never looked in the steam client options, but is there a way to make a local back-up of a game, then restore it off of a disc on another computer not connected to the inet?

No, the best you can do is what was mentioned earlier in this thread. Before Steam goes offline permantly (for whatever reason), put all your games in "offline mode". This means Steam won't require an Internet connection for you to play the game, but the game is locked down to your computer. Steam's copy protection will prevent these games from working if you copy them to another computer, regardless of whether that computer is connected to the Internet or not.

 

[HumblePie]

Going to say this now, the "ease of copying" argument is retarded. Who cares how easy it is to copy something? I can buy a hardback book and copy it by hand, or by xerox and still get to have a copy and resell the original. The fact of how easy it is to copy has nothing to do with legallity. Any copyright material can be copied, which is why we have copyright laws.

The thing is this law should be universal or not. It either works for everything or not. Previous ruling have stated you could not sell a "license agreement" to a consumer without a signature and possibly a witness. Click throughs and shring wrap licenses have not held up in courts for consumers until now. This is a major blow to the average consumer. At this point ANYTHING could have a label on it that says "you are buying a license to use and not resale." Clothing, books, cars, and whatever else you want to name. That's why this ruling is so fucking stupid.

I agree that if you SIGN a license agreement you must follow through the contractual accord that your signed. That is completely different.

Sure, some people will say that everyone will then just switch to using competitors who do not follow this practice and the "Fair Market" will balance it all out. I call that bullshit. The market has never been fair. Too many markets are monopolies or close to them, such as computer CPUs and operating systems for examples. Those that are not tend to get into collusion way to often such as the gas&oil companies, computer memory companies, and even automobile companies. They have all done it at one point and many still are. You get a few big companies trying this and everyone will follow suit. Trust me.

Take textbooks for example. A couple of big textbook companies (of which there really isn't many of them) all decide that they don't want college textbooks to be resold since it is eating into their profits. Well, what the hell do poor college kids do? Break the law and try to resell their books? There isn't a whole of choices that college kids can make when it comes to textbook offerings for their classes. They are sort of "captive" consumer by definition. Sure many college student will break the law if this were to happen, but any more would have their lives ruined over it. All because we lost a freedom we all once had.

This ruling is bat shit insane to use a meme.

 

[BlueWeasel]

I'd feel bad about buying a used game, in that I'm enjoying a game and want to support it being made, and buying it used gives zero directly to those who made it.

That's exactly why I only buy new cars and new houses. Buying used gives zero directly to those who made it.

 

[ImpulsE69]

You have an ignorant, irresponsible attitude. Creating games costs money, and they need to be compensated to make them. Don't compensate them - your approach - no games.

I'd feel bad about buying a used game, in that I'm enjoying a game and want to support it being made, and buying it used gives zero directly to those who made it.

The fact you say you will pirate makes you a thief, it's simple, who would hurt the industry.

No, you sir are the one who is ignorant. It's called capitalism. If I spend MY money on an item, regardless of what it is, I should have the RIGHT to keep it, give it to someone else, or sell it because I no longer want it. PERIOD. What YOU want, is a society where because you think your item is worth X, someone buys it, they are stuck with it(or just throw it away). That way another person who wants it has to spend what the "companies" think it's worth. This isn't a what "companies" think it's worth world. It's what the CONSUMER thinks it's worth world.

If I spend $60 taking a chance on a game(for instance) and I don't care for it, who's fault is that? The developers, the corporations, the retailer or the end buyer? Lemme guess, you say end buyer. So if the end buyer is to blame, and can't sell it to someone else, then the end buyers only option is to NOT BUY in the first place. So then you STILL don't get your money. See the circle we have here. It's greed plain and simple. Value is Value to the customer, not to the developers or the companies who rape them. Just because retail is $60 doesn't mean that the customers think it's worth $60. This is why so many games end up in the $10 bin. (Oh I wait I get those too...guess I'm a bad bad person ).

It all boils down to the companies trying to dictate what they think an item is worth. That is not how it works. They can try all they want, and sure some ppl will buy, but eventually they'll have to drop the price if they want to sell. Once you tell someone they can't get rid of it to recoup some of the money they spent, even fewer will buy. It's really a simple concept.

*disclaimer I'm sure I'll need: oh yea..obviously this does not apply to ALL items. We all know some things are better than others, thus increasing their "value" to the end buyer.

Sorry..this rant ended up longer than I intended...

 

[Dankk]

That would suck if steam ever went offline for good.

For all of the people who are worrying about this:

I think Valve said, in the event that Steam has to shut down (which, based on it's success, I'm not sure why it would... thermonuclear war maybe?), all of your games will become unlocked so the steam client is no longer necessary for running them. I would imagine they'd become 100% copyable too although I'm not so sure about that part.

I'm too lazy to find a source, but if someone can back me up or correct me then go ahead.

 

[smackababy]

For all of the people who are worrying about this:

I think Valve said, in the event that Steam has to shut down (which, based on it's success, I'm not sure why it would... thermonuclear war maybe?), all of your games will become unlocked so the steam client is no longer necessary for running them. I would imagine they'd become 100% copyable too although I'm not so sure about that part.

I'm too lazy to find a source, but if someone can back me up or correct me then go ahead.

As much as I like Valve as a company and believe they are sincere in those statements; I am more likely to believe in the event they company has a financial meltdown and has to stop offering said services, patching every game would not be on the top of their minds.

 

[Rakewell]

The difference between software & your used car, solid property, etc., is that software does not have depreciation.

When a consumer sees a new car, and a used car, there is incentive to buy new.

When a consumer is faced with the choice of identical software, he is going to pick the cheapest.

People, software companies need to make money, too.

 

[BoberFett]

The difference between software & your used car, solid property, etc., is that software does not have depreciation.

When a consumer sees a new car, and a used car, there is incentive to buy new.

When a consumer is faced with the choice of identical software, he is going to pick the cheapest.

People, software companies need to make money, too.

So then nobody should be allowed to sell an item that they never used or is like new? There are lots of things that don't change with use. What about jewelry? That diamond didn't change while it being worn, should someone be allowed to resell it? Think of the poor diamond cartel!