Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Go **** yourself THQ
Options
Comments
-
Join Date:Posts: 50004
As for the legal side of things, well you could argue that because you're only buying a licence to play the game you don't have the legal right to transfer it to a third party. If you did then why isn't there more objections to the inability to sell on Steam games or accounts? The only thing stopping you, apart from the technical side on the games front, is the EULA which is also what controls the transfer of licences for physical copies.
EDIT: With regard to the (non-legal) claim of the publisher to the second hand sale, if one doesn't believe in this then how can one argue in favour of the online pass which allows them to recoup some of the losses from said sale?
Note, I'm playing devil's advocate here, I've already stated people should be free to pass on their games however they wish.
Well I'm going by US law here but I'm pretty sure EU and maybe Irish law covers it as well. The First Sale Doctrine pretty much says that if you have a legal copy of a copyrighted work that you have bought you are free to sell it on as you see fit and the original copyright owner has no right to profit from it. Also EULA's are very flaky and usually don't stand up in court, only in a few cases have they stood up in US court and only in certain states. Outside of the US they aren't legally binding in many countries including Europe.
As for digital copies, well you can sell your account if you want. You might get banned from the service because this is the service holders right since they own the service.
As for an online pass, usually they don't lock you out of the entire game and you get some DLC in return. Either that or you are paying for the use of the companies servers for online play. I'm totally against online passes but I think it's a far better alternative to this.
Also about your note, don't worry, it's been one of the more interesting debates that's been on the forum in a while.
0 -
To be honest we had a great clash of opinions here, but so far no blood, no bans and no forks in eyes. I am impressed.
It would be interesting night in a pub with you lads!
Well, only time will show how will they fight this second hand market. In the end of the day, we can all vote with our wallets.0 -
im surprised this thread blew up like it did , but im well used to posting these situations on boards cause its best to show what these companies are up to like this thread i posted few months ago
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=72624516
everyone entitled to an opinion but i hope the situation can be resolved in a respected manner without the consumers paying for the mistakes of others cause in all fairness its our hobby that we enjoy 0 -
-
-
Advertisement
-
Does First Sale Doctrine apply to the retailers who then resell it to someone else though? This is where I draw a distinction of course, legal or otherwise. While I believe the owner should be able to sell it on to someone else, should a retailer then be able to sell it on again? There was a case awhile back of a guy reselling Adobe licences on eBay which they obviously didn't like but following the lawsuit, he was found to be in the right. Not sure if it would apply here given that he wasn't necessarily operating a company, if even matters of course.Retr0gamer wrote: »Well I'm going by US law here but I'm pretty sure EU and maybe Irish law covers it as well. The First Sale Doctrine pretty much says that if you have a legal copy of a copyrighted work that you have bought you are free to sell it on as you see fit and the original copyright owner has no right to profit from it. Also EULA's are very flaky and usually don't stand up in court, only in a few cases have they stood up in US court and only in certain states. Outside of the US they aren't legally binding in many countries including Europe.
As for EULAs, I'm aware of their flakiness in legal terms, mainly due to laws in different regions. What has always baffled me is that if they're so unenforceable, why are they even included in the first place?
While the account situation is covered by the fact that the service is privately owned, it still doesn't explain the games available on it which you've bought.Retr0gamer wrote: »As for digital copies, well you can sell your account if you want. You might get banned from the service because this is the service holders right since they own the service.
Hmm, so I assume you'd be against the idea of a one time CD key which links to your account and which would then need to be repurchased for a second hand user? Ignoring the technical issues of needing to be online to do so of course.Retr0gamer wrote: »As for an online pass, usually they don't lock you out of the entire game and you get some DLC in return. Either that or you are paying for the use of the companies servers for online play. I'm totally against online passes but I think it's a far better alternative to this. 0 -
Join Date:Posts: 50004
Does First Sale Doctrine apply to the retailers who then resell it to someone else though? This is where I draw a distinction of course, legal or otherwise. While I believe the owner should be able to sell it on to someone else, should a retailer then be able to sell it on again? There was a case awhile back of a guy reselling Adobe licences on eBay which they obviously didn't like but following the lawsuit, he was found to be in the right. Not sure if it would apply here given that he wasn't necessarily operating a company, if even matters of course.
Yes it applies to retailers as well. As for the guy selling adobe licenses well he hadn't agreed to any EULA and they hadn't been used so he was well within his rights. It wasn't really selling a second hand item, although it's a bit of a grey areaAs for EULAs, I'm aware of their flakiness in legal terms, mainly due to laws in different regions. What has always baffled me is that if they're so unenforceable, why are they even included in the first place?
Unfortunately until recently EULA breaches were laughed out of court but with this current war for copyright and what can only be some backroom dealings a few court cases have gone against the person who breached the EULA. They are totally not legally binding in Europe however.While the account situation is covered by the fact that the service is privately owned, it still doesn't explain the games available on it which you've bought.
This is the reason companies love DRM and digital download services because they have much greater control of copyright and it's slowly eroding away the First Sale Doctrine. It's an area that sin't covered by the First Sale Doctrine and a part of US law that really needs to be amended to take into account modern advances.Hmm, so I assume you'd be against the idea of a one time CD key which links to your account and which would then need to be repurchased for a second hand user? Ignoring the technical issues of needing to be online to do so of course.
Totally against it but until now it wasn't much of an issue since it was easy to circumvent. I know it's already happened but doesn't mean I'm happy about it.
0 -
Well one could possibly argue that since Steam purchased games carry with them many service related perks, such as the ability to redownload titles and avail of cloud services in particular, that the same logic enabling them to ban your account due to it being a private network could apply to games purchased on it?Retr0gamer wrote: »This is the reason companies love DRM and digital download services because they have much greater control of copyright and it's slowly eroding away the First Sale Doctrine. It's an area that sin't covered by the First Sale Doctrine and a part of US law that really needs to be amended to take into account modern advances.
On a similar note to what we were discussing awhile back, there's an interesting interview on Eurogamer with Big Huge Games about the possibility of a sequel to Kingdoms of Amalur. It kind of ties in with what I was saying about how sales can affect the developers because of what they represent to the publisher. Specifically..."It comes down to units sold at the end of the day, but it's complicated," he said. "If the game doesn't sell that many copies but the critical reception is really good, then our publisher might be like, well, it was the first in a new franchise, we're going to take a bet and sign you up for another one. If the sales are really good you're pretty much set no matter what. There's a pretty big sliding scale there.
"There's that invisible line where, you sold enough to justify getting a sequel or another project, but not quite enough to get a great budget for it. So it's like, oh now how are we going to pull it off? "That's the scary zone. That's what you don't want. It's almost better to flop and go out of business than to have to pull something out of your ass and make it happen.
Second hand sales would, of course, not count towards any of these metrics. 0 -
Join Date:Posts: 50004
Yes but then again how do we know second hands sales are really affecting the amount of new game sales? I'd put money on it not affecting it much.
Also publishers need to look at new ways of promoting new IP. I think EA were very clever with Kingdoms of Amalur, most other companies would have sent it out to die. EA have also had great success with the Dead Space franchise.The first game had mediocre reviews and was a bit of a flop but good word of mouth, a lot of which can be attributed to second hand sales meant that EA had a massive hit on their hands with the sequel. I also hear that Mirrors Edge is getting a sequel, another game that suffered a similar faith to Dead Space. Publishers should realise that new IP is hard to establish and that sometimes you can make a successful sequel out of a game that flopped but yet people loved. I'm pretty sure Mirrors Edge and Dead Space wouldn't have gotten sequels green lit if the game hadn't reached more people through second hand sales. Second hand sales can be advantageous.
0 -
Well again we don't know by how much, but I think it's quite clear that they are being affected. Like piracy, I don't think it's accurate to say every used game sold equates to a lost new sale but similiarly there's still a fairly large chunk which would be converted. One could also argue that the ability to sell your old games is what finances the purchase of new games but again, I'd imagine that if you weighed each eventuality up, you're still looking at a net loss of new sales which can have the damaging effects mentioned above.Retr0gamer wrote: »Yes but then again how do we know second hands sales are really affecting the amount of new game sales? I'd put money on it not affecting it much.
Well there's two points here. Firstly, I totally agree that we need to see some new ways of promoting IP. Traditional media promotion has proven to be outrageously expensive (and can take up a chunk of the budget for a new game) so I think it's a great idea that publishers are leveraging their existing assets in order to get the word out. Of course, there is a downside to this too. In order to then promote the promotions on the likes of Facebook we're seeing unlockable content in-game becoming available which people have already shown disdain for around the web.Retr0gamer wrote: »Also publishers need to look at new ways of promoting new IP. I think EA were very clever with Kingdoms of Amalur, most other companies would have sent it out to die. EA have also had great success with the Dead Space franchise.The first game had mediocre reviews and was a bit of a flop but good word of mouth, a lot of which can be attributed to second hand sales meant that EA had a massive hit on their hands with the sequel. I also hear that Mirrors Edge is getting a sequel, another game that suffered a similar faith to Dead Space. Publishers should realise that new IP is hard to establish and that sometimes you can make a successful sequel out of a game that flopped but yet people loved. I'm pretty sure Mirrors Edge and Dead Space wouldn't have gotten sequels green lit if the game hadn't reached more people through second hand sales. Second hand sales can be advantageous.
As for Dead Space and Mirrors Edge, I disagree on why they became successful. Firstly, Dead Space received solid to great reviews from most places I had read, I can't remember seeing any mediocre reviews (relatively speaking) outside of a 7/10 from Eurogamer. Mirrors Edge had a far more polarising effect on people however, with reviews being all over the place. Personally I ****ing loved the game and had it pre-ordered based on the gameplay trailers shown before launch. Needless to say they didn't disappoint in offering an experience totally unlike anything I had seen at that point. Now, why do I think they were really successful? The price drop of course, and what a price drop it was. To date, I don't think I've seen any AAA game from a major developer plummet in price faster than Mirrors Edge. Literally within a number of weeks it was on sale for a tenner in most stores I had seen, I honestly couldn't believe it. Dead Space suffered a similiar albeit not as severe price drop too and between that and of course via word of mouth given that it was far less prone to negative feedback from gamers, I think it led to them being a success in the long run.0 -
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
Join Date:Posts: 50004
Of course not, you own the physical disc, just not the contents of it. Think about it, do you really think you should own the actual content on the disc?
You don't own the copyright to the content, however you are free to sell that legally obtained copy on, first sale doctrine will trump any shoddy eula.
0 -
-
Join Date:Posts: 50004
nothing stopping you selling the disc, but given that you're only "licensing" the software, what's to stop the developers/publishers restricting the content to anyone who isn't you, legally?
is there any actual legit thing there that stops them from it?
You own it unless you agree to an EULA that stipulates that you are merely licensing it, an EULA that isn't legally binding in Europe might I add. How many games have you played on console where you agreed to an EULA that you were a licensee and therefore the software could not be resold? In terms of videogame software you are not a licensee and once the initial sale is made by EU and US law the copyright holders ownership of that particular copy is exhausted. From reading up on it it seems that in EU law, the handing over over a physical copy is enough to differenciate the tranaction as a sale and not a license agreement. This is different in US law when quite recently they have started to give more power to the copyright holder when a license is involved.
When a license is involved well the only way to describe it is that the law in both the EU and US really isn't sufficient enough to cover this. It seems in EU that the purchase of a license is the same as purchasing the product and exhausts the copyright holders control over the copy. It also seems that you also have the right to sell downloaded titles by EU law. However the only real conclusion that I can draw and seems to have been drawn up by all the research that has gone into this topic is that the current law is just not sufficient enough to really cover this area and really needs to be reviewed and amended. Unfortunately there's been no real rulings or court cases dealing with this that could provide answers or lead to these reviews and amendments.
0 -
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
Join Date:Posts: 50004
I had a read up about this and my last post is totally wrong. When you buy a piece of software a license is require between you and the copyright holder for the silly reason that if you want to use the software you are basically making another copy in the RAM. The license covers gives you permission from the copyright holder to make this copy for your own use, this is the EULA.
To answer Helix, the company does own the code on the disc. However once that disc is sound the copyright holder exhausts its control over that copy of the data and the user can do with it as they please. It's like the sale of a book. The copyright owner owns the copyright to the words on the page (what's computer code, just a series of 1's and 0's like the letters in a book). Once the book is sold the copyright holder exhausts their control of that copy of the book. However the buyer has no right to copy those words and sell additional copies.
Companies have used the EULA however to add more and more stringent requirements such as not being able to resell the software. However the US first sale doctrine and the EU copyright exhaustion rules state that once a sale is made that the copyright holder has no control over various aspects such which include what you do with the copyrighted material you own and your right to resell it. This trumps any EULA or license agreement you sign to use it. Interestingly enough this also applies to intanbigle copyrighted goods such as the words in a book and therefore should cover digital downloads.
It all comes down to whether a sale is made or whether it's a license agreement and in the case of EU law and can be strongly argued in US law, it's a sale first and a license agreement second. Therefore a copyright holder cannot force you not to resell the piece of software you have bought and agreed to a license with. The license can only cover allowing you to make that second copy into RAM or on a hard disk.
It's a weird one and really the law isn't written to deal with it in America, it's a bit better in the EU. One of the main problems is that it hasn't been challenged in court, I think the big reason for this is if it was the copyright holders would lose. Therefore second hand software sales are allowed.
When it comes to online authenticification, well the law doesn't cover this either. From some law papers I read it seems that the buyer should be able to sell digital goods, at least in the EU but again it hasn't been tested.
0 -
-
-
-
-
-
hooradiation also made the point regarding the box office receipts but there's also the fact that the market for video games is inherently smaller than that of movies.Chris_Heilong wrote: »If they can sell Jurassic park on DVD for €15 in shops when it cost $63 million to make and had hundreds of people working on it, then the argument that games cant get any cheaper than €50 because of the cost involved in developing goes right out the window. doesn't it.;)
Also, as I've frequently said before, games fall in price dramatically extremely soon after launch these days and when they do, there is generally no visible increase in sales. This more than anything else shows that games wouldn't automatically become million sellers if they were cheaper.
I'm assuming you've not read similar threads on this topic before so I'll explain again. This is not what happens. When a game is in the planning and budgeting stages, any DLC which is to be developed is factored into this. If it wasn't then it wouldn't be developed. So no, this content is not "withheld", it exists for the sole purpose of being DLC. There are, of course, occasional exceptions to this. For example, an area of a game may be cut out because it's not up to scratch or doesn't fit in with the game, and the time it would take to fix it would extend beyond the deadline of the project. In this case, the developer may revisit this after the project, fix it up and then release it as DLC. Additional work has therefore gone into it which costs money and as such, the developer/publisher is well within their rights to charge for it. It'd be nice if they didn't of course, as some don't always do this, but it's not as big an issue as many make it out to be.Chris_Heilong wrote: »on another note; If I pay for a game, I dont want to get half the content that was developed for that game, I want to get the full thing as that's what I paid for, the extra content on games is usually what the games companies developed when making the game and just with-held from us so they can charge for what in the last generation of consoles was included.
That's where pre-order bonuses come in but people complain about those too.I also with that users that bought the game at earlier, premium points, were recognized farther down the road. For instance, I purchased Space Marine at full boat on Pre-Order. I feel like it would be damn nice of them to as way of thanks be like "here you get the Multiplayer DLC free" instead of charge me the extra for Dreadnaught mode and such. 0 -
Advertisement
-
hooradiation also made the point regarding the box office receipts but there's also the fact that the market for video games is inherently smaller than that of movies.
Also, as I've frequently said before, games fall in price dramatically extremely soon after launch these days and when they do, there is generally no visible increase in sales. This more than anything else shows that games wouldn't automatically become million sellers if they were cheaper.
I'm assuming you've not read similar threads on this topic before so I'll explain again. This is not what happens. When a game is in the planning and budgeting stages, any DLC which is to be developed is factored into this. If it wasn't then it wouldn't be developed. So no, this content is not "withheld", it exists for the sole purpose of being DLC. There are, of course, occasional exceptions to this. For example, an area of a game may be cut out because it's not up to scratch or doesn't fit in with the game, and the time it would take to fix it would extend beyond the deadline of the project. In this case, the developer may revisit this after the project, fix it up and then release it as DLC. Additional work has therefore gone into it which costs money and as such, the developer/publisher is well within their rights to charge for it. It'd be nice if they didn't of course, as some don't always do this, but it's not as big an issue as many make it out to be.
That's where pre-order bonuses come in but people complain about those too.
If they were sold at a decent price then they would not lose so much value,
If you are happy with all these NEW additions to how games are sold, they fair wack to you, I havent met many who get ripped off and then ask for more.0
Advertisement