Court ruling could kill used game business

[kindofdoon]

Most of the heavy lifting necessary for cracking games is done by those with real skill. For newb end-users like ourselves, it's usually just a simple matter of replacing a few files, or mounting a virtual disk, or some combination.

[Lambonius]

I liked the 90s so much better when you could buy a game and do whatever you wanted with it because you owned it. In darthkiwi's scenario, what happens if I have the money to buy a game at a specific point in time but my computer is not good enough to play it yet? Perhaps in the future I'll have the money to buy computer parts to upgrade my system to be able to play it but for the moment I don't. Why should I have to pay money after I've already bought it?

I can't stand digital rights. I'm against it in every way. Of course I agree that companies should have control over what they produce to some extent, but this is far too drastic a course of action to be taking. It shouldn't be taken to these measures by making crazy laws and enforcing such harsh DRM onto honest people. Pretty soon it won't even be worth it to buy games anymore. I'd rather live in a world where you can buy a game and not have to do anything to play it other than install it (or in the case of consoles, put the disc in and start it up) with the "danger" of digital rights being messed with (selling used copies, pirating games, installing on multiple systems, etc) than live in a world where after you buy a game you have to go through a hundred different steps (possibly involving more money) just to get the game to run. And at the end of the day, especially with how today's lame game designs go, the game isn't worth playing in the first place. Maybe I would throw it in if I didn't have to do anything and get some fun out of it, but it's just not worth it if I have to jump through a bunch of DRM hoops and follow these crazy rules and procedures just to play a mediocre game. I wouldn't do it for a good game either, though.

And none of this stops piracy either. It just makes it harder for legit customers to enjoy their products (as far as I'm concerned, each copy of a game doesn't belong to the game company after they've been purchased). I'm no pirate and I don't condone it, but if stuff like this happens I guarantee you I'll be pirating EVERYTHING I want to play. Not only in protest to this asinine way of looking at game software but also just to plain make it easier for me to enjoy a game.

The way I see it, game company, if you really don't want me to own what I purchase then that's exactly what I'll do. Just without your OK. I will not be controlled in this way. If that doesn't work then I'll just remove myself from playing games altogether. Either way, you lose a customer. It's maybe a harsh and blunt stance to take but I stand by it.

Heh, ironically, if that ever happens my first recourse would probably be to purchase games exclusively on Steam (which some see as exactly the catalyst of the problem to begin with). Oh yeah, and GoG.

Awesome post.  I couldn't agree more.

[snabbott]

If they could find a non-intrusive way of doing DRM that would actually stop piracy (which seems borderline impossible), I would be all for it. Piracy just makes games more expensive for the people who obtain them legally. However, since nobody seems to have come up with anything even remotely close to that, I have to agree that DRM sucks.

[KatieHal]

I think the problem lies in overreactions, on both sides really. Companies need to learn to find a way to compromise and figure out a new way to adapt to the changing ways that people buy and use their products. I think with iTunes and other music downloads, moving towards the less expensive and more affordable quick downloads of songs and albums online was a great step in that direction. DRM is still annoying, yes, but if the songs are both readily available and affordable, it cuts down on the problem of people pirating stuff for free instead of paying more than something is worth. Also, they *know* when they're being overcharged, consumers aren't stupid.

Video games need to find a way to adapt as well; in my opinion, digital downloads are a fantastic way to move towards this. They're also less expensive, they really can't be resold as a used game which solves that problem, but since they are more affordable it cuts down on that issue anyways. The knee-jerk reaction of 'I'm taking my toys and going home!' is not one that helps anyone in the long run. I'd qualify EA's $10 thing as an attempt to step in the right direction, but a poorly made one. No one's going to want to pay that $10 fee--people will, but they won't like it, and it's frankly ridiculous. Chances are they'll look elsewhere to get those items for free if they're all that necessary, or for less at the very least.

[Lambonius]

Video games need to find a way to adapt as well; in my opinion, digital downloads are a fantastic way to move towards this.

The problem with digital downloads of video games, especially full-length games, is the sheer size of the files.  Part of the reason digital distribution works so well with music is that single songs and even albums aren't that big and don't take that long to download, even on a modest internet connection.  Video games nowadays are multi-GB files, and would basically require a MUCH more expensive high-speed internet connection before downloading them would be at all viable, let alone convenient.  Digital distribution will never become the standard form of distribution of large files like video games until super-fast internet becomes cheap and affordable (i.e. when someone does something about the total monopoly that unscrupulous cable companies have on it.)   

[KatieHal]

Which then gets us into a Net Neutrality discussion--and I'm all for Net Neutrality as well.   But which gets us to another place where big companies are overreacting and trying to overcharge (succeeding in doing so, really) instead of trying to adapt and respect the consumers, who aren't idiots.

[atec123]

For music, I no longer give a crap.

I would rather have my 15000+songs for close to free (realistically probably a few hundred bucks over the course of 4 years, but mostly itunes gift cards if I bought the music ) than pay 15000 bucks for my music library.

Everyone pirates music and most people seem to not care too much about it.

Not to mention that buying music barely even benefits the artist.  It helps their record label, but I don't even like most major record labels for various reasons.  If it's an indy band, I will most definatly buy their album.

For games, I will just go ahead and buy them.  Pirating them makes me feel bad.  EA and activision may be evil, but pirating them is too much trouble, feels too illegal, and  is probably kinda bad for the gaming industry.  I feel like pirating music isn't really bad for music.  It may hurt the record labels, but I don't care.   All good bands should manage their own record labels or move to indy labels anyway IMO.  Maybe if the big ones die off all the good bands will do just that.

Umm.... this post is mostly about music... But I guess it is somewhat related.

I will buy my games unless there is too much DRM.  then I will pirate them and try to get everyone else to do the same.

[Enchantermon]

If bands aren't selling records, they will be dropped by labels, and I dare say many bands don't have members with the business sense to run their own labels. If games stop selling, producers will stop paying devs to make them, and most devs probably don't have the business sense to self-publish. The idea that piracy hurts no one except the "big, bad corporations" is nonsense.

Besides that, why does it seem like people are always okay with breaking the law when the law happens to inconvenience them?

[Lambonius]

Besides that, why does it seem like people are always okay with breaking the law when the law happens to inconvenience them?

Dude, that is the American way.  Just look at our current political and economic situation.

[Enchantermon]

What do politics and the economy have to do with this? The question is: why is it seemingly okay to break the law at some times and not others?

[Lambonius]

What do politics and the economy have to do with this? The question is: why is it seemingly okay to break the law at some times and not others?

Heh...sorry, I had just been reading political and economic garbage articles right before I posted that.  I was mostly joking, too.  

I don't think it's okay for people to break laws just because those laws are inconvenient to them--but I do believe there is a precedent for it in American culture (and politics) specifically.  Just look at all the politicians who push for tax hikes but then later get nailed for not paying their taxes.    America (especially American youth) has always had a stick-it-to-the-man attitude.  And such laws, like regulation of music downloads and DRM--stuff like that, are prime examples of "the man" trying to cramp our style.  LOL  Seriously though--are you really surprised that people do this kind of stuff?  

[Enchantermon]

No, I'm not at all surprised. I'm just fed up with it. I see it everywhere I go and I just don't get it. And even I end up wanting to do it sometimes, which ticks me off even more.

[Lambonius]

No, I'm not at all surprised. I'm just fed up with it. I see it everywhere I go and I just don't get it. And even I end up wanting to do it sometimes, which ticks me off even more.

I hear ya.   

I disagree with things like DRM not because I don't think companies should be able to make money of the products they create, but because DRM is a cheap and ineffective way of handling the issue, that causes more problems than it creates and ultimately screws over the legitimate consumer most of all.

[MusicallyInspired]

To me, it's less of a "I'm taking my toys and going home" kind of thing and more of a "if you don't respect me I won't respect you" type of thing. I buy games because I like the way they're released and handled. I want to support games without DRM that I'm allowed to do whatever I want with because it's my property. I don't want to support digital rights in any shape or form whatsoever. I'm being tolerant at the moment because it isn't too TOO bad. This law, for instance, would throw it over the line for me. I'm not going to put money toward something I don't want to see progress any more than I would vote for something politically that I'm against.

And regarding music, you get what you pay for nowadays. I think the notion of actually paying for an MP3 file (or any compressed lossy audio format) is ridiculous and absurd. For myself personally, even to the point of laughable. I'll never purchase an MP3 in my life. MP3s are garbage and the kind of thing you do yourself to listen on your MP3 player for quick and easy listening. It is absolutely not a quality format and most of the real quality aspects of the listening experience are completely removed and, as a result, not the way they were intended to be heard.

I wouldn't pay for an MP3 file any more than I would pay for a broken-down tiny mono speaker with a cassette player. I wouldn't pay for an MP3 file any more than I would pay for a hissy cassette tape recording of a song recorded from the radio. That's essentially what it is. We didn't really have this problem at first and then the music industry overreacted to MP3 file sharing and started regulating and charging for something that was only meant as a simple tool to shrink audio files down to size and listen to easily. Actually paying for these things is just an insane notion. At least they're not terribly expensive, but it's still not worth the money, in my opinion.

We need to ditch MP3s and start at least distributing and listening to music with lossless codecs like FLAC or APE. Of course, straight uncompressed raw WAV files are the best way to go in my opinion. Or even 24-bit and over audio files (maybe for a little extra $). But anything is an improvement over an MP3 file! I'm tired of this quantity over quality mentality we have nowadays.

Thankfully, digital distribution of games aren't really affected like this in the same way, and they're cheaper than retail to boot! Now let us have our games without DRM (just as we would a physical copy back in the good old days) and I'll be completely happy.

Again, ironically, Steam is my only exception to this personal rule. For some reason I think Steam is great and fantastic.

[Lambonius]

I buy games because I like the way they're released and handled.

Really?  I buy games because I like to play them.  And I'd like to spend the least possible amount of money to do so. 

[kindofdoon]

I buy games because I like the way they're released and handled.

Really?  I buy games because I like to play them.  And I'd like to spend the least possible amount of money to do so. 

[MusicallyInspired]

Well, yes of course. To play them is primary. But I'm willing to buy them to play because of the way they're currently handled.