LinkBack URL
About LinkBacksI'm not 100% sure on this as i bought NFS:MW on pc a goood few years back, which cam with a code and online play. I gave it to my brother in law cos i had finished it 100% with the original code and he is still using it now.
I'm not 100% sure on this as i bought NFS:MW on pc a goood few years back, which cam with a code and online play. I gave it to my brother in law cos i had finished it 100% with the original code and he is still using it now.
Well the answer to that is pretty obvious, spend less and deliver more. Look at Baldur's Gate, a 13 year old game, most people will have retained it (and perhaps even repurchased it on GOG), it's still generating massive interest, and it was no billion-dollar development. There's only one real solution to increase revenue, and that's to make something people *really* want, not assault their statutory rights as consumers.Originally Posted by directhex
Hi
Most games I have bought have terms and Condition that dont Allow you to sell the games on. What I don’t understand is how shops like games can sell second hand games. We also have to remember also that the developer don’t get any roytiles from second hand games sales.
Mike
The tax man takes repeated slices, and second-hand games aren't free to the stores that sell them.
Just about every other sector copes without stopping the re-sale of their goods. Call me a cynic but I think the digital world does what it does because it can. Imagine being able to sell the same goods again and again. Imagine being able to go into someone's home and taking back the item they bought from you last week. No refunds. No guarantees.
They have very little incentive to improve what they sell and on how they make it.
There's cancer spreading through the industry and it needs to be cut out soon.
... I use now a big vent for the whole machine now, but I cant use it forever, it is my grandma's ventilator...
I think you're confusing owning with licensing. If I license the use of something then I don't own it, and when the contract ends or I breach the license conditions I'd expect the owner to stop use of it. Software isn't like a physical product, because copying the product (the software executable/data/code etc.) is essentially free, as it needs to be to get into your RAM to enable you to play the game etc. So instead you have to license use of the software, rather than take ownership of the code.
If the question is should you be able to transfer your license to someone else, then that's certainly worth discussion, but it's not the same as a physical product that you own.
Last edited by kalniel; 23-03-2012 at 10:10 AM.
OP, did you mean the CD Key ?
If yes, with Crysis 1, for example, EA had max. 5 install limit. You could sell obviously and the new person had to contact EA to give him one more chance.
IF yes, with Splinter cell conviction, Ubi tied the CD key to a Ubi account. Even on same PC, if a different suer logged in, he couldnt use the same key or same Ubia ccount to play the game!
Google suggests you need a Steam account and a GFWL account and you also have a max. 4 'different PC' reinstallation limit
I don't think I was confusing the two but perhaps I wasn't too clear.
Over time, what we're allowed to do with the digital content we buy (licence) has changed for the worse. There's the OP's question of not being able to pass on games, but it goes deeper. I think the increasing restriction is all about increasing profits; OK in itself, but not when restrictive licensing itself becomes the business model.
IMHO, you are quite correct. But, sadly in my opinion, it's going to get worse, not better. The only way I see it changing is if there was a huge consumer backlash and vast numbers of people simply stopped buying games with licences (or DRM) that were too restrictive. And while there are quite a lot that feel that way, I don't see any chance that the numbers are going to be remotely large enough, or that any backlash will be large enough to drive change.
Therefore, in my opinion, we're stuck with it. Sad, but true.
It seems to be the new trend for games producers be them PC or console to tie your key to an account. This makes perfect sense to them of course as it means if you sell on your game or trade it as many of us have done in the past the next person that uses that game has to purchase a new key. Usually at a lower price than the original game but at leas the companies still get there profits.
What I find frustrating is that shops like Game dont bother to tell there customers this when buying a second hand game. My daughter bought bf3 for the xbox pre owned for her boyfriend for christmas and was never told that he would need to purchase an online play key from EA to play online. The thing was the game itself wasnt that much cheaper as a pre owned game at the time so having bought that and then having to buy a key it cost her more than it would to buy the game new.
To be honest, the whole game development funding system is at least slightly broken. It works well for a subset of genres but we really need to evaluate where we're going with this. And by we I mean not just publishers, developers and distributors, but the market - consumers and retailers - as well. AAA games cost a huge amount to make - that isn't a problem in itself: it provides a large number of jobs in skilled areas - and that money has to come from somewhere before a single copy is sold. To make matters worse, the consumer is fixed on paying more or less the same price for traditionally developed games, regardless of development costs.
If the credit - repay business model is to continue (the traditional method) then games need to properly reflect the range of costs (IMHO games like Skyrim should be costing towards £100 first hand, if not more, with scope to make money back on re-selling - and that reselling needs to be completely honest - not a 'sell the game on but carry on playing a locally installed copy') and gamers need to better understand the model and buy into it more.
That buy in can be before the game is finished, so you've got models like C.A.R.S. Or you can customer source your initial funding, like the so called 'kickstarters' that are appearing for games that gamers have been crying out for - devs have quite sensibly said 'if you want the game, prove it'
Most of all there should be better communication and education of the process - you can't expect any buy-in if the majority of the market thinks that games grow on trees for free. And that communication is something I feel most publishers are especially bad at. Developers can also come across as a bit naive, but then in the more creative areas they are 'artistes' so I'm not too surprised
With rental is very easy for Publishers to receive some extra Royalties as rental copies are sold to rental shops at something like 10 times the wholesale price. But I am not sure the some publishes pass this on to the Developer. This business model wont work for Second hand games as the 1st copy cost will be to high for gamers to buy. I also think that when the rental was Introduce the second hand market started to cut out the extra cost and to increase profits to the shops.
Mike
I entirely agree with the bit I highlighted in red. If you "sell" a game, it should be completely gone for you. A bit like a (printed) book. I can buy it, and read it, but once I've sold it to you, it's gone.To be honest, the whole game development funding system is at least slightly broken. It works well for a subset of genres but we really need to evaluate where we're going with this. And by we I mean not just publishers, developers and distributors, but the market - consumers and retailers - as well. AAA games cost a huge amount to make - that isn't a problem in itself: it provides a large number of jobs in skilled areas - and that money has to come from somewhere before a single copy is sold. To make matters worse, the consumer is fixed on paying more or less the same price for traditionally developed games, regardless of development costs.
If the credit - repay business model is to continue (the traditional method) then games need to properly reflect the range of costs (IMHO games like Skyrim should be costing towards £100 first hand, if not more, with scope to make money back on re-selling - and that reselling needs to be completely honest - not a 'sell the game on but carry on playing a locally installed copy') and gamers need to better understand the model and buy into it more.
That buy in can be before the game is finished, so you've got models like C.A.R.S. Or you can customer source your initial funding, like the so called 'kickstarters' that are appearing for games that gamers have been crying out for - devs have quite sensibly said 'if you want the game, prove it'
Most of all there should be better communication and education of the process - you can't expect any buy-in if the majority of the market thinks that games grow on trees for free. And that communication is something I feel most publishers are especially bad at. Developers can also come across as a bit naive, but then in the more creative areas they are 'artistes' so I'm not too surprised
The issue there, then, generally, is the low cost, ease and widespread use of piracy. I mean, in the "old" days, if I bought a book, I could have copied it on a photocopier (or scanner/printer) before selling it, but the time and cost involved meant it wasn't economically worthwhile. But these days, with DRM-removers for e-books, or versions without the DRM in the first place, even books (in the digital form) aren't safe.
Nor is this exactly a new problem. There were bit-copier packages for Apple II software back in the early '80s, and IIRC, even in the late 70s. And, of course, bootleg VHS videos being sold on market stalls, and people using audio cassettes to copy LPs back into, what, the early 70s (or technically, the 60s but it wasn't by any means wide-spread among then).
So the basic problem is human nature. A lot of people do, and probably always will, take the attitude that if they can get something cheap, or better yet, free, they will, provided the chance of the getting caught and punished is minimal. It could even be argued that the reason that armed robbery in banks, blackmail, etc, isn't more widespread is that the chances of getting caught are too high and the punishments if you do pretty severe.
Personally, though it's a pain, the old CD-in-the-drive method worked fine for me. That, I'd accept. If I sold the game, I no longer had the disk to put in the drive. Of course, that fails as soon as someone comes up with a way of copying the disk, or patching the installed game to no longer look for it.
Games companies have to make money, or they go out of business and there are no more games. The real fault, then, lies with :-
a) those that make the hardware/software to facilitate illicit copying, and
b) those that use that hardware/software to avoid buying the product themselves.
Us consumers, as a group, got what we asked for.
Having said that, personally, I am not buying a game product where I have to sign up for a online service, be it Origin or Steam, or anything else, in order to use it. It's just not happening. Not now, not ever. If that means I don't get to play an ever-increasing number of games, well, regrettably, so be it. Which is why I regard myself pretty much, after about 45 years of playing games on computers, as an ex-gamer. As I said, in a slightly different context, in my last post .... sad, but true.
It's where the market is, and I don't expect it to improve. More likely, get worse.
As for some games potentially costing £100, well, if they presented a game that wasn't attached to online restrictions and that I wanted badly enough, I'd think about it. As with a game, or anything else for that matter, it's a question of "what does it cost?" versus whether I want it enough to pay that.
But am I likely to want any game badly enough to pay £100 for it? It's very, very doubtful. But it's more likely than me signing up for Steam, etc.
Personally I don't like the way games these days are all internet based, and not being able to give the game away (BF3 for example) or sell it on where the receiver of the game has to spend more money just to play it.
The arguement that the game maker looses out on money if the game is sold on sounds a bit unfair to me.
This doesn't happen if you buy a 2nd car, music CD, film CD/Blueray etc. So in theory, the manufacturer loses out when the item is sold on, but I don't hear BMW etc complaining that they have lost money when the original owner sells on his car.
I bought the box set for BF3, and am getting bored with it, but it seems I am stuck with it and can't sell it on a get some money back.
Wouldn't a console provide you with infinitely more games than a PC that met your conditions? I don't recall ever reading your opinions on them (?)
With (genuine) due respect you're a bit #ahem# 'older' than myself (and I’m not that young anymore) and probably most 'gamers' so you likely know full well you aren't the target audience for many games, if any.
Assuming all DRM got dropped tomorrow would you actually be playing BF3/MW3/Skyrim ?
Publishers will always be able to sell lots of games loaded with DRM and faff because most people, and most younger gamers just don't care.
By the time we get to caring about things like this we're probably 'too old' to even come into the calculations as I would imagine (citation needed) our gaming habits change and although disposable income may be greater we have other priorities.
Well, I'm sure I'm not what they'd expect, but nonetheless, if I piled my (boxed, legit) games one on top of the other, I'd have multiple piles because otherwise, the ceiling would be too low. And that's just the ones I've still got.
Skyrim, yes, unless it's changed a lot from previous Elder Scrolls games. The other two I'd have to look at.
But I've played a vast array of games over the years, from those with AD&D ancestors, to shooters (Duke Nukem, Doom, Quake, Half-life, Deus Ex, etc), to the "quest" games from Kings Quest to puzzlers like Myst, to flight sims and flight combat games, to platform games like TombRaider of Prince of Persia, to things like Sid Meir's Civ series, to populous, to Superbike and MotoGP racers, to sneakers like Thief, and so on.
Absolutely.
I'm probably the exception that proves the rule, but generally, yeah.
....Which is why I bought an Xbox 360 a few years back. But generally I far prefer the PC experience.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote