Forum archive
NatewlieA lot of stores around here don't take the game if it doesn't have the manual and has an absurd amount of scratches. That being said, when actually playing the game, there's no difference, that's what I mean. A used car, most likely will not perform the same way as it had when it was first new.Second hand cars can be in perfect condition and the price will reflect that. Second hand games can be perfect too, the price will NOT effect that in a Gamestop or EB Games.
NatewlieLooking at the link, it's not a threat to resale games. One, it's a PC software, which you can't normally buy used in the first place, two, it's a digital download which you can't sell used anyways, and three, he signed EULA (or AutoCAD claims that he did).When you buy a game used, you are not a custumer of theirs. In terms of rewarding the companies who made the game, I can't see how buying used is better than piracy, and from the developer standpoint, there is no difference, it's synonymous.Buying a used game is different from a car, when you buy a used car, you expect the car to have miles on it and for it to have some sort of performance issue or you expect it to have bigger problems the longer you own (basically there's tear and wear with the car). With most used games, there's no difference from buying it used or new. Buying a used game that has a one use code (a la EA or THQ), is more similar to buying a used car since it does have wear, in contrast to an older console game, which seems like new when, in fact you bought it used. Buying the one use code after buying the used game is similar to buying a used car and repairing the rust on it or repairing something else.Normally, when you buy anything but games used, you expect the thing to have decreased function or wear on it, which isn't the case of games.it is not about buying used. i'm unsure as to where you got this according to the article. it's about being able to sell a software you have to someone else, transfer of rights. it is not about digital downloads, either, though it can but it has to do with digital content. digital content is not digital download. i don't know where you got this idea according to the article. video games and software are digital content. dvd and bluray movies are digital content.
Cahos Rahne VelozaWhoever wants gaming to stop permanently is one majorly kill joyed party pooper :Plet me ask one question, a very simple question and it will make you look very bad and it was not my doing because it's according to your statement and that was your doing. do you support onlive?! if you say yes, then you're an idiot [you're in support of drm, who wants that] and if you say no, then you're a hypocrit [you contradict your idea].why would you want to buy a product [a good, etc...] where you're not the owner of it. what would be the point of buying it?! the company dictates the ownership. is that a good thing, yeah according to some like what Cahos Rahne Veloza was saying. if that happens, why would you even consider buying when you don't own?! why should you even put interest in the product or good knowing that the company doesn't care about you as a customer. why should the company dictate to you, as a customer, when you, as the customer, are the one's paying money for the good/product. that's a load of crap and i can't believe people like Cahos Rahne Veloza are in support of this idea.
ultrait's not bullshit, it's right here,Bullshit!If it were to be outlawed, then how would I get my SNES and Sega Genesis carts?
http://www.gamasutra.com/view/news/30370/Court_Of_Appeals_Ruling_Threatens_Sale_Of_Used_Games.phpoh i hope this goes further to prevent sales of games. why!? this will be a good reason why you'd pirate as opposed to actually buying something. this will also be a good reason to stop gaming permenantly!
ultra · #25it is not about buying used. i'm unsure as to where you got this according to the article. it's about being able to sell a software you have to someone else, transfer of rights. it is not about digital downloads, either, though it can but it has to do with digital content. digital content is not digital download. i don't know where you got this idea according to the article. video games and software are digital content. dvd and bluray movies are digital content.Man, ultra, you've really outdone yourself this time. Let's looks at things step by step, shall we?
let me ask one question, a very simple question and it will make you look very bad and it was not my doing because it's according to your statement and that was your doing. do you support onlive?! if you say yes, then you're an idiot [you're in support of drm, who wants that] and if you say no, then you're a hypocrit [you contradict your idea].why would you want to buy a product [a good, etc...] where you're not the owner of it. what would be the point of buying it?! the company dictates the ownership. is that a good thing, yeah according to some like what Cahos Rahne Veloza was saying. if that happens, why would you even consider buying when you don't own?! why should you even put interest in the product or good knowing that the company doesn't care about you as a customer. why should the company dictate to you, as a customer, when you, as the customer, are the one's paying money for the good/product. that's a load of crap and i can't believe people like Cahos Rahne Veloza are in support of this idea.
ultra · #25it is not about buying used. i'm unsure as to where you got this according to the article. it's about being able to sell a software you have to someone else, transfer of rights.Um, yeah, it is about buying used. To sell something means someone buys something. The issue with this case is that Autodesk claims that the software was licensed rather than sold, which means that the law of first sale does not apply and therefore software cannot be resold after the initial purchase. In other words, the "rights" to use the software (ie the license) cannot be transferred.
ultra · #25let me ask one question, a very simple question and it will make you look very bad and it was not my doing because it's according to your statement and that was your doing. do you support onlive?! if you say yes, then you're an idiot [you're in support of drm, who wants that] and if you say no, then you're a hypocrit [you contradict your idea].Let me ask one question, a very simple question and it will make you look very bad and it was not my doing because it's according to your statement and that was your doing. How did you manage to pull this whopper out of your ass? It has absolutely no relevance to anything Cahos (or indeed anyone else in this thread) has said. Perhaps I'm simply unable to follow your grand logic; enlighten me, if you will.
ultra · #25why would you want to buy a product [a good, etc...] where you're not the owner of it. what would be the point of buying it?! the company dictates the ownership.This is exactly what happens when intellectual property is sold. And guess what? Intellectual property is sold all the time. Books, music, movies, video games... You don't really own any of it other than the physical product, if applicable.
ultra · #25is that a good thing, yeah according to some like what Cahos Rahne Veloza was saying.Again, I have no idea how you came up with this. Surely even you are capable of looking at the context of his post and realising that it was in response to one of your claims (the logic of which I, again, cannot begin to fathom).
ultra · #25if that happens, why would you even consider buying when you don't own?! why should you even put interest in the product or good knowing that the company doesn't care about you as a customer. why should the company dictate to you, as a customer, when you, as the customer, are the one's paying money for the good/product.More unrighteous indignation. Everyone knows that a corporation's bottom line is profit. Customers, and caring for them, are only a means to reach that end. Customers buy in because they want to play the game, if it wasn't immediately obvious. Hell, why do you think Ubisoft still exists?
ultra · #25that's a load of crap and i can't believe people like Cahos Rahne Veloza are in support of this idea.You're a load of crap and I can't believe people like you are in support of your ideas.
tehuber1337 · #30More unrighteous indignation. Everyone knows that a corporation's bottom line is profit. Customers, and caring for them, are only a means to reach that end. Customers buy in because they want to play the game, if it wasn't immediately obvious. Hell, why do you think Ubisoft still exists?ROFL!!! you really have a lot to learn!!
You're a load of crap and I can't believe people like you are in support of your ideas.
msg2009 · #31Theres no way kids can be responsible for a licenced agreement, I can't see that ever applying to games.Obviously no company is stupid enough to target the consumers like that, but legislation that prevents retailers from participating is an enforceable way of achieving their goals.Not as much as you, my good man.
What are they going to do if my 7 year old sell's her nintendogs? Fine her and give her community service?
Autocad is used by businesses its different.
ultraThis will also be a good reason to stop gaming permanently!Which has nothing to do your rant on onlive :PAnd yes, someone who brazenly supports the end of videogaming as we know it is indeed a kill joy party pooper.