Originally posted by S-mmo

Many devs probably concentrate their efforts on more specialized MMO's that are aimed specifically at a certain target group, like PvP, Raid, Solo, etc. Considering the impasse on threads like this, and many more I've seen like it, it's probably inevitable.

The devs of GW2 are making a last ditched effort to keep the soloers and the groupers working towards the same goal. If the experiment doesn't work, the chances of seeing another title being greenlighted that has a large budget will lessen considerably.

Not necessarily a bad thing either.  Might get some games aimed at real gamers.

Originally posted by soulfly205
 

On another note, it has become a more noticable trend that MMOs have been catering towards single or solo play content. When you can play an mmo without interacting with another player, you're going to run out of things to do.

That sounds reasonable but in reality I think its more likely that ease of completing content is more important in runnning out of things to do than whether you do it solo or in a group. 

I played EQ1 for years, probably 90% of it was solo and I never ran out of things to do.  Hell it took me 6 months to get from level 1 to level 60.  It took me 1 year to complete my epic alone.  I spent a good week of effort just to get my first pair of JBoots, now the equivelent type of item could be obtained in 30 minutes off a 100% reliably spawning mob in a 100% reliably respawning on command dungeon or 100% reliable quest or I could just use the CC to buy it from a item shop.

Its not single or solo play, its MMO's catering to trivial content so everyone can be a hero with the best armor in no time at all.

Originally posted by rungard

well ive been playing mmos from nearly the begining and id wager ive raided perhaps a dozen times in that span, not including pvp raids..which are not the same.

raiding has been dead for me since eq, which was a great game until that feature took over, daoc, which was a great game until that feature took over (TOA).. wow.. which was a good game until that...you get the point.

It cant die fast enough for me, though i believe that the system in gw2 (outdoor event raids) is probabally the way to go to include this type of content..

we shall see if it works.

I don't think it need die entirely.  I played EQ and was in a raiding guild and it was pretty awesome fun.  The problem was that it became the only way to progress.  If there was raiding and there were alternate paths to progression then I think that would be superior to only raiding or only small group content.  More options equals a better game.

Originally posted by UsualSuspect

Originally posted by soulmirror

  So the consensus is, 1 or a hundred, that game shapes itself to you, and or your group.  Does scalable content = scalable rewards?  If I solo Aradune the Galactic, should get the same reward as the entire zerg party or do I get a different reward because I solo'ed the encounter? 

I'd say it should scale with the difficulty. If Aradune the Galactic can be swatted down by one guy then he's probably just a little guy with a big name. If 30 people smack him down and more than half those die in the process then he's probably deserved the name and has some cool stuff.

If it scaled with difficulty then if a soloer could swat him down with apparantly little effort then a group of any size could equally swat him down with little effort.  If not the its not scaling properly.

In a properly scaled fight a npc would be challenging to the soloer and equally challanging to the group.  If the soloer takes 5 minutes and loses 50% of the time then the group should take 5 minutes and lose 50% of the time (given equally geared and skiled groups).  At the end of the encounter the soloer walks away with 1 item while the group walks away with 1 item for each member.

I actually don't like this, I think groups should have an advantage over soloers in terms of rewards, there should just be no exclusivity in terms of reward power (a soloer who has 100 hours played should have comparable gear to a grouper with 100 hours played).  I also think some bosses should be group only and that there should be both group content and solo content that is different but able to lead to similiar rewards.

Homogenizing all content is a bad idea imo.

I don't think it really matters whether a company doing business in the EU tries to get around this ruling by pretending to be only selling a licence.  In the end there is an understanding that purchasing an item (DD, licence, box, MMO subscription) will give a person access to and the reasonable continuous use of the product being sold.  

In terms of an MMO, this means if I buy a subscription to WoW and the DD that I can log onto the game and have access to the game in the same way as other subscribers.  If I decide to sell the game and the licence to someone else, that person buys the same rights I have when buying the software.  

Now the person may not necessarily be eligible to access the characters or data stored on my account and Blizzard could still give them access to the servers without giving them access to the characters.   I dont think Blizzard could prevent the person who bought my game and licence from their right to access the servers if they were willing to subscribe.  

The main thing to remember is a company has to act in good faith and comply with consumer law so while theoretically they could try to lie and manipulate, in reality they are constrained by some of the same laws we are when we sell something to Joe Bloggs down the street.

just my opinion

Originally posted by Loktofeit

Originally posted by Ikonoclastia

Originally posted by Torik

Originally posted by Hurvart

Originally posted by Vrika

It looks like great news, but I'm afraid MMO players will still need at least one more Supreme Court ruling before it would really benefit us. Euroean Court of Justice stats that:

"the exhaustion of the right of distribution of a copy of a computer program...does not relate to contracts for services, such as maintenance agreements, which are separable from such a sale and were concluded, possibly for an unlimited period, on the occasion of the sale".

MMO server admins could probably argue that while the new owner of the game owns copy of that game, they have no legal obligation to provide the new owner service.

It'll be intresting to see how this affects MMOs, but this is a great day for all consumers in Europe. Finally we are legally recognized as owners of all the computer programs we have bougth.

But they have no reason to refuse to offer the new owner the service. If he/she is willing to pay for it. And if it is impossible for the new owner to play without the service I think the court would side with the player.

Selling and buying characters on e-bay is nothing new. Now someone that gets banned when/if the company finds out the account was bought on e-bay can contest the ban and call the lawyers. And claim EULA/TOS is not valid and legal.

We can only speculate what the courts will decide if this happens. But I think the court will recognize that it is impossible to play and use the product if you cant use the service. That is not fair if it is legal to sell the products.

Does this then mean that a MMORPG company cannot ban a player for any reason as long as he/she keeps paying the subscription?  Will they not be allowed to shut the servers down when they decide the game is not profitable anymore? 

Ultimately, it probably means that MMORPGs will stop selling the client software and will become 100% service based like a gym membership.  You will simply be renting the software while you are a paying member and it will be deactivated when you stop paying.  Functionally it will be no different than it is now but it might mean that they will not sell them in retail stores anymore.

 

Game sales are very profitable and cover quite a large % and sometimes the entire development cost of an mmorg (WoW for example apparantly covered its development costs with just box sales). 

I can imagine GAME or EBGAMES filled with box sized peices of pretty cardboard costing the same price as a game which could be redeemed online in exchange for the activation of a single account and the temporary download and installation of the client necessary to access that account :).

The more likely scenario, one which is already occurring, is that developers will move away from boxed products, focus on DD, and make the brick and mortar software shop obsolete. The next step would be to move from standalone games to client/server apps where the client is free and any money paid is for access to the service.

 

Most MMO's are client / server and still most MMO's make a lot of money selling their boxes and DD as a software package. 

For non-MMO's where a software package is primarily used offline its not practical at all to give away the software as a DD and charge a service fee since in most developed countries consumer law says a customer is legally entittled to be treated fairly and destributers must act in good faith.   I don't think Microsoft would be able to claim its selling a licence for Office @ 800 dollars and the multiple gigabytes worth of software required to be downloaded is a free download.

Originally posted by Torik

Originally posted by Hurvart

Originally posted by Vrika

It looks like great news, but I'm afraid MMO players will still need at least one more Supreme Court ruling before it would really benefit us. Euroean Court of Justice stats that:

"the exhaustion of the right of distribution of a copy of a computer program...does not relate to contracts for services, such as maintenance agreements, which are separable from such a sale and were concluded, possibly for an unlimited period, on the occasion of the sale".

MMO server admins could probably argue that while the new owner of the game owns copy of that game, they have no legal obligation to provide the new owner service.

It'll be intresting to see how this affects MMOs, but this is a great day for all consumers in Europe. Finally we are legally recognized as owners of all the computer programs we have bougth.

But they have no reason to refuse to offer the new owner the service. If he/she is willing to pay for it. And if it is impossible for the new owner to play without the service I think the court would side with the player.

Selling and buying characters on e-bay is nothing new. Now someone that gets banned when/if the company finds out the account was bought on e-bay can contest the ban and call the lawyers. And claim EULA/TOS is not valid and legal.

We can only speculate what the courts will decide if this happens. But I think the court will recognize that it is impossible to play and use the product if you cant use the service. That is not fair if it is legal to sell the products.

Does this then mean that a MMORPG company cannot ban a player for any reason as long as he/she keeps paying the subscription?  Will they not be allowed to shut the servers down when they decide the game is not profitable anymore? 

Ultimately, it probably means that MMORPGs will stop selling the client software and will become 100% service based like a gym membership.  You will simply be renting the software while you are a paying member and it will be deactivated when you stop paying.  Functionally it will be no different than it is now but it might mean that they will not sell them in retail stores anymore.

 

Game sales are very profitable and cover quite a large % and sometimes the entire development cost of an mmorg (WoW for example apparantly covered its development costs with just box sales). 

I can imagine GAME or EBGAMES filled with box sized peices of pretty cardboard costing the same price as a game which could be redeemed online in exchange for the activation of a single account and the temporary download and installation of the client necessary to access that account :).

Originally posted by JoeyMMO

Originally posted by Skooma2

Depending on how the developers view the court's opinion vis-a-vis their bottom line, a number of games could simply close their European servers and limit access to NA servers to NA addresses.

 How will not selling any copies of their game to EU residents help their bottom line? It could influence a decision regarding investment in a German and French localised versions of a certain game, but deciding to not sell the EN version in the EU would be something like tatooing idiot on your forehead. I don't know where anyone would get the idea that this would be a smart thing to do.

Lol its a pretty absurd argument I agree, I can just imagine software developers saying lets not sell any games to the 500,000,000 people in the EU unless they agree to relinquish their rights, we'll stick with our 300,000,000 suckers n the US who will!

Its not going to happen because it would allow the creation of a competing very healthy EU market that is not restricted by the absurdity of the American system, and would enable American customers to purchase non-restricted EU games which they could resell and thats something the restricted American market could not compete against.

Its likely the American developers are going to have to be more involved the EU system to prevent the restricted American content being wiped out by unrestricted EU games.   I mean why would you buy a game crippled by STEAM and its over dominant DRM and restrictions when you could get the same game in the EU cheaper (you can resell it when your done) with no steam attached.

Originally posted by Loktofeit

Originally posted by Ikonoclastia

Originally posted by Loktofeit

Originally posted by Ikonoclastia

Originally posted by Loktofeit
 

Can you list or link to the titles or States where that isn't true?

Link

"Under the court’s decision in Vernor, all a copyright owner has to do to effectively repeal the statutory first sale doctrine is draft a EULA that (1) specifies that the user is granted a license; (2) significantly restricts the user’s ability to transfer the software; and (3) imposes notable use restrictions. Sad to say, it’s about as easy as falling off a log."

They were used copies that he was selling. You kinda left out that part, Ikon. ;)

 

To explain it further so that others don't have to wade through legalese and court docs:

 

A guy had legitimate copies of AutoCAD 14. He then bought the Upgrade Version of AutoCAD 15 and installed them with AutoCAD 14 as the qualifying software. He then sold the used AutoCAD 14 software - used software, currently licensed to him - to Tim Vernor, who then proceeded to try to sell it on eBay.

"I can tell you one thing that I do know, in NSW, Australia, when I walk into a store and purchase software, I can legally resell that software on Ebay, in the paper, at a garage sale.

I can tell you another thing that I do know, that that is not necessarily the case were I in the United States"

Ikon's representation of the scenario leaves out each of those key points because his argument completely falls apart when all the facts are present. There is nothing illegal in any State in America about walking into a store, puchasing software and reselling it.

 

 

Annemarie Bridy - "Under the court’s decision in Vernor, all a copyright owner has to do to effectively repeal the statutory first sale doctrine is draft a EULA that (1) specifies that the user is granted a license; (2) significantly restricts the user’s ability to transfer the software; and (3) imposes notable use restrictions. Sad to say, it’s about as easy as falling off a log."

Professor Annemarie Bridy BA MA PH.D JD - Professor Bridy specializes in Internet and intellectual property law, with specific attention to the impact of disruptive technologies on existing frameworks for the protection of intellectual property and the enforcement of intellectual property rights.

First sale doctrine, this means brand new software as well as 2nd hand software.

Copypasta of the same article by one person over and over doesn't change the fact that you are leaving out facts in order to prove your point, nor does it make your claim highlighted above any less false. Posting her list of degrees also doesn't change anything, but such a desperate move indicates you're starting to realize you made an absurd claim and we're only a post or two away from the backpeddling.

"when I walk into a store and purchase software, I can legally resell that software on Ebay, in the paper, at a garage sale.

I can tell you another thing that I do know, that that is not necessarily the case were I in the United States"

The highlighted sentence is false. It has already been explained to you why it is false and why the one example you keep posting over and over is flawed.

"First sale doctrine, this means brand new software as well as 2nd hand software."

No one has questioned that in this thread. Ever. You don't understand the terms. You don't understand the difference between the license and the physical product. We're at an impasse. Read up and we'll talk more.

I may have to babyspeak it to you.  The professor says in her article that a software company in the US can now take steps to have an EULA prevent you from reselling ANY software, whether you bought it from the shop 5 minutes ago, or got it at a garage sale. 

I have no reason to doubt her, given her profession, professorship and specialities. 

Given that a US developer can take steps to "repeal the statutory first sale doctrine" you have no garantee in the US that when you buy software that you will be able to resell it at all, even if its brand new.

Its not rocket science.

Originally posted by Loktofeit

Originally posted by Ikonoclastia

Originally posted by Loktofeit
 

Can you list or link to the titles or States where that isn't true?

Link

"Under the court’s decision in Vernor, all a copyright owner has to do to effectively repeal the statutory first sale doctrine is draft a EULA that (1) specifies that the user is granted a license; (2) significantly restricts the user’s ability to transfer the software; and (3) imposes notable use restrictions. Sad to say, it’s about as easy as falling off a log."

They were used copies that he was selling. You kinda left out that part, Ikon. ;)

 

To explain it further so that others don't have to wade through legalese and court docs:

 

A guy had legitimate copies of AutoCAD 14. He then bought the Upgrade Version of AutoCAD 15 and installed them with AutoCAD 14 as the qualifying software. He then sold the used AutoCAD 14 software - used software, currently licensed to him - to Tim Vernor, who then proceeded to try to sell it on eBay.

"I can tell you one thing that I do know, in NSW, Australia, when I walk into a store and purchase software, I can legally resell that software on Ebay, in the paper, at a garage sale.

I can tell you another thing that I do know, that that is not necessarily the case were I in the United States"

Ikon's representation of the scenario leaves out each of those key points because his argument completely falls apart when all the facts are present. There is nothing illegal in any State in America about walking into a store, puchasing software and reselling it.

 

 

Annemarie Bridy - "Under the court’s decision in Vernor, all a copyright owner has to do to effectively repeal the statutory first sale doctrine is draft a EULA that (1) specifies that the user is granted a license; (2) significantly restricts the user’s ability to transfer the software; and (3) imposes notable use restrictions. Sad to say, it’s about as easy as falling off a log."

Professor Annemarie Bridy BA MA PH.D JD - Professor Bridy specializes in Internet and intellectual property law, with specific attention to the impact of disruptive technologies on existing frameworks for the protection of intellectual property and the enforcement of intellectual property rights.

First sale doctrine, this means brand new software as well as 2nd hand software.

Originally posted by lifesbrink

Originally posted by Anireth

And Steam has some really nice deals, yes. But half of that is because the regular price is quite high, especially outside the US, especially in Europe. Some game cost only 10% more, some even 3 times as much (really. $25 vs €60 and similar). The regular price is almost always higher then any other shop, even the pricy ones. And it certainly can't keep up with Amazon or GoG.

That is not quite true, given the exchange rates in question.  Typically, 1.5 to 2 of our dollars equals 1 euro or pound.  

Today I found Shogun 2 - Fall of the Samurai for 28 US dollars in EBGames, with Box, CD's, Book and Bonus content.  On Steam its 49.99 US dollars. 

But the real killer is this -

I bring it home, instell the steam client (5 mins), client finishes installing and then hangs, eventually kill the process (10 mins),  start the client, create a steam account (5 mins),  install the first 2 disks, 3rd disk install crashes and steam wants to download the rest which is going to take 2 hours (20 minutes). 

So I run the setup again, steam has to validate the installed files, its been validating those files for about 30 minutes, now its sititng on 100% validated doing nothing for the last 20 minutes, I think its locked up... (50 minutes).

This is the most frustrating annoying process, made even worse because I only want to play this non-steam game offline. 

Cancelled the installed and going to try again, I don't hold out much hope.

Edit: Validating locked up again, cancelled.  Uninstalled the game.  Reinstalled the game.  Now Steam has decided (without asking me)  that I need a 3 gig update to play my box game offline. Started at 18:00 its now 22:00 although I did have dinner in between attempts. 3 hours 6 minutes estimated download.

Originally posted by Loktofeit
 

Can you list or link to the titles or States where that isn't true?

Link

"Under the court’s decision in Vernor, all a copyright owner has to do to effectively repeal the statutory first sale doctrine is draft a EULA that (1) specifies that the user is granted a license; (2) significantly restricts the user’s ability to transfer the software; and (3) imposes notable use restrictions. Sad to say, it’s about as easy as falling off a log."

Originally posted by Rabenwolf

Originally posted by Ikonoclastia

I think you are incorrect.  The right of first sale has always removed the rights of control of the copyright holder over its product.  This is why the initial ruling in the case mentioned above was that the software developer could not interfere in the sale of its product on Ebay, in other words the right of the buyer to resale the item was upheld.  The developer appealed to the 9th circuit and the appeal was upheld, in other words the court set aside the lower court ruling and ruled that the developer could limit resale as long as they met certain condtions.

Now in every other country other than the US that decision has no effect obviously and the legalality of resale of software is still mostly undetermined. 

Now you can see where your statement "You didn't buy a product.  You paid for a licence to use it.  You need to understand that before we go any further" is looking pretty silly yeah?

 

You still dont quite understand the differences here. Software and hardware are worlds apart and what applies to one cannot in the same vein be applied to another due the key differences between the two.

First sale concept only morally works when physical goods are at play, where the product itself manifest entirely in a physical object as the primary soure of the sale. When you purchase a software package, you own the packaging, but you are limited as to what you can do with the software. You cannot make your own copies of software and resell them, you cannot legally change or steal the software's code, you cannot modify it to call it your own and thus resell. You could on the otherhand, modify a physical product and resell it (modded computers, custom cars..ect). Software is intellectual property it can only ever be owned by those who have the rights to it (in this case the publisher).

It is not bad law nor a "silly american" thing to protect intellectual property. In fact the US is probably the best in the world at protecting intellectual property. There is always a right way to protect IP and there are of course bad ways to protect IP, most first world nations have a bit of both.

Have you looked at the case Vernor vs Autodesk? The person Vernor purchased used copies from had already upgraded the software and sold the old copies. Meaning, autodesk allows for upgrading old software for a lower cost as opposed to buying it new(upgrade charge). This means the software is upgraded, not replaced and yet while the owner of the license had old physical copies, they did not have the moral or legal right to sell the copies they used to get upgrades.

Without the license requirement, the EULA, there is less incentive for developers to create software and the intellectual property they cannot protect. The first sale rule is not entirely viable in the digital era. Reselling software, which can easily be copied and sold, copied and sold...ect muct have restrictions. Its why its a licensed product. You can always own the packaging, the medium but not the IP.

We are already seeing huge negative reactions to not enforcing license agreement in the used game industry. Game's like diablo 3 come empty... the only thing on the disc is a few mb internet installer. Meaning, you have to download gigs worth of game and have an account just to play it. You have the creation of expensive DLC to offset losses, DLC tied to online accounts only. You have games shipping with content missing, so even if you buy it used you would be required to purcahse the rest of the game (mass effect 2-3). Honestly none of this is friendly to the consumer. Back in the day, extra content was free..given by the developers who liked their creation. First party publishers and hardware developers such as Nintendo, Sony and Microsoft start charging more just for the console development, fees are put in place, more money grabbing features are built into the machines and software.

A lot of this could have been avoided if the used game market wasnt a rampant cancer in the  industry, again making up around 75% of the losses a publisher will face.

Now it may be just me, but from here it just seems like you have a confirmation bias regarding both the US and the used game market, this could pontetially make it harder to understand what exactly is at stake here.

Yeah that particular case (Vernor vs Autodesk?) is the one I was looking at.  I do understand what you are saying, however even in the US most states differ markedly on the validity of shrink wrapped licences. 

"whereas in many cases, the so-called shrink-wrap "license" agreement has not been reviewed at the time of purchase (having been hidden inside the box), and therefore is arguably not part of the implicit legal agreement accompanying the sale of the copy, and is thus not enforceable by either party without further "manifestation of assent" to its terms. In general, a user is not legally obligated to read, let alone consent to any literature or envelope packaging that may be contained inside a product; otherwise such transactions would unduly burden users who have no notice of the terms and conditions of their possession of the object purchased, or the blind, or those unfamiliar with the language in which such terms are provided, etc"

Link

Edit: I actually support copyright laws.  No one has the right to copy a software package and get it for free.  It is stealing imo.  However reselling software is not anything similiar to duplicating.  Its like reselling a book as opposed to copying a book.  The industry doesn't suffer any more losses to 2nd hand resellng than does the auto industry to second hand car sales.

Originally posted by Loktofeit

Originally posted by Ikonoclastia

Originally posted by Loktofeit

"I don't understand how a used game is illegal to sell.  When we buy in the shop we do not sign an agreement which prohibits a resale of that item.  In most countries, exhanging money for a product makes us the owner of that product."

You didn't buy a product. You paid for a license to use it. You'll need to understand that before we go any further.

While you're working on that one, let's get back to that statement "I don't understand how a used game is illegal to sell."

Since your focuse dis solely on the product, which is the CD/DVD/etc. can you link to  license agreement that do not let you transfer the entire physical copy of pre-recorded Software and accompanying documentation on a permanent basis to another person? If it's illegal, someone should inform gameStop

I think you are incorrect.  The right of first sale has always removed the rights of control of the copyright holder over its product.  This is why the initial ruling in the case mentioned above was that the software developer could not interfere in the sale of its product on Ebay, in other words the right of the buyer to resale the item was upheld.  The developer appealed to the 9th circuit and the appeal was upheld, in other words the court set aside the lower court ruling and ruled that the developer could limit resale as long as they met certain condtions.

Now in every other country other than the US that decision has no effect obviously and the legalality of resale of software is still mostly undetermined. 

Now you can see where your statement "You didn't buy a product.  You paid for a licence to use it.  You need to understand that before we go any further" is looking pretty silly yeah?

Not silly at all. Again, you are confusing the license with the product. I already said in the post you just replied to that the product itself can be sold (since you stated you were under the impression it is illegal to sell it) so, just like your previous replies, you rambled about something unrelated and didn't answer the questions presented.

You are missing the most important point.  I suggest you read the article in the link I posted a few posts back, specifically pay attention to what the lawyer, who specializes in this type of law, says about ownership and EULA's. 

There is not one universal world law so telling me what I did and didn't do in regard to my purchase of a boxed software package without having a specific and thorough understanding of the applicable laws in my country and state is reaching.

I can tell you one thing that I do know, in NSW, Australia, when I walk into a store and purchase software, I can legally resell that software on Ebay, in the paper, at a garage sale.

I can tell you another thing that I do know, that that is not necessarily the case were I in the United States

Its not as simple as you think it is..

Originally posted by Loktofeit

Originally posted by Ikonoclastia

Originally posted by Loktofeit

Originally posted by Ikonoclastia

Originally posted by Loktofeit

Originally posted by Ikonoclastia

I don't understand how a used game is illegal to sell.  When we buy in the shop we do not sign an agreement which prohibits a resale of that item.  In most countries, exhanging money for a product makes us the owner of that product. 

Only on installing the game on our system do we agree to the licence conditions and by then its too late to impose restrictions on ownership.  I can't see how any reasonable court would find that after paying money for a boxed version of a game, without agreeing to not resell that boxed version at a later date that we couldn't legally resell it.

Now it's absolutely clear you haven't the slightest clue about the issue you're poorly attempting to rabble about here. 

 

You are right, the store doesn't let you see or sign the agreement before purchase. You agreed before you installed, but that's an argument that's two decades old and if you haven't learned anything on that front by now, you certainly aren't going to learn in a couple pages of an MMORPG.com thread so I won't waste you or my time explaining it. Here's something you clear don't understand, though, and until you figure it out, no one is really going to take you seriously:

 "The Software is licensed, not sold. Your license confers no title or ownership in the Software."

 

But, see.. Steam... that evil, malware something or other you are raising torch and pitchfork about.... Steam lets you read and sign the subscriber agreement (SSA) before you purchase. The SSA hasn't changed in two years, so if you've read it once in the past two years, you're set. As someone rallying about the dangers and oppressive nature of Steam, you have read the SSA, right? 

 

I think this says it better then I could argue it - "Of course, when we have a physical object, we do just about have the right to sell it second hand (something publishers are of course doing their best to scupper, taking away perhaps even the vestiges of ownership that we have of the plastic)." 

Link

Of course, In the US, in 2010, the 9th circuit appeals court ruled that if a copyright holder informs the user they are buying a licence rather than the actual software then they may restrict a persons first sale rights but thats America, they have some questionable and extreme laws to protect the rich and affluent especially whenit comes to copyright.

 

Came looking for remotely intelligible reply to my post.

Found "Yeah? Well, umm... America is bad! Nyah!"

 

Left disappointed. 

 

 

Sidestepping my reply by straw-manning the very last sentence of my reply. You skipped the entirety of the article which I linked in which a lawyer who specializes in this type of law showed there really is no consensus as the laws havent been adequately tested. I raised first sale rights which exist in almost all countries in the world. You ignored that.

"I don't understand how a used game is illegal to sell.  When we buy in the shop we do not sign an agreement which prohibits a resale of that item.  In most countries, exhanging money for a product makes us the owner of that product."

You didn't buy a product. You paid for a license to use it. You'll need to understand that before we go any further.

While you're working on that one, let's get back to that statement "I don't understand how a used game is illegal to sell."

Since your focuse dis solely on the product, which is the CD/DVD/etc. can you link to  license agreement that do not let you transfer the entire physical copy of pre-recorded Software and accompanying documentation on a permanent basis to another person? If it's illegal, someone should inform gameStop

 

I think you are incorrect.  The right of first sale has always removed the rights of control of the copyright holder over its product.  This is why the initial ruling in the case mentioned above was that the software developer could not interfere in the sale of its product on Ebay, in other words the right of the buyer to resale the item was upheld.  The developer appealed to the 9th circuit and the appeal was upheld, in other words the court set aside the lower court ruling and ruled that the developer could limit resale as long as they met certain condtions.

Now in every other country other than the US that decision has no effect obviously and the legalality of resale of software is still mostly undetermined. 

Now you can see where your statement "You didn't buy a product.  You paid for a licence to use it.  You need to understand that before we go any further" is looking pretty silly yeah?

Originally posted by Loktofeit

Originally posted by Ikonoclastia

Originally posted by Loktofeit

Originally posted by Ikonoclastia

I don't understand how a used game is illegal to sell.  When we buy in the shop we do not sign an agreement which prohibits a resale of that item.  In most countries, exhanging money for a product makes us the owner of that product. 

Only on installing the game on our system do we agree to the licence conditions and by then its too late to impose restrictions on ownership.  I can't see how any reasonable court would find that after paying money for a boxed version of a game, without agreeing to not resell that boxed version at a later date that we couldn't legally resell it.

Now it's absolutely clear you haven't the slightest clue about the issue you're poorly attempting to rabble about here. 

 

You are right, the store doesn't let you see or sign the agreement before purchase. You agreed before you installed, but that's an argument that's two decades old and if you haven't learned anything on that front by now, you certainly aren't going to learn in a couple pages of an MMORPG.com thread so I won't waste you or my time explaining it. Here's something you clear don't understand, though, and until you figure it out, no one is really going to take you seriously:

 "The Software is licensed, not sold. Your license confers no title or ownership in the Software."

 

But, see.. Steam... that evil, malware something or other you are raising torch and pitchfork about.... Steam lets you read and sign the subscriber agreement (SSA) before you purchase. The SSA hasn't changed in two years, so if you've read it once in the past two years, you're set. As someone rallying about the dangers and oppressive nature of Steam, you have read the SSA, right? 

 

I think this says it better then I could argue it - "Of course, when we have a physical object, we do just about have the right to sell it second hand (something publishers are of course doing their best to scupper, taking away perhaps even the vestiges of ownership that we have of the plastic)." 

Link

Of course, In the US, in 2010, the 9th circuit appeals court ruled that if a copyright holder informs the user they are buying a licence rather than the actual software then they may restrict a persons first sale rights but thats America, they have some questionable and extreme laws to protect the rich and affluent especially whenit comes to copyright.

 

Came looking for remotely intelligible reply to my post.

Found "Yeah? Well, umm... America is bad! Nyah!"

 

Left disappointed. 

 

Originally posted by Loktofeit

Originally posted by Ikonoclastia

I don't understand how a used game is illegal to sell.  When we buy in the shop we do not sign an agreement which prohibits a resale of that item.  In most countries, exhanging money for a product makes us the owner of that product. 

Only on installing the game on our system do we agree to the licence conditions and by then its too late to impose restrictions on ownership.  I can't see how any reasonable court would find that after paying money for a boxed version of a game, without agreeing to not resell that boxed version at a later date that we couldn't legally resell it.

Now it's absolutely clear you haven't the slightest clue about the issue you're poorly attempting to rabble about here. 

 

You are right, the store doesn't let you see or sign the agreement before purchase. You agreed before you installed, but that's an argument that's two decades old and if you haven't learned anything on that front by now, you certainly aren't going to learn in a couple pages of an MMORPG.com thread so I won't waste you or my time explaining it. Here's something you clear don't understand, though, and until you figure it out, no one is really going to take you seriously:

 "The Software is licensed, not sold. Your license confers no title or ownership in the Software."

 

But, see.. Steam... that evil, malware something or other you are raising torch and pitchfork about.... Steam lets you read and sign the subscriber agreement (SSA) before you purchase. The SSA hasn't changed in two years, so if you've read it once in the past two years, you're set. As someone rallying about the dangers and oppressive nature of Steam, you have read the SSA, right? 

 

I think this says it better then I could argue it - "Of course, when we have a physical object, we do just about have the right to sell it second hand (something publishers are of course doing their best to scupper, taking away perhaps even the vestiges of ownership that we have of the plastic)." 

Link

Of course, In the US, in 2010, the 9th circuit appeals court ruled that if a copyright holder informs the user they are buying a licence rather than the actual software then they may restrict a persons first sale rights but thats America, they have some questionable and extreme laws to protect the rich and affluent especially whenit comes to copyright.

Originally posted by UsualSuspect

Originally posted by Ikonoclastia

It does seem like that but Lodizal had 32,000 HP (the max limit on HP at the time I think) + health regen, for a single player to kill him would have taken an enormous amount of time vs a group, if I recall it would take a Shaman an hour or so (Shamans could just manage to solo him in Velious)

I killed him both with a group (velious era) and solo as an enchanter with dire cham (PoP era) and as a group it took a minute or so.

Obviouisly given that, if you could get a group you certainly would, unless you really wanted something from him or you just wanted the challenge.

Okay, so lets say that everyone can solo him, but it takes a lot longer and that a group can do it a lot quicker. Now, Lodizal was a rare spawn, he was jumped on within minutes of him spawning with groups across the continent teleporting in to try and catch him. How do you make this work without kill stealing? If one person can kill it then the first person who wanders past can tag it and start fighting. Those groups don't even have a chance of jumping in to challenge for that content, there would need to be 6 people sat there the entire time to be able to claim it.

So 6 people are excluded from content so 1 person can solo something. Even Spock said that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. Excuse my geek-ism there. It just seems to me that the more you make a game soloable, the more you take away from groups, no matter how you try and do it.

Thats a bit too specific to really argue over when we're really arguing about a theoretical game sometimes in the future and those sorts of "unfair" things would have to be addressed specifically to the game. 

However, Everquest was not "fair" and was never meant to be, I camped and farmed Lodizal quite a lot, most often there were a few scouts hanging out at his spawn location for a few hours prior to his expected spawn time.  What would usually happen is if a group turned up to kill Lodizal the soloers would hand the camp over no problems.    Other times the group would see the pop first and aggro him first.  Some times a group scout would kite him (no summoning if you did no damage) till the group got organized and arrived.

When you think about it, whether you are in a group or solo, everyone has an equal chance to "tag" a mob, just comes down to lag, reflexes and luck.

Probably the most interesting thing about Everquest was its unfairness and politics, where an uber guild would wipe every raid mob, they had week long or longer spawns  (even when they didn't need them) so up and coming guilds could not get the gear and compete with them for high tier content, or just because they could.  I miss those days.

Originally posted by Zadawn

Originally posted by Synthetick

Originally posted by rojo6934

Originally posted by Ikonoclastia

Originally posted by kadepsyson

Posting in a thread where steam is supposedly malware except not by the definitions the guy claiming so linked himself.

Are you denying that steam takes over partial control of your system (your ability to run your software on your system) and monitors and or collects data from your system?

Every company that provides computer / internet services do that. And we agree to those terms of service before signing up.

^ Truth.

And Steam doesn't take over partial system by denying you to run software without it installed. When you purchase a title through Steam, you are required to open Steam to play it. Consider it a hub. 

Under that kind of thinking, I'm assuming OnLive is malware as well. It has to be. I can't play the titles I purchased unless I have it. Right? I submit statistics and they collect data, as well. It only makes sense following that logic.

Windows and Linux are malware as well then.

When you purchase a title outside of steam (a retail version of shogun 2 for example) you are required to load steam.  Additionally steam software is required to be running on your system to play even in offline mode.  This is frankly quite a bit different to having a system specific bit of software loaded such as a driver or a hub which is directly related to your software. 

So yes it's needed to be loaded for me to run the game, monitors and reports to steam, its taking partial control of my computer.

Also I have never had an ISP or computer service provide software that checks what programs I have running, refuses to let some programs run if I don't have their unrelated software running or requires that I allow it to upload information on my system and programs to possibly be shared with 3rd parties.  Doesn't happen and if it did they'd be bankrupt pretty quick.

Originally posted by Rabenwolf

Around 75% of losses a publisher will face come from the USED GAME MARKET. Piracy is barely a blip on the radar when it comes to overall verifiable losses to the publisher.

Another rarely known fact is that piracy is more active certain regions. Many I have talked to assume piracy is rampant in North American, when in fact it ranks the lowest on the piracy list. Piracy is at its highest in, believe it or not... regions where the game is not available for domestic purchase or is over priced. For example, piracy is huge in China, the middle east and south america. In Australia and New Zealand, publishers charge easily over $120 for a game we here in the states would pay $50-60 for.

The real culprit has always been the Used Game Market. Retailers reselling the same game over and over and over, oftentimes barely undercutting a new copy.  EULA's are often ignored and some actually think they own the game as opposed to owning the license to run the game. These are fundamentally different concepts.

If selling used copies of games becomes actively illegal (technically it still is but its ignored) ebay will not allow those sales.

In the case, Vernor vs Autodesk, Autodesk won. The courts reinforced the idea that you cannot resell copies of license based software without their permission.

 

On another note:

Everytime you buy a used game, you commit something worse than piracy. In some cases piracy has actually helped a publisher. Game's like Gothic 1 would have never been popular outside of Germany if it wasnt for piracy and fan translations. Other articles suggest pirates are often the biggest spenders on games, where as other articles write them off as non consumers altogether. Perhaps it is a mix of both. There is no way we can actually verify which category they belong to other than the fact that Piracy is not the big bad evil hurting the industry that some make it out to be.

Used games are responsible for developers holding out content to resell as DLC as a means to offset losses. They also force developers to make more online only games in which the game is tied to an online account.

Its always good to keep it in proper perspective.

I don't understand how a used game is illegal to sell.  When we buy in the shop we do not sign an agreement which prohibits a resale of that item.  In most countries, exhanging money for a product makes us the owner of that product. 

Only on installing the game on our system do we agree to the licence conditions and by then its too late to impose restrictions on ownership.  I can't see how any reasonable court would find that after paying money for a boxed version of a game, without agreeing to not resell that boxed version at a later date that we couldn't legally resell it.

To put it in perspective, if we were to buy a vehicle and when we got the keys they said, "oh hey, btw you only bought a licence to drive this vehicle, it still belonngs to us, if you decide to drive this vehicle you may not resell it to anyone" I think no court would agree that this is reasonable.  And I think thats why people ignore the eula because a lot of it is nonsense but put in as a just in case they don't take it to court they may think its true and legally obligating.