Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
Kanluwen wrote: Unfortunately, just because Europe seems to think that an EULA is not binding does not mean that an EULA written with Europe in mind will not pass legal muster.
Of course not, but none of us ever said so
An EULA is below the law priority-wise, thus when there's a conflict between law and EULA, the EULA isn't worth more than 2-layered toilet paper. And in the matter at hand, that's not being able to sell used games and / or banning a user account thus rendering him not able to play the game.
And that will help you 2-5 years later after you've been banned but finally won in an EU court against microsoft (and that's assuming you've got the funds to carry on the fight that long).
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/06/18 15:42:45
Kanluwen wrote: Unfortunately, just because Europe seems to think that an EULA is not binding does not mean that an EULA written with Europe in mind will not pass legal muster.
Of course not, but none of us ever said so
An EULA is below the law priority-wise, thus when there's a conflict between law and EULA, the EULA isn't worth more than 2-layered toilet paper. And in the matter at hand, that's not being able to sell used games and / or banning a user account thus rendering him not able to play the game.
Kanluwen wrote: Unfortunately, just because Europe seems to think that an EULA is not binding does not mean that an EULA written with Europe in mind will not pass legal muster.
Of course not, but none of us ever said so
An EULA is below the law priority-wise, thus when there's a conflict between law and EULA, the EULA isn't worth more than 2-layered toilet paper. And in the matter at hand, that's not being able to sell used games and / or banning a user account thus rendering him not able to play the game.
You're aware that you CAN sell used games, right?
only if specifically allowed by the publisher for that title and publishers have been the biggest critics of the used game industry this console generation. The backlash though against the xbone may convince some of them to maintain the status quo for a bit though. EA is already backtracking away from its anti-used game policy and they were one of the pioneers of the "online pass" aimed specifically at used games.
Kanluwen wrote: Unfortunately, just because Europe seems to think that an EULA is not binding does not mean that an EULA written with Europe in mind will not pass legal muster.
Of course not, but none of us ever said so
An EULA is below the law priority-wise, thus when there's a conflict between law and EULA, the EULA isn't worth more than 2-layered toilet paper. And in the matter at hand, that's not being able to sell used games and / or banning a user account thus rendering him not able to play the game.
You're aware that you CAN sell used games, right?
only if specifically allowed by the publisher for that title and publishers have been the biggest critics of the used game industry this console generation.
No, all titles will be able to be sold.
The only difference is that GameStop is getting screwed and that you will only be able to sell titles a certain amount of times--with the license included--transferring to someone else.
Past that? You cannot resell. From what I understand, you can sell Microsoft Studio titles one time and other developer titles are up to their publishers.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/06/18 16:41:12
Has this been posted yet?
Kotaku is reporting that one of the new Xbox One showcase cames, Ryse: Son of Rome isn't even a real game, the horrible Quicktime events seen in the video play themselves without influence from the gamer.
I’m on the battlefield. I’m stomping through the corpses of my comrades swinging my sword at anything that moves. I begin a combo, I slash twice and then whooom slow motion is initiated, gak is about to get ‘cinematic’. A button prompt hovers elusively above the sword I’m about to drive into the throat of my enemy… argh I’m too slow! The prompt flickers, disappears.
I missed it. Damn.
But then somehow, for some reason, I still complete the cinematic ‘kill’.
What?
Maybe it’s a bug I think, but no. Next time I deliberately press the wrong button. The kill goes ahead, no consequences. Then I try hitting no buttons whatsoever. The kill goes ahead. I put the controller on the table in front of me, the kill goes ahead.
What is going on here?
I ask one of the Crytek people hovering at the booth – is this a bug? Why am I completing kills when I hit the wrong button prompt? Or, worse, no button at all. Turns out it was a deliberate design choice.
“We don’t want the player to feel frustrated,” I am told.
We need more games like this:
Good things are good,.. so it's good
Keep our city clean.
Report your death to the Department of Expiration
Sigvatr wrote: In multiplayer games, you ruin the experience for other players. You can do whatever you want in single-player games.
And?
If you've agreed to an EULA saying you will not modify the game and then use a save editor--it does not matter if the game is single player or not, you've tampered with the game files.
There's a difference, IMO, between a 'cheat' like the old Konami Code and using coalesced files and save editors.
What about someone who gets banned not for hacking the game, but for being verbally abusive or a general ass? I definitely agree that these people should be banned from online play, but they shouldn't have their 500 dollar machine turn into a brick just because they're a jerk.
Eldar shenanigans are the best shenanigans! DQ:90S++G+M--B+IPw40k09#+D++A++/areWD-R++T(T)DM+
Kanluwen wrote: Personally? I'm fine with people having their accounts banned being unable to access their content. It is so obnoxious right now that if someone gets their gamertag banned for utilizing glitches/exploits on Battlefield 3
I can understand a banhammer if someone is modding their console to cheat, but banning someone and revoking all of their games because the devs released a game with holes in it is ridiculous. Glitches and exploits falls on the devs to fix, not microsoft to police.
At least that's how I feel.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/06/18 17:54:30
“Sometimes I can hear my bones straining under the weight of all the lives I'm not living.”
Sigvatr wrote: In multiplayer games, you ruin the experience for other players. You can do whatever you want in single-player games.
And?
If you've agreed to an EULA saying you will not modify the game and then use a save editor--it does not matter if the game is single player or not, you've tampered with the game files.
There's a difference, IMO, between a 'cheat' like the old Konami Code and using coalesced files and save editors.
If I buy a vintage car, tell the guy I won't modify it, and then do modify it, he can piss off; it's my car, I'll do what I want with it. The moment the money exchanged hands, he no longer has any say in what happens to it. Just because you make something, doesn't mean other people can't modify it.
I can buy a hot dog, take it home, put ranch dressing on it (Not something you can order with a hot dog), and the 5 star restaurant can take a hike.
I can buy a computer from Best Buy, and put a better graphics card in it. Nothing best buy can do.
I can buy a house/land, and then tear down the house and build a small business/pool/whatever.
I can buy Spehss Mahreens and make them Hello Kitty Marines; GW can't do jack GAK unless I play "on their servers" in a tournament.
I can buy a Chainsaw, remove the chain, make some spacial modifications, and have the most bad ass feather duster ever. No one can say anything.
I can buy a movie, make a video with clips in it, and am protected by law under Fair Use.
I can buy a game, Modify it, play it by myself, but then get banned and lose the 1200 dollars I've spent on the system, games, and downloads, JUST because it's games.
None of those examples have me selling the product/handing it out to other people, which is where the law is able to actually step in. Yet the big wigs at Microsoft seem to think that they own the idea of the game. I can do anything I want with anything on my property, as long as it doesn't affect anyone else. I should be able to modify my single player games as I want; I paid for them, and it's a GOOD, not a SERVICE.
So why are you so adamantly against it being the same with video games?
And before anyone says "You can't just download a car out of thin air", I'll just say "wait for 3D printers to become cheap."
I've never feared Death or Dying. I've only feared never Trying.
Kanluwen wrote: Unfortunately, just because Europe seems to think that an EULA is not binding does not mean that an EULA written with Europe in mind will not pass legal muster.
Of course not, but none of us ever said so
An EULA is below the law priority-wise, thus when there's a conflict between law and EULA, the EULA isn't worth more than 2-layered toilet paper. And in the matter at hand, that's not being able to sell used games and / or banning a user account thus rendering him not able to play the game.
You're aware that you CAN sell used games, right?
only if specifically allowed by the publisher for that title and publishers have been the biggest critics of the used game industry this console generation.
No, all titles will be able to be sold.
The only difference is that GameStop is getting screwed and that you will only be able to sell titles a certain amount of times--with the license included--transferring to someone else.
Past that? You cannot resell. From what I understand, you can sell Microsoft Studio titles one time and other developer titles are up to their publishers.
Microsoft themselves disagree with your blanket statement. You have NO RIGHT to sell your xbox one games; it is an option that may be granted by the publishers at their leisure and they have no obligation to do so.
Trade-in and resell your disc-based games: Today, some gamers choose to sell their old disc-based games back for cash and credit. We designed Xbox One so game publishers can enable you to trade in your games at participating retailers.
Kanluwen wrote: The publishers enabling sale is not relevant.
The discs and licenses can be sold/passed on.
Sigh... your ignorance is both astounding and apparently impenetrable to the facts straight from the microsoft xbox website. I have no idea how you can stand by your unequivocal and absolute statement when microsoft has clearly stated that the ability to sell used xbox games is conditional and dependent entirely on the whims of other corporate entities.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/06/18 21:55:29
Kanluwen wrote: The publishers enabling sale is not relevant.
The discs and licenses can be sold/passed on.
Sigh... your ignorance is both astounding and apparently impenetrable to the facts straight from the microsoft xbox website. I have no idea how you can stand by your unequivocal and absolute statement when microsoft has clearly stated that the ability to sell used xbox games is conditional and dependent entirely on the whims of other corporate entities.
Kanluwen wrote: The publishers enabling sale is not relevant.
The discs and licenses can be sold/passed on.
Sigh... your ignorance is both astounding and apparently impenetrable to the facts straight from the microsoft xbox website. I have no idea how you can stand by your unequivocal and absolute statement when microsoft has clearly stated that the ability to sell used xbox games is conditional and dependent entirely on the whims of other corporate entities.
Can discs be resold?
Absolutely... and they make great coasters and frisbies if their publisher won't allow used game sales. But of course, your original statement said "titles" and your second one "titles and licenses"... Are you trying to move the goal posts all the way down the field by rephrasing the statements (plural) in terms of just the physical discs now that have no use if sale of the tagged license isn't allowed?
Kanluwen wrote: The publishers enabling sale is not relevant.
The discs and licenses can be sold/passed on.
Sigh... your ignorance is both astounding and apparently impenetrable to the facts straight from the microsoft xbox website. I have no idea how you can stand by your unequivocal and absolute statement when microsoft has clearly stated that the ability to sell used xbox games is conditional and dependent entirely on the whims of other corporate entities.
Can discs be resold?
Absolutely... and they make great coasters and frisbies if their publisher won't allow used game sales. But of course, your original statement said "titles" and your second one "titles and licenses"... Are you trying to move the goal posts all the way down the field by rephrasing the statements (plural) in terms of just the physical discs now that have no use if sale of the tagged license isn't allowed?
What publisher is not going to allow used game sales at this point?
Please, find me a statement from these publishers that they will not be allowing used game sales.
The WHOLE POINT of this new system is that the publishers and developers take a cut and so does Microsoft.
Why would they bother implementing this system and forcing it upon retailers if the system was not going to be used?
What publisher is not going to allow used game sales at this point?
Is that a serious question? It's not like publishers rail about used game sales all the time or anything.
Please, find me a statement from these publishers that they will not be allowing used game sales.
Find me one that says they will (i.e. this is not an argument). You could just point out that EA executives have pointed to not wanting to use the feature but they haven't come out and said anything nor have Ubisoft or Activision as far as I know and that's practically half the AAA game's industry right there. Given the history of the publishers and their complaints about used games it is not irrational for people to see these ending in the worst case scenario especially since the companies in question aren't saying much.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/06/18 22:37:05
What about someone who gets banned not for hacking the game, but for being verbally abusive or a general ass? I definitely agree that these people should be banned from online play, but they shouldn't have their 500 dollar machine turn into a brick just because they're a jerk.
Unfortunately, microsoft has been very inconsistent with their messaging regarding this over the past week. I saw a youtube video interview with Major Nelson where he said you would only be excluded from online play for douchebaggery but the xbox twitter feed explicitly stated you'd lose all your licenses (which in the case of the xbone means all access).
What publisher is not going to allow used game sales at this point?
Is that a serious question? It's not like publishers rail about used game sales all the time or anything.
They rail about the fact that the publishers do not get a cut.
There's a difference there, would you not agree?
Please, find me a statement from these publishers that they will not be allowing used game sales.
Find me one that says they will (i.e. this is not an argument). You could just point out that EA executives have pointed to not wanting to use the feature but they haven't come out and said anything nor have Ubisoft or Activision as far as I know and that's practically half the AAA game's industry right there. Given the history of the publishers and their complaints about used games it is not irrational for people to see these ending in the worst case scenario especially since the companies in question aren't saying much.
That's a fair point, but at the same time this is EA, Ubisoft, and Activision we are discussing.
They will likely have some kind of 'rule' in place which makes it so that the price of a used game is so close to that of a new game--or even more than a new game--that it will be detrimental to the used game sellers.
Kanluwen wrote: They will likely have some kind of 'rule' in place which makes it so that the price of a used game is so close to that of a new game--or even more than a new game--that it will be detrimental to the used game sellers.
So no matter which way you cut it, it's still detrimental to the consumers and the players, and that's the problem with the policy in the first place.
Eldar shenanigans are the best shenanigans! DQ:90S++G+M--B+IPw40k09#+D++A++/areWD-R++T(T)DM+
Kanluwen wrote: They will likely have some kind of 'rule' in place which makes it so that the price of a used game is so close to that of a new game--or even more than a new game--that it will be detrimental to the used game sellers.
So no matter which way you cut it, it's still detrimental to the consumers and the players, and that's the problem with the policy in the first place.
How is that "detrimental to the consumers and players"?
No matter how GameStop spins it--they're going to be vomiting money unless they can sucker people into buying a used game. What person is going to buy a USED game and the license associated with it when they can buy the same game, brand new, for cheaper?
Where is the idea that brand new games are cheaper coming from?
It's speculation on my part, mostly hinging upon the idea that "Gamestop are greedy and will not enjoy having fingers in their pie".
If GameStop is going to sell used games to retain their normal profit margins, they're going to have to adjust prices in relation to the fact that they will no longer be getting 100% of that profit. The developers are getting 10%, publishers 10%, and Microsoft 20%.
That's 40% of that used game's profit gone on that resale. Consider that the information we have right now points towards "each game can only be resold by a shop one time", and it's a huge middle finger to GameStop who make their bank on peddling the newest games used to people.
The reason why Gamestop makes so much money off of used games is because it has to. New videogames sales make very little money for the retailer (I've heard numbers less than 2%).
If we're going to talk about greed here, look at Microsoft and the publishers who demonize used game sales, but then turn around and offer exclusive content to be sold at Gamestop.
And it's not like used sales are killing the industry, it's only been growing. This is just a money grab.
Fafnir wrote: The reason why Gamestop makes so much money off of used games is because it has to. New videogames sales make very little money for the retailer (I've heard numbers less than 2%).
Are we talking about for GameStop exclusively?
If so: of course "new game sales make very little money" for them. Their whole system is built around used games. They do everything they can to keep new videogames on the shelves, rather than selling them.
If we're going to talk about greed here, look at Microsoft and the publishers who demonize used game sales, but then turn around and offer exclusive content to be sold at Gamestop.
And it's not like used sales are killing the industry, it's only been growing. This is just a money grab.
It's a money grab that is justified. The average triple A title is sold anywhere from 2 to 5 times from GameStop, depending on if it is a multiplayer or a singleplayer title and the staggering of their downloadable content releases.
Game stop really isn't going to be hurt by this. As much as publishes complain, they still bend over backwards to be friends with gamestop. Also I doubt games could exist without game stop.
