Send News. Want a reply? Read this. More in the FAQ.   News Forum - All Forums - Mobile - PDA - RSS Headlines  RSS Headlines   Twitter  Twitter
Customize
User Settings
Styles:
LAN Parties
Upcoming one-time events:

Regularly scheduled events

User information for Bhruic

Real Name Bhruic   
Search for:
 
Sort results:   Ascending Descending
Limit results:
 
 
 
Nickname None given.
Email Concealed by request
ICQ None given.
Description
Homepage http://
Signed On Nov 14, 2004, 23:07
Total Comments 3145 (Veteran)
User ID 22304
 
User comment history
< Newer [ 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 ] Older >


News Comments > Op Ed
43. Re: Op Ed Apr 24, 2012, 03:08 Bhruic
 
You're still arguing legality and not practical results

No I'm not, that's just all you are seeing because you've got blinders on.

However, when used games are bought and sold, neither the developer or publisher sees compensation.

They've already got their compensation. That's all they get. The publisher makes a bunch of copies of the game, and ships them to stores, which pay the publisher for them. That's the compensation they get for them. What happens to them after the fact is irrelevant.

Let's put it differently, and see if this clears it up. When a store buys the game from the publisher, the store could, if it wanted to, turn around and hand all those games out for free. The store would lose money, certainly, but the option is there for it. Now, if the store did that, could it turn around to the publisher and demand money from them because they gave away the games? Of course not - the publisher isn't part of the equation at that point. The same is true with used sales. The publisher got paid for the copy of the game. If someone wants to sell their game, trade it for a block of cheese, or flush it down the toilet, that's irrelevant.

Saying "the publisher doesn't see compensation" when someone buys/sells a used game is just as silly as saying that the publisher didn't get a slice of the cheese when someone traded their game for the block of cheese. And it's even sillier to suggest that trading a game for a block of cheese is just like piracy. And yet you're trying to do it anyway.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Diablo III Open Beta Weekend
201. Re: Diablo III Open Beta Weekend Apr 23, 2012, 18:22 Bhruic
 
StingingVelvet wrote on Apr 23, 2012, 14:28:
Bhruic wrote on Apr 21, 2012, 01:30:
Sorry, I assumed you meant "Steam sale" level. Yeah, you can get a few percentage points off, but $39.99 for a game over a year old is a lot in my books. You won't see it at the $5/$10/$15 price points that you can get on Steam.

God I hate how Steam sales have ruined the value of games. OMG it's a year old it isn't worth shit! How silly...

And by "only a year old", you mean "just a few months shy of two years old", right?

As for "worth", who are you to say what a game is worth? I determine the worth of a game based on how much I'd be willing to pay to play it. Since I have no interest in multiplayer Starcraft 2, I'm not willing to pay $40 to play it. If they were to drop the price significantly, I probably would.

Frankly, to see a consumer complaining that the value of game prices is too low is laughable. If you want to spend more money, by all means do so, but the rest of us would, I believe, prefer to spend less.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Op Ed
34. Re: Op Ed Apr 23, 2012, 07:08 Bhruic
 
Except now you're arguing semantics. Yes, used sales are legal and piracy is not. Nobody ever disputed that. However, if you look at the actual results of used sales, you see that they are pretty much the same as the results of piracy. You get to play the game without compensating the publisher or developer.

It's not semantics, you just are being willfully ignorant. If I pay $60 for a game, and then sell it to someone else for $40, the developers got paid for the game - they got their share of the original $60. Me later selling it to someone else doesn't change that. But they also have no right to the $40 that I sold it for, because I'm simply giving away my license to the game. To say that the developer "wasn't compensated" is obviously wrong - the developer made their cut of the game. They also aren't entitled to any compensation if I loan it to a friend, throw it in the garbage, or leave it sitting in the street.

Now, if you want to argue over whether people should have the ability to sell their license, by all means, argue it, but that's a separate argument.

That's three transactions for the same game, only one of which compensated the publisher and developer.

Again, not the case. As soon as the developer was compensated for the original sale, that's the end of their participation in things. Any and all future transactions only take place because they were compensated. And that's all the get. Once the sale takes place, people are free to do what they want with the product, which includes transfering the license. That right is part of the price that's being paid.

If developers want to strip that right from people, fine, then start charging less for their games to make up for it.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Diablo III Open Beta Weekend
181. Re: Diablo III Open Beta Weekend Apr 23, 2012, 04:23 Bhruic
 
In general I agree with a lot of the comments about not being impressed by the game. Right now I'm just trying to figure out if I would have been impressed by a version of D2 that ended, say, right after killing Bloodraven. Would that have given me enough of an experience of the game to really enjoy it, or would the general blahness of the early act 1 normal map have made me as unimpressed as I am with what we can see in D3?  
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Op Ed
32. Re: Op Ed Apr 23, 2012, 04:20 Bhruic
 
If you buy a used game, you are not a customer of the publisher or developer that created it because you (the person buying the used copy, not the person who bought the new one) haven't paid them for their work. Same thing applies to piracy.

Sorry, but you are wrong. When you sell your game to someone else, you transfer all your rights to that person along with the game. That makes the "used" purchaser just as much a customer of the publisher/developer as the original purchaser was. With piracy, someone may have purchased the game originally (although that's often not the case), but they aren't transfering their rights to anyone else - they are keeping them, but making the game available to others. That's where the difference lies. You can dislike used sales if you want, but you can't deny that people are allowed to transfer ownership of the product (first sale doctrine), and the person who takes possession of the product gains all the rights the original owner had.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Op Ed
31. Re: Op Ed Apr 23, 2012, 04:12 Bhruic
 

30% of sales were used, but 55% of profits were from used.

How is that relevant? The issue isn't where Gamestop made their money, it's how much money consumers are spending on new vs used. Right now, they are outspending on new games by an 8:5 ratio.

If you want to argue that's still a bad thing, go ahead. But Jerykk was advancing the idea that a single game sale fuels multiple used copy sales, which looking at the numbers, falls apart.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Op Ed
23. Re: Op Ed Apr 22, 2012, 22:40 Bhruic
 
Your position ignores the fact that a used copy only requires a new purchase once, after which it can be resold again and again without the developer or publisher seeing any money.

Yes, but your position ignores the reality that that never actually happens. Theoretically, sure, but practically, large numbers of new games are sold - Gamestop sells more new games than used by their own sales numbers.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Diablo III Open Beta Weekend
146. Re: Diablo III Open Beta Weekend Apr 22, 2012, 01:55 Bhruic
 
*** Had to edit to add this (after reading a few other posts). Several of you are posting about the disconnects from the server(s) and are unhappy about it... ARE YOU SERIOUS? IT'S A STRESS TEST. They are giving us a chance to try their game FOR FREE BEFORE IT'S RELEASED. We should be greatful to have the chance and you should EXPECT connection issues in a stress test otherwise they're not doing their job... Am I the only one that sees it this way???????

I hope so, but probably not.

What's the purpose of a stress test? To test the servers under "real world" conditions. The idea is to "stress" the servers with lots of people to mimic what will happen post-release, and make sure things work ahead of time.

From that comes two things - first off, yes, they are letting us play the game "for free", in that they aren't charging money, but it's not like they aren't getting anything from the deal. It would be just as easy to say "Blizzard is getting all this testing done on their game, and they aren't even paying the people they have testing for them!" This is a trade situation - they allow us to play the game, we test their servers for them. They aren't doing us favours.

Second, ideally the servers should be fine already. The game is less than a month from release, that's not a lot of time to fix any problems with the servers they find. The best case scenario for a stress test is that everything works fine. That means they planned ahead, and properly implemented everything they'd need to do in order for the game to be played properly. Personally, I'd hope they would be able to fix disconnect problems by release time, but there's certainly no guaruntee they'll be able to. So while it's not an end-of-the-world situation, it doesn't necessarily bode well for the finished product.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Diablo III Open Beta Weekend
111. Re: Diablo III Open Beta Weekend Apr 21, 2012, 01:30 Bhruic
 
xXBatmanXx wrote on Apr 20, 2012, 23:37:
Bhruic wrote on Apr 20, 2012, 23:25:
And as others have pointed out, good luck with the discount, I haven't seen Starcraft II drop much in price since it's come out, and I've been watching (on and off).

D3 has already been 10 off at Amazon, Buy.com, and NewEgg. No reason why it wouldn't go cheaper.

You guys dont' look very hard....head over to Amazon. SC2 is $39.99.

Sorry, I assumed you meant "Steam sale" level. Yeah, you can get a few percentage points off, but $39.99 for a game over a year old is a lot in my books. You won't see it at the $5/$10/$15 price points that you can get on Steam.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Diablo III Open Beta Weekend
101. Re: Diablo III Open Beta Weekend Apr 20, 2012, 23:25 Bhruic
 
xXBatmanXx wrote on Apr 20, 2012, 22:22:
It is my understanding this is going to be a heavy microtransaction game....so why the $60 tag? I know I will own the game at some point...but it will have to be discounted pretty heavily for me to buy it.

It's not a microtransaction game at all. There's going to be a paid auction house, yes, but that's all player run. And there's really no need to use it. The way I look at it is basically like all the D2 websites where you could buy items. Instead of having to go to a 3rd party, you can now do it in-game. Did I buy anything from those websites? Nope. Would I buy anything in D3? Nope.

Blizzard makes a fraction of each sale, but "supposedly" that's just for auction upkeep costs. I guess we'll see how much the fraction is when the game comes out.

And as others have pointed out, good luck with the discount, I haven't seen Starcraft II drop much in price since it's come out, and I've been watching (on and off).
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Legend of Grimrock Patched
17. Re: Legend of Grimrock Patched Apr 20, 2012, 13:16 Bhruic
 
Mine just started updating a minute or two ago.  
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Star Wars: The Old Republic Trial Weekend
12. Re: Star Wars: The Old Republic Trial Weekend Apr 19, 2012, 02:37 Bhruic
 
With all the other restrictions they put in place (max level 15 being the most prominent), it's silly to not allow someone to continue a trial. The idea is to give people a reason to want to play the game, and not allowing them enough time to check your game out isn't really a good one. Although there are plenty of "free week" trials out there, for those that are interested. I've got all mine available, if anyone wants to check it out.  
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Gatherings & Competitions
5. Re: Gatherings & Competitions Apr 18, 2012, 00:13 Bhruic
 
I do, that doesn't make a Kitchener stop any less weird  
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Analyst: Blame CoD Decline on PC/Wii
3. Re: Analyst: Blame CoD Decline on PC/Wii Apr 17, 2012, 20:20 Bhruic
 
Did they make a MW3 for the Wii? At best, I guess they could have made a different game, and called it MW3 and put it out on the Wii, but it wouldn't have been the same game as the PC/PS3/XBox. So how exactly is the Wii getting the blame for poor MW3 sales?  
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Gatherings & Competitions
3. Re: Gatherings & Competitions Apr 17, 2012, 16:27 Bhruic
 
Kitchener? Seriously? Very odd choice. Well, unless it's the "two universities" thing.  
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Star Trek Footage
8. Re: Star Trek Footage Apr 17, 2012, 16:12 Bhruic
 
So the official title of the game is "Star Trek: Lots of Pointless Jumping"?  
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Microsoft Not Dropping GFWL
40. Re: Microsoft Not Dropping GFWL Apr 17, 2012, 16:09 Bhruic
 
Have any of you guys noticed a funny pattern in Windows releases?

Yes, the funny pattern where people always ignore NT 4.0, and Windows 2000?

I suppose you could overlook NT 4.0 as being on the "server" side, although it was definitely aimed at desktops, but that doesn't explain Windows 2000. Which, if you want to talk about "upgrades", was the base of XP. And Windows 2000 (and NT 4.0) were both quite good, as they weren't based on DOS.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Origin Bans No Longer Cover Solo Play
38. Re: Origin Bans No Longer Cover Solo Play Apr 17, 2012, 15:28 Bhruic
 

It's not an idiotic attitude, unless you jump to conclusions like you just did

It is idiotic, and you don't have to jump to any conclusions to realize that, you just have to read what you said:
"They are not essentials of life, or replacements for life experiences."
No game is an essential of life, and no game is a replacement for life experience. Using those two factors as the criteria for "missing out" on a game is just plain stupid.

The last time I bought a Battlefield game from EA, they locked me out of it for 2 years saying that my CD Key was invalid, (Dice finally patched out the DRM after 2 years, but by that time I no longer gave a shit) so forgive me if I don't trust them with my hard earned cash again.

I wasn't asking you to trust them with your money. I wasn't even suggesting you buy the games. I was suggesting that your comment that you weren't "missing out" on them was incorrect. You used the phrase in such a way as to dismiss them as being not worth playing:
"If that means I never play BF3 or ME3, then so be it. From what I've read, I'm not missing anything worth worrying about. "
I was simply correcting you on that point - the games are worth worrying about. Or, more specifically, worth playing. If you still have objections to Origin, or you are still wary of them after the troubles you went through, fine, those are valid reasons to not want to buy them. But those reasons are fine on their own, dismissing the games as not "worth" it is just wrong. The games themselves are (mostly) great.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Crysis 3 Announced
82. Re: Crysis 3 Announced Apr 17, 2012, 01:04 Bhruic
 
That said, it's still nowhere near as effective as an assault rifle with a silencer on it.

True, but perhaps they are doing it properly, where a suppressor decreases the noise volume, but doesn't eliminate it.

Yeah, I know, I'm dreaming.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Origin Bans No Longer Cover Solo Play
35. Re: Origin Bans No Longer Cover Solo Play Apr 17, 2012, 00:51 Bhruic
 
Not really, it's a crowded market with many high quality games to play and not enough time to do so. EA isn't the only game in town, they just happen to market more than most.

That's just dodging the point. If you've got an objection to Origin that precludes you from picking up games that require it, that's your decision. I'm not trying to talk anyone into buying ME3/BF3. But acting like they aren't good games anyway, so you're not missing out on them is kinda silly. They are good games. And you are missing out. That's still true even if you have plenty of other good games to play.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
3145 Comments. 158 pages. Viewing page 31.
< Newer [ 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 ] Older >


footer

.. .. ..

Blue's News logo