Beamer wrote on Jul 1, 2019, 07:22:
I wonder if there are any other product categories in which grown men dogpile on top of each other to demonstrate who cares least about a new release not necessarily aimed at them.

RedEye9 wrote on Jan 5, 2019, 17:48:

Wallshadows wrote on Jan 5, 2019, 15:51:
Who is making it?

the lowest bidder

CJ_Parker wrote on Jan 5, 2019, 17:15:

El Pit wrote on Jan 5, 2019, 16:28:
Please make it a game where we can actually FIGHT the aliens instead of constantly running away from them with the aliens magically finding you wherever you hide. Thank you very much, indeed.

But then it wouldn't be an Alien game anymore but just a random alien game.

Alien with the capital 'A' is all about the subtle, overwhelming horror that you can not see, hear or fight... until it's (almost) too late ("almost" being the case if your name is Ripley).

They wouldn't need the Alien brand if they wanted to make a random FPS where you shoot aliens in the nutsack. I'm not a huge fan of playing pussy hiding in the dark either but in case of Alien it is kind of a fictionally dictated necessity ya know.

Tavil wrote on Sep 24, 2018, 15:03:
This just makes me sick. This guy should be shamed, not rewarded.

DukeFNukem wrote on Aug 13, 2018, 08:37:

Wraith wrote on Aug 12, 2018, 13:08:

DukeFNukem wrote on Aug 11, 2018, 23:09:

Are you a developer? Is that why your putting this philosophical view forward? The laws of supply and demand don't ask the question of whether anything is "sustainable". The laws of supply and demand aren't moral laws that ensure justice or "equality" always prevail.

No, I'm a longtime gamer. And this has nothing to do with supply and demand. Thank you for playing.

Ummm, the article is not about supply and demand, you're right. It was a response to your comment about the sustainability of selling "used" games. For some odd reason you didn't quote that part. *sigh*. Funny thing is, your arguing against something that even Bethesda is now defending. The sale of "used" games. :)

Game Over. Thanks for playing though.

Prez wrote on Aug 12, 2018, 22:57:

Wraith wrote on Aug 12, 2018, 19:23:

Prez wrote on Aug 12, 2018, 15:12:
Leave it to SMA to take the time to pen out a point-for-point rebuttal that systematically obliterates every fallacy in an argument. Bravo!

This tells me you don't really understand what a fallacy is.

Well simply put, the basis of your entire argument is a perfect illustration.

Prez wrote on Aug 12, 2018, 15:12:
Leave it to SMA to take the time to pen out a point-for-point rebuttal that systematically obliterates every fallacy in an argument. Bravo!

Scottish Martial Arts wrote on Aug 12, 2018, 14:33:

Wraith wrote on Aug 12, 2018, 13:14:
Apparently it is to you, because you completely failed to grasp the point.

No, I understand your argument just fine.

But given your response to my remarks, and your confusion of "Moral Hazard" with "Negative Externality" in a previous post, I do question how much you understand what you read.

Good I'm glad we're in agreement and I thank you for recapitulating what I just said.

An author does not stand on a street corner selling photocopied manuscripts of his own book. He sells the publication rights to his work to a publisher, and collects a royalty based upon copies sold. The publisher in turn contracts a printer to actually physically print the books, and a distributor to get them to store shelves. A store in turn actually merchandises and sells the book to an end consumer. At each step along the way, people who are not the author make money on the production, distribution, and sale of an experience they had no hand in creating. This bears repeating: only the author created the experience contained within the book (with maybe an assist from an editor at the publisher) but many, many other people make money off of the sale of that experience.

Additionally, in the United States at least, copyright law has evolved such that the aforementioned chain of companies and individuals are only entitled to the proceeds of the first sale of the media which contains the copyrighted experience.

In other words, our hypothetical author can and should enforce his copyright and the requirement that he be paid what he is contractually due, up until the point that a copy of his book is sold to a customer. Thereafter, the customer can lend that copy of the book to friends and family, donate it to a library, or sell it on the used book market, and copyright law (in the US) makes clear that the author cannot claim any money that results from that secondary sale.

Without enforcing that restriction, creators don't get paid.

Yes, they do. They get paid whatever they are contractually obligated to be paid when they negotiated their publication agreement.

Typically, more well known and popular creators can command higher leverage, and therefore higher advances, royalties, etc., when negotiating such contracts. Very, very few creators earn 100% of the proceeds of their creation, and yet the developed world has been able to provide a livelihood for successful creators since the advent of the printing press.

You are confusing other parties having a claim on the proceeds of a sale (whether first sale or on the secondary used market) with the author or creator not being paid at all. The former is the reality, the latter is your fantasy. It would be nice from a creator's perspective if he were the only one to realize the proceeds of a sale, but it is neither necessary for him to make a living, nor how it works in practice.

But, creators do get paid. In the case of the copy of the Bethesda game in the OP, the secondary seller bought a new copy of the game at retail for the full retail price. Whatever royalty the developers are contractually obligated to receive for that sale, they will receive (unless their publisher tries to cheat them of royalty payments, but that's another issue entirely). By doctrine of first sale, the owner of that copy of the game can then legally sell the game on the secondary market.

Conceivably, a purchase on the secondary market could be considered a lost sale for the developer, but a secondary sale is only comparable to a first sale if they were to cost the same price. But games, and other media, on the secondary market always go for less than a sealed, new copy purchased at retail. That means the buyer in the secondary sale WAS NOT WILLING TO PAY FULL PRICE, and therefore cannot be considered a lost sale to the developer, at least not until time has passed and the game has been marked down at retail.

The regime which you are advocating, in which developers/creators can veto secondary sales of their work does not exist (at least in the US).

Nor are creators cheated of what they are legally due by secondary sales:

secondary sales can only occur after the first sale has occurred, and creators are only entitled to the proceeds of the first sale.

Now, you can argue that creators deserve a bigger share of the proceeds of their sales, and I would probably agree with you. But it is absurd to argue that creators are the only ones that deserve any share: a lot of work that isn't creation goes into selling a created experience to a buyer, and that work has to be compensated too.

And it is further absurd to argue that creators cannot make a living without receiving 100% of the proceeds of their sales, because the system you rail against is the one we've had for centuries, and yet a great many creators have made a living under it.

HoSpanky wrote on Aug 12, 2018, 12:36:
Something tells me Wraith is an Indie dev whose game/games didn't sell well and he's absolutely sure it's down to people selling used copies.

Scottish Martial Arts wrote on Aug 12, 2018, 11:29:
Dude, get over yourself: your argument isn't that fucking complicated or nuanced. Your argument just comes down to whether the purchase of media is the purchase of the media itself or the purchase of the contents of that media, i.e. the experience and/or ideas, and what that implies for reselling.

To my mind, the purchase of media is primarily about the purchase of what the media contains, and this holds for "legacy" media like books and DVDs, just as much as it holds for video games.

The issue with your argument isn't that it's too nuanced: it's that it tries to make an unjustified distinction.

DukeFNukem wrote on Aug 11, 2018, 23:09:

Are you a developer? Is that why your putting this philosophical view forward? The laws of supply and demand don't ask the question of whether anything is "sustainable". The laws of supply and demand aren't moral laws that ensure justice or "equality" always prevail.

KezClone wrote on Aug 11, 2018, 20:57:

This may be the stupidest post ever on Blues.

Son, buy a used car lately? You expect us to only buy new and hang onto it forever?

FloorPie wrote on Aug 11, 2018, 20:22:

So was I stealing from developers when I bought NHL 17 (or 18 I forget) for $12 on the PS4 store the other week?

One benefit from digital stores is that I can buy "new games" a lot cheaper, a lot quicker than before. Much of that is do to competition for customers but when I don't own the media to be able play the game whenever, even say 10 years down the road, I want to be paying a lot less cash/credit for a game I may not have access to in the future (which in some cases is less than 5 years).

Hell, you must absolutely fucking hate Humble Bundle.

007Bistromath wrote on Aug 11, 2018, 20:22:
The expenses in print media are basically nothing. Paper is cheaper than plastic.

The only people to blame for GameStop's disgusting business model gaining any traction is AAA publishers/developers themselves. With ludicrously bloated budgets that require millions of $60+ week one sales to break even, they can do nothing to appease their shareholders but shutter studios and find stupid things to blame.

The indie and even AA markets have never had a problem with used game sales because their games are already reasonably priced. AAA devs brazenly refuse to use price discrimination to milk the long tail, and they reap what they sow: bullshit.

MoreLuckThanSkill wrote on Aug 11, 2018, 18:54:
Wraith, I'm sorry, but you are mistaken. I understand you want the developers to get paid, we all do, but your line of reasoning is outside the laws of at least the USA, not sure about the rest of the world.

Used cars, used Audio CDs, used movie DVD/BluRays, used game DVD/Blurays/CDs, all of these things can legally be resold under First Sale Doctrine, despite whatever EULA crap they try to force down peoples' throats.

Whoever initially owned it and sold it to person A should not get paid AGAIN by person B, who buys it from person A. Full stop.

Of course, Bethesda/Zenimax sure as shit want to be paid multiple times, but this should be challenged in court, and Bethesda/Zenimax should lose. Will they lose? I'm guessing they can toss a ton of money and lawyers at the case, so who knows, but the laws are clear.

The law is a bit murkier for purely digital copies, but that is not relevant in this instance.

People don't buy books for the paper, dude. They buy them for the ideas. Having seen those ideas, they are completely free to sell the book. Neither mutability of experience nor interactivity change that. If a board game company tried to pull the same shit, they'd be out of business in a week.

how do you feel about libraries

I guess I am stupid. Please explain.