Topic: Sony patents tech to block used games

[Ceric]

The EU ruling said consumers have a right to sell digital games, but that doesn't mean companies have to provide a way for consumers to do it.

I don't think Pix contradicted himself. He said they CAN push for legislation, but doesn't think they SHOULD.

If you push for legislation than you want it inacted and the end goal would be a rule that governs these types of interactions.

If trends continue in EU rulings then its pretty safe to assume that as soon as someone challenges a copy for not allowing them to sell their property according to the law that the EU will pass a clarifying ruling that copies have to provide the means to do this.

[TJ Spyke]

Pix just said they could enact legislation, not that they should enact it.

I don't agree with the EU ruling, the EU is anti-business. If I was Valve or something and the EU tried to force me to let people sell the games, I would give them the finger and just not sell games in countries where the EU has authority.

[Pixelated Pixies]

I'll finish the thread but I like to now in Pix's post that the bolded statement is directly conflicting with the statements afterwards.

I'm not sure if I quite understand what you're getting at. Are you asking whether or not I intended for those statements to be in conflict?
 
In any case, TJ Spyke is correct. I wasn't making a normative statement, I was simply saying that they can try to influence parliament in the same way as every other industry and interest group (Although, I don't expect they'll get very far).

[Ceric]

Pix just said they could enact legislation, not that they should enact it.

I don't agree with the EU ruling, the EU is anti-business. If I was Valve or something and the EU tried to force me to let people sell the games, I would give them the finger and just not sell games in countries where the EU has authority.

The EU is, by what I can tell, pro personal rights.  I understand thats a little weird from here were the Citizenship is a second class citizen to Businesses and lobbyist but it doesn't make the ruling any more invalid.  Treating digital goods as property is logical simply because we treat them as property.  Plus the EU is to large of a market for a game producer to just not sell in.  The areas are the EU, North America, and Japan.  Everything else is lumped into expanding markets.  That's to big of a pie slice to be left on the table.

I'll finish the thread but I like to now in Pix's post that the bolded statement is directly conflicting with the statements afterwards.

I'm not sure if I quite understand what you're getting at. Are you asking whether or not I intended for those statements to be in conflict?
 
In any case, TJ Spyke is correct. I wasn't making a normative statement, I was simply saying that they can try to influence parliament in the same way as every other industry and interest group (Although, I don't expect they'll get very far).

You stated that, "In No way should the choices of consumers be constricted."  The effect of legislation that would be satisfactory to the gaming industry that wants this addressed would constrict consumer choices.  Its not an option if it can never achieve the goal.

[TJ Spyke]

A company can still do great without the EU, especially large ones like Valve, Microsoft, Apple. They could survive without it. And what about MMORPGs? The EU (who  are anti-business) will probably eventually say it's illegal for companies to ever shut down the servers because then consumers can't play the games they bought.

[Ceric]

A company can still do great without the EU, especially large ones like Valve, Microsoft, Apple. They could survive without it. And what about MMORPGs? The EU (who  are anti-business) will probably eventually say it's illegal for companies to ever shut down the servers because then consumers can't play the games they bought.

I think Microsoft would disagree with you or they would have just pulled out of that market with the EU trying to bleed them dry with a double standard.  Also take WoW, the biggest MMO, as an example.  While technically you buy the Client if you look at the Eula you only rent the characters.  So Technically Blizzard could only leave the authentication servers up, which they use for all of Battle.net anyway, because you couldn't get into the world w/ no characters, which remember you only rent.  Law followed and they didn't have to keep the costly instance and world servers.

[Ian Sane]

I just thought of something extra funny about this.  Sony patented it BUT if they're the only ones doing it then it's just a big con for their system.  They need everyone on board but by patenting it, no one else can do it unless they pay Sony.

So they're saying to MS and Nintendo "pay us to not have the consumer advantage over us of being able to play used games".  HA!

[Pixelated Pixies]

You stated that, "In No way should the choices of consumers be constricted."  The effect of legislation that would be satisfactory to the gaming industry that wants this addressed would constrict consumer choices.  Its not an option if it can never achieve the goal.

I guess I could have made that clearer.
 
When I stated that "In No way should the choices of consumers be constricted", I was actually referring to Sony's patent and not my example of legislation. In fact, the three examples I gave are actions which I would deem to be more valid approaches to the problem. I'm all for lobbying legislatures, creating more elastic pricing structures and making better games (the last one I said jokingly).
 
Influencing and lobbying parliament is a completely valid approach (although I do have my concerns about the rights of consumers in all of this). What is not valid, in my opinion, is any attempt to restrict the use of legally obtained copies of games.
 
For the record, I'm personally against any attempt to restrict the use of pre-owned games as I feel they serve an important function in the market.

[Ceric]

From a pure capitalist perspective is Sony thinks that not allowing used games will get them more money then Capitalism would agree.  If the Invisible Hand of the Market, the countering force in Captialism, decides to slap them out of existence they made the wrong call.  From practical experience though I rarely see the Hand ever being that powerful.

[Louieturkey]

I think they are trying to bring consoles in line with the PC.  Like with Steam or Origin, people buy retail copies and then register on one of those clients and then can't really sell the game because the CD key is linked to your account.

[alegoicoe]

Sony can suck it, bunch of greedy bastards 

[Pixelated Pixies]

Sony can suck it, bunch of greedy bastards 

Hear, Hear!
 
lol

[ShyGuy]

From a pure capitalist perspective is Sony thinks that not allowing used games will get them more money then Capitalism would agree.  If the Invisible Hand of the Market, the countering force in Captialism, decides to slap them out of existence they made the wrong call.  From practical experience though I rarely see the Hand ever being that powerful.

The Hand slapped Divx out of existence about a dozen years ago.

[alegoicoe]

Sony can suck it, bunch of greedy bastards 

Hear, Hear!
 
lol

Got to ventilate, hearing sh*t like that makes me angry