"Right" to play and games ownership.

[kid41212003]

When we buy a game, we don't actually own it, because we don't have the right to share and copy it in anyway, so basically we buy the right to play the game.

If the above statement is true, should we be able to purchase a title and play that game on any platforms? Unless they are not multi-platform games.

[entropy13]

If you "buy a game", you're actually buying the right to play the game.

Thus piracy is getting the right to play the game without paying for it, and not getting the actual game...

[Swamp Monster]

Originally Posted by entropy13

Thus piracy is getting the right to play the game without paying for it, and not getting the actual game...

I don't get what you said. it's only true if you upload it to torrents, right

[Black Panther]

Originally Posted by kid41212003

When we buy a game, we don't actually own it, because we don't have the right to share and copy it in anyway, so basically we buy the right to play the game.

If the above statement is true, should we be able to purchase a title and play that game on any platforms? Unless they are not multi-platform games.

It's similar to buying a book I guess. You can read it (enjoy it & learn from it) but you can't make copies not even to give them for free. Heck you can't even quote from a book without stating it as a source for it'd be plagiarizing.

Regards games, the DRM of each game is different. Many games can be installed on any number of pc's but since they need the original disc in the drive they can be played only on one pc at a time. I had a game (I don't remember if it was Settlers,Two Worlds or Spore ) which had a limit on the amount of installs. You could only install it 3 times if I remember correctly, then you have to phone-call them etc etc.... (which kinda sucks..)

[MRCL]

Originally Posted by Black Panther

(I don't remember if it was Settlers,Two Worlds or Spore ) which had a limit on the amount of installs. You could only install it 3 times if I remember correctly, then you have to phone-call them etc etc.... (which kinda sucks..)

It was Spore.
Well you bought the right to play it but you do own a physical copy of the game. And what you do with that is up to you. Nobody can prohibit you (yet) from lending it to a friend or selling it.

So you buy the right to play and a piece of polycarbonate.

[Kreij]

Originally Posted by Kid

If the above statement is true, should we be able to purchase a title and play that game on any platforms? Unless they are not multi-platform games.

Since the code is different for the various platforms, are you suggesting that if you buy a game that runs on a PC, XBox and PS3 they give you a disk for each platform?

[AphexDreamer]

It would be nice if we could pay a one time fee for a game and be able to play that game on any platform.

Or at least divide the price by 3... Then if its exclusive, charge it 60... At least we know we would be getting something good specific to that platform.

[kid41212003]

Originally Posted by Kreij

Since the code is different for the various platforms, are you suggesting that if you buy a game that runs on a PC, XBox and PS3 they give you a disk for each platform?

That's not exactly it.

The first option probably is downloadable games. If not, i should be able to request a game dvd/bluray for other platform for a small fee.

[DannibusX]

The first sale doctrine hasn't been applied to software yet, all commercial software developers use licensing instead of "selling" to avoid the first sale doctrine. If it ever goes to court I suspect it would apply to software as well.

[douglatins]

There is a discussion about this over in kotaku, cant find link though

[Kreij]

Originally Posted by kid41212003

The first option probably is downloadable games. If not, i should be able to request a game dvd/bluray for other platform for a small fee.

Interesting discussion ... I'll take the devs side.

The developers may have a substantial investment in the production of the various platform games individually.
Why should they sell you a PS3 version cheaper just because you bought the PC version?

[kid41212003]

They were made on a same engine and usually on one main platform, then those games will be ported to other platforms.

[Kreij]

The games are developed on PCs (no one develops on a console).
Regardless of what they develop for, or port to, there are considerable costs involved.
Development, licensing fees (if using someone else's code), testing, marketing, distribution, rating approvals, legal fees, large/more teams for cross platforming etc.
The more platforms, the more cost.

[Steevo]

Porting is bad....mmmmkayyy. So don't do it. But they do, and they give away DLC for free on consoles, and then months later on the PC, and it isn't as good.

The right to play a polycarbonate disc? Well, I'm married, so I have the right to have sex with a vagina if we are generalizing............


As far a multi-platform, if they want to sell us multi-platform discs for original price, and sell us cable to watch ads to support the cable we pay for, and music that won't work with a device, and movies that won't work on many devices and instances, and other types of content that is their choice.


Vote with your wallet. I do, I rarely pay full retail for a game, movie, or anything. Software like a game has a fixed cost of development, once it is usable, it doesn't really become unusable. It's not like food that you eat, or water that you drink. They can always make another copy. However they SHOULD be paid for their efforts. The market will decide how much. And having employees that can't keep product secure is not the fault of downloaders, that is like saying hay I found this sand on the beach that came from your sandcastle so I made my own.

[Kreij]

Originally Posted by Steevo

Software like a game has a fixed cost of development, once it is usable, it doesn't really become unusable.

You have to factor in the life expectancy of the product. You will have to support the product long after the release (when it becomes usable) if you want to keep any kind of fan base happy and coming back for expansion and sequels.

[kid41212003]

Originally Posted by Kreij

The games are developed on PCs (no one develops on a console).
Regardless of what they develop for, or port to, there are considerable costs involved.
Development, licensing fees (if using someone else's code), testing, marketing, distribution, rating approvals, legal fees, large/more teams for cross platforming etc.
The more platforms, the more cost.

It's not our (consumers) problem really, and that's not the point i'm trying to get across.

What's difference between PS3 and Xbox360 disc?

We don't actually pay money to own the contents which were created for multi-platform. It doesn't matter if the cost of making it increase on other platforms, because WE don't buy the contents, we buy the right to play the title.

It's not because of us that porting games to other platforms costs money, because we, the consumers did not make any of those platforms.

[ktr]

Originally Posted by kid41212003

If the above statement is true, should we be able to purchase a title and play that game on any platforms? Unless they are not multi-platform games.

Depends on what the EULA states. For instance, here is a EULA from R*: http://www.rockstargames.com/eula

As it clearly says...

Licensor hereby grants you the nonexclusive, non-transferable, limited right and license to use one copy of the Software for your personal non-commercial use for gameplay on a single computer or gaming unit, unless otherwise specified in the Software documentation.

Now Valve's EULA doesn't state a restriction (http://store.steampowered.com/subscriber_agreement/), hence SteamPlay (https://support.steampowered.com/kb_...9439-QHKN-1308).

[Kreij]

Originally Posted by kid41212003

What's difference between PS3 and Xbox360 disc?

The code on the disk.

We don't actually pay money to own the contents which were created for multi-platform. It doesn't matter if the cost of making it increase on other platforms, because WE don't buy the contents, we buy the right to play the title.

Yes ... on a particular platform.

It's not because of us that porting games to other platforms costs money, because we, the consumers did not make any of those platforms.

But you own more than one, and you are demanding the games work on the multiple platforms that you own, and you want the right to use the code that cost them more money to develop for free (or really cheap) on a platform other than the one you originally purchased.

I personally don't care if they did that. I'm all for less expensive games, but as businesses they must be able to recoup their investment, and make a profit, or they will soon be out of business.
Video games are still one of the cheapest forms of entertainment around (unless the game is really short, in which case don't buy it).

[kid41212003]

Platform makers are who force or attract game devs to make games on that platform. They should be the one who pay games dev to port games, not us.

Games dev choose what platform they want their games on, they should pay for it themselves, not us.

What the code on the disk does? It gives access to the game, that's it.

1 Platform, 1 way, 1 kind of disc. We don't want multi-platform (if most of their games are the same), aren't we? They (big corps) made that choices, they should pay, not consumers. If they can't make profit that way, they should switch to something more simple.

We don't go make things more complicated; we make things more simple.

[Kreij]

Originally Posted by kid41212003

Platform makers are who force or attract game devs to make games on that platform. They should be the one who pay games dev to port games, not us.

No, it's the consumer market that attracts devs to a platform. If a platform sucks and no one buys games for that platform, no one develops for it.

Games dev choose what platform they want their games on, they should pay for it themselves, not us.

They do. You only have to pay for a particular platform game if you own that platform and want to play the game on it.

What the code on the disk does? It gives access to the game, that's it.

The code on the disk is what makes it possible to play the game on the platform, not just give access to the game.

1 Platform, 1 way, 1 kind of disc. We don't want multi-platform (if most of their games are the same), aren't we? They (big corps) made that choices, they should pay, not consumers. If they can't make profit that way, they should switch to something more simple.

We don't go make things more complicated; we make things more simple.

I'm really confused. If you only want one platform, then just buy games for that platform.
I don't own any consoles, so I just buy PC games.

[JrRacinFan]

Regarding ktr's source:

So if a "single user" were to sell said gaming unit and keep the copy of the software, they would have said right to get a copy of the software by EULA if they were to purchase a new computer or gaming unit of a different platform, if available.

I think that's what kid is trying to get acrossed. Like I said though just playing devil's advocate and trying to understand why he/she posted...

[kid41212003]

Originally Posted by Kreij

No, it's the consumer market that attracts devs to a platform. If a platform sucks and no one buys games for that platform, no one develops for it.

They do. You only have to pay for a particular platform game if you own that platform and want to play the game on it.

The code on the disk is what makes it possible to play the game on the platform, not just give access to the game.

I'm really confused. If you only want one platform, then just buy games for that platform.
I don't own any consoles, so I just buy PC games.

You base your points on the current market which is quite confusing and not exactly benefits consumers.

I'm throwing out other options that can solve the multi-platform game problems to prove what i think is right or make more sense for us, which is we in no mean need to buy a copy for a specific platform just because we want to play it on a different platform.

The root of the problem was not created by consumers. Everyone (big corps) wants their own platform (profits), and they know really well what they are doing, because the market has matured a lot now. They just don't put out stupid thing like before.

If there were a big enough differences between platform to justify its existences then it's fine, but look at the PS3, Xbox360, and PC games library.

What's exactly the differences? Games can be made on all said platforms. It's ok if they wants their games to be exclusive, but non-exclusive ones should be playable on any platforms for a small fee like i suggested.

Still, put all the problems aside, and think about this from a logical perceptive. Should we be able to play games on any platforms by just buying a game title?

We do able to play music and movie on most devices, aren't we?

[Kreij]

You want to be able to buy one disk and use it in any device (similar to how a movie will play in multiple devices).

It's possible for the developers to write code that could auto-detect the device the disk is loaded into and use the appropriate code for the detected device, but that is really unlikely to ever happen.
It would completely elimate things like "console exclusives", which are huge moneymakers for the console makers, publishers and developers.
It would also virtually eliminate any competitive edge a given console has in the market which would be horribly bad for consumers. Console prices would go through the roof.

DOH ! You snuck in a post while I was making mine, Kid.

[wahdangun]

the real problem is each disc sold the dev must pay royalti fee. So its impossible to give free xbox version of the game even when you have the ps3 version, but I'm sure that when you buy steam based ps3 games you can have the pc version for free

[ktr]

Originally Posted by JrRacinFan

Regarding ktr's source:

So if a "single user" were to sell said gaming unit and keep the copy of the software, they would have said right to get a copy of the software by EULA if they were to purchase a new computer or gaming unit of a different platform, if available.

I think that's what kid is trying to get acrossed. Like I said though just playing devil's advocate and trying to understand why he/she posted...

Per that R* EULA, your statement is incorrect.

For example, if I've bought GTA4 on my PS3, I have bought a licence for one copy. Now if I sold my PS3, and want to play GTA4 on the PC. I will have to buy a new licence because I need another copy of GTA4. My original licence only covers one copy, not two.

EULA are written by lawyers, and are bullet proof.

Long story short: EULA defines the licence agreement (hence the name "end-user licensing agreements"...duh). So if you don't agree with the EULA, then don't buy/install the game.