Basically, the game developer THQ released a game where the online mode could only be accessed with a code that was provided with each copy of the game. Since the codes locked out after being used once, it effectively prevented anybody who purchased the game used from playing online.
When gamers complained about this, the creative director for the game responded that they wanted to reward their ‘loyal fans’ because buying games used ‘cheated’ them out of the money from the sale of the game’(his words not mine btw).
Now I dont have a problem with THQs decision to lock out the online mode to people who bought the game used, its their property and they can do with it as they see fit. However I am somewhat bothered by their justification for doing so. After all could the same argument be made for any good that is bought and sold on a ‘used market?’(which is pretty much any good that isnt destroyed in its consumption) Couldnt car producers complain that buying used cars ‘cheats’ them out of money for the sale of cars?(actually I wouldnt be surprised if Obama tries to shut down used car dealerships on these grounds).
It’s just rhetoric. Its the easiest way for them to make their good more excludable. If they developed 1 game and 1000 people used it, it would be a public goods problem.
As for “cheating” it’s because of the IP mentality. Competition is theft in their eyes.
As for the practice of reactivation codes itself I’m not a big fan. It’s basically an attempt by the producers to make their products more expensive. But anyone with knowledge of economic history knows what happens to those kinds of businessmen…
Ubi Soft recently tried to implement some sort of “anti-resale anti-piracy” software on Silent Hunter 5, the most recent installment of the renown submarine simulation game. Loyal fans (yes, those same “loyal fans” THQ is trying to appease) were so thrilled when they heard of this that they immediately rushed to Amazon and deleted their preorders en masse, costing Ubi Soft literally hundreds of thousands of dollars and putting them in a tight spot with Amazon. Ubi Soft, stuck in their '90s corporate mindset, is still trying to understand why these loyal buyers suddenly turned on them despite some fan groups sending very clear emails explaining their actions.
I love going into an old game shop, and seeing a copy of Sonic being sold with “NOT FOR RESALE” printed on the front label of the game selling for around $5, or any other game that came with the purchase of a system that always had “NOT FOR RESALE” across the top of the cartridge.
I wonder what the current line of game designers are thinking when they do this, or maybe it’s not the actual designers, but the company they work for when they implement these types of circumstances for their consumers. It would be hard to imagine a game shop in 10-20 years when a good amount of the current games can’t be resold, and N64 and Playstation are mere relics of the history of video games, yet still being resold.
I do appreciate Nintendo allowing you to download their older system games on Wii instead of buying the cartridge which you’d constantly have to blow in, and the threat of having your game randomly deleted halfway through.
"After all could the same argument be made for any good that is bought and sold on a ‘used market?’(which is pretty much any good that isnt destroyed in its consumption) "
Actually, it HAS been used against the “used market”. Not against used books, but against used records/cds a few years back by some CW music star.
Since you are into gaming you’ve probably heard of the horrific bugs the “protection” software used by Ubi Soft on SH5 caused. This reminds me of various screw ups in the media industry, including a colossal blunder by Virgin Music, which installed a software on many of their CDs which caused tracks to be unplayable not only on computers but also on last generation home theaters and car audio systems. It cost Virgin millions to swap these CDs for ones that actually work. Ironically you could slip these CDs into one of those late '80s-early '90s boomboxes and not only they played perfectly but you could rip them on a cassette without a issue.
Frankly I have nothing against these ideas: as usual just let the market sort it all out. If a company introduces a “protection” software that requires constant online connection they will obviously lose customers playing offline. If a company introduces an “anti-resale” software it will obviously lose customers expecting to sell the game once they are fed up with it. Sale numbers at the end of the year will say it all and I’d love to see the “dynamic young executive” trying to explain shareholders how his company just lost 20% of its sale because of too much greed.
Forbiding to re-sale a game only means that you can not own a game in a CD, it is only a rent then. And who wants just to rent a game? It’s different business model. If I buy something I want to be able to re-sale it, otherwise I am not really buying it, just renting and then many people, like me, for example, will refrain from buying games and supporting developers. Then game developers should call it just that, use real words to define action (“you rent a game”), not some fancy “you buy a game”. FUCK.
Libertarians who dislike intellectual property, answer the following questions to yourselves. Which games, on average, will be better: ones privately produced for profit where benefits can be internalized or ones produced voluntarily and distributed freely? Which alternative will create a more flourishing market of games, providing games more directly suited to consumer preferences?
It’s a false dichotomy. Lack of IP laws doesn’t mean that games won’t get produced privately or for profit - payment could be gathered using donations or in game advertising or whatever entrepreneurs will think of. Game companies could still protect themselves from copying using any means available but no aggression of state or any other. Thats how I see it anyway.
The process we have now might be more efficient than the clumsy manuevers a fully-privatized system would produce: what measures are are you even considering?
Donations? No way. I don’t believe that would produce such a diverse amount of high-quality games. Advertising? Maybe. But in a world of non-IP, I bet reverse-engineered games that bypass such annoyances will be prevalent, especially if no laws are enforced.
We can’t say whether the process we have now is or is not more efficient because we can’t compare it with the alternative. DRM is one measure that is fully private. Besides what is “clumsy manuevers”?
Almost all of the internet bases its revenue on ads or donations. But that does not matter. I simply do not know how games would be produced in non-IP market - I’m just guessing - and I don’t need to know and do not care - I know that when there is enough demand, no matter the laws, there will be supply - human creativity always amazes me.
Could be. I do believe intellectual productions generate positive externalities, and I would like those to be gained by the creator(s).
Having monopolistic control over one’s creation (e.g., pharmaceutical medicine) does produce all sorts of problems; but if the incentive to create as much and as diversely is gone, then I’m not sure we’re better off.
I don’t really understand the libertarian anti-IP sentiment (maybe somebody can explain it to me). If Bungie develops the concept to Halo, do they not own the concept of Halo? So if an imitator comes across and uses the exact same computer code line-for-line as Halo, does that not constitute some type of theft? I understand business practices can be copied as well, but there seems to be a different element with creative “property”. If that’s the case, then Home Depot can use Mickey Mouse to promote its products if it feels like it. Disney “owns” the concept of Mickey Mouse.
I think it’s very different with regards to re-sale of video games because you own the disc itself and the ability to play it (not the idea of Halo). So if you sell it (probably at a lower price) you’re just recycling the game and not profiting 100% financially from stealing the concept of Halo.
Look at Starwars for example. There are literally thousands upon thousands of fan-made material, fan-fiction, etc. What about canon? Canon is what the market agrees the official material is. In the starwars case, it is usually Lucas or Lucas approved stories.
One more thing - I don’t know how to measure aggregate efficiency in achieving ones goals in light of subjective value theory and value scales, to me it is impossible. What’s more maybe if in light of current laws there is too much capital invested in gaming companies compared to totally free market? IMHO even if we would have less games and they would be lesser quality still that would not mean failure of free market (voluntary exchange). Thats like saying because government subsidies using laws or money something and makes it bigger as a result it is failure of free market that it does not achieve the same “efficiency” in that sector.