Guest_simfamUP_*
Sauruz wrote...
EA to Online Passes: "You have failed. We will find another way. Releasing control."
*Online Passes turns its scaly insectoid head towards the oncoming explosion that will surely engulf and evaporate it.
![=]](https://lvlt.forum.bioware.com/public/style_emoticons/default/sideways.png)
xSTONEYx187x wrote...
Well, with all future games, no matter the genre, having microtransactions, EA can't be cutting off the used game market. They no that they will make a ton of money that way, easy to sucker people in through $1-$3 microtransactions.
Genius move, I gotta' say. I'm sure a lot of people will fall for it.
Guest_EntropicAngel_*
wolfsite wrote...
Love how when something that can be seen a good news for the consumer comes from EA people still find a way to spin it into a negative.
Guest_EntropicAngel_*
Ravensword wrote...
That will determine whether EA is ready to cut the bull**** and start treating their customers w/ respect rather than thieves since the use of DRM creates a presumption of guilt against those who don't pirate their games.
EntropicAngel wrote...
Ravensword wrote...
That will determine whether EA is ready to cut the bull**** and start treating their customers w/ respect rather than thieves since the use of DRM creates a presumption of guilt against those who don't pirate their games.
I would encourage you not to go into a retail store, ever. Because under your definition, those little things next to the doors are presumptions of guilt. And they're in most retail stores.
Guest_EntropicAngel_*
Ravensword wrote...
That's a false equivalence.
EntropicAngel wrote...
Ravensword wrote...
That's a false equivalence.
How so? How is my example not the same?
Guest_EntropicAngel_*
Ravensword wrote...
Unlike thise sensors on the stores that can be removed once you've made a purchase, games that contain DRM cannot be removed once purchase is done unless you have a pirated game. Games w/ DRM require a constant Internet connection in order to be played and the usual issues of that come w/ that requirement. The biggest problem is when the company decides to shut down the servers that you log into when you want to play your DRM-enabled game, thus making the game unplayable.
At least w/ retail stores—let's talk about clothing stores—they can remove sensors once a purchase has been made. It's not like you're gonna duplicate a shirt on your own. Also, after buying a shirt you can do w/ as you please, but w/ video games containing DRM schemes, it's like the company that you bought the game from gets to dictate when you can use your product. I can appreciate the fact that a company wants to protect their IP, but not at the expense at forcing a consumer how and when to use a product—I understand that the product is mine, but not the IP.
EntropicAngel wrote...
Ravensword wrote...
Unlike thise sensors on the stores that can be removed once you've made a purchase, games that contain DRM cannot be removed once purchase is done unless you have a pirated game. Games w/ DRM require a constant Internet connection in order to be played and the usual issues of that come w/ that requirement. The biggest problem is when the company decides to shut down the servers that you log into when you want to play your DRM-enabled game, thus making the game unplayable.
At least w/ retail stores—let's talk about clothing stores—they can remove sensors once a purchase has been made. It's not like you're gonna duplicate a shirt on your own. Also, after buying a shirt you can do w/ as you please, but w/ video games containing DRM schemes, it's like the company that you bought the game from gets to dictate when you can use your product. I can appreciate the fact that a company wants to protect their IP, but not at the expense at forcing a consumer how and when to use a product—I understand that the product is mine, but not the IP.
Well number 1, DRM doesn't just mean always-online systems. Most games from a few years back had a DRM system that required ONE online activation or whatever, and you could play the game. Wasn't necessarily always online.
And you do have a good point...but you're forgetting that we don't buy the game. We buy the right to use the game.
It would be like buying the right to wear a shirt. It wouldn't be out of expectation, I don't think, for them to make sure some way that you weren't sharing THEIR shirt with other people...because only you bought the right to wear their shirt.
Guest_EntropicAngel_*
Fast Jimmy wrote...
But it would. Because there are basic property laws that state that once you buy that shirt, you can give it to whomever you wish to wear.
Video games try and get around that by stating it is digital media, not acutal property, but there are numerous legal challenges to that. It is hardly an accepeted legal doctrine that when you buy a video game, you are only "renting" the ability to play it.
Modifié par EntropicAngel, 16 mai 2013 - 04:27 .
EntropicAngel wrote...
Ravensword wrote...
Unlike thise sensors on the stores that can be removed once you've made a purchase, games that contain DRM cannot be removed once purchase is done unless you have a pirated game. Games w/ DRM require a constant Internet connection in order to be played and the usual issues of that come w/ that requirement. The biggest problem is when the company decides to shut down the servers that you log into when you want to play your DRM-enabled game, thus making the game unplayable.
At least w/ retail stores—let's talk about clothing stores—they can remove sensors once a purchase has been made. It's not like you're gonna duplicate a shirt on your own. Also, after buying a shirt you can do w/ as you please, but w/ video games containing DRM schemes, it's like the company that you bought the game from gets to dictate when you can use your product. I can appreciate the fact that a company wants to protect their IP, but not at the expense at forcing a consumer how and when to use a product—I understand that the product is mine, but not the IP.
Well number 1, DRM doesn't just mean always-online systems. Most games from a few years back had a DRM system that required ONE online activation or whatever, and you could play the game. Wasn't necessarily always online.
And you do have a good point...but you're forgetting that we don't buy the game. We buy the right to use the game.
It would be like buying the right to wear a shirt. It wouldn't be out of expectation, I don't think, for them to make sure some way that you weren't sharing THEIR shirt with other people...because only you bought the right to wear their shirt.
EntropicAngel wrote...
Fast Jimmy wrote...
But it would. Because there are basic property laws that state that once you buy that shirt, you can give it to whomever you wish to wear.
Video games try and get around that by stating it is digital media, not acutal property, but there are numerous legal challenges to that. It is hardly an accepeted legal doctrine that when you buy a video game, you are only "renting" the ability to play it.
But you didn't buy the shirt, remember. You bought the right to wear the shirt. The company still owns the shirt. They...licensed it to you.
Yes?
Ravensword wrote...
rapunzel696 wrote...
That's expensive.Ravensword wrote...
$0.10 to reload.
Enjoy your microtransactions.
Guest_EntropicAngel_*
Fast Jimmy wrote...
I don't know of any business model in the world where you would or even could rent a shirt. Again, property and ownership laws start coming into play. "Possession is 9/10's of the law" and all that. If you have the shirt in your possession, at what point would the company in question try and either repossess your shirt or block you (or someone else) from wearing it?
And nowhere in the agreement of gamer and publisher is it ever implied that you are LEASING a game. It is always a purchase. There is no terms and conditions you are forced to agree to or sign when you walk out of the store with your game, unlike the vast majortiy of rental/lease agreements.
The game publisher is attempting to push an agreement that isn't backed by legislation nor agreed (or even informed) on the part of the purchaser. I'm no lawyer, but that is a VERY hard position for a company to take, let alone defend.
Eternal Napalm wrote...
Ravensword wrote...
rapunzel696 wrote...
That's expensive.Ravensword wrote...
$0.10 to reload.
Enjoy your microtransactions.
It's not gouging. It's charging.
Jokes aside....dafuq? Does EA want me to start buying from them again? Good start.
DinoSteve wrote...
Khayness wrote...
It's a trap!
On PC you can't buy new titles used anyways (unless you register each one of them on different Origin account and trade it along with the game?), if the no used games always on DRM nextgen crap turns out to be true, many people called it as getting some goodwill out of removing a soon to be obsolete feature.
Sony confirimed that there won't be always online and I think MS confirmed it too.
Retour en haut
