Salamander Soup wrote...
The EU ruling will be great persuasive precedent for U.S. courts.
OdanUrr wrote...
Salamander Soup wrote...
The EU ruling will be great persuasive precedent for U.S. courts.
Maybe, maybe not. But if in the near (or not so near) future we have Europe doing one thing and the U.S. another, this will encourage publishers to adopt different strategies and maybe price goods accordingly.
AngryFrozenWater wrote...
Since when do people need to pay the car manufacturer when they want to sell their car to their neighbor? No matter what Microsoft says it is just as stupid to pay them when you sell your games. It's worse when MS is forcing that system.
Modifié par Cyonan, 10 juin 2013 - 03:40 .
Salamander Soup wrote...
The EU ruling will be great persuasive precedent for U.S. courts.
M25105 wrote...
OdanUrr wrote...
Salamander Soup wrote...
The EU ruling will be great persuasive precedent for U.S. courts.
Maybe, maybe not. But if in the near (or not so near) future we have Europe doing one thing and the U.S. another, this will encourage publishers to adopt different strategies and maybe price goods accordingly.
So in the end, only you American's get screwed by companies that's from your own country? Doesn't that... kinda ****** you off?
Cyonan wrote...
AngryFrozenWater wrote...
Since when do people need to pay the car manufacturer when they want to sell their car to their neighbor? No matter what Microsoft says it is just as stupid to pay them when you sell your games. It's worse when MS is forcing that system.
...
Edit: Also forgot to mention, Microsoft actually has said that there is no additional fee for selling/buying used games.
billy the squid wrote...
Cyonan wrote...
AngryFrozenWater wrote...
Since when do people need to pay the car manufacturer when they want to sell their car to their neighbor? No matter what Microsoft says it is just as stupid to pay them when you sell your games. It's worse when MS is forcing that system.
...
Edit: Also forgot to mention, Microsoft actually has said that there is no additional fee for selling/buying used games.
Do you really think the retailer is just going to absorb that cost? They'll pass it down to the consumer. It's always the same.
Cyonan wrote...
billy the squid wrote...
Cyonan wrote...
AngryFrozenWater wrote...
Since when do people need to pay the car manufacturer when they want to sell their car to their neighbor? No matter what Microsoft says it is just as stupid to pay them when you sell your games. It's worse when MS is forcing that system.
...
Edit: Also forgot to mention, Microsoft actually has said that there is no additional fee for selling/buying used games.
Do you really think the retailer is just going to absorb that cost? They'll pass it down to the consumer. It's always the same.
"Microsoft does not charge a platform fee to retailers, publishers, or consumers for enabling transfer of these games."
Exactly what cost is being passed down to us? The space magic fee?
Cyonan wrote...
billy the squid wrote...
Cyonan wrote...
AngryFrozenWater wrote...
Since when do people need to pay the car manufacturer when they want to sell their car to their neighbor? No matter what Microsoft says it is just as stupid to pay them when you sell your games. It's worse when MS is forcing that system.
...
Edit: Also forgot to mention, Microsoft actually has said that there is no additional fee for selling/buying used games.
Do you really think the retailer is just going to absorb that cost? They'll pass it down to the consumer. It's always the same.
"Microsoft does not charge a platform fee to retailers, publishers, or consumers for enabling transfer of these games."
Exactly what cost is being passed down to us? The space magic fee?
Druss99 wrote...
It says Microsoft doesn't charge. It doesn't say publishers won't.
Modifié par Cyonan, 10 juin 2013 - 04:04 .
Cyonan wrote...
Druss99 wrote...
It says Microsoft doesn't charge. It doesn't say publishers won't.
This discussion is about Microsoft and the X1, not about publishers.
Unless the X1 enables publishers to charge an additional fee for used games then this point is irrelevant. Publishers already have ways to try to make money off of you if you buy the game used.
Salamander Soup wrote...
I wonder if Skynect will be on display. It is also funny that sharing games with family is a bulletpoint. You know its a turd when that is the case
Druss99 wrote...
No the discussion is about MS saying there is no additional fee. When infact they never said that, they said THEY won't charge an additional fee. They didn't say publishers won't, they left it open.
EA are doing away with online passes, why do you think that is?
Modifié par Cyonan, 10 juin 2013 - 04:19 .
Cyonan wrote...
billy the squid wrote...
Cyonan wrote...
AngryFrozenWater wrote...
Since when do people need to pay the car manufacturer when they want to sell their car to their neighbor? No matter what Microsoft says it is just as stupid to pay them when you sell your games. It's worse when MS is forcing that system.
...
Edit: Also forgot to mention, Microsoft actually has said that there is no additional fee for selling/buying used games.
Do you really think the retailer is just going to absorb that cost? They'll pass it down to the consumer. It's always the same.
"Microsoft does not charge a platform fee to retailers, publishers, or consumers for enabling transfer of these games."
Exactly what cost is being passed down to us? The space magic fee?
Modifié par billy the squid, 10 juin 2013 - 04:42 .
Cyonan wrote...
The discussion is about MS and the X1, while my comment was about MS not charging a fee for used games =P
Which again unless the X1 specifically allows them to do this, and there is no current evidence of this, then this point is irrelevant because it has nothing to do with Microsoft or the X1.
If EA comes up with a way to charge you for used games that is outside of the X1's systems then that is not Microsoft's fault, nor is it their problem.
billy the squid wrote...
So MS developed and put in this system out of the goodness of their heart? Please, you can't be that niave. They may not charge a platform fee, but from experience of reading in between the line with pr babble and contracts, I wouldn't be surprised if they renegotiated the royalty percentages that publishers pay to put the game on their platform.
So if each sale is treated as a new sale, then the royalty payment applies, because it is treated as a new sale as per the original contract, and it's not counted as a charge. See, it's actually not that difficult to make reasonably accurate observation once you know how contract laws work.
Or once the used game market is regulated in the above way with publishers and MS getting a cut, as they are now "partners", it's no longer dictated by demand. And the profit margin from retailers goes down, guess who ends up picking up the tab when the likes of Gamestop try and recoup their losses. The consumer.
Or did MS use space magic to develop the system and tech and it's completely free?
I've had to deal with enough company contracts to know that a Company NEVER loses, if they can avoid a cost it will and will recoup their cost from somewhere down the line. Either that or their business is looking at insolvency proceedings.
Cyonan wrote...
billy the squid wrote...
So MS developed and put in this system out of the goodness of their heart? Please, you can't be that niave. They may not charge a platform fee, but from experience of reading in between the line with pr babble and contracts, I wouldn't be surprised if they renegotiated the royalty percentages that publishers pay to put the game on their platform.
So if each sale is treated as a new sale, then the royalty payment applies, because it is treated as a new sale as per the original contract, and it's not counted as a charge. See, it's actually not that difficult to make reasonably accurate observation once you know how contract laws work.
Or once the used game market is regulated in the above way with publishers and MS getting a cut, as they are now "partners", it's no longer dictated by demand. And the profit margin from retailers goes down, guess who ends up picking up the tab when the likes of Gamestop try and recoup their losses. The consumer.
Or did MS use space magic to develop the system and tech and it's completely free?
I've had to deal with enough company contracts to know that a Company NEVER loses, if they can avoid a cost it will and will recoup their cost from somewhere down the line. Either that or their business is looking at insolvency proceedings.
They're a company, so it stands to reason that yes they will find a way to profit from the X1. It's a question of will they find a way to create additional costs for the sale/purchase of used games regardless of what word they're using to describe it.
Which right now nobody has any real evidence that this is going to happen or even that it's very likely going to happen. They can say that it might happen, but a lot of things might happen. EA might decide to charge you $120 per game(and they probably want to) but that doesn't mean that there is a high chance of that happening anytime soon.
It might happen. There is a non 0% chance of it being a thing at some point in the future, but it is not currently a thing and I see no reason to break out the rope to hang Microsoft on this specific issue.
Especially given how many other reasons they're currently giving us.
to limit it and inflate the price making the original new sale more appealing. Modifié par billy the squid, 10 juin 2013 - 05:32 .
billy the squid wrote...
You don't create a system, spend the money implementing it as well as the expenses to develop it without, making sure it will pay for itself, particularly one which is designed to lock down the used game market, when the accusation has always been, that it hurts their business. Which it tripe by the way. Or am I the only one who sees the hypocrisy of publishers pointing fingers at the likes of Gamestop, but falling over themselves to do business with them? If it was so harmful to them, then they wouldn't be doing the business with retailers in the first place.
MS has just stepped into the the sh*tstorm by putting themselves in the line of fire by siding with publishers and they aren't going to implement a system without some renumeration for doing so, that cost will always be passed down the line.
EA won't charge $120 a game because it'll kill their own market, by overpricing the product. The used game market is not sysnonymous with over pricing, the limitations imposed are to either A) get a cut of it, by double dipping or
It's a perfect reason to criticise MS as their answers have been as clear as mud. For precisely the reason that they are either moving to implement such a system and don't want to deal with the resultant fall out on release day. Or why did they cancel their E3 after show press confrence?
Retour en haut