Why pc gaming industry is so unreasonable?

[Sami69]

Let me just start asking this: if you buy something new which costs 50e/50dollars you expect product to work and if there is issues you can return it and get your moneys back. Isin't this pretty much how it goes? So why it is different for pc games?

I have bought handfull of games which just doesn't run or run extremely bad making me unhappy customer who feels cheated and what can i do? Nothing, absolutely nothing, not getting as much as apology and be left with broken product and frustration.

This topic isin't about ranting. I just want to know if there's something i don't understand here but don't try to justify pc games being hard to make it isin't good reason coz if your new cars brakes doesn't work and you crash the car you would expect to hear something better than ¨sorry brakes are just difficult to make¨.

I have been pc gamer for 5years now so i don't know if its been like this allways that games gets released way too soon or be just so broken that they can't even fix it with patches. I'm happy that there is pc gamin existing but it feels so risky thing to buy games coz if you can't get it working then the moneys were wasted. I'd just hope there were some quality insurance...

[Epic Beatrice]

Consoles = More Money for 6 year old tech, easier to code. :)

[Pebr]

I'm not sure what games you have been buying but all the PC games i've bought tend to run fine - If they don't there's usually a swift patch that resolves any issues.

Any remaining bugs beyond this are usually negligible - In your car analogy, the bugs i see would be the equivalent of small problems like sticky radio buttons or a malfunctioning cigarette lighter.

There tends not to be that much of a difference between video game errors and your car example to be honest - Both can crash due to un-noticed problems.

[Draek]

Because it's software. Try buying a Mac and returning your copy of OSX, see how 'easy' that is (hint: you'll have to hire a lawyer).

Besides, 99% of the time when a game "just doesn't run" it is the fault of the user, who bought it before checking and/or understanding the system requirements. No, just because your Intel GMA950 was made after the GeForce 6600 doesn't mean it can run any of the games the NVidia can, or that if it can it'll do it at nearly the same speed.

[Jinoruizraged]

Patches...........

[AlecJ32]

Lol....You said 'buyed'.


Also, Ubisoft and/or Starforce are ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ companies. I bought Splinter Cell Chaos Theory only to find out that they used a feature Starforce to force the game to not run unless the operating system is on a 'white list' of operating systems. That means that once Vista and Windows 7 rolled around, they had to release a patch to fix this, but they never released a patch for Starforce protection on 64-bit platforms.

[notavirus.exe]

Lol....You said 'buyed'.

Bye bye in past tense is buy buyed. ;)

On a serious note, the only PC game I know that runs like poop is MW2 and Infinity Wards lack of patching for their broken pieces.

[Sniper1120]

Because it's software. Try buying a Mac and returning your copy of OSX, see how 'easy' that is (hint: you'll have to hire a lawyer).

Besides, 99% of the time when a game "just doesn't run" it is the fault of the user, who bought it before checking and/or understanding the system requirements. No, just because your Intel GMA950 was made after the GeForce 6600 doesn't mean it can run any of the games the NVidia can, or that if it can it'll do it at nearly the same speed.




So, you're telling me...


That because I can't run Black Ops, it's my fault?

9800GTX+ is much better than the GTS240
3.2ghz processor = Better than the recommended E6500 processor
4gb ram
Win7 64bit (fresh install, mind you)
etc..



It's my fault that Black Ops doesn't run? Sorry, no, it's not. It's a broken game that we, The PC gamers, were screwed on.

[velvetmeds]

it's your fault for buying that pos... :P jk. kinda.

[AlecJ32]

Bye bye in past tense is buy buyed. ;)

Last time I checked, bye in the context you're referring to can only be used as a participle for the word good (goodbye) or as a colloquial interjection; neither case has a past tense to my knowledge.

[Sami69]

Because it's software. Try buying a Mac and returning your copy of OSX, see how 'easy' that is (hint: you'll have to hire a lawyer).

Besides, 99% of the time when a game "just doesn't run" it is the fault of the user, who bought it before checking and/or understanding the system requirements. No, just because your Intel GMA950 was made after the GeForce 6600 doesn't mean it can run any of the games the NVidia can, or that if it can it'll do it at nearly the same speed.

I don't buy games if my specs isn't at least on recommended and i have my computer checked at computer store coz i have thought that maybe i have something wrong with it but its have been allways tip top shape. I monitor my temps all the time and i don't have anything but things to need to play games on my computer.

[velvetmeds]

What games are you talking about btw?

[notavirus.exe]

Last time I checked, bye in the context you're referring to can only be used as a participle for the word good (goodbye) or as a colloquial interjection; neither case has a past tense to my knowledge.

You are so knowledgable, Do you prefer Noah or Mr. Webster?

PC gaming is a market. It's more profitable to pump out games annually than do what Valve does (free updates and patching).

[MrSniker]

Instead of venting usually its best to check the software in questions technical support forums to narrow problems needed to fix. If games not working properly is a constant issue in regards to your computer, it would seem that perhaps your computer may be the issue. If not check the softwares' technical support and get your hands dirty and update drivers/what not.

The reason refunds aren't allowed, usually only trade ins of same game is because it's quite easy to copy/crack a piece of software these days. This has been standard practice in the PC market ever since I can remember and more than likely will always be standard practice.

If you want quality assurance check out review sites especially one's written by users and not magazines. If you're tired of getting burning on terrible $50 games do some research.

[AlecJ32]

You are so knowledgable, Do you prefer Noah or Mr. Webster?

I've never met either of them.

The reason refunds aren't allowed, usually only trade ins of same game is because it's quite easy to copy/crack a piece of software these days. This has been standard practice in the PC market ever since I can remember and more than likely will always be standard practice.

Beyond that, if they did accept refunds, their product would no longer be considered new. All the local game stores around here give a 'grace period' on used game purchases, during which time you can return the game for a full refund if you don't like it. None of them, however, employ a similar policy for new games because once the game has been opened it's no longer 'new'.

[Dmytry]

Let me just start asking this: if you buy something new which costs 50e/50dollars you expect product to work and if there is issues you can return it and get your moneys back. Isin't this pretty much how it goes? So why it is different for pc games?

I have bought handfull of games which just doesn't run or run extremely bad making me unhappy customer who feels cheated and what can i do? Nothing, absolutely nothing, not getting as much as apology and be left with broken product and frustration.

This topic isin't about ranting. I just want to know if there's something i don't understand here but don't try to justify pc games being hard to make it isin't good reason coz if your new cars brakes doesn't work and you crash the car you would expect to hear something better than ¨sorry brakes are just difficult to make¨.

I have been pc gamer for 5years now so i don't know if its been like this allways that games gets released way too soon or be just so broken that they can't even fix it with patches. I'm happy that there is pc gamin existing but it feels so risky thing to buy games coz if you can't get it working then the moneys were wasted. I'd just hope there were some quality insurance...

From the developer's perspective - hardware and installed software is very varied on PC. Graphics hardware and drivers are full of very varied bugs. You can never ensure that it will work for everyone, the best you can do is to make it work for 99% or so of the people who meet the minimum specifications. Then there is this effect that I see with my game specifically, people play some modern AAA console ports which work fine on specifications well below their listed minimum system specifications (because of how old console hardware is), and they complain my game does not work on below specs hardware. My game is not a console port and the minimum hardware specifications are true minimum, not inflated to look more modern. On hardware below that some things or entire game will not work. But people are used to console ports, and to Indie games having very low system requirements.

The reason there's no returns is why there's no return on movie tickets after you could have seen the movie. Though I would not mind returns if it is known that user did not play the game. Sure it would cost me a bit of money directly, but indirectly users would feel far more secure buying from me.

[rotNdude]

When you buy a $50 hardware item at a store it has a unique serial number to identify it. However, that unique SN doesn't require it to get the hardware to work. When you buy a $50 piece of software, it usually has a unique SN to identify it and allow it to run. Once you've purchased that software package, opened it up and identified that unique identifier, you may have used that identifier to activate the software. If you then decide to return that product you have still used the identifier and the company may not have any means to deactivate that unique identifier for you but allow it for anybody that buys that product after you've returned it. It's primarily about the use of those unique identifiers.

[Europhoria]

Bye bye in past tense is buy buyed. ;)

On a serious note, the only PC game I know that runs like poop is MW2 and Infinity Wards lack of patching for their broken pieces.

Not buy bought. I'm confused. :confused:

[Mordwyrhta]

There are a variety of industries with no return/no money back policies. Gaming really has little choice, especially PC gaming, as if I could just return whatever I bought I could easily pirate it.

It is up to you, as the consumer, to make educated purchasing decisions by knowing the performance limits of your machine and paying close attention to the system reqs of a game.

If you meet them and the game still doesn't run, then you must work with the developer's customer support to get it to work, not just throw the game down and demand a refund.

You've chosen the gaming platform that is the "after market part" (to use a car analogy). It means your product performs better than the stock stuff (consoles) but you're also going to have to do a lot of the work yourself.

If you're not willing to do this, you have options.

[Dirtman73]

The PC gaming industry is so unreasonable because they can be. No-one is holding their feet to the fire. There's no hardware/software oversight committee forcing the PC and gaming industries to adopt particular standards when it comes to compatibility. Of course, seeing how there are literally tens of thousands of different PC hardware setups, implementing compatibility standards is next to impossible.

The industry doesn't care when a game you paid good money for doesn't work as advertised. Activision, Ubisoft, EA, and the other AAA companies have a long and sordid history of ignoring customer issues. All they have to tell you at the end of the day is "Since the game doesn't work, it must be your fault."

Since you're not actually buying the game (you're really just buying a license to play the game, which it totally completely different from owning a copy of it, dontcha know), your options are limited when a game won't work properly. If it's not your fault, what can you do? You can't get a refund. You can't sue. So you're stuck with a nonworking product. I've had a handful of games over the years that I could not use due to poor quality control on the part of the developers.

Nothing you can do but forget about it and move on.

[x_rast_x]

PC gaming has always been very do-it-yourself. It's not nearly as bad as it used to be IMO. Today we have one major OS, and games don't need the absolute latest hardware to run well, or in many cases, at all. Doom was unplayable on a 386 but just fine on a 486. Duke Nukem 3D (and other games that used the Build engine) would barely run on a 486 but did just fine on a 1st-gen Pentium). VGA games wouldn't run on computers that had older CGA graphics, and CGA games wouldn't run on monochrome systems. You get the idea.

As the technology got better, it came down in cost and eventually, around the time the first 3D graphics cards came out I would estimate, the CPU ceased to be the major bottleneck. This was good because now you didn't need the latest Intel whatever to play the newest games (and the new motherboard because it used a different socket, and new ram because your old stuff wasn't enough, was incompatible, or was too slow).

Gaming is still pretty DIY though. It's cheaper for sure, but actually requires a bit more technical knowledge, as gaming performance depends on a number of individual parameters instead of being dominated by CPU model. Consumer PCs haven't (generally) been good gaming machines since the days of the C64, though if you do some homework you can throw some upgrades in a cheap Dell or HP box and be good to go.

[PowerfulGiraffe]

Let me just start asking this: if you buy something new which costs 50e/50dollars you expect product to work and if there is issues you can return it and get your moneys back. Isin't this pretty much how it goes? So why it is different for pc games?

I have bought handfull of games which just doesn't run or run extremely bad making me unhappy customer who feels cheated and what can i do? Nothing, absolutely nothing, not getting as much as apology and be left with broken product and frustration.

This topic isin't about ranting. I just want to know if there's something i don't understand here but don't try to justify pc games being hard to make it isin't good reason coz if your new cars brakes doesn't work and you crash the car you would expect to hear something better than ¨sorry brakes are just difficult to make¨.

I have been pc gamer for 5years now so i don't know if its been like this allways that games gets released way too soon or be just so broken that they can't even fix it with patches. I'm happy that there is pc gamin existing but it feels so risky thing to buy games coz if you can't get it working then the moneys were wasted. I'd just hope there were some quality insurance...First off, the whole problem started when games on PC started allowing you to install and play without the disc. I prefer owning physical copies of games that require me to play with a disc in the tray, that's how I've always loved it, but since piracy is so easy, they feel the need to place DRM into these games that can be played without the disc, plus it cuts off the used game market for PC games, which means more profit for publishers. They really just want money, which is a characteristic common among businesses, but when you provide products such as games to the consumer, it's not the kind of thing that you can treat like a television show. When I buy a game I expect to be able to play it when and where I want (including once the game is 20+ years old, classics are classics, just like my favorite books and movies, I want to replay them), and I expect to be able to sell it if I no longer want it, that is how most people view their belongings.

But now they are moving into a new direction where you are simply licensing the game and just paying for the right to play it, which is almost criminal in my eyes. If anything it is degrading to the people who treat games as an art form and work hard developing single-player experiences, as this model doesn't support the longevity or re-playability of games, just like how when you pay for cable, you can't expect them to keep showing you episodes of The X-Files, they will eventually stop airing them. Publishers want to move towards a cloud system where basically you have a huge library of available games and you pay some amount to use one and when you are done it goes away and you basically are renting games online,

[Kahrandras]

they've been licensing for a long time

[PowerfulGiraffe]

they've been licensing for a long timeIf I buy a game, I may not make copies and sell them, in that sense, yes they've been licensing for a long time.

In the sense that, I need your permission to use this product, every time I want to use it I have to do so through you, and you may decide to drop support and no longer allow me to play the game at any time, than No licensing is fairly new to video games.

[SaDiZTiKStyLeZ™]

Developers don't want to put in the effort to release working playable games, yet still get paid for doing as little as possible.
Consumers don't want to waste money on products that do not work.

[Jinoruizraged]

If I buy a game, I may not make copies and sell them, in that sense, yes they've been licensing for a long time.

In the sense that, I need your permission to use this product, every time I want to use it I have to do so through you, and you may decide to drop support and no longer allow me to play the game at any time, than No licensing is fairly new to video games.

Not really, they've been around for a long time. They just haven't enforced it with DRM until recently.

[PowerfulGiraffe]

Not really, they've been around for a long time. They just haven't enforced it with DRM until recently.Name one game released from 1980-2002 that required you be online to play, and was digitally distributed in a way that meant you only owned it as long as the publisher wanted to let you play it? What game from back then wasn't in physical form and not allowed to be sold?

all games from then may still be played, as they were stand alone products that you bought, and weren't just a limited time privilege.

[PowerfulGiraffe]

Not really, they've been around for a long time. They just haven't enforced it with DRM until recently.I'm talking about Licensing the game for use, as in playing it until they release a new one or servers are shut down, not saying that with old games you could use audio and video from a game freely and plagiarize it. The idea that you need to be monitored when playing a game is brand new. you can't say that they did that back then,

[Jinoruizraged]

They couldn't do it back then. Not enough bandwidth.

How many games actually restrict you that much to a "limited" amount of time? For how many games has the plug really been pulled? Publishers see they have power now so they might as well use it. I have no problem with it since most who use this power don't make good games anyways.

Valve gave the server tools to the players. You can run Source servers without having a steam account. Its in our hands.

To be honest, almost all the games that have that "constant connection" DRM aren't that great anyways. Instead of actually focusing on the game they focused on the money, how they could make the most profit, which squandered creativity heavily.

My original point was EULA's have been around for a very very long time. Its only been recently with the many internet technology advancements that Publisher's have started to enforce them with DRM "schemes".

[jdub]

IMO, its a matter of what they can get away with through legal wording as opposed to whats actually right or legal. Like Jino said, back then, they COULDN'T enforce they're over-zealous IP protection, but steady internet connections are fairly common now, so they can do what they like, and i don't know, but the wording that limits your purchase to a license in the contracts may have been in game cases forever. Unless and until someone sues a distributor, publisher or developer for faulty products or denial of service or denial of goods and wins, then they are allowed to operate under these contracts. At this point in my life, i don't assume anymore that the gov't will protect consumer rights, but that they will protect business' rights almost without exception.

Up until digital distribution and the stringent DRMs that are being implimented these days, i was under the impression that folks had a right to sell used goods, but because the game industry can, in some small way, substantiate the idea that people will duplicate and steal the goods they bought, we allow them to protect their property supposedly. In my opinion, they're protecting they're business interests, and nothing more.

Of course they don't want to give you your money back, until a certain percentage of their sales request refunds, the problems with their product become so rampant they can't ignore it, they lose sales or they lose a court case on the matter, they will make more money by ignoring you and giving you the run-around.

[hahaokayman]

Somewhere along the line of title releases, a behemoth studio/publisher released an unstable game and after patching, releasing unstablies became accepted industry-wide. (we can release it now as is to meet publishers deadline, we will just update super frequently to look productive)

[PowerfulGiraffe]

They couldn't do it back then. Not enough bandwidth.

How many games actually restrict you that much to a "limited" amount of time? For how many games has the plug really been pulled? Publishers see they have power now so they might as well use it. I have no problem with it since most who use this power don't make good games anyways.

Valve gave the server tools to the players. You can run Source servers without having a steam account. Its in our hands.

To be honest, almost all the games that have that "constant connection" DRM aren't that great anyways. Instead of actually focusing on the game they focused on the money, how they could make the most profit, which squandered creativity heavily.

My original point was EULA's have been around for a very very long time. Its only been recently with the many internet technology advancements that Publisher's have started to enforce them with DRM "schemes".Okay, I didn't mean to try to start an argument. I am not talking about the EULA's that have been around forever to protect a game, but talking about the fact that now, they have stopped the idea that you get to keep and use what you pay for, as a personal belonging, but rather treating it like a product that you rent and have to play with while big brother is watching over your back rather than be able to play when he is "out of town"* or share your toy with a buddy. (*meaning that when at my house in Michigan, which has no internet, I am no longer able to play)

When I buy a painting it is expected that I will not be reprinting and selling copies or taking pictures and using them in art shows. But it is my own piece of art to keep, I can look at it when I want, put it in the bedroom or the living room, I bought it with the understanding that It isn't going to vaporize into thin air in five years, but will last as long as I take care of it in my lifetime, and the artist doesn't have any hidden deals or strings attached. If I reach a point in my life when I am required to move or live in a place with limited amount of space and can't keep it, I may give or lend it to a friend, in old age I may be cleaning out my attic and have a little garage sale and it is my belonging to get rid of. Nobody questions this, a buyer does not ask an old man at a garage sale, did you make this lamp or painting? is this couch an original PowerfulGiraffe? Excuse me sir, but you appear to be selling something clearly labeled Kenneth Koskela, you know that is still his painting right? he owns it, if you don't want it you should give it back.

No, nobody would buy stuff if there was immediately no value to it once it is yours. Books, Vinyls/Cassettes/CD's, Movies, Games, they are all sold after they are bought, (though most people do keep and hold on to Favorites/Classics to re-experience).

I understand CD key's and things that are used to prevent piracy, but I can't even buy retail PC games anymore because I need to be online to play, and with limited installs on disk, well the problem then becomes that ten years down the road, after numerous PC upgrade's I try to install Mass Effect 2 to play, and what happens? nothing, because it was designed so that you are reliant upon the game companies to allow you to play a game, and you must re-buy old games to continue playing them. There aren't many instances today of the drop in support that I speak of, other than Microsoft dropping online support for original xbox games (which was especially bad, since I saw games such as Halo 2 and Crimson Skies still being sold brand new at places like Best-Buy with advertisements for online play) and APB shutting down. But look at the old games, such as Shenmue or The Legend of Zelda Link's Awakening, I may still play those on their respective consoles, but neither is a game that has been ported to a modern console or is a game that is still being sold by SEGA or Nintendo. They are both amazing games and are considered classics, many people still play them, but the support isn't there, it isn't needed to be there since you can play the game's independently.

But imagine the scenario in modern times, I want to play Mass Effect and Assassin's Creed on PC years down the road, the support phone numbers have long been deactivated and I have used the limited installs because of upgrades, what then? well the truth is I am out of luck and have just been screwed by Ubisoft and Microsoft.

[Jinoruizraged]

Good thing Steam works.

Like I said before, most of the games that require that constant connection aren't worth your time or money.

BTW, you're way off topic.

/Jinoruiztootiredtoreadthatwalloftext.

[PowerfulGiraffe]

Good thing Steam works.

Like I said before, most of the games that require that constant connection aren't worth your time or money.

BTW, you're way off topic.

/Jinoruiztootiredtoreadthatwalloftext.I'm not talking about games that require constant connection, any game requiring online activation initially are the bad ones


And this post is meant for the "Why pc gaming industry is so unreasonable?" thread, if I posted this is another sorry, it is perfectly on topic in the thread about why PC gaming industry is so unreasonable.

And I like Steam so far, lets just hope they are even better ten years from now.

if you didn't bother to read my post than how can you say it is off topic?

[trojanrabbit.gg]

It's primarily about the use of those unique identifiers.

Yup:( These days, you don't buy games. You buy nine to fifteen digit numbers.:p

[Dmytry]

Yup:( These days, you don't buy games. You buy nine to fifteen digit numbers.:p

well you never really "bought" games unless you were a big corporation buying over the game from the developer or publisher.

[Sami69]

I allways do everything i can to make sure its not my fault if game doesn't run well. Its just annoying that i want to support many devs by buying many times game on day 1 when its on its ¨full price¨ and just to have either no support or well, anything from them.

Well heres few games i have had bad experiences with:
1. Witcher i have spent more than 100h on internet to find tweaks and i have reinstalled this game like 10 times and tried many different drivers and it still runs so poorly, has screen tearing, crashes, graphics anomalities. I paid 50euros for this game and only thing i get for my money is headache and frustration. I'm not bashing this game, i'm sure its fantastic game but how its programmed is awfull.

2.Dragon age runs allmost as bad as Witcher. I have tried to overcome the bad framerate but i just can't. In this game 30fps looks terrible, just terrible. In many games 30fps isin't that bad but in DAO it looks like 20 or less and feels extremely sluggish. I have done absolutely everything i can and i even upgraded just to get to play this game properly. Customer support is a joke, seriously they are. They said to me ¨empty your temp forlder¨, ¨put resolution 800x768¨ and rest of responses are just as bad.

I would like nothing else as much as get to play those two with smooth fps or smoother but they just wont run. I have wasted A LOT OF TIME to get them working and i'll never get those wasted hours back. I live in Finland and pc components are very expensive here so i can't afford to get monster rig.

My specs: Vista 64bit, Q9400 2.6ghz, ati 5770 1gb, 4gb ram, Asus p5ql SE with integrated realtek

[Timerider42]

This is why PC games need demos.

[MADDOGGE]

How long you been PC gaming OP? Not meaning to sound mean but this is just a normal part of PC gaming. Consoles just work. When it comes to PC's it just depends. This is why in the old days demos where so great. The demo was a couple levels of the actual game so if the demo ran you were pretty safe in assuming that the full game would. Today if you get a PC demo, it's basically a separably made game and don't mean jack ♥♥♥♥ as to whether the real game will run in a lot of cases.

I remember the good old days before I had internet.:( Games on my shelve that wouldn't run because they needed a patch.:mad: Being a PC gamer is like being an auto enthusiast constant tinkering required. it's not going to get any better or easier. A large portion of games that come out these days now are grossly late alpha or beta and they sell first and patch later if you are lucky.

The Indies still have a love a gaming which makes me more forgiving of them compared to the corporate giants that ONLY care about money and have the factory mentality. Once the big ones have your money they could care less about you. They know most people have short memories and will be back for more abuse the next go round.

[weegie]

I must be the luckiest person in the world. I have never bought a game that doesn't run, or that I couldn't control. I've had several console ports, some with really weird controls, and have never once had a problem with playing the games.

Of course, I do get bored and stop playing the games, but thats entirely different.

Anyway, on topic, When you buy a game from a shop, it is a carbon copy of the original programming code. it is the exact same as every other copy of the game sold in every shop. If you sell it to 1000 people, but only one has a problem, is that a problem with the game? possibly, if its not been tested on every combination of hardware then there may be issues with certain setups. However, if there is a developer out there who has installed and tested their game on every single possible combination of hardware and software available, then they have more money than they should.

If you can't run a game, try to find other gamers who have the exact same, or very similar setups to yourself, who also cannot run the game. This would indicate an issue with something in that setup. If you do find this, then contact the developer with the details of your setup, and they should be able to patch the game to run on your setup.

If you cannot find a group of people who cannot use it, and you are the only one with your setup, then chances are that its your computer thats at fault.

There is always the possibility that the physical copy you have is damaged. Proving that is hard though, unless there is a huge scratch down the disc and you open the case in store to check this. I'm fairly certain that most shops won't take back a scratched disc, because you cannot prove that you didn't scratch it yourself. Only by opening it in store, in front of the staff at the time of purchase would you be able to prove you didn't damage it.

[PowerfulGiraffe]

well you never really "bought" games unless you were a big corporation buying over the game from the developer or publisher.You know what he means :rolleyes: ,

There is a big difference between owning the right's to a game, owning a personal copy of a game, and paying for the ability to play it through the distributor.

If I wrote Watership Down, either the publisher or I would own the rights, someone who bought a copy would own their copy, and someone who checked it out from the library will eventually lose the book since it isn't theirs to keep.

Say I was the publisher, the person who bought a copy isn't required to keep his book within my Publishing Company's private book collection in our basement, and doesn't have to come and pick it up when he wants to read it, we are also okay if he lends the book to a friend.

I am not sure about other game designer's or artists, but when I make a game, record an album, or paint a painting, sure I will sell them, I am after all trying to make a living, but what matters to me is that people experience and enjoy them. I don't care if my game is being lent to friends and relatives all over the place, just as long is they are entertained by it, I make games and art because I am a person who likes to express myself by making things, and I want as many people to enjoy what I do as possible.

I don't expect others to share my sentiments, I understand that money may be all that is important to some game developers, and I definitely am not against DRM, but to make it so that someone is no longer in control of playing the game that they payed for, and can't play it without internet (it's a single-player game, it is expected to be able to be played by people who don't have internet) is unreasonable, and to be honest, If this is how games are going to be "sold" from now on then they need to adjust prices accordingly, no game is worth $60 just to rent.

And whoever mentioned that the only reason that companies didn't do this in the 80's and 90's is because they didn't have the hardware or bandwidth is mistaken, look at Sony and Nintendo, they both still use physical DRM-free copies of games, and they will next gen as well, even the Sony and Nintendo developer's themselves are people who buy and resell games.

[Dmytry]

Well I think he does not know what he means. It was always ultimately about right to play the game, the price is negotiated on right to play the game, not so much on ownership of a shiny disk. The reselling - well if they block ability to resell they could lower the prices.

Copy, well you would own a copy, and if you duplicated it - for backup purposes, which was permitted for some software - you would actually own 2 or more copies, one of which you could sell or give away - whoops, no.

And yes of course single player game requiring internet connection has substantially smaller potential customer base. A big company couldn't possibly have done that and kept doing that if extra sales caused by introduction of DRM did not outweight the decrease in number of potential customers AND cost of development of DRM. Companies have shareholders, who are only interested in profits; if a company does something that is actually bad for business, heads roll; DRM is not introduced without a study and not kept if it is harmful.

[jdub]

Well I think he does not know what he means. It was always ultimately about right to play the game, the price is negotiated on right to play the game, not so much on ownership of a shiny disk. The reselling - well if they block ability to resell they could lower the prices.

Copy, well you would own a copy, and if you duplicated it - for backup purposes, which was permitted for some software - you would actually own 2 or more copies, one of which you could sell or give away - whoops, no.

And yes of course single player game requiring internet connection has substantially smaller potential customer base. A big company couldn't possibly have done that and kept doing that if extra sales caused by introduction of DRM did not outweight the decrease in number of potential customers AND cost of development of DRM. Companies have shareholders, who are only interested in profits; if a company does something that is actually bad for business, heads roll; DRM is not introduced without a study and not kept if it is harmful.

They did take away our rights to resell, and didn't lower the prices. To the business and according to their contracts, it may have always been about your right to play, but to me, it was about a nice game collection, that i could swap with my friends or play with my family in the future. Look at all the classic consoles and games and the prices they're demanding these days. Should all those resellers have to pass on their yardsale profits to Nintendo? I'm sure Nintendo wouldn't mind.

The premise that someone COULD steal a copy, as rationalization for taking away our ability to resell (de-facto, whether legal or not) is a poor one IMO. Similar to constant connnections required not hurting pirates, but the legitmate consumers. If you assume we're all criminals, guess what you'll get eventually?

I understand business have to protect they're interests, and that if they make poor descisions with their products, it most likely will come back to hurt their sales, but the industry as a whole is easing into this scheme that absolutely maximizes their bottom line at the expense of consumer rights.

What i'm getting at, is that these contracts and DRM schemes are not bad for business, they're very good for business. I think they're working these business plans into their products with enough PR and in ways that make their flaws in regards to consumer rights less obvious to the masses, and until the tipping point comes and consumers realize they're losing rights and gaining very little in return (a subscription? what?), this industry will continue to be able to roll down this slippery slope, hopefully not to the same end as the banks and housing market in this country.

[Dmytry]

Well then stop buying those titles with DRM. Switch to the indie titles(so the better for me). But those do not have immense marketing that would make you want to play them.

It's already the case that with big titles you're primarily paying for game marketing rather than game development. I guess marketing does add some value - it increases desire to play the game, and there is more value in doing something that you desire more - but it has little to do with gameplay. The gameplay development nearly stagnated. To me nearly all the FPS 'games' are a single game; a football played on different fields with different sized, different weighting, different stiffness ball. Valve's games stand out, but rest is just effectively one game.

[jdub]

Well then stop buying those titles with DRM. Switch to the indie titles(so the better for me). But those do not have immense marketing that would make you want to play them.

It's already the case that with big titles you're primarily paying for game marketing rather than game development. I guess marketing does add some value - it increases desire to play the game, and there is more value in doing something that you desire more - but it has little to do with gameplay. The gameplay development nearly stagnated. To me nearly all the FPS 'games' are a single game; a football played on different fields with different sized, different weighting, different stiffness ball. Valve's games stand out, but rest is just effectively one game.

Oh yeah, i own your game, and i love it. Good points of discussion BTW, apologies if i'm being a rude.

[Mordwyrhta]

They did take away our privilege to resell and didn't lower the price, but game prices also haven't risen in decades. I paid the same amount for Fallout 1 as I did for Fallout 3. Where as every other industry has raised prices due to inflation.

So, in a sense, the gaming industry HAS lowered their prices over the years by not raising them when everyone else did.

Some people here aren't as old as me, but I can tell you right now that an NES cost the same, new, as an Xbox 360 did. NES cartridges used to cost MORE than 60 bucks, but there was also a lot more variation in pricing in those days.

Hell, some NES and SNES cartridges STILL sell for 100 bucks, even ones that aren't that rare.

[PowerfulGiraffe]

Oh yeah, i own your game, and i love it. Good points of discussion BTW, apologies if i'm being a rude.I think I'm gonna buy his game, it looks really great,

@Dmytry, are you familiar with Vib-Ribbon?

[Dmytry]

No offence taken! It's just that those talks kind of strike me as useless.
The product that was made is a single item - a game. It is shared by all the players.
Many players have to somehow pay for production of this single item. The money they pay go largely into production of more items for players to jointly pay for. All those ownerships of disks are just made up to make your share of pay for development of a single item look like something familiar to you, a pay for some item that you'll own, can resell, etc. But the idea of 'resale'... How can you 'resell' your share in the pay for that single item? Can you resell a receipt you get 'in return' to paying the taxes?

[Dmytry]

I think I'm gonna buy his game, it looks really great,

@Dmytry, are you familiar with Vib-Ribbon?
Looks very interesting, very original. No, never seen it before.

[PowerfulGiraffe]

No offence taken! It's just that those talks kind of strike me as useless.
The product that was made is a single item - a game. It is shared by all the players.
Many players have to somehow pay for production of this single item. The money they pay go largely into production of more items for players to jointly pay for. All those ownerships of disks are just made up to make your share of pay for development of a single item look like something familiar to you, a pay for some item that you'll own, can resell, etc. But the idea of 'resale'... How can you 'resell' your share in the pay for that single item? Can you resell a receipt you get 'in return' to paying the taxes?Yeah, I understand this. But say, just like Machinarium, The Polynomial got a retail release, I'd be paying for it all the same. Everyone who buys the hard copy would still be sharing it, and supporting the developers, heck I'd even pay more for a retail copy. And then I'd be able to play it in a more rustic setting, and put it on the shelf with my other favorite music games. I know from a business stand point it doesn't make sense for you guys I guess, but for most games there is no harm.

And I really do hope you guys have sold a lot of copies of that game, I have always been intrigued with the idea of music games, not like Rockband but, games that are based upon/ put emphasis on music. One of the game's that I plan to make after my first project is out of the way is a "music" game, though it has more to do with the adventure genre.


Looks very interesting, very original. No, never seen it before. It is an early music games, it was on PS1 and it has very good animation for a game that old, one of my favorite games, since it didn't require a ton of memory to run, after putting in the disc, the game ran off of the Playstation 1's RAM, allowing you to put in your own music CD and play the game to your favorite Musicians, it even made the level layout based on the song, though it wasn't very syncronized with the song, it was very ahead of it's time

[Dmytry]

Well, I'm not sure how to go about retail publishing... I don't think I can make any profits from disks yet. It does sell kind of well, broke even basically, and it's been only few months since release.
More expensive merchandise perhaps could do better - e.g. sub-surface laser engraved glass pieces with fractals engraved inside, what do you think about that?

[PowerfulGiraffe]

Well, I'm not sure how to go about retail publishing... I don't think I can make any profits from disks yet. It does sell kind of well, broke even basically, and it's been only few months since release.
More expensive merchandise perhaps could do better - e.g. sub-surface laser engraved glass pieces with fractals engraved inside, what do you think about that?I'm a pack rat, so I try to contain myself and not buy little things like that, otherwise I'll be over-run with stuff, but I could see a lot of other people buying them. Sounds really cool, however I am not in the business of selling them, so I don't really know, but as far as merchandise for The Polynomial goes, I'd say that sounds like a really good idea, compared to a lot of other video game merchandise ideas.

[jdub]

No offence taken! It's just that those talks kind of strike me as useless.


Pointless because markets should correct themselves and if this DRM and these products were so bad, they wouldn't continue to sell? I'm confused as to how consumer rights discussions are pointless, i don't necessarily feel it will work itself out like that before its too late.

The product that was made is a single item - a game. It is shared by all the players.
Many players have to somehow pay for production of this single item. The money they pay go largely into production of more items for players to jointly pay for. All those ownerships of disks are just made up to make your share of pay for development of a single item look like something familiar to you, a pay for some item that you'll own, can resell, etc. But the idea of 'resale'... How can you 'resell' your share in the pay for that single item?

Thats just the type of wording from the gaming industry that bothers me. We are not investors, we are not paying $ to invest in developement of our entertainment. We aren't paying our portion of the cost of making games. To me, i didn't buy a share of a game, i bought a copy of it. If they don't choose to invest their profits in new games, thats their business decision to make. Apparently the idea that we owned the copy of the game we bought as we had a disk in our possession WAS made up to give us a false sense of ownership, as digital distribution has shown that we actually are just renters.

I guess i'm just confused as to how the gaming industry can differntiate itself from other media such as music, books, movies etc., or for that matter any products such as clothes and furnishings. To me, games are not services you rent, but goods you buy, but apparently some feel there is some gray area there. I know music and books are using DRM as well now, and i don't like that anymore than DRM in games. Like i said before, if you assume we're all criminals and are going to duplicate our copies for sale, guess what you're going to get?

[Dmytry]

Well, you are paying $ for development, that how things really are, its like paying taxes.

Paying for a copy that you own - that is an illusion created by gaming industry to make it look familiar, as a part of marketing, when creating such illusion is commercially useful.
Games are things that cost millions a piece. The copies are things that cost cents a piece. That's the reality.

Think about it, if Earth had 1/10 the population, what would it mean to games? The games that cost 1/10 the effort to make would be priced the same. That's the way it was when 10x fewer people had computers. On this example you can see that it is indeed the case that you are just paying your share for the development of common product. It is drastically different from buying bread, which would be made by same number of factory workers regardless of the population.

Books do not compare very well due to lower expenses of writing a novel & higher expense of manufacturing a book; movies compare very well, and there you have movie theaters (videogaming equivalent of which had nearly died out).

[PowerfulGiraffe]

Thats just the type of wording from the gaming industry that bothers me. We are not investors, we are not paying $ to invest in developement of our entertainment. We aren't paying our portion of the cost of making games. To me, i didn't buy a share of a game, i bought a copy of it. If they don't choose to invest their profits in new games, thats their business decision to make. Apparently the idea that we owned the copy of the game we bought as we had a disk in our possession WAS made up to give us a false sense of ownership, as digital distribution has shown that we actually are just renters.

I guess i'm just confused as to how the gaming industry can differntiate itself from other media such as music, books, movies etc., or for that matter any products such as clothes and furnishings. To me, games are not services you rent, but goods you buy, but apparently some feel there is some gray area there. I know music and books are using DRM as well now, and i don't like that anymore than DRM in games. Like i said before, if you assume we're all criminals and are going to duplicate our copies for sale, guess what you're going to get?I don't think that the idea was made up that our copy of a game was our copy, I just think that some companies have recently seen the profit in doing things differently, I don't even think EA thought of the possibility of digital distribution way back in the 90's, I would even say that up until Valve made Steam very few companies were considering doing this. And look at Nintendo, they still believe in the ,you buy a game and it is yours, idea that so many video game players hold dear.

I buy Valve games on Steam, a few old favorites, and I buy Indie games on Steam, only because all of Valve's games require Steam to be played, and I see lots of Indie Developers that I feel deserve recognition for what they've done/ have made games that I love, and I will also say that any game from Quantic Dream is an automatic sale from me as I love their games (though Indigo Prophecy is the only one found on Steam). Other than that, I leave Steam alone, and if I find that an Indie game can be found in retail form such as Machinarium, Samorost2, or Braid than I will get them retail.

Other games however aren't worth it to me, I'll buy them on console or buy old PC retail games, I don't even sell very many of my games in the first place, but the ability to play them in places without Internet or when the internet is down is a must have for me.

If you are strictly a PC gamer than it is true that you are soon going to just be renting games, but I don't think consoles will have that anytime soon.

The biggest problem to me is that, when you start to treat games like a service rather than as goods, they tend to become more like a phone service or facebook, it's like paying for cable, and all of the games artistic elements and it's quality, timeless experience is degraded. I play games like I read books, and if they end up being treated like Netflix by the distributors then I'll just stop buying them,

[PowerfulGiraffe]

Well, you are paying $ for development, that how things really are, its like paying taxes.

Paying for a copy that you own - that is an illusion created by gaming industry to make it look familiar, as a part of marketing, when creating such illusion is commercially useful.
Games are things that cost millions a piece. The copies are things that cost cents a piece. That's the reality.

Think about it, if Earth had 1/10 the population, what would it mean to games? The games that cost 1/10 the effort to make would be priced the same. That's the way it was when 10x fewer people had computers. On this example you can see that it is indeed the case that you are just paying your share for the development of common product. It is drastically different from buying bread, which would be made by same number of factory workers regardless of the population.

Books do not compare very well due to lower expenses of writing a novel & higher expense of manufacturing a book; movies compare very well, and there you have movie theaters (videogaming equivalent of which had nearly died out).That completely depends, I am not sure about what your game budget was, but there are many games made with a low budget cost, or are even made for free. Depending on the size of a games design team, it will vary greatly, there are people who make and sell games themselves on their own PC developing games independently and they sometimes make even better games than the "big budget" titles like Call of Duty. It is a misconception on anyone's part to assume that a large amount of money is required to make a video game for production. True a lot of games are expensive to make, but they don't have to be, and definitely not all of them are.

[Dmytry]

That completely depends, I am not sure about what your game budget was, but there are many games made with a low budget cost, or are even made for free. Depending on the size of a games design team, it will vary greatly, there are people who make and sell games themselves on their own PC developing games independently and they sometimes make even better games than the "big budget" titles like Call of Duty. It is a misconception on anyone's part to assume that a large amount of money is required to make a video game for production. True a lot of games are expensive to make, but they don't have to be, and definitely not all of them are.

Its not about budget for me, its about whenever I would be making games or doing something else (e.g. 3D rendering software for tv/movie use). Game development has to pay comparably or more. TV/movie work does pay well when you can get contracts.

My point is that games in question - DRM'd, with customer unfriendly licensing and no returns etc - cost millions to make.

The Polynomial (which did not cost millions) comes with no DRM and runs even without Steam albeit that is not recommended because it is bad for my statistics. You can make a backup copy, etc. And yes I do like some indie games more than AAA titles. Actually, i dislike most of AAA titles - they are all single game (in the sense in which football is a game) - a walker shooter in urban environment.

[fr00bl3t]

I buy a Xbox game without having an Xbox of my own. I can't play the game. I AM OUTRAGED! WHY DIDN'T THEY TELL ME ONE OF THE REQUIREMENTS IS AN XBOX!

[MADDOGGE]

They did take away our privilege to resell and didn't lower the price, but game prices also haven't risen in decades. I paid the same amount for Fallout 1 as I did for Fallout 3. Where as every other industry has raised prices due to inflation.Perhaps but not when it comes to most shooters. We get a third of the game usually we got 10 years ago at $30/$40 and now it's $50/$60.

If I were still getting the same length games as back then they might have a leg to stand on in regards to price. They instead made cloned MP king and slap on a 4-5 hour SP because few people will ever buy just a MP game. I only look at the SP when determining if a game is even worth buying for what is being asked. MP is never a valid reason to buy a game as most MP is dead in a month or two max if it even gets off the ground to begin with.

[Dmytry]

Perhaps but not when it comes to most shooters. We get a third of the game usually we got 10 years ago at $30/$40 and now it's $50/$60.

If I were still getting the same length games as back then they might have a leg to stand on in regards to price. They instead made cloned MP king and slap on a 4-5 hour SP because few people will ever buy just a MP game. I only look at the SP when determining if a game is even worth buying for what is being asked. MP is never a valid reason to buy a game as most MP is dead in a month or two max if it even gets off the ground to begin with.
well the titles you see today cost a LOT more to make than the titles you got 10 years ago... perhaps the money are not spent in the way you would prefer (length rather than more detailed everything), but the spendings are higher*, costs of workforce are lower (outsourcing), and man-hours are much higher.
*thanks to larger sales because more people have computers now, games do make more money at same price point.

[jdub]

Well, you are paying $ for development, that how things really are, its like paying taxes.

Paying for a copy that you own - that is an illusion created by gaming industry to make it look familiar, as a part of marketing, when creating such illusion is commercially useful.
Games are things that cost millions a piece. The copies are things that cost cents a piece. That's the reality.

Think about it, if Earth had 1/10 the population, what would it mean to games? The games that cost 1/10 the effort to make would be priced the same. That's the way it was when 10x fewer people had computers. On this example you can see that it is indeed the case that you are just paying your share for the development of common product. It is drastically different from buying bread, which would be made by same number of factory workers regardless of the population.

Books do not compare very well due to lower expenses of writing a novel & higher expense of manufacturing a book; movies compare very well, and there you have movie theaters (videogaming equivalent of which had nearly died out).

I guess you're right, in the sense that when i buy anything, the business will more than likely use some of the money i give them to produce new products. Those are their business decisions to make, but from the consumers perspective, budgeting and R&D for the business' future aren't really relevant.

As for movies, unless i purchase a movie off of iTunes or some other service that uses the same legalese that game producers are using to sell goods as a service/rental and enforce DRM, i can resell my DVD's or Blurays at a yardsale or pass them on to a friend. In this case i won't have the physical copy to use any longer, but with digital distribution, these business' can rationalize taking away our consumers rights under the guise of potential IP theft or copyright infringement. The ease of distribution and sales, and simplicity/convenience or purchase and possession through digital means should not come at the expense of our first sale doctrine rights and consumer rights.

I do understand the need for these companies to protect their IP and copyrights, but they definitely have the upper hand on this issue at this time. I feel like i own the games i've purchased on Steam, even though i know through reading the EULA and whatnot, that i actually just possess rights to use these games. I doubt Steam would put themselves in a situation where they questionably deactivated someones account, but the power to do so is clearly in their hands, just like any game that requires a constant connection could be made unplayable at anytime. I just think we've swung far to the side of the business' rights, and we need to find a more common ground.

[ItzzNinja]

The FPS argument is precisely the reason I like developers like Epic Games and what used to be Free Radical -- they made great games without intrusive DRM (UT3 on release only incorporated a disk check iirc). Developers and publishers these days are going so far with DRM that much of the time it isn't worth buying a game because of it. I liked my DRM-free or disk check only games. Hell, I can deal with SecuROM, but ♥♥♥♥ like FADE? No, that's taking it too far. Way. Too. Far. This is why I miss the earlier games, like RCT3 -- guess what? That game only had a disk check back when I bought it. Big pubs like Ubi and Activision are screwing the consumer over royally and ruining PC gaming.

[Dmytry]

What exactly do you think you are buying through digital distribution?
You're getting some information in return for the money.
It's like, you promise not to tell anyone, you pay me money, I tell you a secret. E.g. rules of poker. You can't resell stuff like this. There is no "consumer right" to resell information which you pre agreed not to disclose any further.
Well, in practice, you pay me to tell this information not to you, but to your friend (computer), and if I so desire I can try to convince computer not to disclose it (DRM). But the bottom line is, you are paying for information, agreeing not to disclose it to anyone. Same information with a right to disclose it however you like costs a LOT more. Millions times more.
The reason you can resell books, disks, etc. is that those are physical objects. Computer game is not a physical object, it is information. In the case your disk is past activation limit - you can still resell it (e.g. i can buy a few kilos of those disks to decorate a wall), just the information on it is now rendered useless.

[jdub]

What exactly do you think you are buying through digital distribution?
You're getting some information in return for the money.
It's like, you promise not to tell anyone, you pay me money, I tell you a secret. E.g. rules of poker. You can't resell stuff like this. There is no "consumer right" to resell information which you pre agreed not to disclose any further.
Well, in practice, you pay me to tell this information not to you, but to your friend (computer), and if I so desire I can try to convince computer not to disclose it (DRM). But the bottom line is, you are paying for information, agreeing not to disclose it to anyone. Same information with a right to disclose it however you like costs a LOT more. Millions times more.

There is a difference between personal usage rights, which can be transferred, and the right to use someone else protected property at your complete discretion. I feel you're pushing this too far towards the service end of the spectrum, when to me, its more of a physical good. Just because they're able to distribute it digitally, doesn't change our puchase from a consumers perspective.

[jdub]

The reason you can resell books, disks, etc. is that those are physical objects. Computer game is not a physical object, it is information. In the case your disk is past activation limit - you can still resell it (e.g. i can buy a few kilos of those disks to decorate a wall), just the information on it is now rendered useless.

You can look at books can CDs in the same way. Nothing has changed except they way these things are distributed (books and CDs are digitally distributed now as well, and have similar DRM to games), allowing the companies that produce them to enforce more stringent, but in my eyes questionably legal, controls on their copyrights or intellectual property.

[real4xor]

You can look at books can CDs in the same way. Nothing has changed except they way these things are distributed (books and CDs are digitally distributed now as well, and have similar DRM to games), allowing the companies that produce them to enforce more stringent, but in my eyes questionably legal, controls on their copyrights or intellectual property.

At the very least, those are usually sold cheaper than the physical objects tho.

Games however, are not. And sometimes the service is horrible too. I`d expect a little more service from a company that asks 50 bucks for a game, then a company that asks 10 bucks.
:/ But I`ve had it the other way around, really confusing stuff.

Patches and updates and stuff, is service, and it better damn well be Quality service when I have to pay more for a game, while getting less.
Those damn contracts go 2 ways. It`s not only the consumer that has to stick to them.

[Dmytry]

There is a difference between personal usage rights, which can be transferred, and the right to use someone else protected property at your complete discretion. I feel you're pushing this too far towards the service end of the spectrum, when to me, its more of a physical good. Just because they're able to distribute it digitally, doesn't change our puchase from a consumers perspective.
I'm explaining how things are, both legally and physically, because the topic of the question is "why". You can view things differently from what they are but it won't change anything.
You're not buying physical item, nor intellectual property, you're getting some information with limits on what you can do with it. You basically have a right not to be cheated but that's about it.
You are free not to pay if information or what you can do is too little for the money for you. You are free not to pay if you believe that for money you must be getting some property, and what you're getting does not emulate property (with digital distribution btw it'd take extra effort to provide emulation of property)
(but you are not free to just take it and not pay). It not being a property has good sides too - you can't scratch it or lose it, your dog can't chew it up...

regarding buying from other places, just make sure them are authorized, some ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥s tried to sell my game without authorization already and it's just an indie title. If the gap is $50 on digital distribution (presumably Steam) and $10 on disk, i would say chances are you're paying $10 to pirates.

[DOE_JOHN88]

my games run fine, must be on your end with lower performing parts.

[jdub]

I'm explaining how things are, both legally and physically, because the topic of the question is "why". You can view things differently from what they are but it won't change anything.
You're not buying physical item, nor intellectual property, you're getting some information with limits on what you can do with it. You basically have a right not to be cheated but that's about it.
You are free not to pay if information or what you can do is too little for the money for you. You are free not to pay if you believe that for money you must be getting some property, and what you're getting does not emulate property (with digital distribution btw it'd take extra effort to provide emulation of property)
(but you are not free to just take it and not pay). It not being a property has good sides too - you can't scratch it or lose it, your dog can't chew it up...

regarding buying from other places, just make sure them are authorized, some ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥s tried to sell my game without authorization already and it's just an indie title. If the gap is $50 on digital distribution (presumably Steam) and $10 on disk, i would say chances are you're paying $10 to pirates.

Fair enough, the question is why the PC gaming industry is so unreasonable, and IMO, the reasons given may be accurate, but they're not fair or right, and the way these companies go about these controls are misleading. I'm probably being a bit too idealistic about this, but it seems odd that before this "information" as you call it was distributed digitally, it had to be put on a tangible medium, which was often resold after the original purchaser was done with it. Were all those people breaking their contracts? Are people auctioning NES's or Atari's selling the information contained on these consoles illegally? My point is, that from my perspective, these ploys look partially like protection for the business, and partially like a way to make more money without anything in return, the percentage of each being debateable.

[Dmytry]

Fair enough, the question is why the PC gaming industry is so unreasonable, and IMO, the reasons given may be accurate, but they're not fair or right, and the way these companies go about these controls are misleading. I'm probably being a bit too idealistic about this, but it seems odd that before this "information" as you call it was distributed digitally, it had to be put on a tangible medium, which was often resold after the original purchaser was done with it. Were all those people breaking their contracts? Are people auctioning NES's or Atari's selling the information contained on these consoles illegally? My point is, that from my perspective, these ploys look partially like protection for the business, and partially like a way to make more money without anything in return, the percentage of each being debateable.
Well, when on a tangible thing it looks like a thing & it degrades somewhat with time & people are attached to things they can touch & people don't let go so easily of stuff that they would have to go to physical shop for if they need it again, and especially not of stuff they bought on a good deal from e.g. a friend and would have to look for other source should they need it again.

Let's say digital distribution in Steam is to have reselling... you'd need a 'transfer to' button in Steam which would - note - delete the original copy, not actually move anything anywhere in any meaningful sense. Plus you REALLY can't go without DRM in such case (my game would suffer from this reselling the most because it haven't got any DRM AND the resales will seem moral to people who would of otherwise bought it from me when it goes on a cheap sale, it would really result in some lost sales).
All in all i see no reason whatsoever to emulate 'thing' here. Sure it would be good for customers, but so would be decreasing the price 2 times or giving it for free to everyone, or giving it for free to each second person who clicks the buy button.
Not to mention that, like with those 'steam accounts for sale', there will be a lot of software resold that was bought with stolen credit cards. As well as other fraud. What you do about this, as a merchant?

Think about it like this, it would be fairly similar to offering option of refund at any time, plus would add a lot of problems for everyone.

[jdub]

Well, when on a tangible thing it looks like a thing & it degrades somewhat with time & people are attached to things they can touch & people don't let go so easily of stuff that they would have to go to physical shop for if they need it again, and especially not of stuff they bought on a good deal from e.g. a friend and would have to look for other source should they need it again.

Let's say digital distribution in Steam is to have reselling... you'd need a 'transfer to' button in Steam which would - note - delete the original copy, not actually move anything anywhere in any meaningful sense. Plus you REALLY can't go without DRM in such case (my game would suffer from this reselling the most because it haven't got any DRM AND the resales will seem moral to people who would of otherwise bought it from me when it goes on a cheap sale, it would really result in some lost sales).
All in all i see no reason whatsoever to emulate 'thing' here. Sure it would be good for customers, but so would be decreasing the price 2 times or giving it for free to everyone, or giving it for free to each second person who clicks the buy button.
Not to mention that, like with those 'steam accounts for sale', there will be a lot of software resold that was bought with stolen credit cards. As well as other fraud. What you do about this, as a merchant?

Think about it like this, it would be fairly similar to offering option of refund at any time, plus would add a lot of problems for everyone.

I totally understand your perspective and points, and i see how these steps are necessary to protect these companies and make sure they can continue to make money and produce games, i guess i underestimate how the ease of distribution through digital means also makes it easier for anyone anywhere to use a copy illegitimately. It just seems like some of these contracts are at best a slippery slope where the companies afford themselves insane amounts of control for what they advertise as a product that you buy in full for your personal use and could lead to certain cases of abuse of control, and at worst effects the consumers right to recieve a functioning product that doesn't require a tech degree to get working on a PC they bought from Dell, or doesn't allow you to enjoy the game you bought on your own terms and in your own time.