Metro said:Sounds like a problem for poor people.
Trash said:Well, I guess I'll just stop buying videogames then.
Sounds like a problem for poor people.
DragoFireheart said:Essentially, this ruling is basically giving the potential for video game companies to tell you what to do with your purchased product.
And for people who want to buy a full version of a game after it went OOP and only digital/DVDbox version is available.Metro said:Sounds like a problem for poor people.
Metro said:Sounds like a problem for poor people.
Metro said:DragoFireheart said:Essentially, this ruling is basically giving the potential for video game companies to tell you what to do with your purchased product.
You've confused me with one of these people with a theoretical hang-up over game ownership. I'm not one of them. Assuming one waits for inevitable sales/drops to reasonable prices (assuming one buys them at all which is questionable at best here) I don't view them as significant investments when most people pay in excess of $1,000/month for mobile phone bills and various other leisure expenditures.
Is it an interesting/troubling issue in theory? I suppose. Will it actually have a practical impact on my life and spending habits? Not really. So long as prices are reasonable it is immaterial to me if what I'm purchasing is only an 'extended rental.' If prices are unreasonable I wouldn't buy it in the first place regardless of ownership rights.
FeelTheRads said:But game developers are special, don't you know. They should have revenues from sources that others don't...just because.