Precedent Set by Court, Sale of Used Video Games...

[Metro]

Sounds like a problem for poor people.

 

[DragoFireheart]

Sounds like a problem for poor people.

Are you ignorant?

It's not a problem for poor people. It's a problem for gamers. Essentially, this ruling is basically giving the potential for video game companies to tell you what to do with your purchased product.

 

[Topher]

Well, I guess I'll just stop buying videogames then.

Same here. It's going to drive once paying customers underground, probably not many but some.

Sounds like a problem for poor people.

I can't stand Gamefaqs because of these kind of worthless ignorant posts.

* the court opinion is fascinating... be warned it's long.

http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/o ... -35969.pdf

 

[Metro]

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.

 

[Awor Szurkrarz]

Sounds like a problem for poor people.

And for people who want to buy a full version of a game after it went OOP and only digital/DVDbox version is available.

 

[Zeus]

Sounds like a problem for poor people.

That's incredibly shortsighted of you.

It's a problem for just about everyone.

 

[Topher]

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.

The case could represent a change in not only copyright law but in ownership law as well and that could affect every aspect of commerce.

 

[Zeus]

"We need to stop the sale of used games, because the original designers don't make a dime on the sale!"

Replace 'games' with 'houses' or 'cars' and we have a problem.

 

[FeelTheRads]

But game developers are special, don't you know. They should have revenues from sources that others don't...just because.

 

[Zeus]

But game developers are special, don't you know. They should have revenues from sources that others don't...just because.