If you pay for a game you should have the right to sell it if you want.
Really? So if only one person ever bought a copy of a game and then that single copy was sold second-hand a million times, you don't see anything wrong with that?
Video games are IP. They're an idea. Ideas don't age. They don't become "used". You didn't come up with the idea, why should you be able to sell it at the expense of the people who actually put time, money, and blood into that idea in the first place?
The second-hand game market as it exists now is a total racket. How should it be fixed? That probably depends on your political/economic beliefs. But I suspect within the next few console generations, physical media will be a thing of the past. I'm also really glad that games are requiring you to be online to play, or register DLC to your console/username to enjoy large chunks of content.
Most consumers would probably disagree with my sentiments. But most consumers would probably also be in favor of forcing game developers into slavery if it meant they could get their games a few bucks cheaper.
I disagree with you, Yare. By your reasoning, second hand books or movies or music are bad too, because you've used the product. But I believe second hand books are not only not harmful, but helpful and necessary. Just like libraries. There too, an infinite number of people can access the same content and the author gets nil.
I guess you're against that too, but, well, I disagree with you. My reasoning isn't "people should get everything they want for free and the author gets nothing", my reasoning is that if you can get access to something this way, you're more likely to then buy it or future products by the same person. I can't count how many times I've borrowed a book from a library, randomly (that is, I would have never paid for it since I had no idea what it was), liked it, and therefore bought it.
I also know someone who self-published his book online. You can download it for free or buy the paying copy. They're exactly the same thing and advertised at first. Well, he's had as many downloads of the two, give or take. And while some are from different IP (I guess he can track them. Don't ask me, I don't get that stuff), more than half are the same.
When I buy a painting, I don't buy the right to look at it (and therefore I can never sell it!). When I buy a book, I don't buy the right to read it (and therefore I can never sell it!). I buy the item, use it to experience something, and then I sell it if I want. Being unable to resell something you bought and didn't like because you "were just buying the license to be able to use it" is ridiculous. It's one of these things that I sincerely believes harms the industry more than it helps it, just like the copyright laws that make it illegal to share a book that's out of print until the copyright expires, effectively preventing access to it for anyone who wants it and wants to pay for it.
The difference is that there's not a monolithic second-hand book retailer making more money than most writers and publishers combined.
//EDIT
Which is to say that the second-hand game market is fast approaching the "one copy purchased first-hand, resold second-hand a million times" scenario I described above.
Okay, fair enough. I thought you were against second-hand games on principle.
This being said "one bought and resold a million times" is kind of close to renting. Do people who make games get a cut every time their game is rented out?
Really? So if only one person ever bought a copy of a game and then that single copy was sold second-hand a million times, you don't see anything wrong with that?
Avistew has covered a lot of the points I was going to make, so I'll leave you with these three words: first sale doctrine.
It's unfortunate that so many people have this attitude, which is destructive to the people responsible for creating the content in the first place. The whole "Make more games for me, slave. I don't care what my dubious rights are doing to murder creativity and innovation in your industry!" thing. Makes no sense.
I'm quite pleased that in a few years used game sales will be pointless because all of the actual content will be non-transferable DLC.
I'm quite pleased that in a few years used game sales will be pointless because all of the actual content will be non-transferable DLC.
You work in the industry, so you'd know it better than I do, but wouldn't that have a vicious effect?
What I mean is, people are less likely to give something a try if they know they can't sell it or return it if they don't like it. As a result, people are less likely to get things they haven't heard of, or things that are too "different" or too "weird".
So really, I'm thinking doing that would help the big budget things but damage the small companies, the independents, the new ideas and so on. How many people are going to give something a try that they know they'll be stuck with no matter what?
And how would people rent or borrow something first to know if they want to buy it? The answer is probably "they won't be able to". Well they'll give less things a chance.
It seems to me that it could kill the games that would have the most potential because they just wouldn't sell as much. I never would have bought any Telltale game if I wasn't getting a DVD in the end.
But I suspect within the next few console generations, physical media will be a thing of the past. I'm also really glad that games are requiring you to be online to play, or register DLC to your console/username to enjoy large chunks of content.
As much as I love to hold the game box in my hand, I can see that being a good solution to the current problem. But there is something to be said about owning a game for continual use in the far future. Otherwise couldn't games be more easily lost forever?
Films are still offered in DVD format for home use, although I know there is a problem there as well. Still, in the past there were situations where films were lost, and yet if a lone collector has one left, there is still a chance of restoration.
That aside, imagine what could happen if this solution is taken too far. Individuals could no longer be independent. They would be required to constantly connect to the global community in order to enjoy all forms of creative expression (other than their own). Even now books are being offered digitally. Will someday all collections be controlled not by the individual who owns them but by the estates that own the rights to that material? To think that I couldn't give a book to a friend is frightening.
I think registering games is a very good solution for the time being. But over the long run, if protection for all types of creative property is going to be implemented, there will have to be a new method discovered. I can't imagine what it might be, but hopefully someone will figure out a great way to fix this problem in the years to come.
I know that is a bit extreme, and that license/patent expirations are put into play for just such reasons, but it's still something to think about when considering a long term solution.
Also, why can't these companies, such as GameStop, be forced to give a large percentage of the game's cost back to the original company? Or do they do that already?
Edit: Oh wow, you all went and posted while I was typing. Well, okay, I just re-iterated a lot of what was said.
Also, why can't these companies, such as GameStop, be forced to give a large percentage of the game's cost back to the original company? Or do they do that already?
They're protected by the same dubious laws that protect private citizens. Large, organized corporations exploiting this are really my only objection, though.
I can see how you would have an issue with the fact that GameStop an unnamed monolithic retailer can build a business out of piggybacking on others' hard work. It's a business model that takes revenue from producers (who deserve just reward for people enjoying their product), and siphons it off to a middleman who produced nothing, which feels entirely wrong and unfair.
I see a distinction between that, however, and swapping a game with a friend - the former is exploitative, the latter is not, even if the impact on the industry is the same (one less sale of that particular game).
Most consumers would probably disagree with my sentiments. But most consumers would probably also be in favor of forcing game developers into slavery if it meant they could get their games a few bucks cheaper.
Poor Yare. I'd only be in favour of that if you had a really nice cell, and one Sunday off every month.
The fact of the matter is that most people don't know or particularly care about the people who make their games, that's just the way it is. However cultivating brand loyality like yourselves and the likes of Valve goes a long way to making people care and become more involved with a developer as opposed to a product
Also EA's Project $10 is quite nifty and pretty damned fair as far as I can see. Though it'll mean tagged on online capabilities in everything they can possibly tag it on. Ubisoft's solution's are not nifty or even particularly clever, their DRM has been cracked and now pirates are playing more solid copies of single-player games than genuine customer, completley arse about face and just detracts value from your product
Will someday all collections be controlled not by the individual who owns them but by the estates that own the rights to that material? To think that I couldn't give a book to a friend is frightening.
That has already happened. Heard about how amazon deleted books from people's Kindles without even telling them?
I only get ebooks of public domain stuff because of that. For the rest, I get physical copies, because this way I can lend them to a friend or resell them. Although to be fair, my main beefs with ebooks is that they sell them the price of the hardcover and not the price of the paperback, no matter when you purchase them. It's ridiculous, I have an omnibus edition of a trilogy that cost me 17 euros, and that's the price for the ebook of the first volume of the trilogy. I just don't get it. I can get one ebook (protected of course) or three paper books, that I can lend to friends, resell or use to make a fire, how can they expect me to want to get less for more?
And before you ask, the ebook came out about ten years after the omnibus edition.
Why would we? The rental place bought the game, so they own it, right?
That was mostly a rethorical question, although I honestly wasn't sure. I know in France you pay rental fees. When I worked in the videostore, for instance, 20 euro DVDs cost us 80 euros to purchase if you included the rental fees, to be allowed to rent it out. I'm not about sure game because considering how much they cost even for the consumer version, my boss just though it wasn't worth it renting them, that he'd never make a profit out of them.
So it's not like it's totally impossible, either. But from your tone I guess you're against renting too.
They're protected by the same dubious laws that protect private citizens. Large, organized corporations exploiting this are really my only objection, though.
I didn't realize that large corporations like that were protected under the same laws as private individuals. I completely agree that any sort of business should be forced to give a kick back to the original company.
Everything I said was based off of private consumers, not companies that profit off of them, large-scale.
It's unfortunate that so many people have this attitude, which is destructive to the people responsible for creating the content in the first place. The whole "Make more games for me, slave. I don't care what my dubious rights are doing to murder creativity and innovation in your industry!" thing. Makes no sense.
It's no different from books, music, movies, or any other "idea" product. Once I purchase a physical item, it's mine, and its creator has no right to control my ability to dispose of that item through gift or resale. What if I couldn't resell my DVD or CD collections on eBay? What if, as a starving college student, I couldn't buy used textbooks?
Dubious rights? This has been mostly settled law for over 100 years, and every media technology that's risen since the dawn of the 20th century has been bitchslapped by the courts on this issue. It's only recently that software companies have tried (and often failed) to enforce ridiculous EULA agreements that are unconscionable contracts of adhesion.
I suspect that deep-pocket software companies will eventually sway Congress to carve out an exception in the copyright laws, but I'd hope the EFF would do something about it, and they'd get plenty of my charitable dollars for doing so.
That has already happened. Heard about how amazon deleted books from people's Kindles without even telling them?
Yes, I did read about that! I was horrified. I always buy my books to have too. There is convenience in a kindle, but for a book I really like, I buy the physical copy, or if I'm not sure if I'll like a book, I'll borrow it from the library first. If I love it, I'll usually buy it to keep. Or if I like a particular author, I will make sure to buy their book when it comes out, because even if it isn't the greatest book, I want to support their previous ones that I enjoyed.
If I could, I would buy it directly from the author. I wish more people realized how important it is to support the people who create the things you love. But for that support, it is nice to have something that isn't fleeting.
Dubious rights? This has been mostly settled law for over 100 years, and every media technology that's risen since the dawn of the 20th century has been bitchslapped by the courts on this issue. It's only recently that software companies have tried (and often failed) to enforce ridiculous EULA agreements that are unconscionable contracts of adhesion.
But think of the changes in the last 100 years. The internet is what made this such a problem, and to a certain extent the airplane (if we're going there).
Books are heavy. It is hard for the individual person to mass distribute them to all their friends. But now, we can just email something to someone within a few seconds. The internet has thrown a monkey wrench into the whole thing.
Edit: And games are the ones facing the biggest problem. Because all their profits are made by selling to the consumer to enjoy in their own home. It's harder for a game to protect themselves than say a movie (that has a theatre release).
I'm aware Big Content is doing everything it can to make that happen as soon as possible. Fortunately, your own company seems to be committed to physical products for the foreseeable future...
If I could, I would buy it directly from the author. I wish more people realized how important it is to support the people who create the things you love. But for that support, it is nice to have something that isn't fleeting.
Yeah, for all the piracy and stuff, I think the Internet has allowed a lot of people to offer their stuff. There is more access. You cut out the middleman, which in the case of books tends to be the publisher rather than Gamestop. Sure there are great publishers, and they'll tell you they take risks to give authors a chance and so on, but hey, they take someone's content, sell it, and give that person 5%. Yeaaah, right. Oh, unless they're famous and it will sell super-well, of course, then they get a higher cut.
At least games publishers actually MAKE the games, they work on it. With books the writer and editor share the work (most of in on the author's part) and the publisher takes most of the money.
But I digress. With the Internet, more people can show their stuff online. Look at webcomics, they have all that variety and innovation (for some) that is harder to find from mainstream comic publishers. And there is a lot of crap but there is also good stuff. And you can give the people your money directly.
Not saying it's a dream job that will make you rich, but it beats being constantly rejected by publishers because you're not formatted enough, know what I mean?
With the Internet, more people can show their stuff online. Look at webcomics, they have all that variety and innovation (for some) that is harder to find from mainstream comic publishers. And there is a lot of crap but there is also good stuff. And you can give the people your money directly.
Not saying it's a dream job that will make you rich, but it beats being constantly rejected by publishers because you're not formatted enough, know what I mean?
Thankfully, that is the positive of the internet. I have been working on a book for, oh my, 3 years now. And I am seriously considering not sending it to a publisher. I would probably make more money overall, if I just sold it online myself.
The problem I have with this sort of thing is permanent availability. Companies fold all the time, and I don't expect them to somehow keep a server running to allow downloads of their games.
So maybe the solution is that games should only be allowed to be sold used if they're no longer available new. Not that that's legislation that'll ever happen...
And I have to say, I can see where you're coming from here, but I don't like this side of you. It feels as if you're angry with gamers in general here and not just the big bad corporation.
I'm aware Big Content is doing everything it can to make that happen as soon as possible. Fortunately, your own company seems to be committed to physical products for the foreseeable future...
I don't think there's a large second-hand market for our games, which is good. People who like our games tend to hold onto them.
I'm concerned about the industry and its sustainability as a whole, however.
I'm aware Big Content is doing everything it can to make that happen as soon as possible. Fortunately, your own company seems to be committed to physical products for the foreseeable future...
Which is why I bought all the bonus goodies. I'm sure I would have caved and bought Tales to play, even without a hard copy, because I'm too MI obsessed not to. But, I would not be buying extra bonus items unless I knew I was getting my very own hard copy of the game to hug and kiss and put under my pillow at night.... did I say that out loud?
And I have to say, I can see where you're coming from here, but I don't like this side of you. It feels as if you're angry with gamers in general here and not just the big bad corporation.
My position is a difficult one to be in. I have no ill will toward my customers.
But then, people who buy used from GameStop aren't technically my customers.
Just to be clear, this isn't me being a crazy person. Lots of people in the game industry are concerned about it.
1900s: lots of people in the publishing industry are concerned about resellers undercutting the sale of new books and demand a minimum resale price. Supreme Court says that's not allowed.
1930s: lots of people in the music industry are concerned about radio stations playing their music without payment. Courts say it's OK.
1980s: lots of people in the movie industry are concerned about video stores renting their movies and keeping all the profits. Courts say it's OK.
Thankfully, that is the positive of the internet. I have been working on a book for, oh my, 3 years now. And I am seriously considering not sending it to a publisher. I would probably make more money overall, if I just sold it online myself.
Well, if you don't mind my giving you advice, you'll have to market it really well, and kind of become a marketing agent or something. Which would give you less time to write the next one. The other side of the medal is that there is so much content out there people can be overwhelmed, and publishing companies have the means to advertise and distribute what they publish.
I think the chances of your making more money by self publishing are fairly low. However the consumers would get a better deal out of it for sure. Also, on the long run, you might earn more as long as you keep writing, because if you're liked people will talk about you, and you will always offer your first work, unlike publishers tend to.
I wish you the best of luck with that, though I personally think that I'd hire someone to do the marketing for me. But I'm crazy, I'm absolutely ready to actually end up spending money to make my stuff available to as many people as possible
Right now I'm still working on the "stupid English language! Why are you so much harder to write in?!?" aspect of things though. Good thing I have an editor, sometimes I get so frustrated that I write things along the lines of "he looked at his wrist-time-giving-thing and walked through the hole-in-the-wall".
But think of the changes in the last 100 years. The internet is what made this such a problem, and to a certain extent the airplane (if we're going there).
Books are heavy. It is hard for the individual person to mass distribute them to all their friends. But now, we can just email something to someone within a few seconds. The internet has thrown a monkey wrench into the whole thing.
I'm talking about physical goods here -- the Internet has fueled the rise of digital piracy, which I'm definitely against, but you still need to take your book or plastic shiny disc to a physical store or the post office (or in-person to your buyer) in order to transfer ownership of it.
I wish you the best of luck with that, though I personally think that I'd hire someone to do the marketing for me. But I'm crazy, I'm absolutely ready to actually end up spending money to make my stuff available to as many people as possible .
Thanks! I welcome any and all advice. I probably will cave and just spend the extra money and hire someone, but it's a fun option to consider.
Everything you write here reads very well. I would never know you weren't a native english speaker, if I just read a couple of posts randomly.
1930s: lots of people in the music industry are concerned about radio stations playing their music without payment. Courts say it's OK.
I don't know about then. But now, aren't stations paying to play things, as well as stores that play the radio having to pay a fee to be allowed to let their customers listen to it (even though radio is free in the first place )?
I don't know about then. But now, aren't stations paying to play things, as well as stores that play the radio having to pay a fee to be allowed to let their customers listen to it (even though radio is free in the first place )?
Yes, but that was a result in a change in the law. Sound recordings actually have two copyrights now -- the copyright of the music, and the copyright of the performance of the music. The license is for the performance copyright.
Thanks! I welcome any and all advice. I probably will cave and just spend the extra money and hire someone, but it's a fun option to consider.
Everything you right here reads very well. I would never know you weren't a native english speaker, if I just read a couple of posts randomly.
Thanks! My main problem is twofold when writing... erm... stories, let's say, rather than talking to people.
a) my vocabulary isn't nearly as big in English. That's okay in a forum post, but in a novel or short story you can't really have repetition. Plus forum posts are about content, but stories, I feel, are as much about how you say things than about what you say.
b) I can't adapt as well, which translates into: all of my characters speak like me. I don't know slang or super snobby words, I don't know expressions someone else would be more likely to use, etc. I guess it's similar to a) but I feel it's different because a) is mostly a problem of narration while b) is a problem of characterisation that occurs in dialogues only mostly occurs in dialogue. I guess it also occurs in stream of consciousness or narration that's purposely from one of the characters' point of view. Of narration if the narrator isn't me.
I'm getting better, but when I'm writing my ideas are much faster than my fingers, and I fight hard not to write in French then translate. I think it really needs to be written in English directly if it's going to be offered in English first, you know what I mean? And translation just won't do, I have to manage to think as fast in English.
Well, it's good training, if extremely frustrating. But at some point I'll overcome it. I wasn't born with the ability to write in French, either, I had to work at it.
I'm getting better, but when I'm writing my ideas are much faster than my fingers, and I fight hard not to write in French then translate. I think it really needs to be written in English directly if it's going to be offered in English first, you know what I mean? And translation just won't do, I have to manage to think as fast in English.
Well, it's good training, if extremely frustrating. But at some point I'll overcome it. I wasn't born with the ability to write in French, either, I had to work at it.
I can understand that, vocabulary and the way things are said is very important in written dialogue to help develop different characters. I can see writing in French and translating could be done, or possibly doing both? Writing in english for parts of it and french for other parts, but that could put stress on continuity.
It sure sounds like amazing practice though! Writing stories in foreign languages could be the future of language instruction.
It sure sounds like amazing practice though! Writing stories in foreign languages could be the future of language instruction.
I don't know, in a way it's made me realise that speaking a language and writing it (as a writer, not in forums and stuff) are extremely different. I'm also a translator, too, so it's pretty hard not to fall into "translator" mode, and to create it in English directly rather than in translated French. It's really a different process.
Comments
Really? So if only one person ever bought a copy of a game and then that single copy was sold second-hand a million times, you don't see anything wrong with that?
Video games are IP. They're an idea. Ideas don't age. They don't become "used". You didn't come up with the idea, why should you be able to sell it at the expense of the people who actually put time, money, and blood into that idea in the first place?
The second-hand game market as it exists now is a total racket. How should it be fixed? That probably depends on your political/economic beliefs. But I suspect within the next few console generations, physical media will be a thing of the past. I'm also really glad that games are requiring you to be online to play, or register DLC to your console/username to enjoy large chunks of content.
Most consumers would probably disagree with my sentiments. But most consumers would probably also be in favor of forcing game developers into slavery if it meant they could get their games a few bucks cheaper.
I guess you're against that too, but, well, I disagree with you. My reasoning isn't "people should get everything they want for free and the author gets nothing", my reasoning is that if you can get access to something this way, you're more likely to then buy it or future products by the same person. I can't count how many times I've borrowed a book from a library, randomly (that is, I would have never paid for it since I had no idea what it was), liked it, and therefore bought it.
I also know someone who self-published his book online. You can download it for free or buy the paying copy. They're exactly the same thing and advertised at first. Well, he's had as many downloads of the two, give or take. And while some are from different IP (I guess he can track them. Don't ask me, I don't get that stuff), more than half are the same.
When I buy a painting, I don't buy the right to look at it (and therefore I can never sell it!). When I buy a book, I don't buy the right to read it (and therefore I can never sell it!). I buy the item, use it to experience something, and then I sell it if I want. Being unable to resell something you bought and didn't like because you "were just buying the license to be able to use it" is ridiculous. It's one of these things that I sincerely believes harms the industry more than it helps it, just like the copyright laws that make it illegal to share a book that's out of print until the copyright expires, effectively preventing access to it for anyone who wants it and wants to pay for it.
//EDIT
Which is to say that the second-hand game market is fast approaching the "one copy purchased first-hand, resold second-hand a million times" scenario I described above.
This being said "one bought and resold a million times" is kind of close to renting. Do people who make games get a cut every time their game is rented out?
Learn it, live it, love it.
It's unfortunate that so many people have this attitude, which is destructive to the people responsible for creating the content in the first place. The whole "Make more games for me, slave. I don't care what my dubious rights are doing to murder creativity and innovation in your industry!" thing. Makes no sense.
I'm quite pleased that in a few years used game sales will be pointless because all of the actual content will be non-transferable DLC.
You work in the industry, so you'd know it better than I do, but wouldn't that have a vicious effect?
What I mean is, people are less likely to give something a try if they know they can't sell it or return it if they don't like it. As a result, people are less likely to get things they haven't heard of, or things that are too "different" or too "weird".
So really, I'm thinking doing that would help the big budget things but damage the small companies, the independents, the new ideas and so on. How many people are going to give something a try that they know they'll be stuck with no matter what?
And how would people rent or borrow something first to know if they want to buy it? The answer is probably "they won't be able to". Well they'll give less things a chance.
It seems to me that it could kill the games that would have the most potential because they just wouldn't sell as much. I never would have bought any Telltale game if I wasn't getting a DVD in the end.
As much as I love to hold the game box in my hand, I can see that being a good solution to the current problem. But there is something to be said about owning a game for continual use in the far future. Otherwise couldn't games be more easily lost forever?
Films are still offered in DVD format for home use, although I know there is a problem there as well. Still, in the past there were situations where films were lost, and yet if a lone collector has one left, there is still a chance of restoration.
That aside, imagine what could happen if this solution is taken too far. Individuals could no longer be independent. They would be required to constantly connect to the global community in order to enjoy all forms of creative expression (other than their own). Even now books are being offered digitally. Will someday all collections be controlled not by the individual who owns them but by the estates that own the rights to that material? To think that I couldn't give a book to a friend is frightening.
I think registering games is a very good solution for the time being. But over the long run, if protection for all types of creative property is going to be implemented, there will have to be a new method discovered. I can't imagine what it might be, but hopefully someone will figure out a great way to fix this problem in the years to come.
I know that is a bit extreme, and that license/patent expirations are put into play for just such reasons, but it's still something to think about when considering a long term solution.
Also, why can't these companies, such as GameStop, be forced to give a large percentage of the game's cost back to the original company? Or do they do that already?
Edit: Oh wow, you all went and posted while I was typing. Well, okay, I just re-iterated a lot of what was said.
Why would we? The rental place bought the game, so they own it, right?
They're protected by the same dubious laws that protect private citizens. Large, organized corporations exploiting this are really my only objection, though.
I see a distinction between that, however, and swapping a game with a friend - the former is exploitative, the latter is not, even if the impact on the industry is the same (one less sale of that particular game).
Poor Yare. I'd only be in favour of that if you had a really nice cell, and one Sunday off every month.
Hahahaha. You're too kind, madam.
Also EA's Project $10 is quite nifty and pretty damned fair as far as I can see. Though it'll mean tagged on online capabilities in everything they can possibly tag it on. Ubisoft's solution's are not nifty or even particularly clever, their DRM has been cracked and now pirates are playing more solid copies of single-player games than genuine customer, completley arse about face and just detracts value from your product
That has already happened. Heard about how amazon deleted books from people's Kindles without even telling them?
I only get ebooks of public domain stuff because of that. For the rest, I get physical copies, because this way I can lend them to a friend or resell them. Although to be fair, my main beefs with ebooks is that they sell them the price of the hardcover and not the price of the paperback, no matter when you purchase them. It's ridiculous, I have an omnibus edition of a trilogy that cost me 17 euros, and that's the price for the ebook of the first volume of the trilogy. I just don't get it. I can get one ebook (protected of course) or three paper books, that I can lend to friends, resell or use to make a fire, how can they expect me to want to get less for more?
And before you ask, the ebook came out about ten years after the omnibus edition.
That was mostly a rethorical question, although I honestly wasn't sure. I know in France you pay rental fees. When I worked in the videostore, for instance, 20 euro DVDs cost us 80 euros to purchase if you included the rental fees, to be allowed to rent it out. I'm not about sure game because considering how much they cost even for the consumer version, my boss just though it wasn't worth it renting them, that he'd never make a profit out of them.
So it's not like it's totally impossible, either. But from your tone I guess you're against renting too.
I didn't realize that large corporations like that were protected under the same laws as private individuals. I completely agree that any sort of business should be forced to give a kick back to the original company.
Everything I said was based off of private consumers, not companies that profit off of them, large-scale.
Dubious rights? This has been mostly settled law for over 100 years, and every media technology that's risen since the dawn of the 20th century has been bitchslapped by the courts on this issue. It's only recently that software companies have tried (and often failed) to enforce ridiculous EULA agreements that are unconscionable contracts of adhesion.
I suspect that deep-pocket software companies will eventually sway Congress to carve out an exception in the copyright laws, but I'd hope the EFF would do something about it, and they'd get plenty of my charitable dollars for doing so.
Enjoy that while you still can.
I'd be in favour of that if the Sunday is spent with me. But then make it every week, once a month isn't enough. Heck, throw in Wednesdays too.
Yes, I did read about that! I was horrified. I always buy my books to have too. There is convenience in a kindle, but for a book I really like, I buy the physical copy, or if I'm not sure if I'll like a book, I'll borrow it from the library first. If I love it, I'll usually buy it to keep. Or if I like a particular author, I will make sure to buy their book when it comes out, because even if it isn't the greatest book, I want to support their previous ones that I enjoyed.
If I could, I would buy it directly from the author. I wish more people realized how important it is to support the people who create the things you love. But for that support, it is nice to have something that isn't fleeting.
http://www.1up.com/do/newsStory?cId=3171217
But think of the changes in the last 100 years. The internet is what made this such a problem, and to a certain extent the airplane (if we're going there).
Books are heavy. It is hard for the individual person to mass distribute them to all their friends. But now, we can just email something to someone within a few seconds. The internet has thrown a monkey wrench into the whole thing.
Edit: And games are the ones facing the biggest problem. Because all their profits are made by selling to the consumer to enjoy in their own home. It's harder for a game to protect themselves than say a movie (that has a theatre release).
Yeah, for all the piracy and stuff, I think the Internet has allowed a lot of people to offer their stuff. There is more access. You cut out the middleman, which in the case of books tends to be the publisher rather than Gamestop. Sure there are great publishers, and they'll tell you they take risks to give authors a chance and so on, but hey, they take someone's content, sell it, and give that person 5%. Yeaaah, right. Oh, unless they're famous and it will sell super-well, of course, then they get a higher cut.
At least games publishers actually MAKE the games, they work on it. With books the writer and editor share the work (most of in on the author's part) and the publisher takes most of the money.
But I digress. With the Internet, more people can show their stuff online. Look at webcomics, they have all that variety and innovation (for some) that is harder to find from mainstream comic publishers. And there is a lot of crap but there is also good stuff. And you can give the people your money directly.
Not saying it's a dream job that will make you rich, but it beats being constantly rejected by publishers because you're not formatted enough, know what I mean?
Thankfully, that is the positive of the internet. I have been working on a book for, oh my, 3 years now. And I am seriously considering not sending it to a publisher. I would probably make more money overall, if I just sold it online myself.
The problem I have with this sort of thing is permanent availability. Companies fold all the time, and I don't expect them to somehow keep a server running to allow downloads of their games.
So maybe the solution is that games should only be allowed to be sold used if they're no longer available new. Not that that's legislation that'll ever happen...
And I have to say, I can see where you're coming from here, but I don't like this side of you. It feels as if you're angry with gamers in general here and not just the big bad corporation.
Also, this thread is moving too damn fast!
I don't think there's a large second-hand market for our games, which is good. People who like our games tend to hold onto them.
I'm concerned about the industry and its sustainability as a whole, however.
Which is why I bought all the bonus goodies.
My position is a difficult one to be in. I have no ill will toward my customers.
But then, people who buy used from GameStop aren't technically my customers.
We still pay to support them, though.
1930s: lots of people in the music industry are concerned about radio stations playing their music without payment. Courts say it's OK.
1980s: lots of people in the movie industry are concerned about video stores renting their movies and keeping all the profits. Courts say it's OK.
We've heard this before.
That's because everything you guys create is made of pure awesome.
Well, if you don't mind my giving you advice, you'll have to market it really well, and kind of become a marketing agent or something. Which would give you less time to write the next one. The other side of the medal is that there is so much content out there people can be overwhelmed, and publishing companies have the means to advertise and distribute what they publish.
I think the chances of your making more money by self publishing are fairly low. However the consumers would get a better deal out of it for sure. Also, on the long run, you might earn more as long as you keep writing, because if you're liked people will talk about you, and you will always offer your first work, unlike publishers tend to.
I wish you the best of luck with that, though
Right now I'm still working on the "stupid English language! Why are you so much harder to write in?!?" aspect of things though. Good thing I have an editor, sometimes I get so frustrated that I write things along the lines of "he looked at his wrist-time-giving-thing and walked through the hole-in-the-wall".
Ah, but this is the first time in human history that something can be done about it.
Thanks! I welcome any and all advice. I probably will cave and just spend the extra money and hire someone, but it's a fun option to consider.
Everything you write here reads very well. I would never know you weren't a native english speaker, if I just read a couple of posts randomly.
I don't know about then. But now, aren't stations paying to play things, as well as stores that play the radio having to pay a fee to be allowed to let their customers listen to it (even though radio is free in the first place
Thanks! My main problem is twofold when writing... erm... stories, let's say, rather than talking to people.
a) my vocabulary isn't nearly as big in English. That's okay in a forum post, but in a novel or short story you can't really have repetition. Plus forum posts are about content, but stories, I feel, are as much about how you say things than about what you say.
b) I can't adapt as well, which translates into: all of my characters speak like me. I don't know slang or super snobby words, I don't know expressions someone else would be more likely to use, etc. I guess it's similar to a) but I feel it's different because a) is mostly a problem of narration while b) is a problem of characterisation that occurs in dialogues only mostly occurs in dialogue. I guess it also occurs in stream of consciousness or narration that's purposely from one of the characters' point of view. Of narration if the narrator isn't me.
I'm getting better, but when I'm writing my ideas are much faster than my fingers, and I fight hard not to write in French then translate. I think it really needs to be written in English directly if it's going to be offered in English first, you know what I mean? And translation just won't do, I have to manage to think as fast in English.
Well, it's good training, if extremely frustrating. But at some point I'll overcome it. I wasn't born with the ability to write in French, either, I had to work at it.
I can understand that, vocabulary and the way things are said is very important in written dialogue to help develop different characters. I can see writing in French and translating could be done, or possibly doing both? Writing in english for parts of it and french for other parts, but that could put stress on continuity.
It sure sounds like amazing practice though! Writing stories in foreign languages could be the future of language instruction.
I don't know, in a way it's made me realise that speaking a language and writing it (as a writer, not in forums and stuff) are extremely different. I'm also a translator, too, so it's pretty hard not to fall into "translator" mode, and to create it in English directly rather than in translated French. It's really a different process.