Internet gaming making us lazy?

General and high profile video game topics.
Tron1
Posts: 401
Joined: December 31st, 1969, 7:00 pm

Internet gaming making us lazy?

Postby Tron1 » February 2nd, 2015, 2:35 pm

I love 2d games, but I hate DLC. I'm screwed. How about some 2d games in retail? Obviously we have Nintendo Mario games, but how about some competition? How about all those games that ptdebate mentioned were put together for a retail market?

ptdebate1
Posts: 909
Joined: December 31st, 1969, 7:00 pm

Internet gaming making us lazy?

Postby ptdebate1 » February 2nd, 2015, 3:49 pm

[QUOTE=Tron]I love 2d games, but I hate DLC. I'm screwed. How about some 2d games in retail? Obviously we have Nintendo Mario games, but how about some competition? How about all those games that ptdebate mentioned were put together for a retail market?[/QUOTE]

Unfortunately, it's pretty unlikely that those games will release on physical media. One meliorating fact is that often these games can be purchased for far cheaper than "AAA" 3D games, and in many cases (as part of Live Gold and PS Plus) they are awarded to gamers for free (well, "free" as long as you have the paid subscription).

It's not an ideal situation for the more old school or internet-limited among us, but at least they're good games and they exist! What's more, you can play them for not very much money. If you'd bought Shovel Knight on a cartridge in 1991 it would have cost at least $60!


Jon1
Posts: 378
Joined: December 31st, 1969, 7:00 pm

Internet gaming making us lazy?

Postby Jon1 » February 5th, 2015, 11:26 am

For the first time since the 90s, I'm starting to take a real interest in the direction the industry is going. While I've been critical of the fact it took Nintendo so long to return to its 2d roots, and that to me it was almost a sign of desperation, I'm still incredibly happy the genre has been resurrected and that people are enjoying these games. Also, it seems like there's a market for these downloadable 2d games, which is a very positive sign. Really, it's what I suspected, I knew people wanted more instantly fun experiences without all the headache. Now is the time to really take it further and for the PS4 and XBONE to put out big budget 2d games. It's really not just 2d, but I feel like they could also put out some original, groundbreaking non 2d titles as well that are totally different than your latest Assassin's Creed or whatever. It really makes me realize how terrible a state the industry was in from 1997 until a couple years ago, when we finally started getting a chance to have choices in what we play. For almost 20 years, the 2d blackout hid the fact that people would rather play those games than the complex 3d we were force fed. It's the biggest travesty in gaming history the derailment of 2d in 1993 right when it was ready for a huge breakthrough. Maybe now we can finally see an advanced shmup or Contra style game. Of course, that would take a big budget. I don't know if it would be $100 million but probably at least $10 million. Then we can see how popular 2d really is and how jaded people are by the status quo. I'm not counting on it, but I wasn't counting on Nintendo resurrecting their 2d franchises either.

Tron1
Posts: 401
Joined: December 31st, 1969, 7:00 pm

Internet gaming making us lazy?

Postby Tron1 » February 5th, 2015, 4:10 pm

[QUOTE=ptdebate][QUOTE=Tron]I love 2d games, but I hate DLC. I'm screwed. How about some 2d games in retail? Obviously we have Nintendo Mario games, but how about some competition? How about all those games that ptdebate mentioned were put together for a retail market?[/QUOTE]

Unfortunately, it's pretty unlikely that those games will release on physical media. One meliorating fact is that often these games can be purchased for far cheaper than "AAA" 3D games, and in many cases (as part of Live Gold and PS Plus) they are awarded to gamers for free (well, "free" as long as you have the paid subscription).

It's not an ideal situation for the more old school or internet-limited among us, but at least they're good games and they exist! What's more, you can play them for not very much money. If you'd bought Shovel Knight on a cartridge in 1991 it would have cost at least $60!

[/QUOTE]

I'd pay $30 for Shovel Knight on a cartridge (3DS), but I won't pay .99 cents for it as a download. What the what? No, I'm serious. I like to pay for things that I own.

I agree there is a market for 2d retail games. Doesn't Mario show us that? Why does everyone want to fight for the next call of duty while no one wants to challenge Mario?

ptdebate1
Posts: 909
Joined: December 31st, 1969, 7:00 pm

Internet gaming making us lazy?

Postby ptdebate1 » February 5th, 2015, 4:32 pm

Tron,
I guess I can understand if I think about it your viewpoint with reference to something else. I just don't look at videogames, books, or movies as commodities, which is why Netflix and, *ahem,* Google are my favorite ways to find something to watch. Downloading is indistinguishable from purchasing a cartridge for me because even with the cartridge, there's a limited write-rewrite cycle count and no one's gonna replace it for you when it stops reading due to data decay 20 years down the road. You also don't really "own" any copyrighted media, you only have a license to use it. Only the original creator (or the copyright holder) technically "owns" the work by law.

Gentlegamer1
Posts: 687
Joined: December 31st, 1969, 7:00 pm

Internet gaming making us lazy?

Postby Gentlegamer1 » February 8th, 2015, 1:06 am

Every time I read someone post "you don't own copyrighted media you only have a license" I want to scream.

That is not true, you are not a licensee. You are the owner of that copy of media. The copyright owner's original distribution right in that copy has been exhausted, and you have full distribution right over that copy. The copyright owner actually reserves very few rights after distributing each piece of media.

Why are people so willing to kow tow to the legal fiction of copyright and intellectual property by attributing even more restrictions where they don't exist? Copyright (and patent) do not exist to protect "intellectual propery," they exist to encourage a steady flow of innovations in the arts and sciences into the public domain. They do not exist to be perpetual profit centers for creators or limited time rights holders.

ptdebate1
Posts: 909
Joined: December 31st, 1969, 7:00 pm

Internet gaming making us lazy?

Postby ptdebate1 » February 8th, 2015, 4:59 pm

[QUOTE=Gentlegamer] ...you have full distribution right over that copy.[/QUOTE]

I'm sorry, but this simply isn't true. If you go out and purchase a DVD off of a shelf at Wal Mart and then do a public showing of the movie, you will get fined. That's because, if you read the fine print, you'll notice that consumer copies of feature films do not carry a license that allows public exhibition. For that, you need to purchase special rights from the copyright holder. See the below paragraph from copyright.gov:

"Copyright is a form of protection provided by U.S. law to authors of “original works of authorship,” including “pictorial, graphic, and sculptural works.” The owner of copyright in a work has the exclusive right to make copies, prepare derivative works, sell or distribute copies, and display the work publicly. Anyone else wishing to use the work in these ways must have the permission of the author or someone who has derived rights through the author"

Source: http://copyright.gov/circs/circ40.pdf




Gentlegamer1
Posts: 687
Joined: December 31st, 1969, 7:00 pm

Internet gaming making us lazy?

Postby Gentlegamer1 » February 8th, 2015, 5:37 pm

[QUOTE=ptdebate][QUOTE=Gentlegamer] ...you have full distribution right over that copy.[/QUOTE]

I'm sorry, but this simply isn't true. [[/quote]

It is true, and known as the First Sale Doctrine.


The first-sale doctrine creates a basic exception to the copyright holder's distribution right. Once the work is lawfully sold or even transferred gratuitously, the copyright owner's interest in the material object in which the copyrighted work is embodied is exhausted. The owner of the material object can then dispose of it as he sees fit. Thus, one who buys a copy of a book is entitled to resell it, rent it, give it away, or destroy it. However, the owner of the copy of the book will not be able to make new copies of the book because the first-sale doctrine does not limit copyright owner's reproduction right.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-sale_doctrine

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/109

[quote]
If you go out and purchase a DVD off of a shelf at Wal Mart and then do a public showing of the movie, you will get fined. That's because, if you read the fine print, you'll notice that consumer copies of feature films do not carry a license that allows public exhibition. For that, you need to purchase special rights from the copyright holder. See the below paragraph from copyright.gov:

[/quote]

You can't do a public performance of a copyrighted work unless you are the rights holder or have permission, this is true, but that is not distributing the work. When you purchase a copy from a rights holder, the rights holder's distribution right in that particular copy is exhausted, and you may now sell it, give it away, rent it to others, or destroy it without any reference to the copyright. You do not use the item "under license." This also means I may play a DVD in my home and invite others to view it.




ptdebate1
Posts: 909
Joined: December 31st, 1969, 7:00 pm

Internet gaming making us lazy?

Postby ptdebate1 » February 9th, 2015, 11:23 am

Gentlegamer,

You argue your point well. Is it defensible, however, to say that I "own" an item that I don't have full rights to use? I know there's no law preventing me from publicly exhibiting my refrigerator, for example. I can even rent out space in it and turn a profit if I want! The same cannot be said of copyrighted media. The law is designed to ensure that only I, the person who paid for the copy, can use it at a given time. This is why Nintendo is actually within their legal rights to charge youtubers a cut of the profits for let's plays (despite the fact that it's against the tide and turning off many gamers, including myself).

In any event, defining ownership is a rabbit hole we ought not fall into. I just think there ought to be some distinction between full, unqualified ownership (like the kind that describes my relation to my refrigerator) and limited ownership (like the kind I have in relation to a videogame). The extent to which you own something is the extent to which you can do things with it

Orion1
Posts: 598
Joined: December 31st, 1969, 7:00 pm

Internet gaming making us lazy?

Postby Orion1 » February 9th, 2015, 5:36 pm

So, if I'm reading the first half of this thread correctly, if someone likes to download games, then they are just too lazy to leave the house.   Wow.

I think some people are just more resistant to change than others.  I'm sure when cars first started appearing on the streets, the people who enjoyed horse drawn carriages thought the car drivers were being lazy, wanting to get where they needed to go at a faster speed.  The older people probably kept their horses.


Return to “Video Games General”