Yantelope

I thought about that too but then the PS3 version doesn't import your xbox save....

I still don't own ME2. I keep thinking they're going to do a GOTY edition and they keep not doing it.

Usually with Prime they upgrade you to release date shipping for free but they usually don't guarantee release date shipping until a couple of weeks before release.

http://www.media.rice.edu/media/NewsBot.asp?MODE=VIEW&ID=16282

Yeah, It's also like how devices like Tivo get a pass despite technically only serving to illegally record content. I agree that we should be making a push to aquire the digital rights to software no matter what platform it's on. Also, I'm not sure that you're entirely correct TN saying you purchased the right to use it on that platform as the DMCA specifically allows cracking of DRM for the purpose of interoperability.

Okay, I'm starting to understand what you're asking. In the case of piracy you have a group of people (pirates), who want to acquire that which they have no right to (software) against the will of the IP owners. In the case of used video games you have a goup of people (IP owners) who want to acquire that which they have no right to (software now licensed to the user) against the will of the IP owners (the person who purchased this license in the form of software). I don't see hypocrisy there. Sorry for the confusion.

You're not breaching any legal or moral rights by buying used games IMO. I'm not the one who brought the "wishes" of the publishers into the equation. You guys somehow tried to justify pirating saying that sometimes developers encourage piracy.

There's nothing hypocritical about saying that the publisher should respect consumers rights just as consumers should respect publishers rights.

Why not?

I was merely trying to point out Deans comparison as being a silly one in a humorous fashion. Oh, yeah, I've brought up libraries before. I do think it's funny that you can borrow movies and music which are easily ripable but you don't see publishers complaining about them like you see them complaining about used game sales and gamestop.

This made me think maybe we should price games based on their metascore. This made me think you're an idiot who should be banned from commenting on the Internet. EDIT: Seriously, how can you even think of such a thing? Do you hate video games? Do you hate the medium? I swear, I never missed being a mod, but I totally wish I was one now so I could ban your ass to oblivion. This is the worst post I have seen on this forum. Please, leave existence. I don't think such a thing. I was just pointing out the laughable and simple logical extension of what dean is suggesting by somehow comparing publishers getting paid only if they do a good job and then comparing to grades in school. If you're suggesting the idea is bannable then you're suggesting that dean be banned but then that'd be awkward since he runs the place.

This made me think maybe we should price games based on their metascore.

I'd +2 that post if I had the power. You're making the choice. The choice of a new generation.

Well, this goes back to my point about entitlement. You're not paying for enjoyment, you're paying for entertainment. Content providers can't please everyone but they try. If you put on a show and people don't like it and they all refuse to pay for it you'd be frustrated because you tried to entertain and you put in the work. You can't guarantee you're going to be entertained but you should still compensate those that put the time and effort into trying. It's why you buy your tickets before the show and not after. Sorry, but at this point we really are . I don't think that we're really getting anywhere on this front. I like that gif. Oh, there is a can of worms. Now you're going to talk about how we should spend all the money we have on content and "acquire" everything we don't have money for and then we can pick and choose who is the most deserving of the money we do have right? Ooo, maybe it's like a battle of the bands where all the bands play but only the one that wins gets the prize money. Sucks to be the band that loses though. Ummm, except that he agreed he didn't fully explain his side?

@Fuchi, Ummm... well, in this one specific instance of GTA III I think you're on your own because neither I nor anyone I know experienced anything like what you're talking about. I guess the reviewers didn't either. Going to the deeper point, can there be glitches and bugs that aren't pointed out by reviews and such? Sure, but I don't recall a time recently when I felt victimized by it. Nobody is saying that. Companies are still fully free to produce demos if they so choose. Not necessarily. The entertainment industry would make less money if people only paid for the content that they thought was good so it's not good for content providers.

Are you arguing that a single glitch is reason enough to grant a refund or that your whole GTA experience was completely ruined by the car garage glitch? (I don't actually remember having that glitch happen to me).

So who had Virtua Racing on the Sega Genesis? This game was freaking $90 when it came out because it had an extra chip called the S.V.P. It's amazing to me how freaking awesome this game was when it came out and how butt ugly it is now. Check out those wheels, it's gonna be a bumpy ride. It's actually pretty impressive for a Genesis game though. The cart was huge because of that SVP chip. Also the arcade version had these crazy pressure pads that would press up against you when you were racing to make if feel like you were taking the turns. Later they got smarter and just made the whole cockpits of the arcade move. It was a really cool experience though.

Why? Isn't the point that you'd not buy the car that you can't see and only buy the car that you can? Maybe if all car dealers were colluding together to not let you see any car ever without buying it then you'd need government intervention but as it stands now I don't think we have any kind of collusion preventing videogame demos. Maybe you should only buy games that have legal demos. Maybe then companies would see that people only buy games with demos and they'd all be motivated to provide demos just as car dealers all gladly give you test drives these days. I'm going to underline this section because for all you pirates this should be your recourse against game companies and not piracy. Resolve now to only ever buy games that have demos. Again, as Rage has been a prime example, I'm fairly certain that you don't need a demo to tell if a game functions properly. I will not be purchasing Rage until the game has been fixed and I don't need to pirate it to know that. Yeah, it's a bit messy trying to keep both people's rights protected. It's a constant battle of tug 'o war. I fully agree. I'd be happy to rally with consumers on some issues other than piracy. Oh, and one more late thought that just came to me, not sure why I didn't remember this sooner. For those of you with consoles, why not just rent the game? That's what I used to do back in the NES days before I had internet. That way the developer still gets a small amount of money and you get to sample the game without having to invest all your money. In fact, sometimes you can play the whole game with only a small amount of money and just return it.

Well then what we're agreeing on is that a demo can only help you make a more educated decision on a purchase. Everyone here agrees with that. You're not wholly in the dark without playing the game. I hold that a publisher has a right to decide what tools he gives you to make that decision. I don't think we're into consumer protection territory here. You're also making an argument that as long as there's zero impact to the IP owner then the consumer has a right to sample the product prior to a purchase. I don't think you can prove that there's zero impact to the IP owner (based on our scifi timeline argument thingy) but holding that aside I don't agree with the premise of your argument. I fully understand that we're entirely in opinion territory at this point so I'm not going to try to say you're right or I'm wrong on this point, just wanted to say that I disagree.

Well, lets turn the argument around, should it be illegal for a company to sell you a car without letting you see it? You don't have to buy it. Do you have a right to see it even if you don't buy it? You can't know if you'll like a movie by watching a trailer and you can't know if you'll like a book by reading the excerpt. We're not guaranteed to enjoy any forms of entertainment so why should games be different?

Must be a basilisk. LOOK AWAY!

Not a big fan of caveat emptor eh? I agree that consumers should have a right to make an informed decision about a product. I think where we differ is whether or not a play test is actually required to make an informed decision. For many of you the answer is that a play test is necessary, for me it's not. If we want to break analogies down a little bit more I think that sampling a physical product that fulfills a need to see if it suits your particular needs is slightly different than sampling media to see if it fulfills your tastes. It's really easy to guarantee that a car will go when you press the gas pedal but it's impossible to guarantee that someone will find the car pretty. Most consumer protections do not extend to the preferences of individuals.

I decided to preorder this over AC:R even though I have more interest in AC:R simply because I know that AC:R will be $20 within 6 months and this will remain $50 forever. Also I wanted the pretty gold wiimote.

You don't really explain it though. All you do is say that you think it's fair. That's fine I guess.

@Ethan, Typically fair use is covering referring quoting or referencing somebody's copyrighted work on for the applications of criticism, comment, reporting etc. I don't know why you feel justified in extending it to the actual usage of the product itself. You can show the Nike logo in a report about Nike but you can't borrow the logo for it's actual usage which is to sell apparel. You could use the name or screenshots of a game to talk or report on the game but fair use never actually results in playing the game, watching the movie or reading the book itself. I know you're a lawyer so I know you know all this so on what basis do you feel it's fair to extend fair use, especially in a moral sense? You guys have been all over me about confusing morality with law but now you're using legal terms to describe your morality?