I Saw Dasein

I don't have a problem with people disliking non-transferable license. A non-transferable license is a lesser property interest compared with ownership. As a consumer, though, I like the idea of companies being able to offer me a non-transferable license if they are willing to charge a lesser price. I don't buy or sell used games very often, so I'm quite happy to accept a non-transferable license if that means the game is offered at a lower price. As a corollary, I don't like the idea of banning or otherwise eliminating non-transferable licenses. In theory at least, uncoupling different kinds of ownership interests means that publishers will be able to sell me only those interests I actually want. I definitely don't think that uncoupling ownership interests is anti-consumer, as long as the uncoupling is understood by the purchaser. Basically I think I am a grown-up consumer. I know what a company is offering me when it offers me a software license. If I think a non-transferable software license is worth $50 dollars, then I will buy that software license. If I don't think the non-transferable software license is worth $50, then I won't buy it. As far as I'm concerned, that's the end of the story.

Why is it an absurd idea? I read the terms and conditions before purchasing software. I understand that what I purchase is a license, and not title to the software. I'm a grown up, I understand the contract I enter into, and so I accept that I am bound by the contract. Whether or not you can transfer a lease contract depends entirely on the terms of the contract. Some lease contracts might convey a right to transfer the lease, others might not (and a statute might convey a right to transfer the lease in certain circumstances). A software license is a kind of property right (the right to use a piece of software for defined purposes), but in order to acquire that license you agree to a contract. That contract is between two entities: the licensor and the licensee. I don't see a significant difference between a standard-form car lease (for example) and a standard-form license agreement. Both convey interests that are less than ownership; as long as that is made clear by the terms of the contract, I don't see any issue at all.

Not really. There are many kinds of property interests that are non-transferable. You can't "resell" a leased car, for example. Of course you don't own a leased car, but you also don't own a licensed piece of software.

It's just weird to me to treat what are effectively careers as being genetically determined. It doesn't really make much sense. If Bill's biological parents were both accountants, but Bill was raised by a troupe of actors, I'm willing to bet Bill would be a better actor than accountant. I don't see why being a wizard would be any different. Getting to be good at any career--actor, accountant, or wizard--is 90% training and enthusiasm. Also, please buy my book, "10 Habits of Highly Effective Thaumaturgists".

My review of Arrested Development season 4:

What if you donate it to the Illinois Nazis?

Well, if publishers reduce value without reducing price, then in the short run I'll spend less money on games and more money on other leisure products, and in the long run some other company will come and out-compete them on price (e.g. Steam). So I'm not too bothered either way.

I have definitely purchased a number of games "opening day" knowing that I intended to sell them down the road and recoup some of the price, especially games that I'm not sure I will like. I am generally more willing to spend $60 on a game if I know I can get $25 dollars back in a week.

I think that article is looking at the issue in the wrong way. If used game sales are abolished, then the value of a new game is actually decreased from the consumer's perspective. This is because consumers value a game that they can resell more than they value a game that they cannot resell. (E.g., I will pay $60 for game X with the expectation that I can resell it for $10, but only $45 for game X if I cannot resell it.) Since removing the right to resell a game reduces the value of that game, it stands to reason that demand for the game will also be reduced. If demand for the game is reduced, then (all other things equal) the price of the game will be expected to fall, price being a function of demand. Basically, if publishers reduce the value of video games without reducing the price of video games, consumers will buy fewer video games and spend their money on other products. If publishers wish to get that money (and we can assume they do) they will have a pretty strong incentive to lower prices. I guess I don't see any reason why video game publishers would be immune from the same market forces that push down prices in other markets. If they're going to offer consumers a less valuable product, then they will either have to lower prices or lose sales.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=9Qh9AUF6EMU So excited!

The musician who uses an unlicensed sample doesn't lose the whole of his or her revenue. The copyright holder still has to prove damages. Quantification of damages is pretty complicated and varies from country to country. The aim is to compensate the copyright holder for the loss he or she incurred from the unauthorized use, and/or to force the copyright infringer to give up the profits he or she made from the infringement (but not all the revenues of the work, just those revenues that are attributable to infringement). Many countries also have compensation schemes set out by statute.

The content really isn't the gameplay, as far as the owner of the copyright is concerned. A game contains a huge number of assets (art, music, dialogue, etc.) all of which are subject to copyright. Ironically, the actual gameplay is not subject to copyright, but the expression of the gameplay through those copyrighted assets is copyright. So accepting that the various assets in the game are subject to copyright, it's pretty easy to see how a let's play interferes with the copyright. Take music. I wrote a song and licensed that song exclusively to Nintendo for their sole use in a game. When you use that song in a lets play, you're interfering with my copyright in the song. I have a right to decide who gets to use that song and how. Unless you license the song for me, you cannot use it in a video. The same is true for the art assets: I designed art for Nintendo to use, and you cannot exploit that art commercially without getting permission first. As soon as you commercialize someone else's intellectual property--and that does include using someone else's music, art, or game in your own work--you need to seek permission to use that intellectual property.

I'd say these are worth a buy. Alan Wake eventually gets really repetitive and quite dull, but the aesthetic is different and interesting and genuinely creepy.

Japan may have different standards, but to the extent that I am being asked to consume a product I will apply my own standards to it. For example, I probably won't eat dog curry, even though dog curry is OK and normal in Indonesia (or so Obama would have us believe...). Sexism doesn't stop being sexism just because it originates in a culture that is less sensitive to that issue.

Just because you are frustrated or not interested in a topic doesn't mean that others feel the same way. If you don't want to talk about sexism in games, don't talk about it--no one is forcing you to read or respond to that aspect of this discussion. This is not your personal thread, and the conversation does not exist purely for your benefit. Personally, I'm at least as interested in taking a critical eye to games as I am interested in chatting about gameplay, and I think it's OK for that kind of conversation to take place in this forum.

Well, no one is stopping you from talking about game play, if that's what you want to talk about. I guess I don't see what the issue is. If you're not interested in talking about a particular element of a game, then don't talk about it. If you're not interested in reading posts about a particular aspect of a game, skip those posts. I don't see how it's at all problematic for other people to talk about the parts of a game they find interesting.

I don't understand your point at all. Something can be both Japanese and also really gross and sexist. I am rarely exposed to this kind of super-Japanese game, so I don't comment on those games. I have been exposed to this game via this thread, and now I have an opinion on it. Am I supposed to have no opinion just because this game is typical of Japan? So confused...

Plus I am in no way the market for a pillow game. There is just no way I will ever buy that kind of game. By contrast, I might buy a game like Dragon's Crown. Unfortunately, it fails the "can I play this in my living room without feeling embarrassed by my hobby" test.

It blows my mind that in a few short days I will be watching a whole new season of Arrested Development.

There are a lot of historical board games. 1960: Race for the President is about the 1960 Kennedy/Nixon presidential race. There is a deck of cards; each card is an event that took place during that campaign with an accompanying line of text and picture. Here's an example: Twilight Struggle is basically the same game, but set in the Cold War. It too has event cards. There are actually a ton of these card-driven historical board games that are really fun and are interesting ways of exploring history.

automated whitey sale

I found the most depressing single site on the internet.

I had boar ribs in Luxembourg and they were amazing. I predict boar bacon would be delicious and just a little gamey.

Man it is insane how badly Firaxis dropped the ball in terms of DLC for this game. I would buy new map packs, new enemies, new weapons, heck new cosmetic items, without a second thought. Firaxis absolutely cranked out DLC for the Civilization games; I wonder what happened?

I don't understand your question. Are you asking whether it's possible to draw an exaggerated cartoon character without huge exposed cans? I don't really have an opinion about this game, but it seems like it would not be difficult to make hilarious cartoon characters without giant boobs.