Nextbox 1080: The Reckoning

[Ucantalas]

The thing is, I will not be buying an XBone because I am the type of gamer who would be horribly inconvenienced by this.

Of all the console games I own, more than 75% of them were bought used. I lived in an area with terribly slow internet that occasionally will be cut for weeks at a time. The XBone would basically be unplayable for me. For that reason, I cannot justify ever paying for this console.

[Twig]

This is such an absurd idea. I know that legally that's the way they claim it is but I can't believe people are so willing to go along with it. It makes me hate everything.

Me too, man. Me too.

[Frenetic Pony]

Perhaps in the Americas, but in Europe the right to resell is a very real thing and not just a concept. Here's some relevant reading:

 

European Court confirms the right to resell used software licences

 

So assertions like this by Frenetic Pony:

 

 

...are absolutely false. I do in fact have a literal right to do whatever the fuck I want with their product after I've bought it. In fact it seems I didn't understand my own right fully myself, and falsely assumed it doesn't cover digital purchases when actually it does. Microsoft are going to end up in some pretty messy territory if they don't think through carefully how they implement all this on this side of the ocean.

 

You mean only America might actually give businesses general freedom to run themselves? Oh, and Canada, and plenty of other places outside of Europe. Just because the EU doesn't believe in Laissez-faire economics (and is in large depression because of it) doesn't mean other countries don't. The idea that a company can sell you whatever it wants to sell you isn't absurd in the least. Think about what you are claiming, that you can demand what an independent company has the right to sell you and what it can't? Are you going to wander into their building now and demand they sell you the computers they're using right then and there, because to not to would be "absurd"?

 

I know it's, somehow, a weird idea that a business might have the right to operate how its chooses (just look at Europe); that it doesn't have to sell you something you want just because you want them to. But that is actually the idea. You, as a consumer, can amazingly also choose how you operate. If you are unhappy with the idea of "licensing" software as opposed to "buying" it and being able to resell it, then you are perfectly free to not license it and not give them your money. Incredibly, a company doing something you don't like isn't actually a crime, and you doing something a company doesn't like isn't a crime either!

 

I know I sound sarcastic, but I kind of have to be. The entire European Union, and many other governmental bodies besides, often fail to understand such simple concepts, so I don't doubt many other people do as well.

[shammack]

If you are unhappy with the idea of "licensing" software as opposed to "buying" it and being able to resell it, then you are perfectly free to not license it and not give them your money.

 

Except that you're typically not given an opportunity to agree to, decline, or even read the licensing agreement until after you've already given them your money.

[Frenetic Pony]

Except that you're typically not given an opportunity to agree to, decline, or even read the licensing agreement until after you've already given them your money.

 

That's just an end user license agreement, those are questionably enforceable at best. Which isn't the point, the point is, if the company tells you that you are licensing it, and you know you are licensing it, then what's the problem? Again, it's like saying a real estate owner can only ever sell you a house and never rent one, or that a car dealer can only ever sell you a car and never lease them to anyone. If that's how the business wants to operate, and it's made clear to you that's what is happening, what exactly is the problem?

[Roderick]

Frenetic Pony, you had me at 'the economic depression in the EU is caused by us not giving companies enough freedom'.

[shammack]

That's just an end user license agreement, those are questionably enforceable at best. Which isn't the point, the point is, if the company tells you that you are licensing it, and you know you are licensing it, then what's the problem? Again, it's like saying a real estate owner can only ever sell you a house and never rent one, or that a car dealer can only ever sell you a car and never lease them to anyone. If that's how the business wants to operate, and it's made clear to you that's what is happening, what exactly is the problem?

 

Is there a different licensing agreement that's more relevant to the discussion? As far as I'm aware, the EULA is the only time a consumer will ever see any mention of the idea that they're licensing the software rather than buying it. When you go to a store or load up the Xbox marketplace or whatever, I'm pretty sure you'll see terms like "buy" and "sale" all over the place. I doubt most people buying games are even aware that there's a distinction, and even fewer will actually read the licensing agreement (which you agree is questionably enforceable anyway).

 

If you're renting a house or leasing a car, you have the ability to negotiate the contract before you ever hand over any money, and both of those examples are cases where you're making multiple payments over a period of time. Consumer software is marketed the same way as physical goods where you pay x amount of money once in exchange for ownership of the product, but that's not actually what you're getting (if the EULA is enforceable, which it may not be). At best, it's misleading, if not actually illegal. There's thousands of years of precedent for buying and selling stuff working a certain way, and no obvious reason that software should work any differently, unless you happen to pay close attention to U.S. computer and intellectual property law, so I don't think it's unreasonable for a person being sold a piece of software to expect that they'll own it.

[elmuerte]

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. 

A lease contract is a contract between 2 named entities. (and quite often you can sell a lease contract)

A software license is not a contract. (but there are software contracts)

[Frenetic Pony]

Frenetic Pony, you had me at 'the economic depression in the EU is caused by us not giving companies enough freedom'.

 

Ask France how it's doing with controls. I'm not most of the way through and economics degree for no reason. Or to state it in another way, everyone thinks they understand how economics works because they use money everyday. But ask someone to explain general relativity, and suddenly they're lost even though they deal with gravity everyday.

 

I.E. Yes, I do know what I'm talking about when it comes to economics BITCH I OWN ECONOMICS. I have the trademark, check it

[Thrik]

Ask France how it's doing with controls. I'm not most of the way through and economics degree for no reason. Or to state it in another way, everyone thinks they understand how economics works because they use money everyday. But ask someone to explain general relativity, and suddenly they're lost even though they deal with gravity everyday.

I.E. Yes, I do know what I'm talking about when it comes to economics BITCH I OWN ECONOMICS. I have the trademark, check it

I don't know if it's some kind of schtick but you're coming off as incredibly arrogant to me. I'm really not keen on arguments where the other party is constantly resorting to profanity and borderline insulting comments so I'm just going to step out here. We clearly have vastly different views on how laws should work in terms of business/consumer relationships.

[Frenetic Pony]

I don't know if it's some kind of schtick but you're coming off as incredibly arrogant to me. I'm really not keen on arguments where the other party is constantly resorting to profanity and borderline insulting comments so I'm just going to step out here. We clearly have vastly different views on how laws should work in terms of business/consumer relationships.

 

I'm supposed to do what, explain why all of Europe is in economic woes now? I could, if you really wanted me too. But I don't see the reason too. I'm saying economics is an incredibly complex field, because someone brings up something incidental related to it. I'm not the one that brought up Europe, in fact you were. I'm not the one that argued just because it's a legal policy in a country that it's the correct policy, you were.

 

I'm telling that it's a stupid policy that's bad for the economy, and explaining why the policy is nonsensical to begin with, not arguing against the fact that the German government is trying to do it anyway. That the only argument others can offer is pointing out tangential things I've yet to explain is not a counterargument to anything I've said, nor is "you're coming off as arrogant!" Knowledge of a subject isn't arrogance, nor is well formed argument. I'm saying, yes, being able to block used games or even "license" instead of "sell" software should be a legal right of any company and there's no good argument against such. If there's a well formed argument against THAT then please, by all means state it. If the argument is, on the other hand, "companies are meanies because they aren't doing what I want" then may I point out that such has already been stated.

 

That being said, I apologize if my ego has in any way leaked through into my arguments. It tends to do that, despite my efforts to keep the damned thing shut up. I like arguing for the sake of seeking the truth and showing it to others, the kind of objective truth that Pratchett put as thus "The ocean exists, I've seen it, you can see it, you can go out there and look at it, and it will exist whether I or you believe in it or not." Rather than arguing for the sake of me being "right" or "winning" the argument. My ego of course just wants me to have that "truth" from the beginning and to win, so I've got to be careful to have it be quiet.

[Argobot]

I don't really understand why it's controversial or wrong for consumers to criticize a company for having anti-consumerist policies. That's part of the 'freedom' of a free market: consumers can choose to not give a company their money and can also choose to explain why they're not supporting a company. In this case I really do believe that Microsoft's proposed policies are anti-consumerist and deserve to be publicly criticized.

 

(Also, not really interested in getting into a discussion on European political economy, but the lack of a 'free market' is not what caused the current problem in Europe. And the US hasn't operated under a 'laissez-faire' economic system for almost 100 years now.)

[I Saw Dasein]

This is such an absurd idea. I know that legally that's the way they claim it is but I can't believe people are so willing to go along with it. It makes me hate everything.

 

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. 

 

A lease contract is a contract between 2 named entities. (and quite often you can sell a lease contract)

A software license is not a contract. (but there are software contracts)

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. 

[I Saw Dasein]

I don't really understand why it's controversial or wrong for consumers to criticize a company for having anti-consumerist policies. That's part of the 'freedom' of a free market: consumers can choose to not give a company their money and can also choose to explain why they're not supporting a company. In this case I really do believe that Microsoft's proposed policies are anti-consumerist and deserve to be publicly criticized.

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.

[Frenetic Pony]

I don't really understand why it's controversial or wrong for consumers to criticize a company for having anti-consumerist policies. That's part of the 'freedom' of a free market: consumers can choose to not give a company their money and can also choose to explain why they're not supporting a company. In this case I really do believe that Microsoft's proposed policies are anti-consumerist and deserve to be publicly criticized.

 

(Also, not really interested in getting into a discussion on European political economy, but the lack of a 'free market' is not what caused the current problem in Europe. And the US hasn't operated under a 'laissez-faire' economic system for almost 100 years now.)

 

Yay! That's what I'm saying (the european thing is a mess, government control isn't what "started" the whole thing, but it's what's perpetuating it in countries like France and Italy). Criticize away, maybe MS will change their minds. Whatever, as long as it's their decision one way or another that's cool with me. I was just being critical of people calling it "unfair", it's their thing, whatever they want to do with it is "fair". But if you call it something you don't like, that's different, go right ahead. Maybe enough bad press or etc. will change their minds. I certainly hope it will about the 24 hour check in thing. I've had times when that might be a problem myself.

 

But now I want to include in my video stuff about the substitution effect and value. I can see a scenario where companies being able to block used games actually increases competition. You can picture it like this: Companies that make similar games will end up competing on price, as people will be willing to substitute one game for another if its cheaper. Hell you can see this effect with MMOs, most are so damned similar that they've all gone free to play, because customers have no problem substituting Wow for Guild Wars 2 if Guild Wars 2 is cheaper. (This is called, helpfully, the substitution effect, economics at least has fairly clear and self descriptive terms a lot of the time, unlike other fields )

 

So, for games such as an MMO, or say, a realistic racing game, there's going to be more competition towards price, generally. And that competition may well include the respective series allowing their games to be bought and sold used, as being able to sell yours used is valuable to you. Meanwhile, games that are far less substitutable, i.e. more unique, won't be competing on price because the substitution effect isn't nearly as strong for them. Grand Theft Auto V might be an example of something more in the middle of the spectrum. While Watchdogs and Saints Row will also be out at the same time, the core game experiences of each are still less similar than comparing say, DOTA 2 and LoL. And so Rockstar would probably feel free to not let you sell it used, because it knows it's not competing on price as much. Truly unique stuff, such as... shit someone help me out here with a truly unique Triple A game... uhhh... Portal 2? Won't have any substitution effect at all, IE you can't really go out and buy "P0rtal 3" The "a lot like Portal 2!" game.

 

Helpfully, this means that higher profit margin games would tend to be the more unique ones. Thus driving companies towards creating more unique games rather than the "me too!" titles flooded into the market at the moment, because they know that if they do, then people will be more likely to buy them even without being able to resell them, yay!  Of course i"m not sure how big an effect this would be. If all publishers block used games by default it might wipe out the effect altogether. But it's still a possible scenario.

[elmuerte]

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. 

 

In most of Europe any terms defined after the product has been paid for are void. I've never been presented a contract, or additional terms, when buying software in a store.

And a contract is still an agreement between 2 named entities. Pretty much no EULA, or similar, I've seen names me, so it simply cannot be a contract.

Besides this all, it's very difficult for any company to take away rights that were explicitly granted by law.

 

Maybe this is different in Canada, I don't know.

[tegan]

in Canada, legal ownership disputes are settled by rock paper scissors (although here, it's called "quartz parchment shears")

[TheLastBaron]

(This is called, helpfully, the substitution effect, economics at least has fairly clear and self descriptive terms a lot of the time, unlike other fields )

 

The hypersonic effect is pretty self descriptive, I don't know what you're talking about. 

[I Saw Dasein]

And a contract is still an agreement between 2 named entities. Pretty much no EULA, or similar, I've seen names me, so it simply cannot be a contract.

In Canada, there is not necessarily any need to have a name in a written contract. There is technically no need even for a contract in writing (with some exceptions, e.g. contracts for the sale of land). There are three basic requirements to form a binding contract: offer/acceptance, certainty of terms, and consideration. If those three conditions are met, a binding contract is formed. There is no requirement to name either party or reduce the terms of the contract to writing.

In terms of EULA, I think those are contraversial here in certain cases. In my view, they should be enforceable at least with respect to digital sales, because digital sales require you to read and accept the EULA before finalizing the sale. I also think that in terms of physical sales, if the terms of the sale are made available to you before you agree to the contract then those terms would likely be binding even if you chose not to read them.

[gregbrown]

But now I want to include in my video stuff about the substitution effect and value. I can see a scenario where companies being able to block used games actually increases competition. You can picture it like this: Companies that make similar games will end up competing on price, as people will be willing to substitute one game for another if its cheaper. Hell you can see this effect with MMOs, most are so damned similar that they've all gone free to play, because customers have no problem substituting Wow for Guild Wars 2 if Guild Wars 2 is cheaper. (This is called, helpfully, the substitution effect, economics at least has fairly clear and self descriptive terms a lot of the time, unlike other fields )

So, for games such as an MMO, or say, a realistic racing game, there's going to be more competition towards price, generally. And that competition may well include the respective series allowing their games to be bought and sold used, as being able to sell yours used is valuable to you. Meanwhile, games that are far less substitutable, i.e. more unique, won't be competing on price because the substitution effect isn't nearly as strong for them. Grand Theft Auto V might be an example of something more in the middle of the spectrum. While Watchdogs and Saints Row will also be out at the same time, the core game experiences of each are still less similar than comparing say, DOTA 2 and LoL. And so Rockstar would probably feel free to not let you sell it used, because it knows it's not competing on price as much. Truly unique stuff, such as... shit someone help me out here with a truly unique Triple A game... uhhh... Portal 2? Won't have any substitution effect at all, IE you can't really go out and buy "P0rtal 3" The "a lot like Portal 2!" game.

Helpfully, this means that higher profit margin games would tend to be the more unique ones. Thus driving companies towards creating more unique games rather than the "me too!" titles flooded into the market at the moment, because they know that if they do, then people will be more likely to buy them even without being able to resell them, yay! Of course i"m not sure how big an effect this would be. If all publishers block used games by default it might wipe out the effect altogether. But it's still a possible scenario.

I don't know why you pretend that the lack of a used-game market would make people more sensitive to price, as if Gamestop's interest in buying used games wouldn't depend on their own ability to resell it, which in turn depends on players' interest. You're ignoring the very real evidence that the game market doesn't work that way, because more unique games tend to be that way because they're targeting an audience other than generic AAA shooter fans, who constitute the largest market and biggest piece of the pie.

Also, you shouldn't talk about Europe without knowing about the effects of the shared currency and dysfunctions of the Eurozone, let alone try to apply your Microeconomics 101 aka Babby's First Supply and Demand Curve principles and simplify the situation into a bunch of ahistorical equations. And in any case, that exercise has nothing to do with the Xbox One.

[Zeusthecat]

Ask France how it's doing with controls. I'm not most of the way through and economics degree for no reason. Or to state it in another way, everyone thinks they understand how economics works because they use money everyday. But ask someone to explain general relativity, and suddenly they're lost even though they deal with gravity everyday.

 

I.E. Yes, I do know what I'm talking about when it comes to economics BITCH I OWN ECONOMICS. I have the trademark, check it

Wow. Thank you for enlightening us on the universal rules of economics. You must be a prodigy if you have all the answers and haven't even graduated yet. That level of confidence (arrogance) could only be possessed by someone who truly has the foresight and wisdom to distill everything that may or may not be wrong with a country's economic situation into something so simple.

I always thought economic policies were at least in part developed by people that also had a good understanding of how economics works but now I know I was wrong. I vote for you to be president of the world so you can use your ultimate wisdom to get the world economy back on track. Thank you for opening my eyes.

[Thrik]

I don't really understand why it's controversial or wrong for consumers to criticize a company for having anti-consumerist policies. That's part of the 'freedom' of a free market: consumers can choose to not give a company their money and can also choose to explain why they're not supporting a company. In this case I really do believe that Microsoft's proposed policies are anti-consumerist and deserve to be publicly criticized.

 

(Also, not really interested in getting into a discussion on European political economy, but the lack of a 'free market' is not what caused the current problem in Europe. And the US hasn't operated under a 'laissez-faire' economic system for almost 100 years now.)

 

Exactly, that's what I thought we were doing in this thread. Then Pony, you came along and started going on about how companies have the right to do whatever they want even though I don't think anyone was really disputing that point in the first place. It's almost like you were angry that we were criticising Microsoft's actions because they have the right to do whatever they want. Flaunting your economics degree like we're all dullards who have no right discussing such a topic was the straw that instantly destroyed my desire to talk to you any more. But I've slept since then.

 

I was merely clarifying that, actually, in Europe they don't — I'm pretty sure companies have some (though apparently less) restrictions on how they operate in the Americas too. Beyond that I have no real interest in debating the deeper economics involved, because that's not going to change the reality of things. Whether such policies are good for the economy is not something I care about, because I guess unlike an economics student I prize people not being screwed over by corporations above a flawless economy.

 

To be clear though, I'm not a believer in companies having free reign to impose whatever terms they wish, the same way I don't believe in unrestricted contracts. In many situations people are at the mercy of companies' terms, and 'don't buy anything from them' isn't a practical approach to take in many cases unless you want to live like a hippie. When corporations work together to make things as cushy for themselves as possible — which is seemingly happening in the games industry as we speak — you either abstain from that entire sector or make do with it. Same for internet companies, etc.

 

You know what'd happen if companies were truly allowed to put into place whatever rules they want? Every contract, EULA, or whatever in the world would have the most obnoxiously anti-consumer terms and the masses would end up just accepting it. Case in point: the anti-consumer bullshit Microsoft is attempting right now. Despite the incredible backlash, guess how many people will end up going with it anyway? You guessed it: most. It's a seller's market: people really want to play games.

 

As far as I'm concerned, reasonable restrictions on agreements and contracts are a good thing and I'm delighted that Europe gets to benefit from them. Things such as a guaranteed seven-day return window on purchases, the ability to resell things you've bought (not leased or rented, obviously), the right to a refund on things that were mis-sold, a minimum warranty period, etc — there are things that should be required of companies. Any other shit they make up, fair enough. But a basic set of rules that protect consumers' interests is something I absolutely endorse.

 

Even with these things in place, companies try and be total assholes in Europe. I don't know about living in, say, the US but I can't imagine that it's better over these because of an absence of these requirements. Maybe companies end up more profitable and you never know that might even have an effect on the economy, but the real cost is paid by consumers. Literally in this case, because their ability to resell their games to offset purchase costs will be significantly impaired.

[Dirk Anger]

You mean only America might actually give businesses general freedom to run themselves? Oh, and Canada, and plenty of other places outside of Europe. Just because the EU doesn't believe in Laissez-faire economics (and is in large depression because of it) doesn't mean other countries don't. The idea that a company can sell you whatever it wants to sell you isn't absurd in the least. Think about what you are claiming, that you can demand what an independent company has the right to sell you and what it can't? Are you going to wander into their building now and demand they sell you the computers they're using right then and there, because to not to would be "absurd"?

Heeello.

Sorry for going off-topic, but this post is so chock-full of bullshit, I just have to interfere. 

1) Basic consumer rights do not equal the absence of business freedom. There are simply stricter rules on what constitutes some forms of legally binding contracts in the EU in order to give the consumers some sort of protection.

It is, in fact, perfectly legal for a company to license out software instead of selling it - it just has to tell its' customers beforehand, so to speak (it involves a lot of legalese, of course, but IANAL, so yeah). 

2) The EU is most definitely not in a large depression because it "doesn't believe in Laissez-faire". That point is bullshit anyway - the EU is, generally, not in any meaningful way less "Laissez-faire" than the US. Ironically, the current crisis has made EU economic policy a great deal more "laissez-faire", mostly due to the boneheaded clinging to austerity spearheaded by Germany.

The reasons for the current depression are a combination of fucked-up monetary policies (basically, the Euro making it impossible for weaker countries to devalue their own currencies) and a credit bubble which itself was mostly caused by the US depression (which is also still going on to some extent).

At any rate, the "EU=Socialism, therefore depression!"-argument is not only stupid, but just so fucking lazy.

[I Saw Dasein]

To be clear though, I'm not a believer in companies having free reign to impose whatever terms they wish, the same way I don't believe in unrestricted contracts. In many situations people are at the mercy of companies' terms, and 'don't buy anything from them' isn't a practical approach to take in many cases unless you want to live like a hippie.

I don't agree with this attitude at all. Games are a purely luxury good (particularly AAA games). I think its perfectly reasonable to expect consumers to not buy a game if they think the game is too expensive. They can buy a cheaper game, or they can purchase some other luxury good. In my view, games are a good industry to be "laissez-faire" about, since no one needs a game (compared to something like health care or transportation), the market is competitive (in that there many substitute-able goods), and the harm caused by a faulty product is basically the cost of purchasing the software (compared to physical goods, which cause physical injury and loss).

 

You know what'd happen if companies were truly allowed to put into place whatever rules they want? Every contract, EULA, or whatever in the world would have the most obnoxiously anti-consumer terms and the masses would end up just accepting it. Case in point: the anti-consumer bullshit Microsoft is attempting right now. Despite the incredible backlash, guess how many people will end up going with it anyway? You guessed it: most. It's a seller's market: people really want to play games.

If Microsoft sells restricted licenses and people buy them at the same price and the same rate that they do right now, that's a clear indication that people on aggregate don't actually care about the "anti-consumer" restrictions. Either people value transferable rights in software, in which case they will refuse to pay full price for a restricted license, or they don't value transferable rights, in which case there's really no cause for complaint. Speaking personally, I do care about transferring rights, but not very much. If I was offered a $50 transferable license or a $45 non-transferable license, I would prefer to buy the non-transferable license since I rarely (if ever) sell used games anyways; the right to transfer is worth practically nothing to me. I suspect many others are the same way.

As far as I'm concerned, reasonable restrictions on agreements and contracts are a good thing and I'm delighted that Europe gets to benefit from them. Things such as a guaranteed seven-day return window on purchases, the ability to resell things you've bought (not leased or rented, obviously), the right to a refund on things that were mis-sold, a minimum warranty period, etc — there are things that should be required of companies. Any other shit they make up, fair enough. But a basic set of rules that protect consumers' interests is something I absolutely endorse.

I don't see the connection between these kinds of consumer protections and the XBONE. It's not like consumers in North America have ever been able to return opened software (with a few exceptions). In North America, software has never had warranties in the same way as physical goods. We may wish that consumer protection applied to software, but the fact that it does not cannot be attributed to XBONE.

I'm actually not sure that the kinds of consumer protection measures you're talking about make sense in the software industry. Certainly they would lead to more expensive software (e.g., the cost of a warranty will be factored into price).

[Gormongous]

If Microsoft sells restricted licenses and people buy them at the same price and the same rate that they do right now, that's a clear indication that people on aggregate don't actually care about the "anti-consumer" restrictions. Either people value transferable rights in software, in which case they will refuse to pay full price for a restricted license, or they don't value transferable rights, in which case there's really no cause for complaint. Speaking personally, I do care about transferring rights, but not very much. If I was offered a $50 transferable license or a $45 non-transferable license, I would prefer to buy the non-transferable license since I rarely (if ever) sell used games anyways; the right to transfer is worth practically nothing to me. I suspect many others are the same way.

 

But whether or not people care, especially in anecdote, is a poor rubric for how right or fair a given action is. Ethics and justice aren't determined by market forces. If a company or government manages to take away implied or explicit rights from its customers or citizens, that does not mean that they ought to have been taken away, let alone that the rights never really existed.

 

Honestly, I'm really baffled by the level of "put up or shut up" attitude in this thread. If companies are free to make whatever decisions they see fit, I am just as free to critique or even ridicule them for it, in addition to not giving them my money.