On the other hand, it’s been interesting watching the business side of things. OGL pretty much dominated RPG development as everyone was developing for the d20 system. I went to a few panels at Dragon*Con where some indie RPG developers said that we’re just now starting to see people do their own, original game systems because d20 already peaked and 4th edition is a lot more restricted. So, we’re starting to see people get back into that.

Definitely interesting, though, to see what different people think. A risky move, and one that I think sort of paid off for WotC/Hasbro, but it kinda feels like an opportunity squandered now.

First time I’ve heard of it as a non-Southerner. I like it, though.

Anyway, I suspect this is just a pause. Same thing has happened with a lot of gameplay genres. Witness what happened with RPGs in the late 80s and early 90s, where a glut made them unappealing. Then Diablo comes along to reinvigorate RPGs with action type gameplay. This lead to a small renaissance that gave us things like Planescape:Torment. Now we see a lot of indies making RPGs for the love of the medium instead of what will maximize profits.

I expect we’ll see a dearth of music game sfor a bit, until someone comes along with something new to add to the mix and respark the passion.

I believe when you think about the term “scape-goat”, you might note it’s not scape-pig or scape-cow. The one company they single out is an entity I’ve barely heard of, while others walk away without a slap on the wrist. There was a saying of an old software company I used to play games on, “Lead Dog – because if you’re not the lead dog the view never changes.” I think they took a very managerial response to what is essentially a legal issue, while still staying well within the legal parameters. We’ll see if they stay so above the fray when the accusations get closer to some of the “cash cows.”

Interesting comment.

The case also involves law at its most nit-picking. What precisely was violated? When did they vary the agreements to permit certain violations?

I believe that software law; EULA law; game law; and internet law; are the most complicated and interesting because the “old” agreement you had agreed to, just simply DISAPPEARS. The previous EULA, previous “terms of service”… cannot be found. Not by a search, nothing short of a subpoena as far as I know. No other type of law, criminal, property, landlord-tenant, involves agreements that once over are simply not just put aside but DISCARDED. If you signed up for Facebook, Second Life, MySpace, ITunes… you simply cannot find out what you originally signed up for. The original “offer and consideration” simply have simply puffed out of existence like Merlin’s nagging wife. (Jay 1, Merlin 0; the battle continues). And if you want to find out the EULA for any of these, you have to go through their long sign-up process and THEN you find out the terms…. if you’re looking for it as a research matter it’s next to impossible to find a current one.

The rest of your post I agree with you 99%; you’re the most difficult commenter to reply to, so I usually don’t; but at least on that one thought you had I could send some personal input.

Anyway, insightful commentary. Hopefully this is a warning for people that these things are serious. We’ll have to see what the long-term effects are.

The case also involves law at its most nit-picking. What precisely was violated? When did they vary the agreements to permit certain violations? Is my privacy violated if they put my phone number out there or is it only violated if someone calls me? The magnifying glass will be held long over the precise specifics of what the EULAs allowed the companies to get away with at any given moment and a mistake in eula-drafting could cost the participants millions.

In some ways I don’t know who to root for. Much as my British inclination is to side with the underdog if this action does significant damage to the already rather flimsy protection software enjoys on the internet it could damage the tech industries that our Prime Minister is pinning our hopes of economic turnaround on.

There’s an old Chinese curse: “may you live in interesting times.” It’s never felt truer.

Eve’s alliance tournament on youtube is quite entertaining if you’ve heavily involved in Eve. You pretty much have to have learned all the ships by name to follow it though – regular people won’t see the interest in an Oneiros vs a Scorpion mini-struggle.

It competes with sports and I think it does it not terribly effectively. A sports match is a very effective spectator entertainment well understood by viewers. Video games are much harder to see what is going on and to understand how the plays effect the game.

Until games are designed with the simplicity of action of a quarterback throwing a long pass to a receiver they’re simply an inferior product.

Hope you and everyone else gets to read through some of the excellent supporting material about the law that marginally touches second-hand gaming purchases. The publishers will have us believe 100% in their way, much like with “click-to-agree” licenses and “you must accept this to use our website” licenses… (still under question). It’s important to remember that all the entities that developed big-time technological ground-breakers (player pianos, published books, jukeboxes, typewriters) have all tried to protect their “turf” and that these techniques and “idealogical debates” are not limited to this decade or even this century.

In general if the market can solve a problem it should be left to solve it without interference from the legislature. There is a very simple solution here – people who object to a company’s policy can spend their money elsewhere.

Generally gamers are terrible about practicising their principles because for most of us the principles are not all that important. I don’t like what Blizzard is doing but to not play Diablo 3??? I’m not that principled!

Unless the sale of these games is misleading there really is no reason to legislate against measures that reduce second hand sales. If it really matters the market will punish these innovations. If gamers suck it up and buy the games they object to they really don’t deserve the protection of legislation protecting them from an exploitation they would willingly accept.

Should we buy second hand?

Sure. It’s more of a minefield because it will become very possible to buy a game second hand which is too gutted to be fun to play.

If a loony says you are a pirate or a terrorist or a satanist for doing it, it doesn’t matter. Loonies object to all sorts of things – just about any action you can mention will have a corresponding loony out there somewhere who objects passionately. You can find them with Google

Life’s too short to worry about loonies.

THQ and PA? They’re not loonies, they’re just posturing. Publicity, hits and a good old fashioned flame war. Next month they’ll be stating that the Pope is the antichrist just to have another go. Good luck to them, they have a fun hobby.