Are You Stupid, Deceived, or Both?

Video game companies are always trying to find ways to make money. One of the greatest difficulties for the industry is giving consumers incentive to buy new games instead of saving a few dollars and buying used. Why? Because publishers and developers don't earn a dime on used games, only the retailers do.

So the fine folks at EA put their heads together and came up with a brilliant idea: Include a code with new games that grants consumers the power to download extra content for free. The code can only be used one time, so once it's been used, that's it. Therefore, when consumers purchase a used game, they won't get this code and will have to pay for the additional content. This makes a hell of a lot of sense.

Then today I came across an article about one consumer who felt deceived by the practice. He purchased a used copy of Dragon Age: Origins from GameStop to save $5; however, the cover art advertised free additional content and characters. When he got home, he discovered that the code had been used and he would have to pay another $15 to access the downloadable content.

He has since decided to file a lawsuit against GameStop for "deceptively misleading" him to purchase the game used. By saving $5, he had to spend an additional $15 to get the DLC, and thusly spent $10 more for the same material buying it used. He could not even return the game because it was past the 7-day return limit on used items.

Okay, I understand that he feels mislead. The question here though is "who to blame?" Is it really GameStop's fault that the box art advertised free DLC? Should the employees be at fault for not making the "one time use" issue clear to him?

In this case, I'd probably have to say no. Take a look at the back of the box featured on GameStop's website. It explicitly states on the left-hand side, "Includes: downloadable character and quest/A $15 Value/One-time use code available with full retail purchase. Expires April 30, 2010." It's right there, on the box. Can he blame EA then? Well not really, because despite the small print, it's plainly there.

I suppose the only way his case could possibly hold any merit is if GameStop slapped on a sticker advertising the DLC on a used box or an employee explicitly stated that he would still get the DLC for free. That's just me guessing. I'd have to actually see the box in question.

Yes, I know I keep saying that "gamers are not stupid," but anyone can misinterpret the fine print.

You Can Haz Freedom of Speech, Just Not in Your Manga

There's been some buzz in the manga industry lately revolving around a man named Christopher Handley. So who is this guy? Is he an artist? A journalist? An internet personality?

Nope. He's just an average guy who owns manga depicting children in sexually graphic situations.

Mr. Handley was charged and recently sentenced to six months in prison followed by five years probation for owning "obscene" manga. Personally, I don't approve of the depiction of underage people in sexual situations, so I don't read it. However, like many artists and authors, I believe there is a hard line between drawings and live action when it comes to pornography. One features animated, fictional characters. The other features real human beings, quite often abused or unable to comprehend what is happening.

THERE'S A BIG DIFFERENCE!

People have been up in arms over this because it sets a precedent for artwork and freedom of speech. Check out Neil Gaiman's reply to a letter he received about the case. The courts have ruled, and now you can get arrested for owning certain forms of art that do not in any way, shape, or form, portray actual, real children. So if you own loli, heck perhaps even innocent moe, there's now standing precedent that can land you in prison depending on who's feeling "righteous" (and by righteous, I mean "who says to hell with your first amendment rights for their own narrow range of vaaaaaaalues.")

The kicker? Read the bottom of the ANN article about his references and psychological profile. He's normal! Just like you and me. Most people like porn. I think it's swell as long as all parties involved in the production are consensual. Oh right, it's physically impossible for it to be non-consensual when it's ANIMATED!

Good job American justice system.

Shenanigans! - Microsoft XBL 2009 Numbers

This morning, I received a press release from Microsoft about Xbox 360 and Xbox Live activity for the end of 2009. Looking for bits to put in the X-Play news ticker, I came across this quote:

"During this time, Xbox LIVE saw a record peak of more than 2.2 million people using the service at the same time – up 47% over the same period last year."

47% up? That's a pretty hefty number. The time period in question ranges from 12/14/09 to 1/03/10. Roughly, you average school holiday break. Some may attribute this jump in activity to be due to the rebounding economy.

However, this number set off tiny alarms in Teggy's head. Ping! Ping! Ping! Did Microsoft think we'd all forget what happened last year?

Some of you may recall that during the same time period in 2008, Xbox Live was so overwhelmed with new members that many gamers experienced outages for upward of a full week. People bitched and threatened to sue. Then Microsoft offered a free XBLA download to disgruntled clients. The service was never completely offline. Had it been, the increase in activity would have been even higher in 2009.

Don't let this statistic fool you. Microsoft wants it to look like it's huge success when actually last year's pitfall merely left a wider gap for improvement. This happens with retailers all the time. If they're closed on a "Monday" national holiday one year, the next year when the date of that Monday is shifted, they will see a massive sales increase over the same "date" which makes the stores look good.

I'd brand it, but I've yet to find an animated GIF of the Attack of the Show "Shenanigans" graphic.

All Your Images Are Not Belong To Us

I legally downloaded this image from iStockphoto.com

The other day, a friend of mine asked me for help looking up specific images online. When I found out that it was for a published project, I told him that he can't just take whatever pictures he wants off the internet. He could get into big trouble for copyright infringement.

And he says to me, "No it isn't. The internet is public domain."

Um...no. Materials found on the internet are not public domain.

You may notice that I've added a disclaimer to my blog stating that most of the photos and videos on this blog are not mine. They aren't. I don't claim that they are. I suppose I could do one better and put source links under each photo. Since this blog is not for profit, I don't really run too big of a risk in getting into trouble for using images that aren't mine. When I used to write anime and manga reviews though, publishers requested that I only use their sanctioned images.

It's unlikely that anyone will give you a hard time for using images from the internet for a school project or private blog, but when you get into the professional world, you will need to either provide your own images or purchase them from a stock image source. Here are some examples of places you can legally purchase images from:

iStockphoto
Big Stock Photo
Stock Photo Expert
FotoSearch

EDIT: How appropriate that I should post this on the day that the Shepard Fairy case in fair use vs. the Associated Press is back in the news.

The People vs. EA Sports

You know, I always hated Monopoly. See, I have an older sister who loves the game, and as anyone who has ever had an older sibling will tell you...they will always take advantage of you. Since I was nearly three years younger, Carlie liked to play against me in Chess and Monopoly since she could always beat me as a kid. This instilled vile loathing for both games on my part.

But enough about my childhood traumas. I wanted to tell you about a new class action lawsuit against Electronic Arts over Madden NFL. Remember back in 2004 when EA got the exclusive rights to use NFL players for at least five years? (Which has since been extended to 2012) This basically shut out every other game developer from ever using NFL players in their games. It also left EA with a major marketing advantage.

However, due to this agreement, a lawsuit has popped up claiming that EA has used this monopoly to take advantage of consumers and gouge them for nearly $926 million. EA moved to dismiss the case, but failed. Anyone who has purchased a copy of Madden NFL from 2006 and on is eligible to join the lawsuit. Don't get your hopes up though. Even if EA loses or settles, you have to divide the settlement among however many millions of people purchased the games.

Remember how the people who won the Hot Coffee mod lawsuit against Take Two got a whopping $5-$35 refund? Whoopdie Doo.

Realistically, this suit isn't about earning a buck, it's about unfair monopolization that comes with exclusive contracts. Imagine what would happen if Activision scored contracts with Warner Music Group, Universal Music Group, Sony BMG, and EMI Group that would give Guitar Hero exclusive rights to use their songs. Harmonix and MTV would be SOL when it comes to Rock Band content. Consumers wouldn't have much choice when it comes to music games.

The same concept applies here. Gamers want the opportunity to live out their NFL dreams, but they deserve the right to play them with the game developer of their choosing.

Source: Kotaku, Joystiq