Another Artificial Market Created Thanks To Copyright: Download Insurance?
from the oh-come-on dept
Sneeje points us to a screenshot that's making the rounds (thanks, not surprisingly, to Reddit), demonstrating that GameStop is apparently offering consumers the ability to buy "download insurance" for an extra $3.95. Apparently, that extra money lets you redownload the product in the future (assuming GameStop still exists and/or any DRM servers are still functioning):
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: download insurance
Companies: gamestop
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
However, I downloaded several songs after they instituted this change, and ended up repaying and redownloading them because somehow they got corrupt during the initial download (one was a 130k file, when it was supposed to be several mb, so it looked like the download failed.) Add to it their crappy software that routinely blew-up, and it was nothing but fail. Now, of course, I go without, or download music I like from the band's website directly, but I know others that dropped e-music and went back to torrents and piracy.
Yet another painful example of the company greed (in this case, the company accepting bad licensing from the majors to "access" their material,) driving the customer away...but this is status quo for copyright maximalists, who would rather see the world burn than treat their customers well.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I think Mike has spoken about folks you a few times....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I started thinking of this when I started buying stuff off of Steam and thought "I really don't want to re-download all this again." Then I found I could export the files for a backup.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Also, the new WoW client only downloads something like 120MB to bootstrap it. After that, you can start playing and WoW will just stream the content as requested and download the remaining content if you're not immediately requesting something.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
I've ran into some issues with the patching system sometimes getting mad because of permission issues and temp folders, but that was years ago; not sure about that anymore, haven't tried.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Can you imagine the headache otherwise?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Thankfully blizzard cares because its like a 20gb download now with all the exspansions
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This article is forgetting something!
P.T. Barnum's the first in line.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: This article is forgetting something!
(As an aside: I'm kind of ok with the $5 "online pass" thing, because GameStop buying a used game from you for $5/$10 store credit, then selling it for $44.95 always cheesed me off - and it made me, and a lot of my friends, just pass around games we were done with instead of throwing them into the churning maw of the beast.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
*ha, I probably have that all goofed up, but this scheme does have a familiar ring.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
There is still a DRM layer to go through though.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Fraud?
Seems to me that what GameStop is saying is that if the initial internet download fails they take no responsibility for the fact that they never actually delivered a product to you but will keep your money anyway. With physical products, if you don't receive the product the implied contract has never been completed and they still owe you. I'm not sure why that should be any different for a digital product.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Fraud?
I don't think they operate that way, since they could easily generate and verify a SHA1 hash on completed downloads to save themselves from a lawsuit.
I bought a game from them the other day and when I just checked my account it says "Activations Remaining 3"... whatever that means.
The CD Key also was importable into Steam(a rarity) so I didn't pay the inflated insurance price or download it directly from them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Fraud?
Because with a physical item there is shipping (which leaves trails) and of course the item itself (like if you got it but it was damaged) whereas with a download they can literally lie through their teeth and say that they have a record of it being downloaded by your account and there would no accountabilty for it.
With a physical product there is some chance for getting hard proof you didn't get it or you got it but it was damaged. With a download its nothing but you word vs. theirs.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Fraud?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Why is this a "bad" thing?
And, I don't see anything that says you couldn't just make local backups. And this has the added portability and security.
Finally to say that some services offer this for "free" is true only if you assume that such amounts aren't already priced into the cost of the original download. I can't tell but it seems, for example, that the Gamestop "total" price for the same game is currently less than Steam.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Why is this a "bad" thing?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Why is this a "bad" thing?
Again, I am guessing about the whole clause thing because I would never care to read such a disclaimer or pay for such a service. (my opinion)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Why is this a "bad" thing?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hello, Steam!
"The 10,000 widgets will be assembled and delivered for $450,000. Oh, but if our truck driver falls asleep and zooms off a cliff, tough luck. You'll have to buy the whole load again. However, for a mere $75,000, we will add insurance!"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Hello, Steam!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Hello, Steam!
After 100 bucks. Paying 3.95 "insurance" for a product that costs 4.99 is mighty excessive.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I just never understand putting artificial limitations on these things, like stock image companies who make a download link valid for 1 hour. Why do that? Or only allowing you 3 download attempts before the link locks out. It doesn't stop piracy, it just makes genuine customers pissed off.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hmmm...No need to worry...At least for 18 months...Then you're screwed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Umm.. No.
"A back up copy of these Digital Good(s) will be available to you for download for up to eighteen (18) months from the date of purchase. "
18 months is the max. They can turn you off 1 week after you bought it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Would you rather have "up to one bananna" or "at least one bananna"?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
And this is why...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: And this is why...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No thanks, I'll take the DVD with a side of common sense.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The wrong way of looking at it
I've been to a number of sites selling digital content that offer this re-download service for a fee. Most them do it for one reason: they hope the customer doesn't catch the extra fee. And if the customer does catch it, so what- it's only $1.95 or $3.99, so it's not that big of a deal.
Multiply the $3.95 charged by GameStop by 1,000 customers and that's an easy $3,950, which is pure profit for the company. After all, it doesn't take much effort to allow the customer to re-download the file. But it takes effort on the customer's part to UNCHECK this "insurance".
I'm surprised it's taken this long for this practice to come under fire.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
So limiting the number of activations/download generally takes me out of the market for their products.
Steam, however, does get it right. I can install on as many computers as I like and makes recovering/rebuilding very fast and easy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Not saying it isnt a shady practice and why anyone shouldn't just by digital from Steam or something like it but that is probably their reasoning.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You need them, because the core service/product is so crappy they have to offer extra protection.
When I bought my dishwasher, they asked about the extra insurance... I asked them if the product was junky enough that it needed it... lol
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
"you want the insurance?"
"it's going to break?"
"no, but if it does..."
"so you think it's going to break."
"no, it's a good set."
"okay i'll take it."
"you want the insurance?"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It’s All In The Name
Instead of offering the multi-download option at a higher price, they called that the “regular” option, and renamed the cheaper one as a “single-download-only discount”, we probably wouldn’t be having this discussion.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: It’s All In The Name
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: It’s All In The Name
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Steam
From someone who has over 90 games on Steam... (credentials, check) I can't imagine how this is anything more than pulling money from loyal customers. It will make them some money in the short term but I believe this kind of practice will only push people towards Steam. I haven't even considered unlimited downloads a 'Feature' until today because of Steam. Add to that their regular discounts and their ability to give Indie games a competitive boost... (Terraria as a current example)
I guess the only thing I'm hedging on is that Steam won't disappear in my lifetime. If it does, they have promised us the ability to download each game DRM free before it happens. (prepares 10 TB hard drive). Hell, before I die I plan on including my steam account in my will. Something I could do before with DVDs but now I don't have to worry about format changes, scratched discs, etc...
Does Gamestop allow me to do this?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"We will unlock Everything" Myth
No where does a Valve Employee ever state that they will do this. They might have said they have the potential to, but no one has ever said they WILL do this.
This is a myth. Pure and simple.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "We will unlock Everything" Myth
BTW, any gaming site that has this MUST state what Valve actually said. Allot of them say, "According to Gabe, they will offer it after Valve goes bankrupt". This is not a valid quote. I want to see the actual words spoken (or listen to them if on a video).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Easy solution
Cheaper games, no drm, and no download insurance.
Disclaimer: no, I'm not affiliated with gog.com, just a happy customer.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What are they buying?
Of course in the case of the former I should be allowed to do with my legally purchased file that which I could do with legally purchased physical content; ie back-ups or loaning to friends. Where as the necessity and practice of backing up and loaning licenses is not a consumer right.
There are trade-offs and benefits for both retailer and consumer in both cases, and the seller needs to make clear to the buyer what transaction they're offering for sale.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
http://imageshack.us/f/803/extendeddownloadscrap.png/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Fraud
Maybe this policy is because GS believes most people are dishonest.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]