Jimquisition: Used Games Have A Right To Exist

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 NEXT
 

Yeah, the whole publisher attack on used games is garbage.

You can buy and sell used books, used CD's, and used DvD's. Any product that you buy, you can re-sell. At least, right now you can. If we let them shut down used games, then there's no reason book sellers couldn't use the exact same argument to shut down used book stores.

gphjr14:
It is a shame people don't realize they're being fucked over by DLC and online codes. When the game is bought brand new that is all the publisher is entitled to not one cent more.

Basically, your right, these online codes and other forms of DRM are just there to cut down on legal things.

I still think Publishers are just trying to jump the shark and land in Online Gaming area where games are sold through vendors like Steam or Origin. Abandoning the vessel of consoles.... But thats just me, consoles have a ton of generations left, just that every publisher seems to be knee jerking themselves into thinking consoles are going to die very soon, want to milk all the money off of those people then jump onto online distribution, when its just not true.

this video really didnt need to exist on this site. he is pretty much preaching to the choir. sure, there are people here who side with developers, but every thread ive seen about used games has like 8 pages of people defending used games and maybe like 10 people being critical of them

Still Life:

Baresark:

This model is fine, but limiting distribution to only the developers website is a sure fire way to not let your game reach a lot of people and not make a lot of money.

I'm not sold.

More indie developers are moving away from traditional publishing models, so this would indicate a shift. Also, to assume that devs only move into the business to make 'a lot of money' is problematic. Last I checked, most games developers want to make games because it was a 'passion', not an EA-style-money-maker.

Most indie developers do choose an outlet that nets them more money and more exposure though, not necessarily just in the case with Steam. Android SDK's are free, a lot of home made programs show up on the that platform. A lot of developers were duped into putting games exclusively on the Xbox indie game platform, much to their dismay. Think about the instance of Mojang. They were just making a game because they had a passion for it, do you think Notch would give back that money they have made on it? I know he wouldn't, it's going to fund their next project and it has already allowed them to expand the company by hiring more people. When Minecraft was in alpha, Notch would blog about how excited he was that he has expanded the office staff. I get into debates with a buddy of mine when he says that a company doesn't need Steam or GOG to make money, so why should they put it on there? The easy answer is, the more exposure they have, the better off they will always be, and the more money they will get.

I don't disagree with you in that developers are not in it to just make more money. If money was all they cared about, they would be a publisher or work for EA. But, if they get more capital, they can pursue larger projects, hire more people, and even afford to pay the people they do have better. And you better believe the owner of said company is doing his absolute best to turn a good profit. The profit motive is the main force behind any company. Even the YMCA, which is a "not for profit" corporation, has to worry about making a profit, even if they state their main goal is to help inner city kids. Profit is what drives any and all industries.

Scrumpmonkey:

Draech:

Answer: Im not. I am argueing that the producers can treat their product in any way shape or form they please, and when you buy used you are not paying them and therefore have no say in how thoes products are treated.

I guess this strikes at the heart of "Concept of ownership" and in terms of all other digital media games are being sold short. Take for example the argument that you are just buying a licence with i guess you could technically argue for; the same is true for a digital purchase for a DVD. Yet no-one in the industry cars about used DVD or bluray sales, its a non-issue. In an age when many games are mainly multiplayer focused and their single player sections don't really hold up on their own i don't see the argument that publishers are "investing more" in a product and so sould have more rights to it; they have slightly more control over acess and their actions are a thinly veild abuse of this control.

When you buy a game the terms of service do limit you but there is a kind of common expectation that when a physical product is bought then you should have a right to re-sell that product especially when the investment for a videogame i so very high. The publoshers can techically change the terms of service to what they like and the US courts seem depressingly OK with going along with the errosion of consumer rights but in somewhere like say, the EU encompassing such huge markets as the UK, Germany and france i don't think the publishers would win out in trying to enforce more and more restrictive licencing policies for physical products.

As a consumer you DO have certain rights and expectations of a product and as time goes by i think it looks more and more likely that if test cases are brought forward the rights of the consumer to hteir entertainment will win out.

Just one thing is I want to say on that.

The thing is you cannot compare products.

Just because it non-issue for other businesses doesn't mean it is a non-issue for this business. Gamestop made an business model encouraging people to trade in new games while people asked for them, that doesn't exists in music. Different factors affect different products. Even different products within the same genre. If not then every medium of entertainment should have the same amount of profits. To say that it doesn't affect affect another industry bears as much weight as saying "ticket sales make out a major part of games profit".

Now the reason I am so adamant on this subject is that I truly believe that it does alot more harm than what good it does you. When is the last time you have seen a bargain bucket with console games (that isn't used)? I see them ALL the time with PC titles.

If used games were removed today I belive the industry as a whole would be better of for it. I think we would see a lot more steam style sales (a part of the industry where used games are impossible), and a general better deal than what you get now. I would not be surprised if they started making "Preorder Skyrim today, Get oblivion for free" in order to push new titles while clearing out old merchandise. It worked for Red Faction on Steam.

I also think that if a person has 20 dollars he wants to spend on games, then he will spend them on games. Without the used market that got blasted with advertisement when they were new, more lowpriced indie titles might have a better shot of getting noticed.

Most importantly it will cut Gamestop out of the mix and get more profit to the publisher/developers and that means bigger, better games. Gamestop adds nothing to this mix. Only draws on the work.

When it comes to who has the most right over their product I am still going to side with the producer. You can vote with your valet. Its not that hard. Only buy stuff that you think treats you fairly. Otherwise leave it. Its entertainment, not insulin.

I'll tell ya this much - if they stopped people selling used games then I would stop buying games. I wouldn't be able to afford to buy a new product at Ģ40 (exchange rate LOL!) a go.

I don't think I've bought a single new copy of a game this entire console generation. Every single video game I own is used.

A lot of you guys arguing against used video games (why? why are you doing this?) and you're reaching like a midget with his insulin on the top shelf. I saw one guy even try to bring the entire philosophical concept of ownership into the debate. Way to put that philosophy degree to work, guy! It's just a shame that the concept of work is something you'll never have (philosophy degree lol!).

I'd quote but this page is multiplying like a Catholic hooker with a rubber allergy, every time I look there's a new page there's another two. It's hard to go back when the debate is already in full swing.

I'm just not getting why there is a debate in the first place. Used game might suck for the developer, but that's their problem, it's awesome for the consumer. I'm not really seeing how used game sales affects indie publishers or smaller titles without taking some truly Mike Powellesque leaps in logic.

Spot on Jim, people who bitch about used game sales really are especially aggravating. I honestly don't give a flying sky fuck what any corporation thinks about what I do with the shit games I've been tricked (or cunningly persuaded) into purchasing. I will sell them, simple as that, the dev's or pub's can fuck themselves with a rusty spoon.

There are also a lot of games that I would prefer to buy used simply for the fact that I hate their developers or publishers, everything touched by Activision for example.

............................

What?!?!

Well I can already tell this is going to be a wall of text waiting to happen So spoilering for space.

Guess this will be a TL; DR then.

If you can listen to Jim talk about such things and get behind his point, then you can use the same type of critical eye to see how the exact same problem plays out in other arenas. So would you kindly not line up to throw yourself and every other gamer under a bus in order to defend who youve been duped into thinking as your benevolent gaming benefactor? Because to applaud Jim for supporting used games, and then to tout the same sort of machine that he is trying to warn you about is not only blind, but it is incredibly hypocritical.

I'm very happy with this episode- I feel Jim's arguments are spot on when it comes to this topic.

The one thing I'd argue with is the idea of digital distribution, generally DD games are cheaper than physical copies, and I don't mind as much buying a mediocre game if I only paid $15-$30 for it just a few days after release (which Steam allows me to do). Yes you can't sell it afterward, but I still think it's not a completely unfair trade-off.

Totally agree, well said.

Used games are the only way i can afford games! And itīs a great way to make a game available to more people and to bring more interest to the gameīs sequels.

Thank god for Jim and thank god that VALVe does DLC right (A.K.A. 100% free after game purchase)

omg, I think I totally agree with MovieBob on this one... wait a second I always agree with movie bob, lets see, ahhh, this show is the Jimquisition. Yeah I agree with this Jim fellow totally on this one.

Personally I wouldn't be too sad to see the whole used games market go up in flames. I don't think anyone is doing wrong in buying a used game, but in terms of being a customer to the devloper/publisher; they aren't. And honestly, expecting the developer/publisher to treat you as a fully paying customer is just ridiculous. I like this bit from one of the eloquent people over at Ars Technica:

What other customers expect a used product be be identical to a new product? Buying a used car comes with increased wear (and thus decreased function). Buying a used book means you are risking page damage or a broken binding. Buying anything used means that you get a cheaper price for decreased function or increased risk.... if you know the game wont have multiplayer used, you can adjust what you are willing to spend on it, the same way you might offer a few hundred dollar[s] less for a used motorcycle due to rust.

Video games are different than most other used products, as the quality of the product doesn't decrease with age; the disc either works or it doesn't. Unlike the movie (which has home video) and music (touring and merchandise) industries, there are no secondary markets for games that publishers can tap into. Publishers and developers have one chance to make their money back with a game, and as long as online support is offered they have many chances to spend money on those playing that game. "Unlike the movies, we do not have a theater release. That boxed copy on the shelf (or digital download) is our only means of revenue generation. This is why we love digital delivery. There are no used games on Steam," another developer wrote to Penny Arcade. I know you guys catch a ton of s**t for talking about topics like this, but if even a small percentage of your readers walk away a little more educated on the subject then it is a big win for everyone (except gamestop)." Even Sony is looking into adding one-time use codes for its games.

Complain all you want: if you buy used games regularly, you're simply not the market anyone but GameStop cares about.

Draech:

Scrumpmonkey:

Draech:

Answer: Im not. I am argueing that the producers can treat their product in any way shape or form they please, and when you buy used you are not paying them and therefore have no say in how thoes products are treated.

I guess this strikes at the heart of "Concept of ownership" and in terms of all other digital media games are being sold short. Take for example the argument that you are just buying a licence with i guess you could technically argue for; the same is true for a digital purchase for a DVD. Yet no-one in the industry cars about used DVD or bluray sales, its a non-issue. In an age when many games are mainly multiplayer focused and their single player sections don't really hold up on their own i don't see the argument that publishers are "investing more" in a product and so sould have more rights to it; they have slightly more control over acess and their actions are a thinly veild abuse of this control.

When you buy a game the terms of service do limit you but there is a kind of common expectation that when a physical product is bought then you should have a right to re-sell that product especially when the investment for a videogame i so very high. The publoshers can techically change the terms of service to what they like and the US courts seem depressingly OK with going along with the errosion of consumer rights but in somewhere like say, the EU encompassing such huge markets as the UK, Germany and france i don't think the publishers would win out in trying to enforce more and more restrictive licencing policies for physical products.

As a consumer you DO have certain rights and expectations of a product and as time goes by i think it looks more and more likely that if test cases are brought forward the rights of the consumer to hteir entertainment will win out.

Just one thing is I want to say on that.

The thing is you cannot compare products.

Just because it non-issue for other businesses doesn't mean it is a non-issue for this business. Gamestop made an business model encouraging people to trade in new games while people asked for them, that doesn't exists in music. Different factors affect different products. Even different products within the same genre. If not then every medium of entertainment should have the same amount of profits. To say that it doesn't affect affect another industry bears as much weight as saying "ticket sales make out a major part of games profit".

Now the reason I am so adamant on this subject is that I truly believe that it does alot more harm than what good it does you. When is the last time you have seen a bargain bucket with console games (that isn't used)? I see them ALL the time with PC titles.

If used games were removed today I belive the industry as a whole would be better of for it. I think we would see a lot more steam style sales (a part of the industry where used games are impossible), and a general better deal than what you get now. I would not be surprised if they started making "Preorder Skyrim today, Get oblivion for free" in order to push new titles while clearing out old merchandise. It worked for Red Faction on Steam.

I also think that if a person has 20 dollars he wants to spend on games, then he will spend them on games. Without the used market that got blasted with advertisement when they were new, more lowpriced indie titles might have a better shot of getting noticed.

Most importantly it will cut Gamestop out of the mix and get more profit to the publisher/developers and that means bigger, better games. Gamestop adds nothing to this mix. Only draws on the work.

When it comes to who has the most right over their product I am still going to side with the producer. You can vote with your valet. Its not that hard. Only buy stuff that you think treats you fairly. Otherwise leave it. Its entertainment, not insulin.

This issue isn't black and white like most people make it out to be. I'm with Draech, it's Gamestop that's the problem, not used games in general. It isn't that much to ask that if Gamestop wants to have an official used game trading operation they should give at least one or two dollars per title to the developers who made the game. It's not an all out attack on used games, it's just asking that those who worked so hard on the game get rewarded for their efforts. I don't particularly care for DRM or online passes either, but they wouldn't be necessary if Gamestop would stop being such complete dicks.

As it stands right now, buying used games from Gamestop doesn't reward the people who actually make the product. If one were to describe capitalism in biological terms, Gamestop would be a parasite.

Sure people have a right to buy and sell used games, but one has to realize that the capitalist system runs on a risk/reward structure, the less reward you give to the developers, the less good games you're going to see. It's that simple. Jim's argument about used games setting up a big payout for sequels is a weak argument at best. The best way to ensure a sequel is for the first game to make a lot of money. Period. Consumer rights are good and all, but you have to remember that games ARE A LUXURY PRODUCT, so you don't have a right to them.

I agree with the bit about devs bitching and moaning that they aren't making enough money even with DLC being their extra money tickets. Yeah, screw armor/weapon reskins and $10 map packs, but even so.

I also can't justify buying Madden games because they're literally a $60 DLC update. That is literally what it is, it's a goddamn roster update that they could be doing through DLC but they like having millions of fucking idiots give them their sixty bucks. Y'know what they could be doing instead? They could put out ONE game, update the main roster through patches and supply DLC such as for-fun teams and stadiums, joke game modes, alternate/legacy uniforms and for-fun joke modes like "field of ice" or "stretchy arms" or even "pain mode" (players slip on the field a lot, players' arms can stretch and catch passes they might not and more frequent and serious injuries). You may have noticed I said joke game modes twice. Well, I want a game mode where the goal posts attack you.

*applauds heartily*

I have loads of games in my home. I also have this computer. And a couple of bronze unicorn bookends. And books between them. And so on.

Do I impoverish the PC maker by reselling my computer when I decide to upgrade? Do I make paupers of book publishers by selling my tomes to used-book stores when I tire of reading them? Does the garage sale where I fob off these bookends represent a clear and present danger to someone's financial dominion?

I bought it. I can re-sell it. Don't like it? Sue me.

Very well said this week Jim, I just hope we never run out of high street game shops, or eBay's or Amazon's and the like.

Because if everything goes digital distribution, then prices will go too high and there will be NOTHING we could do about it.

As a side note, thank God for Jim (and Steam).

Think he hit the nail on the head there, and pretty much owned the used vs pirated game debate.

I stopped watching this show after a couple of episodes, and thought I'd give it another shot. Wow. Talk about pandering to the stupid masses.

The whole argument here is "they did something bad, so they can't be upset when I do something that seems less bad from my perspective!!". What awful logic. By that train of thought, Josef Fritzl was forgiveable because Hitler was worse.

I feel cheated out of seven minutes of my life listening to an (for want of a better word) "argument" that any 12 year old could successfully obliterate. Thank God I gave up on this show so early on.

I have gained new respect for you Jim because i have the same belief.

ReiverCorrupter:

This issue isn't black and white like most people make it out to be. I'm with Draech, it's Gamestop that's the problem, not used games in general. It isn't that much to ask that if Gamestop wants to have an official used game trading operation they should give at least one or two dollars per title to the developers who made the game. It's not an all out attack on used games, it's just asking that those who worked so hard on the game get rewarded for their efforts. I don't particularly care for DRM or online passes either, but they wouldn't be necessary if Gamestop would stop being such complete dicks.

As it stands right now, buying used games from Gamestop doesn't reward the people who actually make the product. If one were to describe capitalism in biological terms, Gamestop would be a parasite.

Sure people have a right to buy and sell used games, but one has to realize that the capitalist system runs on a risk/reward structure, the less reward you give to the developers, the less good games you're going to see. It's that simple. Jim's argument about used games setting up a big payout for sequels is a weak argument at best. The best way to ensure a sequel is for the first game to make a lot of money. Period. Consumer rights are good and all, but you have to remember that games ARE A LUXURY PRODUCT, so you don't have a right to them.

I think alot of account hassle could be ironed out by optimising the system. A simple thing like an app on a smart phone that would allow the retailer to scan a barcode and transfer the code to your phone for later transference to your console or directly to your account could make the whole process smother for the consumer.

This is ofc still a clunky solution, but if the right minds were set to it then I am sure they can come up with a better system.

Verlander:
By that train of thought, Josef Fritzl was forgiveable because Hitler was worse.

Annnnnnnd less than 5 pages in, someone invokes Godwin's Law. And reductio ad absurdum

Congradulations sir!

OT: I agree Jim. Good point.

This is my favorite episode to date. I have some friends who need to see this gospel ASAP.

THAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAANK GOD FOR JIM!

Seriously though, what a bunch of shit. The games have already been paid for. Do car companies whine when used car sales cut into their massive margins? Yes. The difference is that car owners don't take their side.

CM156:

Verlander:
By that train of thought, Josef Fritzl was forgiveable because Hitler was worse.

Annnnnnnd less than 5 pages in, someone invokes Godwin's Law. And reductio ad absurdum

Congradulations sir!

Nice to see someone was on the lookout for it.

Video games are the only products that a customer can't return or exchange if unsatisfied with it. Imagine being stuck with a poor quality TV and be unable to return it or get a different model. Jim's got the "control" part down too, publishers want to control every aspect of your experience so they can force you to buy a sequel.

With no dedicated servers, the publisher just has to shut down the company servers to force you to buy the new game to continue your online play. They took control away from the customers completely there.

Also: Digital distribution.
When publishers abandon physical media and force you to use their own online service for exclusive access, imagine all the hassles with all the games coming out if you have to deal with 4-6 publishers' versions of steam.
image

Verlander:
By that train of thought, Josef Fritzl was forgiveable because Hitler was worse.

If by "forgiveable" you mean reintegrate him into society, then yes, he very much is after proper therapy.
Or rather would be, because he'll most likely die in prison unless he gets much older than 90.

I almost always buy new, and never trade in my games. I keep my games because I never know when I want to play them again, and how inaccessible they may be in the future. When I buy a used game, its because its for a system that no longer produces new games such as ps1. The fact that if this trend continues, in 20 years we will never be able to play games we love today just because we didnt have the funds to buy them all when they came out is abhorring to me.
I dont always agree with Jim, but this time he he hit the nail on the head.

Yeah, EA's going to have to pull something MIGHTY special out of it's ass to get me to sign up to Origin, or more honestly, Assgas, as it's an inferior kind of Steam.

The big companies lose any right to complain when they make it clear they give not one particle of a shit about right and wrong, legal or not, just about what isn't giving them the most money.

When it comes down to it, piracy is pretty much an impossible enemy, can't be beaten, most pirates just don't think they're going to get caught, so it'll keep on happening.

However, with the sheer weight of cash behind the big companies, they may be able to destroy the used games market. That's as good as killing piracy, to them, with none of the moral right behind it.

Here's a tip, if you want to kill preowned sales, and it's not just about squeezing the last few cents from anyone with a games machine,release an untradable Modern Warfare 3 for $40, and a tradeable one for $60.

Give us the money we'd trade it in for, off the price of the game in the first place.

That's pretty much how Steam works for me, I buy stuff in sales, knowing it's entirely untradeable, but knowing I paid half price or less.

when buying new, I shop around, and check for deals, and make sure I pay no more than 75% of the new price.

Oops, I've admitted to looking for discount offers on new games, I guess I'm a pirate, EA, come get me.

TL;DR version - twats.

slightly longer version- twats, the lot of em.

Draitheryn:
I almost always buy new, and never trade in my games. I keep my games because I never know when I want to play them again, and how inaccessible they may be in the future. When I buy a used game, its because its for a system that no longer produces new games such as ps1. The fact that if this trend continues, in 20 years we will never be able to play games we love today just because we didnt have the funds to buy them all when they came out is abhorring to me.
I dont always agree with Jim, but this time he he hit the nail on the head.

I'm gonna go ahead and hope you don't have to worry too much, some will slip thru the cracks, but as storage and bandwidth naturally increase, I think we'll find the catalogs of Steam, GOG.com, Green man Gaming and the like widening to include more and more old classics, prepatched, pretweaked and ready to work on Windows 7.

I still maintain a digital version should be cheaper however, no creation costs, and no trade in value, means I want at least a 25% discount on retail boxed copies.

I genuinely believe the next gen will be fitted with a hard drive, and there'll be no discs however.

I also believe the hard drives will be bespoke in some way, and both Sony and MS will fuck us rigid for like $200 for 500gb. To store the stuff we're buying from them!

Jim Sterling:
Used Games Have A Right To Exist

Publishers would have you believe that used games are the biggest threat to the games industry. Even gamers will sympathize with these huge companies and equate the used market with piracy. Unlike piracy, however, used games have plenty of right to exist and are not the demonic entity others make them out to be. Jim Sterling, naturally, has the band-aid of reality to plaster over your fantasy cuts.

Watch Video

Hi Jim. As an economist, I can't help but feel that there's a whole side of the used games argument that you're missing, or at least you didn't address in your last two videos (Relevant but unnecessary Wikipedia article for further reading).

I need to lay out some groundwork first, but bear with me:

You can categorize all goods in two axes:
*Rivalrous goods (goods that, when consumed by one person, can no longer be consumed by another person) versus Non-Rivalrous goods (goods that when consumed by one person can still be consumed by others); and
*Excludable goods (list here if you can exclude certain people from its consumption) versus Non-excludable goods (list here if you cannot exclude certain people from its consumption).

That's a bit arid, so here's a more relatable and useful deduction from the definitions above:

*PUBLIC GOODS is what we call Non-rivalrous, Non-excludable goods - courts of law, a military to defend our countries from foreign invaders, police service, public lighting and so on. You cannot realistically exclude any one person from the benefits of these goods, and the fact that Jon enjoys their benefits does not exclude Paul from doing the same. Because of the nature of these goods, it is best if they are provided by a governing body and paid for with compulsory taxation.

*COMMON GOODS is what we call Rivalrous, Non-excludable goods - for instance, if you have a river whose waters belong to no one and can be used by anyone. Common Goods are problematic (see The Tragedy of the Commons), but you can solve this problematic by re-defining property rights (see Coase Theorem) and turning them into Private Goods; I won't go into detail as Common Goods aren't central to my point.

*PRIVATE GOODS is what we call Rivalrous, Excludable goods and make up the vast majority of goods we consume- food, electricity (if you don't pay your bills you stop getting it), clothing, most things that private companies sell. Capitalism works great when dealing with Private Goods, which is most goods we produce and consume anyway.

*CLUB GOODS is what we call Non-rivalrous, Excludable goods - books, movies, games and pretty much all intellectual property goods fall into this category. Club Goods and their characteristics, I feel, are pretty central to the debate about used games.

You know the ads- "You wouldn't download a car!", or whatever it is they say. Well, of course not; I _cannot_ download a car. A car is a Private Good, and it is Rivalrous; if you have a car, I cannot have that very same car. But if you have a PC Game? Then that's a Club Good; I _can_ make a copy of it, and two people can enjoy the very same game.

The Movies, Music and Games industries all sell Club Goods, and have been doing their darnedest to try to restrict our usage of their products until they resemble Big Mac-esque Private Goods. The Games Industry's assault on used games is nothing more than one more front in this war they wage- where piracy and used games are both obstacles for their goal of turning games into non-durable Private Goods. Physical copies of Used Games already resemble durable Private Goods, and a good deal of the logic you used on your show to defend Used Games was to compare them to other durable Private Goods.

My point in writing all of this is: The games industry (as well as the music and movies industries) is different from the soft drink and shoe industries. When someone says that piracy is stealing, they are applying Private Goods rationale to Club Goods; the concept of stealing makes little sense when we're talking about Club Goods. When Publishers pull stunts like Online Passes that punish and inconvenience their paying customers, most people are rightly bewildered as to why they would do such a thing; surely Nike and Coca-Cola wouldn't do things like that! Piracy, Used Games, DRM, Online Passes and other such issues are best understood if looked at from the point of view of Club Goods and their particular set of characteristics.

- Roberto Desormeaux, Chilean economist.

alinos:
I;m only against Used games, When they are sold through the same retail store that sells the real thing.

If you want to buy used games it should be through craigslist,Ebay, or a cashconverters(not sure of the american equivilant(or if there is one))

This way there isn't that checkout conversion that everyone who has been in a gamestop or EB hates. of "You can get the used copy 5 dollars cheaper" Being able to have a last ditch attempt to divert a customer that was going to buy the new copy to a used is the biggest issue in my mind.

If you remove used games from the gamestores that sell them, you put the onus on the customer to go and find a copy(even if it means Gamestop were to open a used game's shop chain) seperate it from the new purchases.

And while i have no conclusive evidence to back up this claim. I expect that when someone buys a used game even if they were going to buy it new, the fact that it's a used copy means it is much more likely to be sold back to the same place it was just bought from.

The fact is that everyday people can make far more than Gamestop will ever give them for their used titles, and at the same time gamers can get a reasonable price instead of the minimum amount gamestop believe needs to be taken off the title to make it appealing to buy

So you think it would be better for publishers if people could NEVER buy new from a Gamestop store. Brilliant!

Why should YOU care if I buy a used game from eBay or Gamestop? There is no logical reason why you should care one way or they other.

Here here! If the physical copy of a game has been sold, it's the right of the buyer to do with that one copy as he wishes, provided he doesn't make an unauthorized copy. If they want to sell it off to someone else, they have that legal right.

Hell, that whole unlockable content on the disk thing isn't a terrible idea if publishers want to make money off it. But then again, if they're going to make some of the content locked and requiring additional cost to unlock, can I as a person that might not want that locked stuff pay less for a game? Please?

I don't have a current-gen console. Too expensive. But if I did, I certainly wouldn't put up with the kind of crap publishers try to force on me. And I would frequent the used game establishment. Because in order to get that used copy, someone had to pay the publisher.

The amount of effort that goes into making games untradeable would not be accepted in any other form of product in the market. Imagine buying a car that ceased to function if you tried to sell it, no one would accept that.

As gamers we do oursleves quite an injustice by allowing our desire for new product to overide our self interest in the long term. We have taken to such outrageously flawed concepts as DLC and Paid BETA access with gusto and in the long run we will pay dearly.

Im as guilty as the next person and I hate myself for it.

Having seen that apparently there are people that defend the developers and publishers on this specific stance, I feel defeated and dirty as a gamer.

This has proven to me that the gaming companies won, and managed to melt the brains of some of their customers into... I don't know exactly why.

It is getting more and more difficult, every day, to remain a gamer. I already won't buy products from certain companies. I won't buy titles that sell first-day DLCs. I won't buy games with unreasonable DRM.

And, why? Because, sadly, the majority is at the very least neutral to these predatory practices, this giving companies carte blanche to squeeze us even further.

But I didn't believe they could mold our collective minds that much. Apparently, I was wrong, yet again.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Registered for a free account here