Jimquisition: Used Games Have A Right To Exist

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

This is kind of a tough one since I hate game publisher execs and Gamestop with equal ferocity.

nikki191:
console gamers need to take a long hard look at pc gaming, what companies did to it, how the used game business does not exist and you are pretty much forced to register every game you buy. that is the future of console gaming and its going to come very soon.

Exactly. The example of where console gaming is heading is right before everyone's eyes but they refuse to see it and to make matters worse, you won't find Steam sales on your console. You will be paying top dollar the entire console cycle because the big three won't need to compete with retail and used sales will be impossible. You think you'll ever see the Wii Virtual Console games go on sale? That is the future for console games. Your disc based games will be just as crippled as digital download only games are today.

Jim, I support you in the whole, "Screw greedy publishers" thing, especially after reading about the atrocities of Activision. Still, it looked like you were contradicting yourself when you were describing reselling bad games as our only recourse, while simultaneously showing a gamefly advert. I've got to say, thanks to gamefly, I can always be sure I want the game before I pay to keep it. The only downside, of course is the monthly fee, but I still find it preferable to buying games from retail.

Wow! I sounded kind of like an advert myself there.

People still buy games on discs? I thought we were done with that tomfoolery.

Invader_Ace:
Jim, thanks for, making "The Live by Capitalism, Die by Capitalism" argument. It's one you never see brought up, at least clearly enough. If the industry wants to rake in the profits through the system, then fuck them saying I can't sell my stuff.

It's Capitalism bitches!

Uhm, but if you think it's fine to sell used games because "capitalism, bitches!", then you can't complain when the publishers add stuff like DLCs and require you to pay to go online and various other crap, because that's also "capitalism, bitches!"

I though the entire episode was idiotic. It was just "EA is bad so let's be bad as well because when we're bad it's good lol", "selling used games isn't the same as pirating because it's on a smaller scale!", and several minutes of whining and bitching about how you people think that your expensive luxury hobby is too expensive... well thank god it's a luxury item then and not bloody food or antibiotics. The entire previous episode was just an exercise in unwarranted self-entitlement. "I PAY MONEY AND THUS MUST BE TREATED AS A GOD", followed by whining and bitching about how the needless luxury items that we apparently deserve to be treated well for spending money on cost too much money.

Yeah, talk about "having your cake and eating it too". Entitled but unobligated, the perfect phrase to describe this nonsense.

Draech:

Realitycrash:

Draech:

Yeah because this is all new. No1 has ever made a pay as you go system for entertainment before.... cept since the invention of entertainment.

I'm sorry, but you didn't answer my question, you just referenced that there ARE places where you pay from time to time (such as movies), but they never sell you any property, so your argument (if it even was one?) is invalid.
Answer the question, please.

Cable TV

But putting that aside Movie tickets still count. A game in a box is just a movie ticket. It has a playtime and it has an end. Thoes that dont have an extra service, usually one that they pay for.

But putting that aside you are changing the question. There is no proberty involved in games. Do you pay for the disk or the entertainment on the disk? You ne to categorise it as entertainment rather than proberty. and all of a sudden its not a big issue that they try to change it as a pay as you go system.

Cable TV is a service. No property changes hands. A movie is a service, the ticket is just your proof of purchase which is ripped in half when you enter the screen room. It's not property that you keep because it has value.

A game is a product, ownership switched hands between the retailer and you. The publisher lost ownership when they sold it to the retailer. It's really simple and you have to go out of your way to pretend not to understand that.

When you misspelled "property" once I overlooked it but when you did it twice...well why?

You do OWN games but you just can't make illegal copies of them. That where copyright law comes in, copyright law governs who can make legal copies and that is the publisher. You can make a backup copy but you can't sell it and must destroy it if you sell the original copy.

To put it in perspective, you OWN your car but you cannot legally use it to commit a crime. You can't use a game that you own to commit a crime (ie, violate copyright laws).

The biggest way that the game industry has brainwashed people was to convince them they don't own that which they bought. After they condition you to believe that, then they can easily convince you that used sales are bad, that DLC is good and that online passes are necessary. Nevermind the record profits, they can convince you that they are in the poor house.

In essence...

I believe that whoever produces a good has a right to offer whatever terms they seem fit as conditions to sell their product.

If a publisher wants to sell their game only to people who stand on their head at the store to prove that they really want it, power to them.

If customers disagree with the conditions provided, that publisher should feel the disincentive to pull shit like this due to lost sales.

So... in essence... guys, just -don't buy- games that come with this kind of bullshit.

Verlander:
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 presume you are going to want the additional 30 sec that you took to type this post back as well?

agree with him in every way. i want to get rid of games i dont play or dont like anymore. doesnt matter if its on steam or not. if you dont like a game, you should be able to sell it to others or get even a voucher card from the used game store, that you can buy a other game with it.
i did that few times and it works perfectly. but later on the store dint accept anymore my pc games because of the cd key or it was activated over steam and therefor not able to re-sell it. now i have a bunch of games in my collection i dont want and i cant get rid of them.
i have to be really careful what games i buy and have to hope that i can enjoy it or is really good as some claim or reviews.

and i got a bit depressed when i saw the bullfrog logo. thinking about how much fun syndicate wars is. how many small but very good companies have bin destroyed because of the big once like EA.

used games aren't the problem, GAME STOP is the problem, especially when they sell a game that's been out a week for 5 bucks cheaper and offer it to you when you try to buy the game. why do they do that? it's not because they care and want to save you money, it's because that 55 freaking bucks goes straight to gamestop. so they make bank from the first sale loss a little by buying it back and then make EVEN MORE BANK when they sell it for 55 bucks

I have no problems with used games, or the buying/selling there of. What I do have a problem with is the business practices of Game Stop. They can go suck on a rusty chainsaw.

I'm really digging this series. Good job Jim, keep up the good work!

dystopiaINC:
used games aren't the problem, GAME STOP is the problem, especially when they sell a game that's been out a week for 5 bucks cheaper and offer it to you when you try to buy the game. why do they do that? it's not because they care and want to save you money, it's because that 55 freaking bucks goes straight to gamestop. so they make bank from the first sale loss a little by buying it back and then make EVEN MORE BANK when they sell it for 55 bucks

Valid point, but publishers are tackling this problem the wrong way. Instead of finding ways to punish used buyers, they should be finding ways to reward new buyers. Pack new games with special one time codes for things that don't affect the actual game content such as special costumes, the game soundtrack, coupons for other games owned by the publisher, etc. Not ripping out chunks of the game, making used buyers shell out more money while wasting new buyers' time by making them prove to the publishers that they bought it new.

Well...

I essentially agree on the main point. But how Jim got there was a pretty twisted road.

If you accept or benefit from one aspect of capitalism, you've given a waiver to anything else capitalism might do? Seriously? So just because I run a small business or take a drug that was developed with private money, I'm somehow bound to accept it if a company dumps toxic waste into my water supply or quietly changes its contract terms and then sues everyone who's unknowingly breaking the terms of the new contract?

The other big one is: let's not pretend, even for a moment, that servers don't cost money to maintain. Certainly this is a good reason to let independent and free-spirited fans run their own servers for as long as they want to keep playing the game, or work out some sort of non-centralized network model where everyone keeps part of the code bouncing around with spare cycles. But while, for whatever various reasons, companies are solely responsible for keeping customers' servers running, it's costing them money. And while Buyer #1 in the normal course of things may quite possibly get tired of dealing with sociopaths on sugar rushes and decide not to play online multiplayer within six months to a year, Buyer #2 of that used game is approaching that multiplayer experience as a new thing and may not tire of it for another six months to a year, and so on. All of which requires keeping the servers going, likely as not for no additional capital. Does that automatically justify Day 1 DLC or Online Passes? Hell no. It says a great deal about the producers' attitudes toward their customer base and how they generate their profits that many treat network maintenance as an onerous burden that they'll shrug off as soon as possible rather than as their contribution towards building a thriving and active community. But that cost is there, and while you might sell a car to someone, you would likely feel less than thrilled with the buyer of your car if they showed up on your doorstep a week later and demanded you pay for their next tank of gas.

One last note, while we're talking about how great capitalism and "the market" is: GameStop doesn't just sell used games, it makes huge profits from doing so. If it were really subject to market forces, the fact that it has a dozen copies of Mario Kart DS gathering dust behind the glass would mean that game would diminish in cost. At least down to the point where they were only (heaven forbid) making a 200%-300% profit on the thing off of what they offered the seller in credit. While I would hardly expect every pawn shop and used DVD store to do so, GS could nip a whole lot of this problem in the bud if it would just, say, give back 5% of its used games sales to the game's publisher. GS would still make a ridiculous profit on the product its own customer base provides, the publishers would have a new revenue stream and stop bitching so much, and the consumer would still have its used games, now without a smidgen of guilt on the side.

What's that game at 4:27?

Also, this is probably your best episode yet, Jim. Bloody hell, that all needed to be said. Thank god for you indeed. Great job.

OH GOD!

Once again! THANK JIM ALMIGHTY FOR JIM!

I've been saying that for years! God, I hope that now that Jim has made this clear, everyone decides to listen to him cause, you know, he's a public figure and he's surely right. Although in this case, I'm not being sarcastic.

Trades are actually reasonable. I work at Gamestop and I brought this argument up last week while I was at work. I've always thought that trades were a horrible feature, where you can only get like 50 cents for some games and maybe 22 to 30 for a brand new game traded in. Usually when I'm right, they just won't ague the point. However, the manager replied:

"Well, you know once someone plays the game brand new and all, it is considered used immediately after that. So we're not gonna give them their 60 dollars back for a game they played for a couple of days and they decided it sucked. If they trade the game around the same time it was released, they get as much as possible, which is close to 40 bucks which is not that bad. But after that, there's nothing we can do about it. If the game is older and in bad condition, it should be understandable that they're not gonna get as much for it."

And you know what? It made sense. For the first time ever, it made sense. It's all business! Look, no one is being forced to trade in their games. It's just a choice. And yeah, you don't get that much. But seeing this from a customer's point of view, I really don't care as long as I can get to buy a cheaper game.

Gamestop offers people to buy used games for many reasons, but the one advantage they have over new is that if the game sucks balls, you can return it within a week; no questions asked. Yes, there are games that deserve to be bought brand new. For example, I am getting Batman and AC: Revelations brand new. But for me, games like Killzone 3 or Bulletstorm are not worth 60 bucks because I'll be done with them within a week.
So you know what, people? Do your research before you buy games! You plan on trading that MW2 copy you have? Check the used price first and get an idea of how much you'll get. You're ok with that? Trade it and get something better. You're not? Perfectly fine, but don't be bitching about trades then.

On the same note (And I'm glad Holy and Omnipresent Jim brought it up), used games are not a crime! A) Publishers do get a profit; games that just won't sell as brand new anymore for whatever reason are sent to us to be sold as used because the chances of selling a used game nowadays are higher than selling brand new copies, believe it or not. Everybody wants to save a buck! B) If it was a crime, Gamestop wouldn't do it. And for that matter, we would all in jail. You would be in jail for trading that game in. Your brother would be in jail for selling his copy of Fifa 11 to his cousin. Your mom would be in jail for selling your system to a friend of hers while you were gone. Your grandma would be in jail for buying a used game for your birthday. So no, it's not a crime. You may not like it but it's not a crime.

You know, I'm not gonna keep repeating what Jim already said. But if you ask me, in the end, it's up to the developers to force people to buy their games brand new (If they're so butthurt about it) not by imposing online passes on us or whining like sissies about used games. It's up to them by giving us a good game. Believe me, finding a used copy of Black Ops was impossible for the first 6 months after the game came out. No one wanted to trade it in! So people had to buy the game brand new. Up until now, we only have like 2 or 3 copies of Black Ops at work and as soon as we get them, they're gone. And all of you know Black Ops isn't the greatest game ever but hey, if Black Ops can do it, what's stopping others from doing the same? But hey, if your game is crap and you know it (50% discount after the game came out *coughDukeNukemcough*), then don't whine about it.

Bottom line: Gamestop is not doing anything illegal. Whether you support them or not, whether you hate them or not, they're not doing anything illegal. It's just business. I don't see people making such a big deal about used car sales or...eBay, for that matter. And yes, it's essentially the same. So once again, thank the Maker for Jim.

Where were those clips with the white bunny from? Does anybody know?

First third: Jim burns a straw man. OF COURSE used games aren't as BAD as piracy. Still doesn't mean they're FUCKING GOOD.

Second third: Jim treats us to a vaguely coherent rant about capitalism. Yes, corporate greed and consolidation are BAD THINGS. You know another corporation that's mercilessly squeezed out competitors, all the while cheating both its employees and its customers? GAMESTOP.

Last third: Bluster and fake indignation - Jim gets his games early and free, as his Human Revolution episode made ABUNDANTLY clear.

I'm sure the majority of the comments I won't bother to read are fawningly positive on this video. Cheap populism has that effect. But beyond this post, I won't bother to argue - I think I'll just wait 5 years, to when digital distribution has rendered this "discussion" irrelevant.

Baresark:

Most indie developers do choose an outlet that nets them more money and more exposure though, not necessarily just in the case with Steam.

I know about the significance of turning over a profit in any business venture; I'm not contesting that.

I think we're pretty much on the same page. There's a lot more flexibility to be found with digital distribution, and that flexibility can be augmented by establishing your owns means of marketing and distribution. This is the crux of my point. It's a model that could boost potential gains for indie developers, as traditional means of publication are mostly out of the question. Word of mouth has a bit more power online. The mod scene is a great example of that.

And lets face it. Not everyone who starts up in game development is going to see the sort of success that Notch has. His success is like 1:10000 when you consider how many small-time devs are just scraping their way through the indie scene.

I agree with pretty much all of the points that Jim has raised upon his video this week. Everyone has the right to sell something they don't particularly want to have cluttering up the house. As I've said before, if you sell something - you lose the right to bitch about it when they in turn sell it on.

After all, a buddy of mine was going to sell a console to his local retailer and they would have given him a pittance for it. Being a good buddy

But surely the best way to sell on a game that you don't want is to sell it directly to a chum rather than a retailer. At least a chum won't nickel and dime you.

I still don't quite understand why people still defend the publisher, they have been shafting the developers by not giving them the profits they're entitled to and they shaft us gamers by having chunks cut out of the game and resold as DLC. Publishers are every bit as bad as the retailers.

Digital distribution is coming, and I'll bet that this has publishers and retailers running scared. They're both screwing anyone and everyone over to milk the system for all that it's worth before it cuts them out.

Until then, let the children like Bobby Kotick cry about lost revenue - because all that's happening now will be a drop in the ocean in the future. Especially when the developers will be selling directly to the gamer.

Excelent episode Jim. Thank God for you.

The only used game I've ever bought was the PC version of Final Fantasy VII, and that is only because it was impossible to find it new in 2001 -_- Aside from that, I've never bought another used game ever since, not because I think they are evil, no. I just love the smell of a new game case, and the feel of freshly printed glossy gaming manual and the sound of wraping paper being torn off.
That said, I realise people's right to do as they please with the product they've bought and their right to buy something used. I could never understand why game companies bitch so much about used games market. You don't see Ford or Volkswagen moaning about used cars sales, you also don't see people with torches and pitchforks around flee markets, auction houses or libraries (*gasp* they let people read our books for free!!!!111one The nerve!).
So I have one advice (a request if you please) to all the game publishers and an occasional developer: GET OVER YOURSELVES, BITCHES!

Edit: I wonder why people feel entitled to let the world know that they didn't lke this show from the start, but for some reason gave it another try and still didn't like it. And it only happens in Jimquisition threads! I for example don't like Zero Pumctuation so I a) don't watch it (I'm not a masochist); and b) I don't go to ZP threads to specifically tell people how I don't like it. It's kinda like going to the Blue Oyster Bar and start telling everybody that you're a homophobe.
You know what chums? Nobody fucking cares so just move along.

Crono1973:

Draech:

Realitycrash:

I'm sorry, but you didn't answer my question, you just referenced that there ARE places where you pay from time to time (such as movies), but they never sell you any property, so your argument (if it even was one?) is invalid.
Answer the question, please.

Cable TV

But putting that aside Movie tickets still count. A game in a box is just a movie ticket. It has a playtime and it has an end. Thoes that dont have an extra service, usually one that they pay for.

But putting that aside you are changing the question. There is no proberty involved in games. Do you pay for the disk or the entertainment on the disk? You ne to categorise it as entertainment rather than proberty. and all of a sudden its not a big issue that they try to change it as a pay as you go system.

Cable TV is a service. No property changes hands. A movie is a service, the ticket is just your proof of purchase which is ripped in half when you enter the screen room. It's not property that you keep because it has value.

A game is a product, ownership switched hands between the retailer and you. The publisher lost ownership when they sold it to the retailer. It's really simple and you have to go out of your way to pretend not to understand that.

When you misspelled "property" once I overlooked it but when you did it twice...well why?

First of all I am translating as a go here. And you are going to bat me with spelling?
I'm terribly sorry I wasn't born speaking English.

Second.
You dont own the product that you haven't bought. The producers choose to sell it to you in any way shape or form. As a combination of property and services (like cable TV. I used that as an example because of the hardware that comes with a service. I suppose cellphones would have been better).
Games are no different. Hardware and a service. Now that is really simple. Why do you think that your right of ownership trumps the producers?
You own the product you have bought correct, problem is you have bought an item with a connected service. And like I already said. If you dont pay the producers, you dont get the service.

Buying a video game that comes on a CD/DVD and runs in a piece of machinery you own for as long as you want isn't like buying a movie ticket. It's like buying a movie on DVD. Since... you can watch it as many times as you like, you can give it to your kid brother if you're bored of it, and you can sell it if you want. Just like a video game. Steam works even though there's no tangible product, because your games are there forever and ever once you buy them. You "own" them. That and there are occasionally giant sweeping sales that are way too good to pass up.

Really, all this tomfoolery is about who gets what slice of the pie. Corporations, especially giant ones, are always looking to expand their bottom dollar and will use the "fair share" if it thinks it'll go in its favor. But really, it's not about right and wrong anymore. If a company pisses off its customers, those customers tend to go elsewhere. The games industry is much better off working with its customers in a reasonable manner than trying to nickel-and-dime them every bit they can take. I'm sure there's a solution out there for the server thing that will make both customers and the companies happy.

Draech:

Richard Allen:

Draech:

Fantastic. Could not have said it better myself

I still cant believe he wants to whine for 3 full episodes with these flawed arguments.

Maybe those smaller publishers are are just making bad games? No really, plenty of small games that I have never heard of get plenty of coverage if they are good. I see at least one indie game a month that I go out and buy, and I don't sit hunting on gamesites for this shit.

No but yea it in no way could be that the smaller games are just over priced or bad..... nooooo it's the used sales. It's a bunch of bs and while it doesn't surprise me anymore it blows my mind that you all will take it up the ass to defend these companies. It's called capitalism, as he so aptly pointed out. It doesn't matter if your game is big or small if it's good it will float. torchlight, castle crashers, the entire humble bundle.... i could go on so rather then sitting there and say all his arguments are flawed how about you provide a counter argument, kinda like what I did there to you.

Ok
Its its capitalism right? So why do you have a problem with companies changing their payment method that ensures them greater revenue?

Except it ceases to be TRUE Capitalism when they try to turn a free market into a corporate monopoly.

MorphingDragon:

Draech:

Richard Allen:

Maybe those smaller publishers are are just making bad games? No really, plenty of small games that I have never heard of get plenty of coverage if they are good. I see at least one indie game a month that I go out and buy, and I don't sit hunting on gamesites for this shit.

No but yea it in no way could be that the smaller games are just over priced or bad..... nooooo it's the used sales. It's a bunch of bs and while it doesn't surprise me anymore it blows my mind that you all will take it up the ass to defend these companies. It's called capitalism, as he so aptly pointed out. It doesn't matter if your game is big or small if it's good it will float. torchlight, castle crashers, the entire humble bundle.... i could go on so rather then sitting there and say all his arguments are flawed how about you provide a counter argument, kinda like what I did there to you.

Ok
Its its capitalism right? So why do you have a problem with companies changing their payment method that ensures them greater revenue?

Except it ceases to be TRUE Capitalism when they try to turn a free market into a corporate monopoly.

Yeah because games are like insulin.... you cant choose not to buy them...

Yeah you can sell property whatever way they want and so can they. They want to sell it as property+service its their choice. They wont AND SHOULDN'T cater to a used market that costs them money.

Its still a free market. You have every right to make a product that follows whatever philosophy that you choose. Its in no way shape or form a cooperate monopoly.

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.

Gamestop can screw themselves with their pawnshop pricing.
Sell them a game for one dollar and they go out and sell it for 30-40$.
I would be far more supportive if they priced anything good.
That Frogger 3-D would probably sell for 25cents or something.

BooTsPs3:
Another thing devs don't seem to realise is that used games can get them MORE sales. I bought ratchet & clank 1 pre-owned, and have bought all of the rest new since then. If a game is good then pre-owned sales will only lead to better sales of the sequels.

Or you can be like others and buy them all used.

The trade in thing is a brilliant point. I don't know how many games I would not have bought on launch if it wasn't for the thought that I could get at least half my money back if it sucks. Without trade ins, players will take less risks. I'd even say it could harm cod. Think about it, how willing will people be to buy the latest yearly update (that has an online that will be left to essentially rot after around a year, if you've been on WaW or COD4 recently you'll know what I'm talking about) if they won't be able to get a decent price for it when the next yearly update comes around?

Doclector:
The trade in thing is a brilliant point. I don't know how many games I would not have bought on launch if it wasn't for the thought that I could get at least half my money back if it sucks. Without trade ins, players will take less risks. I'd even say it could harm cod. Think about it, how willing will people be to buy the latest yearly update (that has an online that will be left to essentially rot after around a year, if you've been on WaW or COD4 recently you'll know what I'm talking about) if they won't be able to get a decent price for it when the next yearly update comes around?

Keep your receipt, for full store credit no cash back allowed.
Players taking less risks would be a good thing btw, not bad. Who cares about COD?
Also stop buying the same game every year, if they are treating you like trash with online services abandon them and stop returning like a beaten house wife.

Draech:

MorphingDragon:

Draech:

Ok
Its its capitalism right? So why do you have a problem with companies changing their payment method that ensures them greater revenue?

Except it ceases to be TRUE Capitalism when they try to turn a free market into a corporate monopoly.

Yeah because games are like insulin.... you cant choose not to buy them...

Yeah you can sell property whatever way they want and so can they. They want to sell it as property+service its their choice. They wont AND SHOULDN'T cater to a used market that costs them money.

Its still a free market. You have every right to make a product that follows whatever philosophy that you choose. Its in no way shape or form a cooperate monopoly.

Stop distracting from your own argument. If a company is to operate in a capitalist market it must compete IN A capitalist market, including all possible markets in the free market.

MorphingDragon:

Draech:

MorphingDragon:

Except it ceases to be TRUE Capitalism when they try to turn a free market into a corporate monopoly.

Yeah because games are like insulin.... you cant choose not to buy them...

Yeah you can sell property whatever way they want and so can they. They want to sell it as property+service its their choice. They wont AND SHOULDN'T cater to a used market that costs them money.

Its still a free market. You have every right to make a product that follows whatever philosophy that you choose. Its in no way shape or form a cooperate monopoly.

Stop distracting from your own argument. If a company is to operate in a capitalist market it must compete IN A capitalist market, including all possible markets in the free market.

Correct.
And they can choose to sell their product any way they choose. They could chose to make games all rental.

Its their product. They sell it as they please. If you start claiming that you can tell them how and how not they can sell their product. How is that a free market?

Draech:

MorphingDragon:

Draech:

Yeah because games are like insulin.... you cant choose not to buy them...

Yeah you can sell property whatever way they want and so can they. They want to sell it as property+service its their choice. They wont AND SHOULDN'T cater to a used market that costs them money.

Its still a free market. You have every right to make a product that follows whatever philosophy that you choose. Its in no way shape or form a cooperate monopoly.

Stop distracting from your own argument. If a company is to operate in a capitalist market it must compete IN A capitalist market, including all possible markets in the free market.

Correct.
And they can choose to sell their product any way they choose. They could chose to make games all rental.

Its their product. They sell it as they please. If you start claiming that you can tell them how and how not they can sell their product. How is that a free market?

Personally they could go for the one use per copy and have to have it activated online approach for everything if they felt evil. That way it can't be resold,borrowed, or even pirated. I hate DLC that is already on the disc though... that's not cool.

Well said Jim :)

Draech:

MorphingDragon:

Draech:

Yeah because games are like insulin.... you cant choose not to buy them...

Yeah you can sell property whatever way they want and so can they. They want to sell it as property+service its their choice. They wont AND SHOULDN'T cater to a used market that costs them money.

Its still a free market. You have every right to make a product that follows whatever philosophy that you choose. Its in no way shape or form a cooperate monopoly.

Stop distracting from your own argument. If a company is to operate in a capitalist market it must compete IN A capitalist market, including all possible markets in the free market.

Correct.
And they can choose to sell their product any way they choose. They could chose to make games all rental.

Yes, but they are ALSO trying to choose what YOU can DO with your copy of the game AFTER, again AFTER you BOUGHT it.

Draech:
Its their product. They sell it as they please. If you start claiming that you can tell them how and how not they can sell their product. How is that a free market?

We are not telling them how to sell their game. Read the arguments, and listen.

 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
Register for a free account here