Jimquisition: Used Games Have A Right To Exist

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

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.

GrimHeaper:

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.

I thought that was only possible with faulty games.

Players taking less risks would be a good thing btw, not bad.

Why?

Who cares about COD?

Quite a few people, but that's beside the point. I'm saying it isn't truly in big company's interests to strangle used games.

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.

I didn't say I did. I bought cod 4 in a sale, WaW pre-owned, MW2 in another sale (mostly for single player) and I only bought black ops anywhere near launch once I found a place that didn't add activision's extra 5 and I had recieved numerous reccomendations saying it was a big improvement over MW2, which it is. I do not intend to buy MW3, as the story has fallen to pieces and I believe the tattered remains of infinity ward aren't going to deliver the multiplayer goods, after all, although they brought us COD4's near perfection, more recently, presumably under activision pressure, they bought us the mess of MW2.

I had no idea this was even a topic. Don't get me wrong, Jim makes some good points in this episode, but are people really that passionate about a hate for used games? Is this really a big deal? Are the trolls of the interwebs sounding their war cry "flame on!" while targeting used game consumers? Maybe I'm just not in the loop anymore, but this topic seems needless.

MorphingDragon:

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

Wrong wrong wrong. They are not retrospectively trying to deny you selling games you bought. They are selling their product with account locks now and one time codes. Mention a single senario where deny you selling your game without you agreeing upon the terms of witch it was sold.

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

I'm hearing mostly an exaggeration of the opposing viewpoint. Some folks simply recognize some of the unique difficulties used games pose for publishers, and they also recognize that publishers have a right to try to encourage folks to buy new -- they have no obligation to defend or uphold used sales.

There's nothing wrong with what they're trying to do, despite how we might disagree with the current methods. And not everyone who thinks used games "pose a problem" think they're "just as bad as piracy."

Draech:

Crono1973:

Draech:

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.

1) That depends, did your browser put a red squiggly line under your misspelled words? If so then yes I am going to hassle you about spelling. If not then no I won't.

2) When you buy something ownership changes hands. Let me give you an example, what is the difference between renting a game from the local video store and BUYING a game from a big box retailer? The difference is that in the first scenario you don't own it and in the second scenario, you do. Where do you get this idea that if I buy a single player Mario game, Nintendo is providing me a service? Nintendo is selling me a product, not a service. If online multiplayer was attached then that is a service and sure, online passes are legal (we aren't talking about those though) but online passes are not necessary and they are a dick move that will drive customers away. So let EA have their online passes but when fewer people are online.... Back to the ownership thing. EA may have a service attached but the product itself belongs to the consumer, not EA. If I sell you my car, I no longer have any rights to that car, same thing here. Closer to home, if I sell you my single player Mario game, I no longer have any rights to that game.

Dastardly:

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

I'm hearing mostly an exaggeration of the opposing viewpoint. Some folks simply recognize some of the unique difficulties used games pose for publishers, and they also recognize that publishers have a right to try to encourage folks to buy new -- they have no obligation to defend or uphold used sales.

There's nothing wrong with what they're trying to do, despite how we might disagree with the current methods. And not everyone who thinks used games "pose a problem" think they're "just as bad as piracy."

I would love to have the difficulty of making 999 Million dollars in profit in 3 months. Oh woe is the big publishers. Even though I am not religious, I think I'll go pray for the big publishers because 999m is just not enough profit!

Difficulties?! HA HA The used game market is WHY there are so many gamers today and WHY they can make that much money. What's that, 4 BILLION in a year. They have nothing to whine about.

Draech:

Realitycrash:

Draech:

"1: That's a bad comparison. Just because other things deteriorate, doesn't mean we need apply those laws - those physical laws - on a videogame. A game deteriorates in a different fashion: We get sick of the game. We get bored. That's why we trade it in.
Just because "all other property rots" doesn't mean we can't count a videogame-disk, and the entertainment it provides, as property."
How fucking ironic is that! we need to apply laws of ownership all across the board! But we dont other apply laws of products.

Condescending self-serving

Here is capitalism.

The producer can do whatever he wants to his product. And your options are to buy it or not to. That is capitalism. Ownership falls under the conundrums of philosophy.

We don't need to apply the laws of deterioration because we CAN'T, because information doesn't deteriorate in the same way as say a table would, or a car.
And "whether it deteriorates or not" is NOT the critera for "this is property, this is not". Really; This is deteriorates = This is property.
This does not deteriorate = This is not property.
How does this make sense?

And quit with the Ad Hominem. Behave yourself.

The producer (i.e the original owner) can do whatever he wants with his products, this be true. Too bad it's o longer his product when he sells it. It's MINE. And I can do whatever I want with MY product. And since you said products; You agree that videogames are products now, yes?

No it is self serving and condecening. its not an ad hominum. When you chose your biases for what serves you best it falls in that. That is objective.

Also the product can be a service. I dont own the plumber I got to fix my sink. What you wanted me to admit was that it was property. The producer can choose method of payment and what the product consists off. In other words. He can make it so your product stays with you forever. All you can do is yay or nay.

A lease is product as well. Get used to it.

Imagine i bought some land. That land is now mine.

Imagine i try to sell it then the company that cleared the land said.
"Hey, we sold you that land so we demand X amount for that land, because land doesnt deteriorate like car or computer spo we are immune to consumer rights laws. GEIF MONEY NAO"

Then some douchebag says
"Well they arent making enough money,that land is being resold is money the company COULD be making. So that means "i" should have to give the company X amount. We live in capitalist word baby!!1! "i" should just deal with it"

Jim's arguments aren't great but yours is just stupid.

Mangue Surfer:

The problem with your argument is that quality is subjective.

Yes and no.

-Enjoyment- of a game is subjective, but there are ways to measure the quality of a game outside of personal preference.

Flimsii:

Imagine i bought some land. That land is now mine.

Imagine i try to sell it then the company that cleared the land said.
"Hey, we sold you that land so we demand X amount for that land, because land doesnt deteriorate like car or computer spo we are immune to consumer rights laws. GEIF MONEY NAO"

Then some douchebag says
"Well they arent making enough money,that land is being resold is money the company COULD be making. So that means "i" should have to give the company X amount. We live in capitalist word baby!!1! "i" should just deal with it"

Jim's arguments aren't great but yours is just stupid.

That would be a good analogy if that was in any way shape or form what they have done. Give me a single example of a title already sold where they charge money for the resell.

They are changing their sales method to prevent re-sales taking to big a chunk of their profit (and before you compare them to other businesses please read previous answers to that). They can change their sales method to whatever they want. Its their "Land".

Here is the correct analogy .

They are changing the terms of the sale of their land to a lease. You go at them "you cant do that! that means I dont own it!"

Now what part of you makes you think that your rights of property trumps their right of property?

I could probably sit here and read through the entirety of the thread, and most likely what I am about to say is a regurgitation, but someone needs to speak the actual truth.

Yes. Used Games have the right to exist. You have the right to sell or give away anything you bought. That is not a point of contention.

The point of contention is the fact that while you say you have a right to do this, and do that, you very much decry a publisher/developer's rights. They have a right to refuse you access to their central matchmaking network, that most likely gets anywhere between 10-25k hits a minute as people try to get the handshaking and connections going to enjoy the online game.

You also seem to skirt the fact that every used game sold by gamestop, is another used one that isn't bought, thus gamestop can easily turn a 100% profit by bilking some hardworking jim out of thier money by thinking they are getting a deal. I don't know if Gamestop is sponsoring you or something, but you seem to completely blow past the true culprit here.

I agree, it's hard to talk down on someone who does you a favor by giving you credit on your crap games toward a new one. It's just a reality though Jim. You are rather ill informed about the entirety of the whole deal, and I would suggest you look into taking a few classes on true economics, starting with supply and demand, and moving into how the software industry really works.

I mean, you have a chance here to actually educate people but... oh. wait. seems that you are about nothing more than a ram stirring up sheep and the like. sorry for mistaking you for an individual who would actually like to educate themselves, and thus, educate others. Most likely, the fact that you were at one point dependent upon Gamestop to get your game fix has incredibly skewed your perspective.

Also, to the rest of you following and agreeing with Jim. Yes, vote with your wallet. Please. It might actually make the game companies come out with better games for their price points, and then, the used market can die off.

Crono1973:

Draech:

Crono1973:

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.

1) That depends, did your browser put a red squiggly line under your misspelled words? If so then yes I am going to hassle you about spelling. If not then no I won't.

2) When you buy something ownership changes hands. Let me give you an example, what is the difference between renting a game from the local video store and BUYING a game from a big box retailer? The difference is that in the first scenario you don't own it and in the second scenario, you do. Where do you get this idea that if I buy a single player Mario game, Nintendo is providing me a service? Nintendo is selling me a product, not a service. If online multiplayer was attached then that is a service and sure, online passes are legal (we aren't talking about those though) but online passes are not necessary and they are a dick move that will drive customers away. So let EA have their online passes but when they fewer people are online.... Back to the ownership thing. EA may have a service attached but the product itself belongs to the consumer, not EA. If I sell you my car, I no longer have any rights to that car, same thing here. Closer to home, if I sell you my single player Mario game, I no longer have any rights to that game.

So they are not allowed to change the method of how they sell their property is what you are saying?

Or are you saying they are changing the terms of a sale retrospectively? If so I would like a single example.

Here is a fact. They can chose to make games all lease. They can do that. Right of property as you are going on about. What makes you think that you have greater rights of property than them?

And btw My spelling might not be perfect, but 2 can play that game

Crono1973:
So let EA have their online passes but when they fewer people are online

bringer of illumination:
So in essence your argument is:

Waaaaah!!! Piracy is worse than trade-ins therefore trade-ins aren't hurting the industry at all!

If a company is losing money to trade-ins, that's their problem. Not mine, and not Gamestop's. Perhaps if they lowered the prices of their games to something the customer was willing to pay this problem would go away? Or, better yet, make games good enough that people would rather buy new the day of release rather than waiting to get a few dollars off. Just an idea. Works for Bethesda.

Waaaaah!!! EA is a worse company than Gamestop (which they aren't, not by a long shot, at least EA actually funds games and many great games at that.), therefore all of Gamestop's bullshit nickle-and-dimeing and intentional working around the companies that actually makes the games are perfectly acceptable!

Gamestop doesn't nickle-and-dime me, they sell me a product at greatly reduced price. I've heard bad things about them before, but they've done right by me in all of my experiences with them.

Regardless, EA is a company that treats customers badly at every opportunity. If that's how they want to play it, fine. I'll buy their games used or not at all. Not my problem. If that bothers you, you're entirely free to spend your money on EA. Gamestop working around publishers is irrelevant. They don't have an obligation to keep publishers in business.

Waaaaah!!! I don't want the corporate fat cats at EA making money! I'd much rather give my money to the corporate fat cats at Gamestop!

Yes, frankly. The corporate fat cats at Gamestop provide me with a product I want at a price I deem acceptable. Apparently I'm not the only one who feels this way, considering EA and other publishers are going out of their way to punish people who buy from Gamestop.

Waaaaah!!! Murder is a worse crime than assault! Therefore punching random people on the street in the face isn't a problem at all!

Fail argument is fail. Piracy is a crime. Buying used is not a crime. Get over it.

Class act there Jim.

But alas, you're wrong.

Not really.

You know who is really hurt by used games?

Companies that publish games that aren't worth buying new.

Draech:

Crono1973:

Draech:

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.

1) That depends, did your browser put a red squiggly line under your misspelled words? If so then yes I am going to hassle you about spelling. If not then no I won't.

2) When you buy something ownership changes hands. Let me give you an example, what is the difference between renting a game from the local video store and BUYING a game from a big box retailer? The difference is that in the first scenario you don't own it and in the second scenario, you do. Where do you get this idea that if I buy a single player Mario game, Nintendo is providing me a service? Nintendo is selling me a product, not a service. If online multiplayer was attached then that is a service and sure, online passes are legal (we aren't talking about those though) but online passes are not necessary and they are a dick move that will drive customers away. So let EA have their online passes but when they fewer people are online.... Back to the ownership thing. EA may have a service attached but the product itself belongs to the consumer, not EA. If I sell you my car, I no longer have any rights to that car, same thing here. Closer to home, if I sell you my single player Mario game, I no longer have any rights to that game.

So they are not allowed to change the method of how they sell their property is what you are saying?

Or are you saying they are changing the terms of a sale retrospectively? If so I would like a single example.

Here is a fact. They can chose to make games all lease. They can do that. Right of property as you are going on about. What makes you think that you have greater rights of property than them?

And btw My spelling might not be perfect, but 2 can play that game

Crono1973:
So let EA have their online passes but when they fewer people are online

What the fuck are you talking about? Did you even read the post you quoted?

Yes, they could choose to lease games but right now they are selling them, you buy a game in the aisle right next to where you buy a TV and the procedure is the same.

If you go into Wal Mart and ask to rent or lease a game, will they pull out a contract? Will there be a return date?

YOU ARE BUYING, NOT RENTING AND NOT LEASING. The game industry has you so brainwashed that you can't understand that the game is your property just as much as the TV is. You can't break any laws with the game or the TV but that doesn't alter ownership.

Online passes are perfectly legal but they are a dick move and in the end, they will only hurt the greedy publishers when there are fewer people online. People are content and without them, online multiplayer doesn't exist.

Crono1973:

Draech:

Crono1973:

1) That depends, did your browser put a red squiggly line under your misspelled words? If so then yes I am going to hassle you about spelling. If not then no I won't.

2) When you buy something ownership changes hands. Let me give you an example, what is the difference between renting a game from the local video store and BUYING a game from a big box retailer? The difference is that in the first scenario you don't own it and in the second scenario, you do. Where do you get this idea that if I buy a single player Mario game, Nintendo is providing me a service? Nintendo is selling me a product, not a service. If online multiplayer was attached then that is a service and sure, online passes are legal (we aren't talking about those though) but online passes are not necessary and they are a dick move that will drive customers away. So let EA have their online passes but when they fewer people are online.... Back to the ownership thing. EA may have a service attached but the product itself belongs to the consumer, not EA. If I sell you my car, I no longer have any rights to that car, same thing here. Closer to home, if I sell you my single player Mario game, I no longer have any rights to that game.

So they are not allowed to change the method of how they sell their property is what you are saying?

Or are you saying they are changing the terms of a sale retrospectively? If so I would like a single example.

Here is a fact. They can chose to make games all lease. They can do that. Right of property as you are going on about. What makes you think that you have greater rights of property than them?

And btw My spelling might not be perfect, but 2 can play that game

Crono1973:
So let EA have their online passes but when they fewer people are online

What the fuck are you talking about? Did you even read the post you quoted?

Yes, they could choose to lease games but right now they are selling them, you buy a game in the aisle right next to where you buy a TV and the procedure is the same.

If you go into Wal Mart and ask to rent or lease a game, will they pull out a contract? Will there be a return date?

YOU ARE BUYING, NOT RENTING AND NOT LEASING. The game industry has you so brainwashed that you can't understand that they game is your property just as much as the TV is. You can't break any laws with the game or the TV but that doesn't alter ownership.

Online passes are perfectly legal but they are a dick move and in the end, they will only hurt the greedy publishers when there are fewer people online. People are content and without them, online multiplayer doesn't exist.

That you dont understand that you are buying a service along with the physical isn't their fault. You are told when you make accounts and when you are given codes. That you dont understand the product you are sold doesn't make them the bad guyes.

That you are whining brain washed just shows how far out you are.

Here is the thing! they dont let you sell your DLC either! go protest!

"So let EA have their online passes but when they fewer people are online"

"but when they fewer people are" is the key btw.

Draech:

Crono1973:

Draech:

So they are not allowed to change the method of how they sell their property is what you are saying?

Or are you saying they are changing the terms of a sale retrospectively? If so I would like a single example.

Here is a fact. They can chose to make games all lease. They can do that. Right of property as you are going on about. What makes you think that you have greater rights of property than them?

And btw My spelling might not be perfect, but 2 can play that game

What the fuck are you talking about? Did you even read the post you quoted?

Yes, they could choose to lease games but right now they are selling them, you buy a game in the aisle right next to where you buy a TV and the procedure is the same.

If you go into Wal Mart and ask to rent or lease a game, will they pull out a contract? Will there be a return date?

YOU ARE BUYING, NOT RENTING AND NOT LEASING. The game industry has you so brainwashed that you can't understand that they game is your property just as much as the TV is. You can't break any laws with the game or the TV but that doesn't alter ownership.

Online passes are perfectly legal but they are a dick move and in the end, they will only hurt the greedy publishers when there are fewer people online. People are content and without them, online multiplayer doesn't exist.

That you dont understand that you are buying a service along with the physical isn't their fault. You are told when you make accounts and when you are given codes. That you dont understand the product you are sold doesn't make them the bad guyes.

That you are whining brain washed just shows how far out you are.

Here is the thing! they dont let you sell your DLC either! go protest!

"So let EA have their online passes but when they fewer people are online"

"but when they fewer people are" is the key btw.

Ok tell me, when I buy Skyward Sword, what service am I getting with it?

Pandabearparade:

bringer of illumination:
So in essence your argument is:

Waaaaah!!! Piracy is worse than trade-ins therefore trade-ins aren't hurting the industry at all!

If a company is losing money to trade-ins, that's their problem. Not mine, and not Gamestop's. Perhaps if they lowered the prices of their games to something the customer was willing to pay this problem would go away? Or, better yet, make games good enough that people would rather buy new the day of release rather than waiting to get a few dollars off. Just an idea. Works for Bethesda.

Actually it is your problem if you want good games, and indeed if you want games at all, because if the games don't make a profit there will be no games.

Pandabearparade:

Waaaaah!!! EA is a worse company than Gamestop (which they aren't, not by a long shot, at least EA actually funds games and many great games at that.), therefore all of Gamestop's bullshit nickle-and-dimeing and intentional working around the companies that actually makes the games are perfectly acceptable!

Gamestop doesn't nickle-and-dime me, they sell me a product at greatly reduced price. I've heard bad things about them before, but they've done right by me in all of my experiences with them.

Regardless, EA is a company that treats customers badly at every opportunity. If that's how they want to play it, fine. I'll buy their games used or not at all. Not my problem. If that bothers you, you're entirely free to spend your money on EA. Gamestop working around publishers is irrelevant. They don't have an obligation to keep publishers in business.

You obviously don't know anything, at all, about Gamestop, it's business model, or just how bad they are ripping you off. I mean, do you not read the news?

Please watch this series of videos (about an hour in total) They're made by a former Gamestop employee and they'll explain in great detail why you are a wrong.

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x6wnow_zero-originality-episode-1_videogames
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x6wx7h_zero-originality-episode-2_news#rel-page-3
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x6wy69_zero-originality-episode-3-part-1_videogames#rel-page-2
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x6xoh0_zero-originality-episode-3-part-2_videogames#rel-page-1
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x6xozb_zero-originality-episode-3-part-3_news#rel-page-3

And if honestly think that $55 for a used game that looks like it's been trampled by buffalo and throw in the sever is a "great reduced price" then I really have to question your intellect.

Pandabearparade:

Waaaaah!!! I don't want the corporate fat cats at EA making money! I'd much rather give my money to the corporate fat cats at Gamestop!

Yes, frankly. The corporate fat cats at Gamestop provide me with a product I want at a price I deem acceptable. Apparently I'm not the only one who feels this way, considering EA and other publishers are going out of their way to punish people who buy from Gamestop.

The fat cats at Gamestop don't provide you with ANYTHING, they're a glorified chain of pawn-shops based around buy games used from children and selling them back at more than twice what they give people for them and giving none of this revenue to the people who actually make the games.

EA on the other hand actually provides you with many great games.

Pandabearparade:

Waaaaah!!! Murder is a worse crime than assault! Therefore punching random people on the street in the face isn't a problem at all!

Fail argument is fail. Piracy is a crime. Buying used is not a crime. Get over it.

I was comparing the relate damage that piracy/used games do to the industry to the harm that murder/assault does a person and the fact that Jim apparently considers a harmful act completely okay just because the is another act that does more harm. the legality of these acts are irrelevant to my analogy.

Pandabearparade:

Class act there Jim.

But alas, you're wrong.

Not really.

Yeah really.

Pandabearparade:

You know who is really hurt by used games?

Companies that publish games that aren't worth buying new.

Hahahahahaha,

Yeah, because we all know that good games NEVER get bought used, it's not like used games have literally murdered smaller studios before.

OH WAIT YES THEY HAVE.

Crono1973:

Draech:

Crono1973:

What the fuck are you talking about? Did you even read the post you quoted?

Yes, they could choose to lease games but right now they are selling them, you buy a game in the aisle right next to where you buy a TV and the procedure is the same.

If you go into Wal Mart and ask to rent or lease a game, will they pull out a contract? Will there be a return date?

YOU ARE BUYING, NOT RENTING AND NOT LEASING. The game industry has you so brainwashed that you can't understand that they game is your property just as much as the TV is. You can't break any laws with the game or the TV but that doesn't alter ownership.

Online passes are perfectly legal but they are a dick move and in the end, they will only hurt the greedy publishers when there are fewer people online. People are content and without them, online multiplayer doesn't exist.

That you dont understand that you are buying a service along with the physical isn't their fault. You are told when you make accounts and when you are given codes. That you dont understand the product you are sold doesn't make them the bad guyes.

That you are whining brain washed just shows how far out you are.

Here is the thing! they dont let you sell your DLC either! go protest!

"So let EA have their online passes but when they fewer people are online"

"but when they fewer people are" is the key btw.

Ok tell me, when I buy Skyward Sword, what service am I getting with it?

Well if they are making at account system. Then they changing it to entertainment, making it a full service.

Edit: Actually. if its fully account based its a lifetime lease. If aren't all right with that then you shouldn't buy it.

Draech:

Crono1973:

Draech:

That you dont understand that you are buying a service along with the physical isn't their fault. You are told when you make accounts and when you are given codes. That you dont understand the product you are sold doesn't make them the bad guyes.

That you are whining brain washed just shows how far out you are.

Here is the thing! they dont let you sell your DLC either! go protest!

"So let EA have their online passes but when they fewer people are online"

"but when they fewer people are" is the key btw.

Ok tell me, when I buy Skyward Sword, what service am I getting with it?

Well if they are making at account system. Then they changing it to entertainment, making it a full service.

Ok, let me simplify it. What service did I get when I bought Super Mario Galaxy?

Games are a product, if there is an online counterpart THAT and only that is a service. The game itself remains a product except in cases where the online portion IS the game (an MMO).

For Example, I still own Populous: The Beginning even if the official online counterpart has long been dead and I can play Populous: The Beginning right now without needing to ask permission from EA. I don't know how much clearer I can be.

Crono1973:

Draech:

Crono1973:

Ok tell me, when I buy Skyward Sword, what service am I getting with it?

Well if they are making at account system. Then they changing it to entertainment, making it a full service.

Ok, let me simplify it. What service did I get when I bought Super Mario Galaxy?

Games are a product, if there is an online counterpart THAT and only that are a service. The game itself remains a product except in cases where the online portion IS the game (an MMO).

For Example, I still own Populous: The Beginning even if the official online counterpart has long been dead and I can play Populous: The Beginning right now without needing to ask permission from EA. I don't know how much clearer I can be.

Oh you were prevented from selling your used copy of Super Mario Galaxy? I wasn't aware.

Draech:

Crono1973:

Draech:

Well if they are making at account system. Then they changing it to entertainment, making it a full service.

Ok, let me simplify it. What service did I get when I bought Super Mario Galaxy?

Games are a product, if there is an online counterpart THAT and only that are a service. The game itself remains a product except in cases where the online portion IS the game (an MMO).

For Example, I still own Populous: The Beginning even if the official online counterpart has long been dead and I can play Populous: The Beginning right now without needing to ask permission from EA. I don't know how much clearer I can be.

Oh you were prevented from selling your used copy of Super Mario Galaxy? I wasn't aware.

Oh wow, I am done with you.

A couple of points that kind of jump all over the place.

A wrestler already took the title of the people's champion so I guess Jim has to take the title of the gamers champion. On a topic like used games we need all the people in the vanguard of the fight we can get so I'm happy to see Jim in the fight.

Publishers could make money off of used games but that's not their big plan to make lots of money with the least amount of effort. If I buy a used game for the X-Box 360 I don't get all the down loadable content the original owner might have purchased. So if a developer kept putting out new content to buy even if it was micro transactions that's more chances to make a little extra even after the original owner got bored and got rid of the game. But developers rather just slightly change a game and charge you $60 for almost the same game with only with a few changes. Instead of charging $5 to add Cam Newton to the Panthers in Madden Football they rather charge me $60 for the same players as last release except now it's a new QB.

If you think a place like Game Stop is evil because they don't offer you enough money you need to watch a show called Pawn Stars. People always go into the pawn shop thinking they should get the top price and Rick always has to explain it might go for $1000 at action, but they would have to take the risk and put up the fees for the auction. If they want to walk away with money and no risk he can offer them $500 and he'll take the risk of reselling it. People always have the choice of taking the trouble and expense to sell used games at auction or a want ad, but it's not Game Stop being evil to say if you want to sell it right now we can't offer what it goes for on e-Bay.

Used games can be more useful than just reselling. A friend switched over to X-Box 360 from Playstation and I let him borrow Halo 2. He was sure Halo was over rated and wouldn't have normally touch the series, but after borrowing my game he's pre-ordered the new games in the Halo series. Another friend lost his job and he was going crazy with nothing to do, so I gathered up some old games I wasn't playing and let him have them, it gave him something to do and cheered him up.

Crono1973:

Draech:

Crono1973:

Ok, let me simplify it. What service did I get when I bought Super Mario Galaxy?

Games are a product, if there is an online counterpart THAT and only that are a service. The game itself remains a product except in cases where the online portion IS the game (an MMO).

For Example, I still own Populous: The Beginning even if the official online counterpart has long been dead and I can play Populous: The Beginning right now without needing to ask permission from EA. I don't know how much clearer I can be.

Oh you were prevented from selling your used copy of Super Mario Galaxy? I wasn't aware.

Oh wow, I am done with you.

Because you have no argument. You are dont like that that the publisher are changing their sales method to leases. Fair enough. Dont buy them. But dont go around crying snot saying that they prevent you from selling your old games, because that is a lie.

Draech:

Crono1973:

Draech:

Oh you were prevented from selling your used copy of Super Mario Galaxy? I wasn't aware.

Oh wow, I am done with you.

Because you have no argument. You are dont like that that the publisher are changing their sales method to leases. Fair enough. Dont buy them. But dont go around crying snot saying that they prevent you from selling your old games, because that is a lie.

Are you on drugs? I was talking about ownership and you are talking about everything else, move the goal post much? Now go away, I am not going to waste my time with someone who can't decided what they want to argue about.

Ashley Blalock:
If you think a place like Game Stop is evil because they don't offer you enough money you need to watch a show called Pawn Stars. People always go into the pawn shop thinking they should get the top price and Rick always has to explain it might go for $1000 at action, but they would have to take the risk and put up the fees for the auction. If they want to walk away with money and no risk he can offer them $500 and he'll take the risk of reselling it. People always have the choice of taking the trouble and expense to sell used games at auction or a want ad, but it's not Game Stop being evil to say if you want to sell it right now we can't offer what it goes for on e-Bay.

Used games can be more useful than just reselling. A friend switched over to X-Box 360 from Playstation and I let him borrow Halo 2. He was sure Halo was over rated and wouldn't have normally touch the series, but after borrowing my game he's pre-ordered the new games in the Halo series. Another friend lost his job and he was going crazy with nothing to do, so I gathered up some old games I wasn't playing and let him have them, it gave him something to do and cheered him up.

That is at the heart of this whole problem. Gamestop pissing in the pool sort of speak.

When you go into Gamestop right now you will see a list games on the wall going "Gamestop searches for: *Insert title*". They actively encourage people go buy the game new, play it through and then sell it so that they can sell it used while its attractive. Deus Ex is the most resent example.
You cannot convince me this doesn't have a negative effect on sales of a game, and I understand all the way that publishers want to get rid of this parasite.

Crono1973:

Draech:

Crono1973:

Oh wow, I am done with you.

Because you have no argument. You are dont like that that the publisher are changing their sales method to leases. Fair enough. Dont buy them. But dont go around crying snot saying that they prevent you from selling your old games, because that is a lie.

Are you on drugs? I was talking about ownership and you are talking about everything else, move the goal post much? Now go away, I am not going to waste my time with someone who can't decided what they want to argue about.

I have been saying what I have always been saying. Publisher own their games before they sell them. They can chose the method of how they sell them. They can change it to a lease if they want. And you can only chose to do that with the games you own as well.

When you buy code a put it in you have made an account understanding full well what that means.

That you are resorting to ad hominum only show how little you have to stand on.

Hmmm, well I think there are points missing from this week's episode. One is simply the whole $60 price tag and how it's the trade ins that help to justify that cost. Another is quite simply that if the Publisher is willing to support a game on release, what differance does it make who is actually playing the game? From their perspective there is no differance between the initial purchuser and the guy who bought the game used, one guy in their infrastructure is one guy in their infrastructure... as opposed to a guy who paid nothing expecting support and server use and so on (ie a pirate).

To be honest I don't think Jim has gone far enough here, really I think the problem is the casual gamers flodding the market. People who agree with the gaming industry because they are overall pretty dumb and don't think this kind of thing through, or don't really understand it to begin with. That's one of the reasons why there is a divide between the casuals and the serious gamers, while in theory there should be room for both in the gaming, it becomes difficult to address serious issues when the people who understand it get drowned out by the bleating of wallet-laden sheep. Of course then again this is an enviroment that the gaming industry intentionally created by luring in the casual market so they could exploit it.

There is no defense of the gaming industry with it's billions of dollars going after used games, no more than there is a defense for a lot of other things they do. It's pure greed, directed at an audience of people who really just don't know any better, and can't bear the thought of going without the next "Call Of Duty" or "Madden" or whatever no matter the reasons.

Sorry if that's not nice, but how else do you define a movement of people who pretty much rally behind someone taking away their property rights. I find it very disturbing when I see people argueing for less freedom and control over what they have paid for.

Draech:

Crono1973:

Draech:

Because you have no argument. You are dont like that that the publisher are changing their sales method to leases. Fair enough. Dont buy them. But dont go around crying snot saying that they prevent you from selling your old games, because that is a lie.

Are you on drugs? I was talking about ownership and you are talking about everything else, move the goal post much? Now go away, I am not going to waste my time with someone who can't decided what they want to argue about.

I have been saying what I have always been saying. Publisher own their games before they sell them. They can chose the method of how they sell them. They can change it to a lease if they want. And you can only chose to do that with the games you own as well.

When you buy code a put it in you have made an account understanding full well what that means.

That you are resorting to ad hominum only show how little you have to stand on.

Yes, that's it. I have little to stand on (except the stacks of games that I OWN), so go celebrate your victory. Bye.

Therumancer:
Hmmm, well I think there are points missing from this week's episode. One is simply the whole $60 price tag and how it's the trade ins that help to justify that cost. Another is quite simply that if the Publisher is willing to support a game on release, what differance does it make who is actually playing the game? From their perspective there is no differance between the initial purchuser and the guy who bought the game used, one guy in their infrastructure is one guy in their infrastructure... as opposed to a guy who paid nothing expecting support and server use and so on (ie a pirate).

To be honest I don't think Jim has gone far enough here, really I think the problem is the casual gamers flodding the market. People who agree with the gaming industry because they are overall pretty dumb and don't think this kind of thing through, or don't really understand it to begin with. That's one of the reasons why there is a divide between the casuals and the serious gamers, while in theory there should be room for both in the gaming, it becomes difficult to address serious issues when the people who understand it get drowned out by the bleating of wallet-laden sheep. Of course then again this is an enviroment that the gaming industry intentionally created by luring in the casual market so they could exploit it.

There is no defense of the gaming industry with it's billions of dollars going after used games, no more than there is a defense for a lot of other things they do. It's pure greed, directed at an audience of people who really just don't know any better, and can't bear the thought of going without the next "Call Of Duty" or "Madden" or whatever no matter the reasons.

Sorry if that's not nice, but how else do you define a movement of people who pretty much rally behind someone taking away their property rights. I find it very disturbing when I see people argueing for less freedom and control over what they have paid for.

[sarcasm]

Can't you see how bad the used industry is hurting the big publishers. Just try to imagine having to live off of 221 Million dollars a month, profit. Why that's pocket change for most people, that's one trip to McDonalds! Surely your property rights can take a back seat so that these CEO's can buy a new Yacht (which they will OWN).

[/sarcasm]

You are exactly right, it's embarrassing to see people shooting themselves in the foot and saying "it's for the greater good because I can't live without games". Nevermind that there were plenty of games coming out before all this anti-used BS started. They remind of drug addicts, they will do ANYTHING for their next fix and the game companies manipulate this addiction.

Crono1973:
I would love to have the difficulty of making 999 Million dollars in profit in 3 months. Oh woe is the big publishers. Even though I am not religious, I think I'll go pray for the big publishers because 999m is just not enough profit!

Difficulties?! HA HA The used game market is WHY there are so many gamers today and WHY they can make that much money. What's that, 4 BILLION in a year. They have nothing to whine about.

And?

What part of that money did they not earn? Did they not create, market, and distribute a product? Did people not agree to the price at the time of purchase? The amount of money they've made doesn't change situation. (It just makes it easier for the intellectually lazy to blame them, because "They're rich.")

Also, how much of that money goes in pockets, and how much is reinvested into the next big game (the money comes from somewhere)?

No one blames Food Mart X for printing coupons, or for rewarding repeat business by having those goofy scan cards that print customized coupons for you. It's something they do so that you'll choose them over the other Food Mart. What's wrong with a publisher trying to make sure that a new copy of the game has more stuff than a used copy of the game?

It's not about them needing the money. It's about them having a good, intelligent reason to want to encourage new purchases over used. Used sales are their competition, and it is the nature of the market to want to compete[/i] with one's competition.

You can compete by offering a better product or a lower price. Yes, they can (and should) lower the price... but the used guys can always beat that price, since they have no overhead. So they can try to "make a better product," right? Well... then the used product will be better, too, so it's back to square one. Unless they can find a way to improve the new product that doesn't carry over to the [b]used product.

Dastardly:

Crono1973:
I would love to have the difficulty of making 999 Million dollars in profit in 3 months. Oh woe is the big publishers. Even though I am not religious, I think I'll go pray for the big publishers because 999m is just not enough profit!

Difficulties?! HA HA The used game market is WHY there are so many gamers today and WHY they can make that much money. What's that, 4 BILLION in a year. They have nothing to whine about.

And?

What part of that money did they not earn? Did they not create, market, and distribute a product? Did people not agree to the price at the time of purchase? The amount of money they've made doesn't change situation. (It just makes it easier for the intellectually lazy to blame them, because "They're rich.")

Also, how much of that money goes in pockets, and how much is reinvested into the next big game (the money comes from somewhere)?

No one blames Food Mart X for printing coupons, or for rewarding repeat business by having those goofy scan cards that print customized coupons for you. It's something they do so that you'll choose them over the other Food Mart. What's wrong with a publisher trying to make sure that a new copy of the game has more stuff than a used copy of the game?

It's not about them needing the money. It's about them having a good, intelligent reason to want to encourage new purchases over used. Used sales are their competition, and it is the nature of the market to want to compete[/i] with one's competition.

You can compete by offering a better product or a lower price. Yes, they can (and should) lower the price... but the used guys can always beat that price, since they have no overhead. So they can try to "make a better product," right? Well... then the used product will be better, too, so it's back to square one. Unless they can find a way to improve the new product that doesn't carry over to the [b]used product.

If you make a billion dollars profit in 3 months, don't whine that the used market is killing you.

So the used stores have no overhead? The government must buy the games from the seller and the government must also pay for the utilities and labor costs. Wow, I never knew that.

Crono1973:
If you make a billion dollars profit in 3 months, don't whine that the used market is killing you.

If you respond to a post, don't forget to read the post to which you're responding.

But fine. Who said that? Who is the one making a billion dollars and saying the used market is killing them? Name them and link to your sources, I'll gladly investigate. Just give me the company's name, the link to the sales figures, and the name of the person quoted as saying the used market is killing them.

Shouldn't be too hard to do.

Draech:

Crono1973:

Draech:

Because you have no argument. You are dont like that that the publisher are changing their sales method to leases. Fair enough. Dont buy them. But dont go around crying snot saying that they prevent you from selling your old games, because that is a lie.

Are you on drugs? I was talking about ownership and you are talking about everything else, move the goal post much? Now go away, I am not going to waste my time with someone who can't decided what they want to argue about.

I have been saying what I have always been saying. Publisher own their games before they sell them. They can chose the method of how they sell them. They can change it to a lease if they want. And you can only chose to do that with the games you own as well.

When you buy code a put it in you have made an account understanding full well what that means.

That you are resorting to ad hominum only show how little you have to stand on.

I'll take a stab at this. You're argument is stop whining because publishers are changing game models to a leasing policy? Or that they can if they want to because they own it? That's really beside the point because most of us can agree they can govern the online part of their games however they want. If you don't agree with it then you don't need to use it, but when talking about a physical entity that you own is something completely different.

Dastardly:

Crono1973:
If you make a billion dollars profit in 3 months, don't whine that the used market is killing you.

If you respond to a post, don't forget to read the post to which you're responding.

But fine. Who said that? Who is the one making a billion dollars and saying the used market is killing them? Name them and link to your sources, I'll gladly investigate. Just give me the company's name, the link to the sales figures, and the name of the person quoted as saying the used market is killing them.

Shouldn't be too hard to do.

Sorry No, do your own legwork. The link for the 999 Million is right here in this thread and anyone who posts on this site is not ignorant of the purpose behind online passes.

 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