Do you feel like a whipping boy that's being punished for the practice of particular retailers.
Yes, but what else can they do?
15.1% (31)
15.1% (31)
Yes and I wont take it anymore.
43.9% (90)
43.9% (90)
Maybe, if they really lost a lot of sales to used games it is at least partially our fault.
12.7% (26)
12.7% (26)
No, they have every right to blame us for stunted sales.
4.9% (10)
4.9% (10)
No, I think the publishers deserve more money.
13.2% (27)
13.2% (27)
Yes but the real problem is that there aren't as many console owners as there were last gen.
1.5% (3)
1.5% (3)
Entitled; I don't know what the word means but I depend on it to win arguments for me.
3.4% (7)
3.4% (7)
I don't know what this Online Pass thing is but you really need to stop scaring the kids.
4.9% (10)
4.9% (10)
Want to vote? Register now or Sign Up with Facebook
Poll: Online Pass: Have the Consumers become the whipping boy of the retailers?

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 NEXT
 

I don't give a flying fuck about multiplayer in 99% of cases (and most of those are usually €5 rentals where I just want to blaze through the campaign once), and in the rare 1% of cases where I actually do care about multiplayer I buy the game in question new anyway. No company will ever see a single cent from me purchasing an online pass.
Plus, buying used games at big retail chains is beyond retarded, considering the usual asking prices; I'll stick to the small, independent second-hand store I can trust, where folks are nice and courteous and the price for a used game stays within the €30 limit.

Yopaz:

wintercoat:

Yopaz:
'

Really, tell me what the publishers can do. Do you seriously think you have the answer that the legal teams of all publishers are looking for? The truth is that everything the publisher can do that will stop GameStop is in fact illegal. Are you suggesting that all publishers should band together and break the laws of the market?
The truth of it is that the same laws that make GameStop able to pull in profits is the same laws that make the publishers pull in profits. That we end up in the middle of it sucks, but no-one forces us to buy used.

Well, for starters, they can stop incentivising GameStop so much. If GameStop is such a problem, why give them so much business? Humans are creatures of routine. If you keep making the best place to buy something the guy you hate, guess where they're more likely to go shopping? And since GameStop has their employees rabidly push used sales before new, they are fueling the very thing they claim to be killing them, and then blaming the consumer for it.

Let me ask you, what do you mean when you say the publisher gives GameStop so much business? Do you mean the fact that they supply them with games or the fact that they get exclusive pre-order deals?
If you stop supplying games then GameStop will sue the publisher in question because there's an illegal boycott. If they stop offering pre-order deals people lose the reason to pre-order it and thus the publisher loses the guarantee that they will get cash from it. They may also get the customers into thinking that they should wait a week and get it used. So by not giving them business as you call it they get sued or they may lose sales. If you think you have figured out a loophole that any lawyer from EA hasn't found I can assure you that you have not.

GonzoGamer:

Yopaz:
'

Really, tell me what the publishers can do. Do you seriously think you have the answer that the legal teams of all publishers are looking for? The truth is that everything the publisher can do that will stop GameStop is in fact illegal. Are you suggesting that all publishers should band together and break the laws of the market?
The truth of it is that the same laws that make GameStop able to pull in profits is the same laws that make the publishers pull in profits. That we end up in the middle of it sucks, but no-one forces us to buy used.

They do kind of force us to buy used. If you don't pre-order a new game, they will only sell you a used copy.
As for things the publishers can do: they can have their own trade in programs and have much more direct control over used disc saturation and or make the profit from the used sale. But that's not practical. What surprises me is that they (either all together or one of the big publishers) never tried a takeover; once again, they make all that profit and have control over saturation. It wouldn't improve the prices but the prices at gamestop can't exactly get worse, can they? If they don't want to do anything too drastic, they can go back to offering normal things as pre-order bonuses again, rather than making it swathes of gameplay content. The thing is that publishers think(know?) that gamers are such pushovers that most will just hand over money any time they're asked for it.

The thing you just said is the reason. It's just not practical. Take over GameStop... GameStop is almost a global chain. There are a few countries without GameStop and across the world there are thousands of GameStops. Do you think it would be easy to take over that? Do you think it would be instantly profitable?
Pre-order deals, well you know what? That increases the number of people who buy it on release day. Not the number who buy it used a week later when they have heard good things about it. Hence the online passes.

Takeovers are rarely easy but if the big publishers worked together to jointly own Gamestop it would actually be really easy...compared to how those things usually go. And profitable? Yes for sure. Publishers would reap even more profits then Gamestop has if they owned it. Think about it: they would get all the profit from the used sales AND control how many used copies are out there. I'm thinking the reason they haven't is because they're waiting for the inflated value of it to burst now that it's consolidated most of all the other game specific retailers.
If they convince someone to pre-order a new copy, that person will be much less likely to buy a used copy. The problem is that they have been making the actual gameplay content pre-order bonuses and that's shitty.

Gunner 51:

TestECull:

It's a shame so few use logic when discussing this topic. They somehow end up believing game publishers are somehow entitled to money no other industry is entitled to despite doing exactly nothing to earn a cent of it, and they'll spend days trying to insist they're right.

I think that's down to people wanting to defend the developers more than anything. Everyone knows that the publishers are the ones who pay the developers - and they will operate on the basis of "if the publisher suffers, so does the developer." In a way, I think this is correct - but the publishers cannot be trusted to play fair in any case.

It has always been the way that once you sell something on, you have no right to any money made off should it get sold on again.

Even cars cost millions of dollars to make from the designing and planning stage to the manufacturing to the employee payrolls - but I've never once seen them act like the Mafia in the same way games publishers do now.

With retailers in the UK now starting to look like they're going to go belly-up any time soon with the news that Mass Effect 3 will be unavailable. I can see only bad things happening to the paying punter in the future.

true cars cost millions of dollars to design, but they also sell for around 1000x the cost of video games. Add in things like warranties and their rolling in it.\

As stupid as you claim everyone else is for giving our industry slack you are too for trying to compare it to things which its so massively different too. You wouldn't compare farming to international travel would you.

bahumat42:

Gunner 51:

TestECull:

It's a shame so few use logic when discussing this topic. They somehow end up believing game publishers are somehow entitled to money no other industry is entitled to despite doing exactly nothing to earn a cent of it, and they'll spend days trying to insist they're right.

I think that's down to people wanting to defend the developers more than anything. Everyone knows that the publishers are the ones who pay the developers - and they will operate on the basis of "if the publisher suffers, so does the developer." In a way, I think this is correct - but the publishers cannot be trusted to play fair in any case.

It has always been the way that once you sell something on, you have no right to any money made off should it get sold on again.

Even cars cost millions of dollars to make from the designing and planning stage to the manufacturing to the employee payrolls - but I've never once seen them act like the Mafia in the same way games publishers do now.

With retailers in the UK now starting to look like they're going to go belly-up any time soon with the news that Mass Effect 3 will be unavailable. I can see only bad things happening to the paying punter in the future.

true cars cost millions of dollars to design, but they also sell for around 1000x the cost of video games. Add in things like warranties and their rolling in it.\

As stupid as you claim everyone else is for giving our industry slack you are too for trying to compare it to things which its so massively different too. You wouldn't compare farming to international travel would you.

How much an item costs makes no difference where the First Sale Doctrine is concerned.

GonzoGamer:

Takeovers are rarely easy but if the big publishers worked together to jointly own Gamestop it would actually be really easy...compared to how those things usually go. And profitable? Yes for sure. Publishers would reap even more profits then Gamestop has if they owned it. Think about it: they would get all the profit from the used sales AND control how many used copies are out there. I'm thinking the reason they haven't is because they're waiting for the inflated value of it to burst now that it's consolidated most of all the other game specific retailers.
If they convince someone to pre-order a new copy, that person will be much less likely to buy a used copy. The problem is that they have been making the actual gameplay content pre-order bonuses and that's shitty.

You've got one problem right off the bat there. Making publishers act together. Those things never work out. You got companies with varying degrees of success and various resources. Getting the weaker companies to join in and share the success of the more successful would be great for them, but that would mean a loss for those who have success.

You think it will be profitable, but when will they start making profits? How much money do you think it takes to buy a global chain? How much will they earn in a year? Maybe enough to cover their expences, but most likely not. It will take time for this to be profitable, they will have legal and financial issues to work out between the publishers. This means a lot of legal expences, probably some money will go to lawsuits over violations of market rules and hostile takeover. The European Union will bring them to court for violation of the rules of monopolizing an industry according to the European trade law.

Now explain to me. Do you think you have more economical knowledge than all the people who work in an industry? Do you think you got more legal knowledge than all the lawyers of the same industry? Do you believe that companies will settle for something which resembles communism just to cover some losses over used sales? If you think you have a good idea on this matter I can assure you do not. Their are lots of people with degrees in economy and lawyers being paid to find a solution to these problems. If there was a way one of those would have found it by now.

Crono1973:

bahumat42:

Gunner 51:

I think that's down to people wanting to defend the developers more than anything. Everyone knows that the publishers are the ones who pay the developers - and they will operate on the basis of "if the publisher suffers, so does the developer." In a way, I think this is correct - but the publishers cannot be trusted to play fair in any case.

It has always been the way that once you sell something on, you have no right to any money made off should it get sold on again.

Even cars cost millions of dollars to make from the designing and planning stage to the manufacturing to the employee payrolls - but I've never once seen them act like the Mafia in the same way games publishers do now.

With retailers in the UK now starting to look like they're going to go belly-up any time soon with the news that Mass Effect 3 will be unavailable. I can see only bad things happening to the paying punter in the future.

true cars cost millions of dollars to design, but they also sell for around 1000x the cost of video games. Add in things like warranties and their rolling in it.\

As stupid as you claim everyone else is for giving our industry slack you are too for trying to compare it to things which its so massively different too. You wouldn't compare farming to international travel would you.

How much an item costs makes no difference where the First Sale Doctrine is concerned.

square peg round hole much. Your the problem with society. Stuck in thinking about things a certain way.

Data isn't a tangible thing, it needs its own laws regarding it. Instead of trying to force it down a system which is just doesn't work as.

Where's the "No, I'm a PC gamer" option? :D

bahumat42:

Crono1973:

bahumat42:

true cars cost millions of dollars to design, but they also sell for around 1000x the cost of video games. Add in things like warranties and their rolling in it.\

As stupid as you claim everyone else is for giving our industry slack you are too for trying to compare it to things which its so massively different too. You wouldn't compare farming to international travel would you.

How much an item costs makes no difference where the First Sale Doctrine is concerned.

square peg round hole much. Your the problem with society. Stuck in thinking about things a certain way.

Data isn't a tangible thing, it needs its own laws regarding it. Instead of trying to force it down a system which is just doesn't work as.

LOL Ok.I am the problem with society and software needs special laws. Maybe everything needs special laws.

Yopaz:

GonzoGamer:

Takeovers are rarely easy but if the big publishers worked together to jointly own Gamestop it would actually be really easy...compared to how those things usually go. And profitable? Yes for sure. Publishers would reap even more profits then Gamestop has if they owned it. Think about it: they would get all the profit from the used sales AND control how many used copies are out there. I'm thinking the reason they haven't is because they're waiting for the inflated value of it to burst now that it's consolidated most of all the other game specific retailers.
If they convince someone to pre-order a new copy, that person will be much less likely to buy a used copy. The problem is that they have been making the actual gameplay content pre-order bonuses and that's shitty.

You've got one problem right off the bat there. Making publishers act together. Those things never work out. You got companies with varying degrees of success and various resources. Getting the weaker companies to join in and share the success of the more successful would be great for them, but that would mean a loss for those who have success.

You think it will be profitable, but when will they start making profits? How much money do you think it takes to buy a global chain? How much will they earn in a year? Maybe enough to cover their expences, but most likely not. It will take time for this to be profitable, they will have legal and financial issues to work out between the publishers. This means a lot of legal expences, probably some money will go to lawsuits over violations of market rules and hostile takeover. The European Union will bring them to court for violation of the rules of monopolizing an industry according to the European trade law.

Now explain to me. Do you think you have more economical knowledge than all the people who work in an industry? Do you think you got more legal knowledge than all the lawyers of the same industry? Do you believe that companies will settle for something which resembles communism just to cover some losses over used sales? If you think you have a good idea on this matter I can assure you do not. Their are lots of people with degrees in economy and lawyers being paid to find a solution to these problems. If there was a way one of those would have found it by now.

Sure not every publisher would go in on it but I think there are enough that would make it work. And once again, if it's sever separate companies working together, they can get around a lot of the anti-trust issues. And of course they can work together. They have in the past. That's how the ESRB got started and the ESA.
The thing is that the people who do economics for the people in the industry don't have any concern for the long term growth of the game industry. They want to just squeeze as much money as they can out of it immediately because (while they are with that company; because that way they get the credit and can move on to something else) that is all that matters. Just because their business people may be smarter than me (though sometimes that's hard to believe), doesn't mean that they always make the decision that is best for the industry. They make the best decision for those shareholders who are holding the stock right now.
If it was GE or GM or something like that doing the takeover, it would be more expensive and would take longer to make profitable but for the game industry, they would start making profits after a short while; maybe even a quarter or two. They already have a lot of what's needed in place and have been involved in it already.

natster43:

LiquidSolstice:

natster43:
Really it only bothers me because my brother and I use different hard drives so one of us would have to pay extra to play it online on our own accounts. I know it is a stupid complaint, but it bothers me that I can't play stuff on my account because of it.

If you're talking about your Xbox, having the same hard drive wouldn't mean that one online pass would work for both of you...

so even if we had the same hard drive, we wouldn't be able to use our own accounts to play online without buying another online pass?

Unfortunately, the Online Pass system is attached to the account, not the hard drive or the console.

bahumat42:

true cars cost millions of dollars to design, but they also sell for around 1000x the cost of video games. Add in things like warranties and their rolling in it.\

As stupid as you claim everyone else is for giving our industry slack you are too for trying to compare it to things which its so massively different too. You wouldn't compare farming to international travel would you.

Games also sell a thousand times better than games, so I guess it all balances out at some point.

Cars also have retailers that operate very similarly to places like Game and Gamestation - while they make a small profit on the cars they sell to us. Most of the money is made in buying the customer's previous car and selling that on. (Because most of us simply wouldn't throw the complete asking price at the car dealer.)

Game and Gamestation sell their games in very much the same way. International travel and farming are two different things, but the relationship as business practices between publisher and retailer in gaming are comparible to how cars are sold by first and second hand car dealerships.

So the question why are the Games publishers acting like bullies? I don't see any other industry with a second hand industry within it doing the same.

Chrono 1973 is also very, very correct when he said "How much an item costs makes no difference where the First Sale Doctrine is concerned." No matter what product gets sold, the First Sale doctrine is and should remain sacrosanct.

Gunner 51:

bahumat42:

true cars cost millions of dollars to design, but they also sell for around 1000x the cost of video games. Add in things like warranties and their rolling in it.\

As stupid as you claim everyone else is for giving our industry slack you are too for trying to compare it to things which its so massively different too. You wouldn't compare farming to international travel would you.

Games also sell a thousand times better than games, so I guess it all balances out at some point.

Cars also have retailers that operate very similarly to places like Game and Gamestation - while they make a small profit on the cars they sell to us. Most of the money is made in buying the customer's previous car and selling that on. (Because most of us simply wouldn't throw the complete asking price at the car dealer.)

Game and Gamestation sell their games in very much the same way. International travel and farming are two different things, but the relationship as business practices between publisher and retailer in gaming are comparible to how cars are sold by first and second hand car dealerships.

So the question why are the Games publishers acting like bullies? I don't see any other industry with a second hand industry within it doing the same.

Chrono 1973 is also very, very correct when he said "How much an item costs makes no difference where the First Sale Doctrine is concerned." No matter what product gets sold, the First Sale doctrine is and should remain sacrosanct.

thats because other industries have other covers
films have box office, retail,syndication
tv has syndication and dvd sales
books have such a low risk return their not even worth discussing
cars have things like warranty and being the best place for replacement parts.

Just because you want an analogy to back up your fail of an argument doesn't make the analogy valid. Because its not. We ARE a different industry and we need to find our own solutions to things.

bahumat42:

thats because other industries have other covers
films have box office, retail,syndication
tv has syndication and dvd sales
books have such a low risk return their not even worth discussing
cars have things like warranty and being the best place for replacement parts.

Just because you want an analogy to back up your fail of an argument doesn't make the analogy valid. Because its not. We ARE a different industry and we need to find our own solutions to things.

Just because games may be provide a different product doesn't mean to say that it should preferential treatment. It is still an industry like any other, and should be treated as such.

Furthermore, games have post release downloadable content, online passes, spin-off books, merchandising and even it's own licensing via intellectual property. That's a lot of other sources of money as a result of their creation and distribution.

Games make a lot more money than we think - but it's the publishers who hoard it all never sharing it with the developers who thought of and made the game.

I maintain that the publishers are firmly in the wrong, they need to change far more than the retailers do. I can only hope that digital distribution will scare them into treating their development teams and the paying public better. I also hope that it allows the developers more independence from the publishers who pretty much got them by the short'n'curlies. But it is something that I won't hold out much hope for.

MetallicaRulez0:

Uhhh... okay. That still doesn't negate the fact that you're taking money away from the developer (who makes the games you love) to give larger profit margins to one of the seediest corporations out there. You're essentially paying GameStop to rip you off.

I have no love for Gamestop and won't sell them any games because I can get far more selling directly to the next owner through Amazon, but "one of the seediest corporations out there"? Seriously? Gamestop has its flaws, its employees tend to be only marginally more intelligent than a puddle of piss, and its management usually makes Dilbert's boss look like a particle physicist, but they've never been anything but up front about their business model.

I mean, really. Even ignoring for a second every company that ever got a US Federal Government contract, it's easier to find much seedier companies... like, for example, the same fucking companies who want to remove YOUR rights for the sake of money they have no right to, for starters. The same ones who started this stupid "Gamestop is teh ebil!!!1!" drivel that gets shat out all over these forums every 3 hours.

DRM is NOT a reaction to Gamestop. Look up the word "scapegoat," and think for 30 seconds. DRM has been around longer than probably most of the users on this site have been alive (Personally, I have firsthand experience going all the way back to the Commodore 64). What has made DRM so drastically more despicable over the past 5 years is NOT Gamestop. It's widespread adoption of internet access. To think that we wouldn't be dealing with this crap if Gamestop went out of business is naive at best, and deluding yourself at worst.

There is NOTHING WRONG with a secondhand market, ethically NOR legally. All the bullshit equivocations like "digital content doesn't wear out" are just that. It's a blatant money grab no different than the RIAA wanting to forbid customers from singing to themselves in public, and the only reason they get away with it is because of people who swallow their propaganda and apparently don't apply even a moment's worth of critical thinking before swallowing it.

I mean, geez, OP. Could you have made that stupid poll a little more biased? I think you forgot the option where Gamestop murders puppies and rapes Jesus.

targren:

MetallicaRulez0:

Uhhh... okay. That still doesn't negate the fact that you're taking money away from the developer (who makes the games you love) to give larger profit margins to one of the seediest corporations out there. You're essentially paying GameStop to rip you off.

I have no love for Gamestop and won't sell them any games because I can get far more selling directly to the next owner through Amazon, but "one of the seediest corporations out there"? Seriously? Gamestop has its flaws, its employees tend to be only marginally more intelligent than a puddle of piss, and its management usually makes Dilbert's boss look like a particle physicist, but they've never been anything but up front about their business model.

I mean, really. Even ignoring for a second every company that ever got a US Federal Government contract, it's easier to find much seedier companies... like, for example, the same fucking companies who want to remove YOUR rights for the sake of money they have no right to, for starters. The same ones who started this stupid "Gamestop is teh ebil!!!1!" drivel that gets shat out all over these forums every 3 hours.

DRM is NOT a reaction to Gamestop. Look up the word "scapegoat," and think for 30 seconds. DRM has been around longer than probably most of the users on this site have been alive (Personally, I have firsthand experience going all the way back to the Commodore 64). What has made DRM so drastically more despicable over the past 5 years is NOT Gamestop. It's widespread adoption of internet access. To think that we wouldn't be dealing with this crap if Gamestop went out of business is naive at best, and deluding yourself at worst.

There is NOTHING WRONG with a secondhand market, ethically NOR legally. All the bullshit equivocations like "digital content doesn't wear out" are just that. It's a blatant money grab no different than the RIAA wanting to forbid customers from singing to themselves in public, and the only reason they get away with it is because of people who swallow their propaganda and apparently don't apply even a moment's worth of critical thinking before swallowing it.

I mean, geez, OP. Could you have made that stupid poll a little more biased? I think you forgot the option where Gamestop murders puppies and rapes Jesus.

Biased, really?
Yea, all my polls are a little bit biased and also a little bit goofy but I get the feeling you missed this option:
No, they have every right to blame us for stunted sales.
I personally don't think they do because every time I did try (and I haven't been to a Gamestop since the last time someone got me a giftcard from there) buying a new game at gamestop, they ask me if I pre-ordered and since I didn't they only offer me a used copy at $2 savings from new. I have no problem with the used game market in general (obviously) but it appears to me that gamestop rapes both the consumer and the publisher and the publisher takes it out on the consumer.
BTW-Love your avatar. Did they really make a Rincewind stamp?

GonzoGamer:
It seems to me that the publishers have taken offense to how retailers will limit the availability of new games in favor of used copies. For the retailers this is the most profitable sale but it has only led to more expensive prices for used games for consumers.
Not only that but because of this practice, publishers have been trying to recoup the lost income (and it's questionable how much income is lost from used sales) by charging consumers of all used games an additional cost for a game mode as well as carving away content to be made pre-order bonuses.
So it seems to me that the consumer has become the whipping boy for the retailers. The publishers feel that they will have an easier time coercing more money out of consumers rather than the retailers that are causing the real problems.
I can see how gamers are an easier target (most seem to be very easily parted from their money) but that just makes it seem like more of an injustice.

I know a lot of people are over it now (meaning that we will see even more aggressive squeezing of our stones for the remaining drops of blood) but this still bothers me a lot and it's drastically curbed my purchasing habits.

I'm not voting on this poll because you forgot to include an option that says that the publishers are entitled to make money off their own products. No, I don't think they "deserve more money", but they are entitled to make a profit off their own work.

This is perfectly fine and has been happening for quite a few years without anyone complaining. It's only because EA have started doing it main stream people have started to take notice. I have no qualms with companies giving a little extra as incentives to either buy a product new or buy a slightly more expensive version. I'm not against the second hand market industry, but they are entitled to make money off their own damn products.

Plus I doubt developers "carve" content out for collectors edition packages, I think this is just a conspiracy theory. SOME companies may do it, but I think it's unfair to label all companies like that. Besides, it'd cost money to actually carve the content out and reprogram it as an add on, so there's very little gain from it.

Personally, if I don't think something's worth the price, I won't buy it. For example, can't wait to get my CE edition of Mass Effect 3 (30 more), but I will not buy an Ubisoft Online Pass on top of my XBox Live account (won't see how much this is, not checked out of principle).

GonzoGamer:
[
Biased, really?
Yea, all my polls are a little bit biased and also a little bit goofy but I get the feeling you missed this option:
No, they have every right to blame us for stunted sales.

No. I didn't miss it. I was talking about the fact that there is not one single option that puts the blame on the publishers, where it actually belongs.

BTW-Love your avatar. Did they really make a Rincewind stamp?

They (the UK) did! And Nanny Ogg also got one. :)

Gunner 51:

bahumat42:

thats because other industries have other covers
films have box office, retail,syndication
tv has syndication and dvd sales
books have such a low risk return their not even worth discussing
cars have things like warranty and being the best place for replacement parts.

Just because you want an analogy to back up your fail of an argument doesn't make the analogy valid. Because its not. We ARE a different industry and we need to find our own solutions to things.

Just because games may be provide a different product doesn't mean to say that it should preferential treatment. It is still an industry like any other, and should be treated as such.

Furthermore, games have post release downloadable content, online passes, spin-off books, merchandising and even it's own licensing via intellectual property. That's a lot of other sources of money as a result of their creation and distribution.

Games make a lot more money than we think - but it's the publishers who hoard it all never sharing it with the developers who thought of and made the game.

I maintain that the publishers are firmly in the wrong, they need to change far more than the retailers do. I can only hope that digital distribution will scare them into treating their development teams and the paying public better. I also hope that it allows the developers more independence from the publishers who pretty much got them by the short'n'curlies. But it is something that I won't hold out much hope for.

Its not preferential treatment its different treatment, would you rather your game got an mot every year?

Yes they make a lot of money, the hits aren't what im defending, some amazing games sell less than a million copies and as such dont make back what they put in, due to factors like:
piracy
second hand sales (which do effect our market much stronger than any other)

But i have a feeling typing anymore will be a waste of time because your in a herp derp evil companies tryna take mah moneh! state of mind.

Steampunk Viking:

GonzoGamer:
It seems to me that the publishers have taken offense to how retailers will limit the availability of new games in favor of used copies. For the retailers this is the most profitable sale but it has only led to more expensive prices for used games for consumers.
Not only that but because of this practice, publishers have been trying to recoup the lost income (and it's questionable how much income is lost from used sales) by charging consumers of all used games an additional cost for a game mode as well as carving away content to be made pre-order bonuses.
So it seems to me that the consumer has become the whipping boy for the retailers. The publishers feel that they will have an easier time coercing more money out of consumers rather than the retailers that are causing the real problems.
I can see how gamers are an easier target (most seem to be very easily parted from their money) but that just makes it seem like more of an injustice.

I know a lot of people are over it now (meaning that we will see even more aggressive squeezing of our stones for the remaining drops of blood) but this still bothers me a lot and it's drastically curbed my purchasing habits.

I'm not voting on this poll because you forgot to include an option that says that the publishers are entitled to make money off their own products. No, I don't think they "deserve more money", but they are entitled to make a profit off their own work.

This is perfectly fine and has been happening for quite a few years without anyone complaining. It's only because EA have started doing it main stream people have started to take notice. I have no qualms with companies giving a little extra as incentives to either buy a product new or buy a slightly more expensive version. I'm not against the second hand market industry, but they are entitled to make money off their own damn products.

Plus I doubt developers "carve" content out for collectors edition packages, I think this is just a conspiracy theory. SOME companies may do it, but I think it's unfair to label all companies like that. Besides, it'd cost money to actually carve the content out and reprogram it as an add on, so there's very little gain from it.

Personally, if I don't think something's worth the price, I won't buy it. For example, can't wait to get my CE edition of Mass Effect 3 (30 more), but I will not buy an Ubisoft Online Pass on top of my XBox Live account (won't see how much this is, not checked out of principle).

For the record, I don't have a problem with them incentivising (not a real word but hey) a new purchase but slowly over the years they have crept it up to the point where it damages the integrity of the product but the publishers push it because they can charge more for the gameplay content later...or immediately as the case may be.

targren:

GonzoGamer:
[
Biased, really?
Yea, all my polls are a little bit biased and also a little bit goofy but I get the feeling you missed this option:
No, they have every right to blame us for stunted sales.

No. I didn't miss it. I was talking about the fact that there is not one single option that puts the blame on the publishers, where it actually belongs.

BTW-Love your avatar. Did they really make a Rincewind stamp?

They (the UK) did! And Nanny Ogg also got one. :)

That's awesome.
If there was one for the Librarian, I would be looking for it on ebay. Oook.

That was supposed to be the I wont take it anymore one but I see what you mean; it still incriminates certain retailers. But that was the 'resentment towards the publisher' choice.
But if you're going to argue that the retailers are doing what they can to make a profit, you can argue the same thing about the publishers.
I just think they both have recently started squeezing the stones a bit too much and they have to tone it down before they alienate a larger portion of their consumers. They've already scared off a good amount of ps2 owners; who never got a ps3 or 360 - even though sony & ms have had a hand in that too.

Yeah, online passes and pre-order bonuses do seem to be specifically aimed at used game customers, and it's annoying, but I honestly can't think of an alternative that would benefit all parties (publishers, retailers, customers). Short of forming some kind of consumer's union, gamers will never have the negotiating power that retailers have.

Btw, I've gotta say, I love the large selection of detailed poll options (even if a few are a little ridiculous). Reminds me of those old-school RPGs where you could choose between several different paragraph-long responses in conversations, rather than the "I'd love to save your kitten" vs "*shoot the kitten*" responses nowadays.

GonzoGamer:

But if you're going to argue that the retailers are doing what they can to make a profit, you can argue the same thing about the publishers.

Except that I'm not arguing that, at all. I'm not one of those damn Randroids that will excuse any anti-societal behavior with "Corporations are amoral entities. They only exist to profit."

I am saying that, as far as used games go, Gamestop does NOTHING wrong. The "First Sale" doctrine was recognized by SCOTUS over 100 years ago. It established a RIGHT for customers to resell what they've purchased, or otherwise use it however they wish.

It's the publishers who are violating that right, both by buying (yes, buying) abusive copyright laws that make an end-run around these rights by declaring that loading a program into memory is "a copy" (this is the basis for all EULAs) and that you're buying a license (when it suits them) rather than a physical good (which they'll also claim when it suits them. Sometimes, in the same court case(if slashdot had a better search function, I'd be able to give more details. They did get slapped down for it, though). They're the ones remotely crippling users' fairly, legally paid for software, tying it to onerous DRM, etc...

I just think they both have recently started squeezing the stones a bit too much and they have to tone it down before they alienate a larger portion of their consumers. They've already scared off a good amount of ps2 owners; who never got a ps3 or 360 - even though sony & ms have had a hand in that too.

If by "both," you mean "retailers and publishers," then I fail to see how any retailers had a hand in that. I agree that the publishers/console makers did. I'm one of the ones who didn't buy a PS3 after the backward compatibility ripoff, then the otherOS disabling just vindicated my decision).

The publishers may not LIKE the second hand market, but they are firmly in the wrong trying to kill it. There's no more excuse for their abusive tactics than, say, a man blaming the annoying guy in the office for putting him in a bad mood so he went home and kicked the crap out of his wife. It's scapegoating, plain and simple.

No one else has the right to a 'vig' from resale of their goods, but because they happen to be in an industry where they can TECHNOLOGICALLY force the issue with DRM, they think that somehow makes them special, and it seems a sizable enough portion of their market possesses the requisite lack of critical thinking skills necessary to actually defend this delusion. To their own detriment, nonetheless.

TL;DR It's the publishers that have the unfounded sense of entitlement in this industry, not the resellers nor the customers.

bahumat42:

Gunner 51:

bahumat42:

true cars cost millions of dollars to design, but they also sell for around 1000x the cost of video games. Add in things like warranties and their rolling in it.\

As stupid as you claim everyone else is for giving our industry slack you are too for trying to compare it to things which its so massively different too. You wouldn't compare farming to international travel would you.

Games also sell a thousand times better than games, so I guess it all balances out at some point.

Cars also have retailers that operate very similarly to places like Game and Gamestation - while they make a small profit on the cars they sell to us. Most of the money is made in buying the customer's previous car and selling that on. (Because most of us simply wouldn't throw the complete asking price at the car dealer.)

Game and Gamestation sell their games in very much the same way. International travel and farming are two different things, but the relationship as business practices between publisher and retailer in gaming are comparible to how cars are sold by first and second hand car dealerships.

So the question why are the Games publishers acting like bullies? I don't see any other industry with a second hand industry within it doing the same.

Chrono 1973 is also very, very correct when he said "How much an item costs makes no difference where the First Sale Doctrine is concerned." No matter what product gets sold, the First Sale doctrine is and should remain sacrosanct.

thats because other industries have other covers
films have box office, retail,syndication
tv has syndication and dvd sales
books have such a low risk return their not even worth discussing
cars have things like warranty and being the best place for replacement parts.

Just because you want an analogy to back up your fail of an argument doesn't make the analogy valid. Because its not. We ARE a different industry and we need to find our own solutions to things.

A "cover" is not required. If the game industry fails to come up with a fair "cover", then that doesn't mean new laws should be written. I would say the industry is doing better than it ever has, why weren't they raising a stink in the NES era?

Crono1973:

bahumat42:

Gunner 51:

Games also sell a thousand times better than games, so I guess it all balances out at some point.

Cars also have retailers that operate very similarly to places like Game and Gamestation - while they make a small profit on the cars they sell to us. Most of the money is made in buying the customer's previous car and selling that on. (Because most of us simply wouldn't throw the complete asking price at the car dealer.)

Game and Gamestation sell their games in very much the same way. International travel and farming are two different things, but the relationship as business practices between publisher and retailer in gaming are comparible to how cars are sold by first and second hand car dealerships.

So the question why are the Games publishers acting like bullies? I don't see any other industry with a second hand industry within it doing the same.

Chrono 1973 is also very, very correct when he said "How much an item costs makes no difference where the First Sale Doctrine is concerned." No matter what product gets sold, the First Sale doctrine is and should remain sacrosanct.

thats because other industries have other covers
films have box office, retail,syndication
tv has syndication and dvd sales
books have such a low risk return their not even worth discussing
cars have things like warranty and being the best place for replacement parts.

Just because you want an analogy to back up your fail of an argument doesn't make the analogy valid. Because its not. We ARE a different industry and we need to find our own solutions to things.

A "cover" is not required. If the game industry fails to come up with a fair "cover", then that doesn't mean new laws should be written. I would say the industry is doing better than it ever has, why weren't they raising a stink in the NES era?

because development costs are lower. Game development has never been a higher investment than it is today. And its not just for games i think these laws should appeal to all digital media. Its a brave new world and trying to socket it into old ways made before computers were even a dream is absurd.

bahumat42:

Crono1973:

bahumat42:

thats because other industries have other covers
films have box office, retail,syndication
tv has syndication and dvd sales
books have such a low risk return their not even worth discussing
cars have things like warranty and being the best place for replacement parts.

Just because you want an analogy to back up your fail of an argument doesn't make the analogy valid. Because its not. We ARE a different industry and we need to find our own solutions to things.

A "cover" is not required. If the game industry fails to come up with a fair "cover", then that doesn't mean new laws should be written. I would say the industry is doing better than it ever has, why weren't they raising a stink in the NES era?

because development costs are lower. Game development has never been a higher investment than it is today. And its not just for games i think these laws should appeal to all digital media. Its a brave new world and trying to socket it into old ways made before computers were even a dream is absurd.

We don't need new laws, they need to lower their budgets. Blaming/punishing the consumer because the publisher chooses to use huge budgets is wrong.

Crono1973:

bahumat42:

Crono1973:

A "cover" is not required. If the game industry fails to come up with a fair "cover", then that doesn't mean new laws should be written. I would say the industry is doing better than it ever has, why weren't they raising a stink in the NES era?

because development costs are lower. Game development has never been a higher investment than it is today. And its not just for games i think these laws should appeal to all digital media. Its a brave new world and trying to socket it into old ways made before computers were even a dream is absurd.

We don't need new laws, they need to lower their budgets. Blaming/punishing the consumer because the publisher chooses to use huge budgets is wrong.

ok so you want shorter games?
uglier games?
ganes with less options?

what would sir like to cut?
no cutting back on the potential isnt the answer. And its not really punishing the consumer, it punishes the second hand consumer, but thats not the businesses responsiblity.

I don't agree with any of your options, I never had a problem for getting access to the content through pre-ordering but EA has broke away from the project 10$ thing and have begun to rip off their most loyal customers who even pre-order by not even allowing them the content.

You no longer get access to the content for buying new, instead you just get raped by EA. The original intention was to hurt gamestop instead all they want to do is hurt their customer base. Go to hell EA

Zeckt:
I don't agree with any of your options, I never had a problem for getting access to the content through pre-ordering but EA has broke away from the project 10$ thing and have begun to rip off their most loyal customers who even pre-order by not even allowing them the content.

You no longer get access to the content for buying new, instead you just get raped by EA. The original intention was to hurt gamestop instead all they want to do is hurt their customer base. Go to hell EA

I dont think they want to hurt the customer base as much as maximize their profits, their practices do inherently put the Consumer in a head on collision course against them.

If they do keep up these practices the consumers will just go away, its not the first time an industry killed itself by alienating its consumers. . . . . although Government has intervened in saving these industries when the market backlash was enough to kill them.

I am completely okay with online passes. Multi-player modes represent long term costs for developers. They should get something from a used game sale to support those costs should the used game purchaser choose to play said mode.

Thats my opinion anyhow.

GonzoGamer:
It seems to me that the publishers have taken offense to how retailers will limit the availability of new games in favor of used copies. For the retailers this is the most profitable sale but it has only led to more expensive prices for used games for consumers.
Not only that but because of this practice, publishers have been trying to recoup the lost income (and it's questionable how much income is lost from used sales) by charging consumers of all used games an additional cost for a game mode as well as carving away content to be made pre-order bonuses.
So it seems to me that the consumer has become the whipping boy for the retailers. The publishers feel that they will have an easier time coercing more money out of consumers rather than the retailers that are causing the real problems.
I can see how gamers are an easier target (most seem to be very easily parted from their money) but that just makes it seem like more of an injustice.

I know a lot of people are over it now (meaning that we will see even more aggressive squeezing of our stones for the remaining drops of blood) but this still bothers me a lot and it's drastically curbed my purchasing habits.

Maybe it's just me having grown up in the era of PC gaming, but there didn't exist such a thing as used games until consoles came around. You had your game and you couldn't sell it back to anyone. Your only choice was to buy new or pirate. I buy all my games new, mostly because I dislike the disparity between the price that Gamestop gives a player for a used game and the price they charge the consumer. You figure during the first week, Gamestop usually offers about 35 bucks on trade ins, which is about 60% of the game's value, and then they turn around and sell it for 55 dollars, which is a little over 90% of it's value. Shortly after that, the price you get for the game drops dramatically, while the price you pay stays relatively the same. Eventually, they're charging 100-200% more for the game than what they paid you for it.

Now mind you, that's FINE that they do that. You know in advance what you're going to get for your game, and once you sell it, they have the right sell it for whatever they want. If you sell to Gamestop, it's only your fault for being stupid. However, that doesn't mean that I need to agree with or support their policies.

That all being said, I can easily conceive of a not-to-far future where all games function like PC games used to, where you have to put in a one time use registration code to use the game that ties a specific game to a specific console. Once we get there, we'll pretty much probably see the used games market go the way of the dinosaur.

Okay everyone, here's a revolutionary new idea. How about we all stop buying games. No new games, no used games, we buy nothing until either the developers, publishers, and retailers can all come to an agreement that doesn't result in more bullshit for consumers or until all three are practically forced to pay the consumer to do business with any of them. Don't like that idea? Well then why don't we all stop bitching for five damned minutes and actually do something about it? It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that no developer, publisher, or retailer is ever going to truly take the side of the consumer unless we actually stand up and make them do it.

bahumat42:

Its not preferential treatment its different treatment, would you rather your game got an mot every year?

Yes they make a lot of money, the hits aren't what im defending, some amazing games sell less than a million copies and as such dont make back what they put in, due to factors like:
piracy
second hand sales (which do effect our market much stronger than any other)

But i have a feeling typing anymore will be a waste of time because your in a herp derp evil companies tryna take mah moneh! state of mind.

Games may not have MOTs, but that's because they don't need them. Cars have MOTs because lives depend on them. But games? Why are they charging more than they are entitled to when they don't have the distinction of saving lives like an MOT? I'll tell you: corporate greed.

Corporations should be governed to stop them from running away with themselves and giving the consumer a hard time like they are doing now. While I think that any corporation should be allowed to make a profit, I draw the line where they make obscene amounts of profits, treat their workers like crap and rip off their consumers.

By all means let a company be successful - but they shouldn't let it go to their heads like publishers do. Plus it's hard to take them seriously when they make a lot of profit and play the 'victim' card by bemoaning second hand sales (as is the consumer's right to exercise at their discretion) and piracy. While I will grant you that piracy is bad - though I don't think it's as bad as the publishers say it is.

Perhaps this is all Tall Poppy Syndrome and pessmism upon my part. But by the way things are progressing, the future of gaming will run by laissez faire capitalism. Given the "success" at turning the Call of Duty franchise into such a profitable little franchise - all of gaming will be run by the likes of Bobby Kotick.

LastGreatBlasphemer:
You know what would be interesting and actually make sense? Games that are developed for Multiplayer should have offline passes.
Like with MW3, you should have to get a pass for the campaign and/or spec ops. Those games focus on online multiplayer, so if a pass is needed, why not it be for the secondary thing? I've already paid for what I got the game for, why would I need a pass?
And before you start about how that's just as bad, NOBODY EVER BOUGHT MODERN WARFARE 2 OR 3 FOR SINGLE PLAYER YOU LIAR.

The Gentleman:

I.E. a code that unlocks non-essential aspects of the game such as multiplayer or bonus missions. You can usually buy one in-game if you buy a used copy for US$10.

Non-essential as in, I dunno, what the game was made for? The entire history and design of the game is non-essential?

I bought MW2 and 3 for the singleplayer, stop fucking generalizing everyone who plays Call Of Duty, it's beyond annoying.

targren:

GonzoGamer:

But if you're going to argue that the retailers are doing what they can to make a profit, you can argue the same thing about the publishers.

Except that I'm not arguing that, at all. I'm not one of those damn Randroids that will excuse any anti-societal behavior with "Corporations are amoral entities. They only exist to profit."

I am saying that, as far as used games go, Gamestop does NOTHING wrong. The "First Sale" doctrine was recognized by SCOTUS over 100 years ago. It established a RIGHT for customers to resell what they've purchased, or otherwise use it however they wish.

It's the publishers who are violating that right, both by buying (yes, buying) abusive copyright laws that make an end-run around these rights by declaring that loading a program into memory is "a copy" (this is the basis for all EULAs) and that you're buying a license (when it suits them) rather than a physical good (which they'll also claim when it suits them. Sometimes, in the same court case(if slashdot had a better search function, I'd be able to give more details. They did get slapped down for it, though). They're the ones remotely crippling users' fairly, legally paid for software, tying it to onerous DRM, etc...

I just think they both have recently started squeezing the stones a bit too much and they have to tone it down before they alienate a larger portion of their consumers. They've already scared off a good amount of ps2 owners; who never got a ps3 or 360 - even though sony & ms have had a hand in that too.

If by "both," you mean "retailers and publishers," then I fail to see how any retailers had a hand in that. I agree that the publishers/console makers did. I'm one of the ones who didn't buy a PS3 after the backward compatibility ripoff, then the otherOS disabling just vindicated my decision).

The publishers may not LIKE the second hand market, but they are firmly in the wrong trying to kill it. There's no more excuse for their abusive tactics than, say, a man blaming the annoying guy in the office for putting him in a bad mood so he went home and kicked the crap out of his wife. It's scapegoating, plain and simple.

No one else has the right to a 'vig' from resale of their goods, but because they happen to be in an industry where they can TECHNOLOGICALLY force the issue with DRM, they think that somehow makes them special, and it seems a sizable enough portion of their market possesses the requisite lack of critical thinking skills necessary to actually defend this delusion. To their own detriment, nonetheless.

TL;DR It's the publishers that have the unfounded sense of entitlement in this industry, not the resellers nor the customers.

But you're kind of saying that Gamestop is an 'amoral entity that only exists to profit.' because they started taking advantage of gamers before the publishers started. It wasn't until Gamestop started requiring pre-orders for new games that publishers started getting fussy over used game sales because gamestop was selling used games to those who didn't pre-order. While that does also mean that publishers were releasing crappy games that could be finished in a few days, you have to admit that Gamestop is the entity that has a brought the used issue to a head.
The publishers didn't complain about the used game market before Gamestop got it's stranglehold because people didn't spend their new game budget on used copies; back then used games were impulse buys and didn't cost near $60, even for a recent release. Gamestop made them the only thing available to the average consumer (who doesn't pre-order) then jacked up the prices.
I don't mean to imply that the publishers are innocent, just that they seem to be taking their frustrations out on the consumers. I'm saying that's misplaced as Gamestop is the one who has put the consumer in the position where the used purchase is more convenient for the average consumer.

Elamdri:

GonzoGamer:
It seems to me that the publishers have taken offense to how retailers will limit the availability of new games in favor of used copies. For the retailers this is the most profitable sale but it has only led to more expensive prices for used games for consumers.
Not only that but because of this practice, publishers have been trying to recoup the lost income (and it's questionable how much income is lost from used sales) by charging consumers of all used games an additional cost for a game mode as well as carving away content to be made pre-order bonuses.
So it seems to me that the consumer has become the whipping boy for the retailers. The publishers feel that they will have an easier time coercing more money out of consumers rather than the retailers that are causing the real problems.
I can see how gamers are an easier target (most seem to be very easily parted from their money) but that just makes it seem like more of an injustice.

I know a lot of people are over it now (meaning that we will see even more aggressive squeezing of our stones for the remaining drops of blood) but this still bothers me a lot and it's drastically curbed my purchasing habits.

Maybe it's just me having grown up in the era of PC gaming, but there didn't exist such a thing as used games until consoles came around. You had your game and you couldn't sell it back to anyone. Your only choice was to buy new or pirate. I buy all my games new, mostly because I dislike the disparity between the price that Gamestop gives a player for a used game and the price they charge the consumer. You figure during the first week, Gamestop usually offers about 35 bucks on trade ins, which is about 60% of the game's value, and then they turn around and sell it for 55 dollars, which is a little over 90% of it's value. Shortly after that, the price you get for the game drops dramatically, while the price you pay stays relatively the same. Eventually, they're charging 100-200% more for the game than what they paid you for it.

Now mind you, that's FINE that they do that. You know in advance what you're going to get for your game, and once you sell it, they have the right sell it for whatever they want. If you sell to Gamestop, it's only your fault for being stupid. However, that doesn't mean that I need to agree with or support their policies.

That all being said, I can easily conceive of a not-to-far future where all games function like PC games used to, where you have to put in a one time use registration code to use the game that ties a specific game to a specific console. Once we get there, we'll pretty much probably see the used games market go the way of the dinosaur.

The used market (when that happens; probably when it's all digital distribution) will split: some of those who can afford it will continue to be legitimate consumers but those who can't will go into pirating along with those who just don't want to spend the money. The real question is, will the publishers allow Gamestop to continue to leech off the industry at that point?
Which era of pc gaming did you grow up in? Back in the day, you could play used PC games without any problems. I can't tell you how many computers I installed Doom or XwingVsTie into and they were legit copies...and I lent them to people too. But I get your point. To me it seems like console gaming is getting all the inconveniences of PC gaming but none of the benefits.

[quote="GonzoGamer" post="9.352360.14016674"
But you're kind of saying that Gamestop is an 'amoral entity that only exists to profit.' because they started taking advantage of gamers before the publishers started. It wasn't until Gamestop started requiring pre-orders for new games that publishers started getting fussy over used game sales because gamestop was selling used games to those who didn't pre-order.
[/quote]

No, I'm not saying anything of the sort. I'm saying that there's nothing legally, ethically, nor morally wrong about buying and selling used games, no matter how much the publishers want to whine about it. (Although, lately, they are proving rather successful at buying more and more laws to do something about the "legal" part)

Also, I have NEVER had Gamestop refuse to sell me a game that they had in stock because I didn't pre-order it, unless the stock was all called for by the pre-orders. And that's good, since in the past, they've had situations where they didn't do that and people with pre-orders found the store had sold them all, and that caught them a lot of (well-deserved) flack.

It's also VERY telling if there's a problem with games being sold back used WHILE there are still outstanding pre-orders. The game must suck very, very badly.

While that does also mean that publishers were releasing crappy games that could be finished in a few days, you have to admit that Gamestop is the entity that has a brought the used issue to a head.

No, they're not. That's my point. If Gamestop didn't exist, the same thing would have happened because of Flea Markets, Ebay, Amazon, Play'n'Trade, etc... What brought the issue to a head was that the advent of internet-enabled consoles gave the publishers a way to "leash" their customers and track these things, and they threw a bitch-fit.

The publishers didn't complain about the used game market before Gamestop got it's stranglehold because people didn't spend their new game budget on used copies; back then used games were impulse buys and didn't cost near $60, even for a recent release. Gamestop made them the only thing available to the average consumer (who doesn't pre-order) then jacked up the prices.

Again, that's not true at all. Gamestop isn't the only retailer selling games. Within 5 minutes of the nearest gamestop, there is also a WalMart, a Target, and a Best Buy, and all have comparable selection, especially when it comes to the "latest and greatest" (as in, games for which pre-orders are even a relevant consideration). Even if Gamestop WAS doing what you say (and again, they have never done so in my experience), odds are they don't have a used copy in stock anyway (unless, as I said, the game REALLY sucks that it's being sold back within a week) and the customer will go to the competition. That does not exactly make good business sense.

I don't mean to imply that the publishers are innocent, just that they seem to be taking their frustrations out on the consumers. I'm saying that's misplaced as Gamestop is the one who has put the consumer in the position where the used purchase is more convenient for the average consumer.

There's nothing WRONG with making the secondary market more convenient, but that's where the publishers need to be competing. Some of them have started with things like Steam and other methods of digital distribution(the convenience of which is arguable, but it's an attempt).

COMPETITION is not a bad thing. And this is competition, regardless of the fact that the publisher made the game. They are competing for the customers' entertainment budget, and they are doing a shit-poor job of making a case for themselves. Instead, they rely on blatantly self-serving rhetoric and transparently flawed appeals to get their customers to fight their battles for them.

Fijiman:
Okay everyone, here's a revolutionary new idea. How about we all stop buying games. No new games, no used games, we buy nothing until either the developers, publishers, and retailers can all come to an agreement that doesn't result in more bullshit for consumers or until all three are practically forced to pay the consumer to do business with any of them. Don't like that idea? Well then why don't we all stop bitching for five damned minutes and actually do something about it? It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that no developer, publisher, or retailer is ever going to truly take the side of the consumer unless we actually stand up and make them do it.

OMG BUT I NEED TO BUY THE NEW GAME OTEHRISE I WONT FEEL LIKE THE SPECIAL SNOWFLAKE WITH MY GROUPD OF FRIENDS!!!! /sarcasm

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked