are cheaper games worth it? (used games controversy) Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 | |
You do know that changes NOTHING I said right? Read properly next time before jumping the gun. Also, answer the question, please. | |
Another thing to notw is that not all games get cheaper. Take a look at a lot of Atlus' releases, such as Radiant Historia. Quality game, but it got incredibly rare for a while because it has such a limited print run. If not for the existence of used games, I wouldn't have gotten my copy. Used games are not bad. To argue that they are is asinine. There are used movies, used books, whatever, and I don't always want to pay $60+ for a product I may not even like. I'm sorry, but video games cost a ridiculous amount of money even for a luxury like entertainment. | |
As I've said before companies and consumers should just fucking decide what games are and be done with it. They are a product when it suits them and a licence when it doesn't. Just make up your mind and be done with it. | |
Well, it does change everything you said, because i agree with you... I was merely exploring the other side of the argument. Your aiming your argument at the wrong person :) And no, borrowing games is totally different to buying it yourself. I shouldnt have to buy a copy/ pay for an online pass for each person who plays the game within the same house. Its just stupid. When the game changes hands proper, THEN an online pass may be acceptable. But charging someone to borrow something is morally wrong. This is why the noline pass system as it is, is wrong. | |
Of course its an issue. I like how I can still find used versions of old games on the shelf, they don't stock games for forever, how am i gonna get a hold of them if i have to wait a while to get it? | |
People have been buying/swapping used games since the atari 2600, why should this generation (or the next) be any different. I borrowed Dissidia off a friend and loved it so I bought the sequel Dissidia: 012 Duodecim, used games if anything are good. | |
Why does everyone feel bad for the poor, poor publishers? Everything, and I mean everything has a second-hand market. Cars, houses, art, musical instruments, pc hardware and tv/hi-fi equipment. For some reason publishers get all whingey because people buy their games second hand and expect to feel special. No dice, you're the same as everyone else. | |
There are hordes of cheap, ridiculously cheap and free games out there. Don't like paying $50? Buy older games, budget games, XBLA/PSN games or indie games (which could certainly use your support). Big publishers get to charge such high prices either because the games have massive amounts of content that are worth it (GTA4, Skyrim, ME:2) or just because they blew a lot of money on marketing and branding. Anyone reading the escapist is probably informed enough not to slavishly buy whatever has the most advertising and aware of all the cheap back catalog and indie games out there, so if you don't like AAA release-day prices or ridiculous DRM & usage restrictions there's no reason to keep propping them up. | |
"You're." And no, I was aiming my argument at the person who was arguing it. It makes no difference whether you were playing "Devil's Advocate" or not; you were making the argument, expect someone to counter-indicate. That's...that's kind of how the whole "exploring the other side" thing works. If nothing else, understand the purpose of what you are claiming to do.
So it's wrong for a company not to get money off of a product second-hand unless it's labeled "borrowing." In which case, it's totally cool because it hasn't changed hands "proper." Come now.
So you're opposed to rentals, then? That's what a rental is. You are charging someone to borrow an item. Besides, part of the reason that I doubt your sincerity on the "exploring the other side" bit comes down to the fact that you refused to explore their side here. You're saying you're playing Devil's Advocate at the same time you're out and out saying "but this is just WRONG, end of." Yeah, so's bypassing our rights to second-hand sales, but you didn't have any problem arguing against that. | |
I suppose I"m in the "eh ... don't care" camp recognized by the OP. If games become too expensive, I'll not buy them and, possibly, not play video games anymore. I now buy a mix of new and used titles. Some games --- such as ME3 or Borderland 2 --- I'm eager to play and buy when they are new. Other games I"m maybe not so sure I'll like, or won't like a lot, so I buy 'em second hand. The cheaper price usually improves my enjoyment of these titles. For example, I picked up Crackdown for about $10 US and was delighted. But if I'd paid $50 US, I would've been disappointed. Which games are worth buying new and which aren't are a personal decision we each make for ourselves. I've no real moral position on used vs. new games. If Microsoft and Sony want to lock up their respective gaming technologies, it's their prerogative to do so. I don't have to play. I can dust off my Betamax machine and watch a video on the Microsoft Monopoly hearings;) | |
Ah, well. I've shared my opinion, contradictory as it is :) Although, starting a post with a grammar correction isnt the best way to get someone to take you seriously... | |
It tends to weed out people who are looking for an easy out. Which is really a win/win scenario. Honestly, people who can't get past a little help with their spelling skills in order to read a point are people I probably don't want to be wasting time on. | |
| Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 | |
Yeah, probably. PSN isn't the most reliable service ever. I'm betting PSN lacks a built-in on-the-fly error correction system, or if it does have one, that it doesn't work as well as Steam's. Steam's is damn near foolproof, even screwing around with modding Steam games and ending up with horribly corrupted files isn't an issue for it to handle.