TheChewyWaffles
Member
But they are consuming the leftovers that someone else originally bought new from DICE. How many people would not buy a new game from DICE knowing they could not resell afterward?
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
DICE: Anti Used System 'can be a win and a loss'.
- Thread starter Saty
- Start date
But they are consuming the leftovers that someone else originally bought new from DICE. How many people would not buy a new game from DICE knowing they could not resell afterward?
JimmyRustler
Gold Member
No no no dude. With Steam and the AppStore, it's a licence you're buying, not an item. That's something eeeeeeeennnnnnnnttttttiiiiiirrrrrrrlllllyyyyy different.
Thanks for posting that. Should be mandatory in corporate apologist threads.
Oh man, the delusion.
Video game devs and publishers are not my "friends." Their sole purpose is to part me with my money. That is it. The money has been paid for the copy of the game. I don't magically duplicate the disc and continue playing after it's sold.
bullshit. You look at most games for the past 10 years and you'll have instances of early prototyping that leads to cut content. What an insane argument.
basically 7 is correct. if you try to argue that you are owed every bit that is placed on the disc or everything the devs did from the time they started the project until the time they launched then you are an entitled little shit. You are practically the definition of entitled. You know what? You're free not to buy the game and cut off your nose to spite your face in the case of a great game, but you aint owed shit.
You know who the real culture warriors are by the ones who use the term corporate apologist. So congratulations to you, down there in the trenches, fighting that good fight against... whatever it is you think you're fighting against.
WanderingWind
Mecklemore Is My Favorite Wrapper
I am aware of your position. I do not see how you view property rights as something that should be given out by the companies the least interested in providing them. No other entertainment entity operates in this way, and yet they all have robust and corporate-ran second hand markets.
If I were a head of a game company, I'd probably work out a business model that isn't dependent on selling CoD numbers, operate within a reasonable budget and work with my customers and not against them.
As a consumer, it is my right to search out the best deals for my money. Sometimes that is used sales, sometimes it's buying new from Steam, sometimes it's buying new from GoG or retailers. As a business, it's your duty to protect your interest, but I've yet to hear a convincing argument on how attacking people who support you (and if you've ever bought a game first hand, you are) is good business sense.
Now, if you'd like to show me statistics that prove that people who buy second hand ONLY buy second hand (consoles, too) then maybe your position would hold some weight. I would still say the developers and publishers would be much better served trying to provide incentives for new buyers than trying to rewrite how property rights have existed since day one.
...they're not your friends, man. They are the same as any other corporate entity. They are not providing you with hours of enjoyment. They are selling it.
Don't be disingenuous.
Reality of the situation is that not every person acquires a product via the means the seller would want. But you are suggesting that alrightstart doesn't get his/her games via legitimate means.
The shoe fits.
The scariest part of this is that if an anti-used game system comes, there will be no retro gaming. If authorization servers go down, then games could literally be lost to history.
Also echoing the usual statements that the problem is with the publishers and their crazy budgets and AAA-or-bust mentality. We'd buy more new games if they didn't cost so damn much AND nickel-and-dime us afterwards.
Also echoing the usual statements that the problem is with the publishers and their crazy budgets and AAA-or-bust mentality. We'd buy more new games if they didn't cost so damn much AND nickel-and-dime us afterwards.
Grade A bullshit, eh? How many companies/developers/teams went out of business within the last-generation? Skyrocketing development costs is one of many reasons why the industry is hurting. Keywords for comprehension: One of many.
I'm not saying used games sales are not hurting the industry. I'm sure they are. But what is hurting the industry MORE is skyrocketing development costs, asset costs, media costs, marketing costs, etc. The pendulum is swinging way too far on one extreme.
If a company wants to reduce costs, increase quality, and ensure excellent customer relations, then they need to become more cost-effective across the board. Picking strictly one reason on why the industry is hurting is not going to solve the problem.
Steam prices games so aggressively that people gladly give up their right to sell the game. If publishers wanted to lock games to consoles, but the price of all new games dropped to $40, or prices decreased as rapidly as they do on Steam, most people would probably be ok with that.
But you're kidding yourself if you think publishers would do anything but keep prices exactly where they are now, just without the ability to sell the games back.
I've been selling my games since my atari 2600, from NES, SNES, Genesis, N64, Playstation, Gameboy, Gameboy Color, GBA, NGP, Gamecube, Dreamcast, import dreamcast, Saturn, Turbografix 16, Turbo CD, PS2, Xbox, Xbox 360 (3 of em) PS3, PSP, PSP 3000, PS Vita, DS, DS lite and 3DS. The vast majority of all those system and game purchases were new. I've been supporting this industry since '82 yet funnily I have yet to receive one thank you letter from any of these companies.
Another funny thing, the used and rental market has been around ever since I started gaming way back then. Those early years had limited supply runs so the used market was extremely important back then. See we didn't have Amazon or this whole online thing back then. Guess what, video games are still here. So I guess you could say the main thing that has changed has been developers and publishers.
Seriously, as much and as long as i've supported this industry I find your comment here extremely insulting and offensive. How dare you accuse people of screwing over an industry built upon the backs of gamers like me.
Actually seeing someone in this thread post that they're happy to give up their rights to help the industry really depresses me. Used games support this industry and the sales of new games. The industry is running on a broken system. They don't want to embrace variable pricing and on top of that they constantly nickel and dime consumers. The industry is fast heading towards another crash if things don't change.
Maybe we could come with a more apt description for a person who champions the right of a corporate entity over those of an individual, especially in the matter of established property rights?
In some respects, we're already at that point. XBox 1 games are no longer playable online. Catwoman DLC aficionados will be unable to play that part of the game in a few years (unless they pony up for a second copy of the game). Single player content is locked behind one-time use codes, making completion of a game impossible.
Don't think it won't get worse.
A fool and his money are soon parted
WanderingWind
Mecklemore Is My Favorite Wrapper
I have to laugh at this.
Exercising your basic rights of ownership isn't 'screwing over' anyone. If you honestly believe that anyone buying or selling something secondhand deprives a manufacturer of what's rightfully theirs, and that I should be sympathizing with them, you really need to put down the kool-aid pitcher because you've clearly had one too many.
How exactly does Gamestop win by voluntarily giving a % of their revenue to a publisher for no reason?
Don't lend that game you just finished to your friend either, you monster.
That alternative is no used market at all. Gamestop would probably collapse if that would happen.
WanderingWind
Mecklemore Is My Favorite Wrapper
You don't think they're under pressure from all of this? A compromise that promises the future of their markets for as long as there is a physical medium would be beneficial in the long run. Sure, they may only leave with a minor "w" but hey, a win's a win.
And in order for that corporate entity to keep producing the things you love, they need to make money. So he wants to support them and doesn't mind what they're saying because it will help them make the things he loves (in their opinion and his), and will argue for it. Is it that hard to comprehend?
I pay for games I buy with games I sell. If I cannot do this, either the price of games needs to drop dramatically (lol), or I am not buying games. If publishers stop supporting used games, I hope the entire industry goes into the toilet. I can live with just indy devs and retro games.
WanderingWind
Mecklemore Is My Favorite Wrapper
Do you understand the difference between disagreement and miscomprehension?
I do, and I guess I didn't understand your original post then. My bad.
I wonder though - most game publishers acknowledge that sales of games are strongest in the first month of release. After that, most people move onto the next big thing.
What might be a compromise is that gamestop could agree to not sell preowned copies of a game in the first month of release (when 60% or whatever of lifetime sales occur).
After that launch period, it's open slather as per normal.
Meanwhile, the games are still playable for a borrower/second hand purchaser and nothing stops anyone reselling a game through private means in that first month anyway.
It's not an ideal solution - (ideally there would be no contrivances) - but at least this way legitimate customers don't get caught in the corporate crossfire during the War against Customer Rights.
WanderingWind
Mecklemore Is My Favorite Wrapper
Eh. I doubt it would have much impact. Most people who aren't buying in the first week are probably waiting for a price drop anyway.
NullPointer
Member
Well you've just pointed out another big problem: price drops. How can developers make the games we love if they have to accept reduced payment from sales and discounts?
Maybe we can cut a deal with the retailers and digital storefronts so that sales are forbidden. Think of how much that would help the industry!
WanderingWind
Mecklemore Is My Favorite Wrapper
Already happens. Ever wonder why some games seem to never go on sale? It's not by accident.
Ken Masters
Banned
sorry GAF, i'm 100% ready and ok with DD only for next gen systems
flyinpiranha
Member
My reasoning is pretty simple, I don't buy new games because it's a gamble at that price. For $29.99 I don't mind if it's mediocre. For $59.99 it better damn well be the Mozart of gaming.
There's a reason I only see huge production, special effect laden masterpieces at the theater like "Dark Knight" and don't go see "Get Him to The Greek" for $18/ticket. It's not that I am uninterested in the latter, I just don't feel it's worth that much, but it is worth something ... maybe a rental, maybe even buy the BR down the road for $14 if I really like it for a bunch of us to watch it.
It's the same with anything. I just think the quality of games and longevity of them has gone down while the price has gone up. It's all relative to each person what they deem as acceptable for pricing but I don't feel that Prototype 2 is worth the same as Red Dead Redemption. I might bite at $29.99.
There is also my age obviously and my personal beliefs on the value of a dollar which is completely different from 15 year old me thinking $49.99 for "Cool Spot" on the Genesis was totally rad.
Plus, the problem is public perception on price , but that's another ballgame altogether.
There's too many reasons the gaming landscape is "failing" and honestly I feel that used games and pirating are not the main factors.
Sorry Ken, but North America is not ready for this to happen, there are too many people with limited bandwidth (all of them practically) and that would cause a decrease in gaming purchases. Especially if this generation we're seeing up 35+ Gb for a game.
There's a reason I only see huge production, special effect laden masterpieces at the theater like "Dark Knight" and don't go see "Get Him to The Greek" for $18/ticket. It's not that I am uninterested in the latter, I just don't feel it's worth that much, but it is worth something ... maybe a rental, maybe even buy the BR down the road for $14 if I really like it for a bunch of us to watch it.
It's the same with anything. I just think the quality of games and longevity of them has gone down while the price has gone up. It's all relative to each person what they deem as acceptable for pricing but I don't feel that Prototype 2 is worth the same as Red Dead Redemption. I might bite at $29.99.
There is also my age obviously and my personal beliefs on the value of a dollar which is completely different from 15 year old me thinking $49.99 for "Cool Spot" on the Genesis was totally rad.
Plus, the problem is public perception on price , but that's another ballgame altogether.
There's too many reasons the gaming landscape is "failing" and honestly I feel that used games and pirating are not the main factors.
Sorry Ken, but North America is not ready for this to happen, there are too many people with limited bandwidth (all of them practically) and that would cause a decrease in gaming purchases. Especially if this generation we're seeing up 35+ Gb for a game.
Pureauthor
Member
Ah, so this unparalleled generosity is apparently supposed to be a one-way thing? I'm supposed to take every bit of exploitation and abuse these game companies are throwing our way but not actually stand up for my own rights as a consumer because that would be selfish?
Or, I could go with services that, when they ask me to give up something like my right to resell games, give me something in return. Like massively discounted prices - that's a pretty nice one.
This. The business analyst in me would like to see and crunch come hard numbers.
Good luck in what way? It can't be done? Or no one will buy it?
?????
if they do end up killing off used games, the devs themselves should make some kind of program where trading in a sucky game u dont want, or a game ur tired off will give you credit torwards a new game by them.
tying games to a single account gives the devs too much power, why shoudnt i be able to trade games with friends or buy second hand games.
If the system in place fucks them over then they need to come up with a better system and convince people to want to use this new and better system.
Less options is never the better option.
tying games to a single account gives the devs too much power, why shoudnt i be able to trade games with friends or buy second hand games.
If the system in place fucks them over then they need to come up with a better system and convince people to want to use this new and better system.
Less options is never the better option.
Limited number of activations.
Call support. Say you moved, new computer if they ask. Congratz windows.
If you own a full retail copy of Windows, you can sell your license. If the copy of Windows is OEM, you cannot resell it.
You can also sell your license for Photoshop. I'm not sure about games like Civilization.
I trade in games in order to buy more used games. I can justify a $60 price tag for very few titles. Most recently it was God of War 3, and Gears of War 3.
Exactly, and I have retail copies of Windows and Photoshop that I purchased 10 years or more ago and I can install them today on a new computer I build or a VM. I've had multiple PCs in my house since the 90's and have multiple PS1, Gamecube, PS2 and 360 consoles as well for my family. I will never buy software that is tied to a single piece of hardware unless it is heavily discounted.
As has already been mentioned, you can sell your copy of Windows (provided it is not OEM). You can sell your license for Photoshop as well.
Why wouldn't you be able to sell your copy of Civilization? Honest question.
Night_Trekker
Member
Yep. Anti-used policies are going to be a disaster for the industry and for consumers. Here's hoping for a humbling industry crash. It needs one.
I don't think people have a problem with you giving up your own property rights. You're entitled to do that, although it's very naive to believe you're "saving" the industry in this manner.
I think people have a problem with you insisting other people give up their basic property rights because they are getting in the way of what you happen to personally want.
Goddamn do I love reading Opiate posts.
Jake Tower
Banned
Price fixing is illegal.
because it's tied to my Steam account with 100+ games.
It would be tied if I had bought it
As for Windows I bought my first boxed copy last year. I had only OEM copies before that. Interesting.
Jake Tower
Banned
ProTip: make a new steam account for each game
Version 3.0
Member
Playing a game that has been paid for is not "screwing over" anyone. The publisher has its money already. In fact, they probably got it when they sold that game to the retailer. It's none of their business whether I'm playing it, or my son, or my neighbor, or someone else I sold it to.
If you believe differently, you're a hypocrite. I'd like to see copies of the payments you're going to make to the movie companies for every film you've ever seen when you're not alone. Two people, one viewing = theft. Right? Pull your head out.
Similar threads
- Locked