Support NeoGAF

[Magnus]

All the comments about watching the ending on youtube make me think that this idea's adoption would go well past rendering the ending as DLC, but rather the whole final quarter of a game, or other modes in the game like multiplayer.

 

[ElFly]

Even with lower prices, there will be people out there who are only interested on getting a better deal than the rest, that will keep buying used games just to save $5.

But, higher prices only throw more and more consumers to the hands of Gamestop.

 

[xs_mini_neo]

You know what hurts the game industry more?

Spoiler

Hacks. Greed. General stupidity. Virals. Hype addictions. Little creativity. Gender and Culture wars.

But let's blame used games instead.

 

[Mario]

You know what hurts the game industry more?

Spoiler

Hacks. Greed. General stupidity. Virals. Hype addictions. Little creativity. Gender and Culture wars.

But let's blame used games instead.

I don't think "Industry" is suggesting used games are the sole thing to blame for the current woes as is implied. The problems within the games industry are split between issues generated by developers, publishers, retailers, and consumers. The problems are multi faceted and the solutions will have to be multi faceted also.

Used games are an issue. I personally think commercial used game sales are a bigger issue than piracy.

 

[Segata Sanshiro]

You should feel sorry for them, you should also want to feed their families because if you (consumers as a whole) don't then they wont make games. Its like a bartering for anything ; if the creator is not making what the market dictates they should, why should the creator make the product?

No, that's not how businesses work. It is *never* the customer's obligation or responsibility to watch out for the business's well-being. If the business is not capable of creating a working business model, then maybe the people involved should find new jobs. As for the games, as long as there is consumer demand for games, there will be someone who will be smart enough and capable enough to try to satisfy that demand.

The gaming industry's business model *has* to change. Virtually everyone can see that. The problem is that an awful lot of people in the industry seem to think the correct strategy for this is to choke more money out of the existing consumer base. That's a very, very risky strategy.

 

[Wolves Evolve]

Well said, Segata.

No culture industry exists without a substantial grey market, and there's always been a powerful feedback loop between those who buy second hand - and yes, even those who pirate - and new sales. Given that this is true - given that you don't listen to the dogbrained garbage of industry groups - you watch primary and secondary markets interact all the time.

If anything, game companies should be working out ways to encourage game swapping and second-hard markets, and how to capitalise.

The history of modern culture is littered with the corpses of companies who tried to squeeze the life out of grey markets. But hey, go ahead! Maybe this one time, this one time in history, it will work!

 

[Version 3.0]

Used games are an issue. I personally think commercial used game sales are a bigger issue than piracy.

You're wrong. Piracy does not drive new game sales, but used games do, and on a large scale. I don't know how many times I'm going to have to type these words, but:

Used games are the reason Gamestop is the #1 new game retailer.

You only want to see the "theft" of a new sale, but if Gamestop were not willing to buy that game, then the person who sells it to them would not be buying a new game.

 

[Mario]

You're wrong. Piracy does not drive new game sales, but used games do, and on a large scale.

I disagree.

Gamestop is incentivised to shift consumers from new purchases to used purchases, and having built it into their process they do so aggressively.

If used game sales disappeared overnight, I contend new game sales would go up. I think the same would happen if piracy disappeared.

Neither of us can really prove our respective positions though.

 

[Segata Sanshiro]

I think there are a lot of things that would make game sales go up, but it seems that a lot of people in the games industry are only willing to consider solutions that don't involve admitting that they are part of the problem.

 

[Kintaro]

I disagree.

Gamestop is incentivised to shift consumers from new purchases to used purchases, and having built it into their process they do so aggressively.

If this was completely true, you would not see Gamestop offering "Power Trades" towards new games/pre-orders. Get extra 20% towards such and such game coming out, etc. These deals do not apply to used copies of the game.

 

[Version 3.0]

I disagree.

Gamestop is incentivised to shift consumers from new purchases to used purchases, and having built it into their process they do so aggressively.

If used game sales disappeared overnight, I contend new game sales would go up. I think the same would happen if piracy disappeared.

Neither of us can really prove our respective positions though.

It may not be provable, but the data supports my theory better than yours, considering how Gamestop's new game sales have increased right along with their used game sales. You're picturing Gamestop still selling new games, but not selling used ones, and that scenario probably puts them out of business. It certainly drives away many or most of their customers. You can't remove one without the other.

Gamestop is incentivised to shift consumers from new purchases to used purchases

Yes, they do. But they also drive more pre-orders than any other retailer, probably more than all others combined. When you trade in a game, the first question out of their mouth is "do you want to put this toward a pre-order?" and the second is "do you want to get a new game", because they'll give you an extra 20% on the trade-in if you say yes.

edit: beaten by Kintaro

 

[PBalfredo]

All the comments about watching the ending on youtube make me think that this idea's adoption would go well past rendering the ending as DLC, but rather the whole final quarter of a game, or other modes in the game like multiplayer.

Agreed. And this starts getting into the territory where it hurts all consumers, even the ones who bought it retail.

I look at my collection of games and I know that if I pop a copy of Super Mario World into my SNES, I can go through and kick Bowser's ass. But what if years from now I want to replay a DLC-ending game? DLC is only around for as long as it's hosted on a server. They've already pulled low-selling Arcade games off of LIVE's servers. Who is to say how much DLC will still be available years from now or a generation form now. If you bought the retail version like a good little consumer whore but just didn't get around to beating/downloading the ending, or had to clean your fridge at one point, you could be fucked in the future.

Just look at the people replaying Zelda OoT in the 10 anniversary thread and wonder what would it be like if Gannondorf was DLC.

 

[Proven]

I think GAF for being exceptionally useful for once, as I now have a better grasp of the effect of the used market in the game industry and other industries as well.

 

[Slavik81]

Here's a question:

If publishers are so concerned about rentals why don't they start renting their games online? Put them on XBL/PSN as expiring downloads.

If you can rent HD movies from the Xbox Live download service, why not rent 360 games? Hard drive space isn't even a problem! Xbox 360 games can be copied onto the hard drive in the new update anyways. There's no technical reason why it can't be done.

 

[haowan]

I think there are a lot of things that would make game sales go up, but it seems that a lot of people in the games industry are only willing to consider solutions that don't involve admitting that they are part of the problem.

I have tried countless times to convince the people I work with to stop trying to pitch creatively defunct crap, and for a while they tried hard to do that, but while most publishers will say "oh hey, that's really interesting, we're all about innovation, let's move this forward" they never seem to follow through and call back or send the contracts through or whatever.

Again, most of the time development studios have no control over budget (it takes like 6 months to negotiate to a point where the publisher is happy with the very tight budget and at that point it has cost the dev a load of cash already) and most of the time the product itself. I've already said several times I think we should be charging less for games and give customers more ROI like free DLC and shit like that.

 

[tahrikmili]

Used games are an issue. I personally think commercial used game sales are a bigger issue than piracy.

That's pure unadulterated nonsense.

People are stealing from us but we can't really do anything about that so tell you what, let's fuck our legitimate customers instead.

Well fuck that.

The day game companies try to sell me games I can't 'own' will be the day I quit buying games. Then we'll see which one is a bigger issue.

 

[haowan]

The day game companies try to sell me games I can't 'own' will be the day I quit buying games. Then we'll see which one is a bigger issue.

You probably haven't bought any games since the PS2 era then. You don't own the games you buy, only a license to play them. Yes it's nonsense and yes it's unenforceable and yes it is illegal in respect of consumer rights, but there it is on the box. I see you have a 360 controller in your avatar there. Bought anything from XBLA recently? You think you 'own' that?

 

[tahrikmili]

You probably haven't bought any games since the PS2 era then. You don't own the games you buy, only a license to play them. Yes it's nonsense and yes it's unenforceable and yes it is illegal in respect of consumer rights, but there it is on the box. I see you have a 360 controller in your avatar there. Bought anything from XBLA recently? You think you 'own' that?

I've sworn off EA games on the PC since the SecuROM activation bullshit. I wish I could play Crysis Warhead and Red Alert 3 but - fuck them. Similarly, I bought a console version of Bioshock, Mirror's Edge and many other games for the same reason. I haven't bought an XBLA game in.. ages. I doubt I ever will, once the 1600 points left in my account are used up. I haven't bought a game on Steam since.. Well I got audiosurf and Eets but they were 2.50$.

So yeah, I can't say I haven't paid for things I don't 'own' but most of it happened before I was faced with the consequences. And I try to make sure I stay away from that crap as long as I can now.

 

[Segata Sanshiro]

It's interesting but XBLA and VC/Wiiware have given me some perspective into what my purchasing habits would be if I was unable to resell a game. I bought Assault Heroes on XBLA and while I enjoyed it, it's not something I would've kept if I had an option to turn it around for even a buck or two. I took a chance (as I often do with retail products), didn't really feel all that impressed by it (albeit I liked the demo well enough, and I appreciate XBLA/PSN giving us at least that), probably won't play it ever again. Can't resell it. End result? I'm pretty much never going to buy another game from that developer again.

The overwhelming majority of my VC/WW/XBLA purchases after some initial experimenting have been "safe", games I've already played, or franchises I'm very familiar with. I'm far less inclined to bet on a new/small/unknown developer if I can't sell the game back. I'm totally disinclined to bet on a developer who's let me down even once. This is a pretty big change from my regular purchasing habits with physical media, where I take quite a few more chances than most.

 

[Version 3.0]

You probably haven't bought any games since the PS2 era then. You don't own the games you buy, only a license to play them. Yes it's nonsense and yes it's unenforceable and yes it is illegal in respect of consumer rights, but there it is on the box. I see you have a 360 controller in your avatar there. Bought anything from XBLA recently? You think you 'own' that?

We've been over this earlier in the thread. It's not true. Here, let me quote myself:

Publishers would love for us all to believe this, but it's BS. Nice try, but it flopped. If these hilarious "you don't really own it" agreements were at all legal, Gamestop and Ebay would have been sued out of business 10 times over by now. They're not just unenforcable, they're simply not valid.

On the digital side, we'll see, this may play out in court again, but the way I see it, I can still sell my downloaded games. I just can't physically separate them from my console. The lack of a physical game doesn't give the publisher my rights, it just makes it difficult for me to exercise them.

 

[charlequin]

You don't own the games you buy, only a license to play them. Yes it's nonsense and yes it's unenforceable and yes it is illegal in respect of consumer rights, but there it is on the box.

Nnnnnnope. If you buy a commercial game, you have:

1) That physical copy of the game, which you own and may do with as you will (keep unopened, sell off to someone else, play frisbee with),
2) The ability to make use of the content on the disc,
3) The right to make limited use of the name, appearance, and trade dress of the product in order to resell it.

EULAs are not actualy a vehicle by which game publishers can legally remove legitimate consumer rights like the principle of first sale. There is no provision under copyright law where any copyright-holder can "revoke" your right to use any work you've paid for a physical copy of.

 

[Stink]

until it's been tested both sides of the argument are moot.

 

[Mario]

It may not be provable, but the data supports my theory better than yours, considering how Gamestop's new game sales have increased right along with their used game sales.

Of course their new game sales are going up. In aggregate, consumer sales are up overall and Gamestop have been aggressive at expanding through acquisitions of other chains and establishing new locations.


Again, neither position is provable.

 

[Campster]

Nnnnnnope. If you buy a commercial game, you have:

1) That physical copy of the game, which you own and may do with as you will (keep unopened, sell off to someone else, play frisbee with),
2) The ability to make use of the content on the disc,
3) The right to make limited use of the name, appearance, and trade dress of the product in order to resell it.

EULAs are not actualy a vehicle by which game publishers can legally remove legitimate consumer rights like the principle of first sale. There is no provision under copyright law where any copyright-holder can "revoke" your right to use any work you've paid for a physical copy of.

Tell that to people banned from World of Warcraft for doing nothing more than playing in a way Blizzard finds disreputable, or to people who can no longer use XBox Live because of a mod chip. Their legal argument isn't "You cheated so we can make you stop playing!" Their argument is "Hey, it's in the EULA - you violate it and we have every right in the world to prevent you from using the software from our end, rendering your disk a coaster."

And besides, Haowan's correct - you buy a license to software, not the software itself. You don't buy the game, you buy a license for private use under the terms of the EULA. This license can be sold and exchanged as a part of the doctrine of first sale, but you don't "own" the game. And yes, it is stupid, but welcome to the world of modern IP law.

 

[Opiate]

No, that's not how businesses work. It is *never* the customer's obligation or responsibility to watch out for the business's well-being. If the business is not capable of creating a working business model, then maybe the people involved should find new jobs. As for the games, as long as there is consumer demand for games, there will be someone who will be smart enough and capable enough to try to satisfy that demand.

The gaming industry's business model *has* to change. Virtually everyone can see that. The problem is that an awful lot of people in the industry seem to think the correct strategy for this is to choke more money out of the existing consumer base. That's a very, very risky strategy.

I agree with all of this, save the last sentence: while it is risky, I would also argue it's the safest and easiest path they have available to them. As risky as it is to continue to increase prices for the existing consumers, significant alteration of a large corporation's entire business model is even riskier, and perhaps more importantly, requires a great deal more effort.

 

[Dave Long]

Tell that to people banned from World of Warcraft for doing nothing more than playing in a way Blizzard finds disreputable, or to people who can no longer use XBox Live because of a mod chip. Their legal argument isn't "You cheated so we can make you stop playing!" Their argument is "Hey, it's in the EULA - you violate it and we have every right in the world to prevent you from using the software from our end, rendering your disk a coaster."

And besides, Haowan's correct - you buy a license to software, not the software itself. You don't buy the game, you buy a license for private use under the terms of the EULA. This license can be sold and exchanged as a part of the doctrine of first sale, but you don't "own" the game. And yes, it is stupid, but welcome to the world of modern IP law.

EULAs have never been tested in a court of law.

And your first examples, WoW and Xbox Live are entirely different. Those are services, not goods for sale. If you violate their terms of service they can shut off the service to you. It's a completely different argument from the resale of a disc. You can still resell the WoW disc or the Xbox itself. That tangible good is yours to do with as you please. And if I'm not mistaken, with the Xboxes that get banned, many people do resell them via eBay to unsuspecting customers who end up not being able to ever get on Live.

 

[Vinci]

I'm going to skip most of the industry talk; I'll leave that to more economically read folks to debate.

However ... I can clearly recall when DLC first started gaining ground and I posted something long ago on Penny Arcade's forum about how if you give companies an inch they'll take a mile, and that eventually they'd DLC damn near every aspect of a game because the public told them DLC was acceptable ...

CALLED IT

Now what this nutjob has suggested hasn't happened yet, but I'd be shocked and amazed if they don't start doing it at some point in the future.

 

[Chrange]

Tell that to people banned from World of Warcraft for doing nothing more than playing in a way Blizzard finds disreputable, or to people who can no longer use XBox Live because of a mod chip. Their legal argument isn't "You cheated so we can make you stop playing!" Their argument is "Hey, it's in the EULA - you violate it and we have every right in the world to prevent you from using the software from our end, rendering your disk a coaster."

And besides, Haowan's correct - you buy a license to software, not the software itself. You don't buy the game, you buy a license for private use under the terms of the EULA. This license can be sold and exchanged as a part of the doctrine of first sale, but you don't "own" the game. And yes, it is stupid, but welcome to the world of modern IP law.

You bought the game, you don't own the service. You can do whatever you want with your copy of WoW - replace all the Murlocs with sexy barmaids or whatever. That's up to you. But if you do something Blizzard doesn't like, they don't HAVE to let you on the service. You agree to the terms of use for that service before you connect to it.

Same with the 360. You can modify it all you want, but if you do Microsoft doesn't have to let you keep using Xbox Live.

 

[charlequin]

Tell that to people banned from World of Warcraft for doing nothing more than playing in a way Blizzard finds disreputable, or to people who can no longer use XBox Live because of a mod chip.

Okay, I'll tell it to those people, given that these things are a totally fucking unrelated situation.

I didn't say that a company can't choose to deny you network services or customer support based on any factors of their choice; in fact they can, and that's what's occurring in the situations you describe. Neither has any relevance to the question of ownership of physical copies of software.

And besides, Haowan's correct - you buy a license to software, not the software itself.

No, you don't. It is possible to buy licenses to software which convey nothing but additional use rights, but that is not what is happening when you buy a physical copy of a game. When you buy a game, you now own that physical media item, are legally allowed to take any physical actions you like with said physical item, including transferring it to others at any price, as part of any form of agreement that you like; you can reverse-engineer the software's workings, or install third-party hacks that change the way it functions (like, say, Gameshark codes) and no one can stop you. This is all inherent in the authorized production of legitimate physical copies of copyrighted works.

The only restrictions on your behavior are those in place against unlawful copying, all of which are an automatic aspect of copyright law and do not derive directly from any form of "licensing contract" that you engage in when purchasing a piece of software.

 

[Durante]

You bought the game, you don't own the service. You can do whatever you want with your copy of WoW - replace all the Murlocs with sexy barmaids or whatever. That's up to you. But if you do something Blizzard doesn't like, they don't HAVE to let you on the service. You agree to the terms of use for that service before you connect to it.

Same with the 360. You can modify it all you want, but if you do Microsoft doesn't have to let you keep using Xbox Live.

So what exactly stops game companies from making playing a single player game a "service" as well? You would still retain every right to resell your (useless) game discs, manual and box of course.

 

[Guled]

think of it this way, you have every right to buy a game used and screw the publishers out of money, they have every right to make game ending DLC if you buy it used. If you buy a game used, the devlopers get no money, so stop acting like they owe something to you. So if you screw over the publishers why isn't it ok for them to screw you over?

 

[tahrikmili]

think of it this way, you have every right to buy a game used and screw the publishers out of money, they have every right to make game ending DLC if you buy it used. If you buy a game used, the devlopers get no money, so stop acting like they owe something to you. So if you screw over the publishers why isn't it ok for them to screw you over?

Because I pay the publishers, not the other way around. If they want to make money, they should go screw themselves, not me.

 

[charlequin]

So what exactly stops game companies from making playing a single player game a "service" as well?

Have you perhaps somehow failed to notice either game publishers' attempts to create service-based DRM mechanisms on newly-sold single-player games, or the extreme backlash from consumers that this trend has generated?

 

[Guled]

Because I pay the publishers, not the other way around. If they want to make money, they should go screw themselves, not me.

if you buy a game used, you are not pay the publisher at all. So why should people whine like they owe them something after they just ripped them off

 

[Flying_Phoenix]

Read and comprehend this, people. It rather changes the statement. Paid DLC endings suck shit; free DLC as a means of curbing used game sales and piracy is A-OK.

So if my internet connection isn't working or isn't compatible with my console (which the latter is happening now) I can't beat the game that I paid for? Great.

 

[Durante]

Have you perhaps somehow failed to notice either game publishers' attempts to create service-based DRM mechanisms on newly-sold single-player games, or the extreme backlash from consumers that this trend has generated?

Neither. I was asking about the legality of it, since earlier in the thread someone claimed this would be illegal. I admit to not having kept up with the intervening pages though. So everyone agrees now that there is no legal problem with doing that?

 

[Angry Grimace]

think of it this way, you have every right to buy a game used and screw the publishers out of money, they have every right to make game ending DLC if you buy it used. If you buy a game used, the devlopers get no money, so stop acting like they owe something to you. So if you screw over the publishers why isn't it ok for them to screw you over?

"Screw over the publishers" implies that the game-buying populace owes a fucking debt to the publishers. And besides, the game buying populace has and will exercise the right to not buy a company that implement's this strategy's products.

if you buy a game used, you are not pay the publisher at all. So why should people whine like they owe them something after they just ripped them off

See above. Gimme a fucking break, dude. "Ripped them off?"

 

[HK-47]

if you buy a game used, you are not pay the publisher at all. So why should people whine like they owe them something after they just ripped them off

Put the company before thyself. Wonderful mantra

 

[charlequin]

Neither. I was asking about the legality of it, since earlier in the thread someone claimed this would be illegal.

What is your actual question?

If you're asking "can people legally sell a single-player game that won't give you access to the game mode until it's called in and checked that you're 'authorized' with a central server"? If so, this is a pretty silly question since it's obviously legal, as EA (among other companies) has done it. (Though at the same time, it's legal for you to create a binary modification that bypasses the check.)

If you're asking "can a company just say that their single player games are a 'service'" then this is also a pretty silly question since it should be pretty obvious that you can't just magically change the law by calling your products things that they aren't. The reason you can shut someone off using a DRM authentication, or deny a player access to a WoW server, is that their system is actually interacting with your server in some way. You can't just say "oh, my game is a 'service'" and then send the FBI in to confiscate a copy that was sold used.

 

[Guled]

"Screw over the publishers" implies that the game-buying populace owes a fucking debt to the publishers. And besides, the game buying populace has and will exercise the right to not buy a company that implement's this strategy's products.

well publishers don't owe anything to people who buy their games used, so why is it not ok for them to screw over people who buy it used?

 

[Version 3.0]

if you buy a game used, you are not pay the publisher at all. So why should people whine like they owe them something after they just ripped them off

The very fact that you used the words "ripped them off" proves you don't understand the situation. Buying second hand is not stealing. The publisher has already been paid for the product. Not paying them twice does not equate to theft.

To address the question the way you meant it: no, the publisher has no obligation to the second hand buyer. That also is not the issue. The issue is how any such mechanisms would affect the original buyer (also known as "me"). A mechanism designed to hamstring a second hand buyer also prevents me from loaning the game to my friend, playing it without an internet connection (or without making a phone call), or even playing it on my 2nd console in the other room while my wife watches a movie on the "main" console.

Even a small inconvenience on an entertainment product may be enough to turn away buyers. And there are always screw-ups: one person who can't get the game to work can turn into a news story about it, which can affect sales.

It's a bad idea. There are much better, proactive ways to discourage the second hand market. Look through this thread or several earlier ones for lots of ideas.

 

[Angry Grimace]

well publishers don't owe anything to people who buy their games used, so why is it not ok for them to screw over people who buy it used?

It's not a matter of anyone "owing" anything. Where you getting this from? Seriously, what's with the angry, aggressive pro-publisher schtick?

 

[Angry Grimace]

Put the company before thyself. Wonderful mantra

I wonder who's being ripped off when the publisher is intentionally shipping incomplete products?

 

[Guled]

The very fact that you used the words "ripped them off" proves you don't understand the situation. Buying second hand is not stealing. The publisher has already been paid for the product. Not paying them twice does not equate to theft.

To address the question the way you meant it: no, the publisher has no obligation to the second hand buyer. That also is not the issue. The issue is how any such mechanisms would affect the original buyer (also known as "me"). A mechanism designed to hamstring a second hand buyer also prevents me from loaning the game to my friend, playing it without an internet connection (or without making a phone call), or even playing it on my 2nd console in the other room while my wife watches a movie on the "main" console.

Even a small inconvenience on an entertainment product may be enough to turn away buyers. And there are always screw-ups: one person who can't get the game to work can turn into a news story about it, which can affect sales.

It's a bad idea. There are much better, proactive ways to discourage the second hand market. Look through this thread or several earlier ones for lots of ideas.

if you buy it used, that is one less sale for the developer and when stores like gamestop make most of there money off used games it shows that publishers are losing millions of dollars and that to me is ripping them off. When you buy a game, you are paying the developer to play that game, when you sell it to someone else they are paying you to play that game, so they are getting the entrainment value of years of hard work and millions of dollars without paying the people who put that effort in making the game. So in my eyes, when you buy a game used, you are ripping off the developers. I agree that this is going a but to far and they are better ways of handling it(like epic did with GoW2, they could even make the multiplayer dlc which would end most of the problems you have with it

 

[charlequin]

if you buy it used, that is one less sale for the developer

When I take my money and I buy three DVDs instead that is also (a) one less sale for the developer and (b) too fucking bad because they're not entitled to sales.

 

[Kintaro]

if you buy it used, that is one less sale for the developer

That's assuming the person thought the game was worth buying new for full price.

and when stores like gamestop make most of there money off used games it shows that publishers are losing millions of dollars and that to me is ripping them off.

Actually, it shows me that it's impossible to make a profit on new gaming products alone. That's pretty much why every single gaming only retailer out there will also sell used games or even rent them out.

So in my eyes, when you buy a game used, you are ripping off the developers.

Boo fucking hoo. When a person buys a game used it means simply one thing to me. The game wasn't the asking price so the consumer exercised their right to find a better deal. Consumers love new products. When new products cost too much than it's perceived worth, said consumers will find better deals. It's really that simple.

 

[ElFly]

First sale doctrine (on software) only applies to software that is physically sold as a product: this means, games on a disc/cart/etc.

For software that is digitally distributed, it is not clear, but FSD probably doesn't apply.

 

[Guled]

That's assuming the person thought the game was worth buying new for full price.



Actually, it shows me that it's impossible to make a profit on new gaming products alone. That's pretty much why every single gaming only retailer out there will also sell used games or even rent them out.



Boo fucking hoo. When a person buys a game used it means simply one thing to me. The game wasn't the asking price so the consumer exercised their right to find a better deal. Consumers love new products. When new products cost too much than it's perceived worth, said consumers will find better deals. It's really that simple.

really, so getting a game for 5$ off means it totally worth it now? Also, what I'm saying is that when buying a used game, if publishers cut stuff out like the ending or mp maps you shouldn't bitch about it if you are not paying the people who made the game a single cent

 

[Segata Sanshiro]

really, so getting a game for 5$ off means it totally worth it now? Also, what I'm saying is that when buying a used game, if publishers cut stuff out like the ending or mp maps you shouldn't bitch about it if you are not paying the people who made the game a single cent

Anything I can do to reduce the price makes it worth it. This includes saving on the purchase price and also *knowing* that I can resell the game if I don't like it. Don't worry though, I won't bitch too much if they cut stuff like the ending in a used game. I just won't buy any of their games anymore.

If they want to take away my ability to resell the game, here's their homework:

A) No bugs, no glitches, not a single fucking one. I want a finished, complete, working game.
B) Every game had better be amazing. Nothing unpolished, nothing rough. No half-assed features. The games should be of a satisfying length and experience, every time. Goes without saying, no more shovelware.
C) No more interference with the review and preview process. If I can't sell the game after I've bought it, I want to know *everything* about the game before I buy it. I can barely tolerate the blatant dishonesty of publishers in this regard right now.
D) Every game gets a demo. Every game. Non-negotiable.

or, instead of all of that:

A) Drop the price of a brand new game to around $20-25. At that price, I wouldn't really care *too* much if I couldn't sell it.

So either make games I wouldn't want to get rid of, or drop the price drastically.

 

[Angry Grimace]

if you buy it used, that is one less sale for the developer and when stores like gamestop make most of there money off used games it shows that publishers are losing millions of dollars and that to me is ripping them off. When you buy a game, you are paying the developer to play that game, when you sell it to someone else they are paying you to play that game, so they are getting the entrainment value of years of hard work and millions of dollars without paying the people who put that effort in making the game. So in my eyes, when you buy a game used, you are ripping off the developers. I agree that this is going a but to far and they are better ways of handling it(like epic did with GoW2, they could even make the multiplayer dlc which would end most of the problems you have with it

Each and every premise you posit is flawed. They aren't "losing millions" because it wasn't theirs to begin with. You're assuming that a buyer was going to buy it new if they didn't buy it used. Your entire argument is highly fallacial becuase it relies on false premises and a series of appeals to a vague concept of consumer ethics with at it's core is entirely incompatible with basic capitalism. Besides, making multiplayer DLC makes no sense at all; because everyone has to have a copy of the game to play multiplayer.