Support NeoGAF

[Glorified G]

And guess what, consoles are sold at a loss and those losses are made up from licensing fees for each new game sold. You and those like you, from a publisher and console manufacturers point of view, are leeches who purchase a console and bring the pubs/console manufacturers nothing but losses. You are a perfect example of why they want to implement this system in the first place and I can't blame them. The idea that publishers will go out of business without this type of customer couldn't be further from the truth. They will be more profitable if they either weed you out or are able to monetize your kind through online passes and the like.

If you want to put a corporations best interest in front of yourself as a consumer, be my guest. Everyone that has your mindset should send them a cheque so they can make as much money as they can since you are so concerned about there financial state. I think this would be a good scenario to offset the "leeches" who want to keep used games.

Everyone wins!

 

[Yasae]

Depends on the game of course, the print run (normally First Press is worth much more than a reprint, especially for older games where it really mattered) and the condition. Like I previously said - Sierra + LucasArts games for example fetch a pretty good price on eBay most of the time and you need to be really lucky to get a lower price. And low means higher than current games on sale.

Just check out this used game for FM Towns. And don't say that noone would buy it at that price, because actually people do.

And the volume of sales for that market is...?

And the number of PC games which become collectors' items is....?

 

[lordchompy]

If you want to put a corporations best interest in front of yourself as a consumer, be my guest. Everyone that has your mindset should send them a cheque so they can make as much money as they can since you are so concerned about there financial state. I think this would be a good scenario to offset the "leeches" who want to keep used games.

Everyone wins!

And before you know it, corporations will be running Kickstarters and asking for donations for games instead of selling them. Oh wait, they're already doing that.

 

[Game Guru]

Is it the same as this? Not that it really matters, because even if that becomes available again there's games like Earthbound that seem to be trapped behind fear of legal reprisal, and if that's an imagined threat then System Shock, where some insurance company or whatever holds the copyright (or maybe just the System Shock trademark, I forget) and wants an absurd amount for it that isn't practical for just reselling old games.

It's somewhat fascinating how most people seem to be purely thinking of the short term or just the profits: "it's fine on PC because I can get an amazing discount" rather than "It's acceptable on PC because the platform is too open to potential piracy and Steam is compromising between freedom and protection", or how buying used it to just save a few bucks (I wonder how many REALLY do this) versus buying older out of print games or to sell off the games you've gotten through in order to buy new ones, thus feeding into the new market more. It's that latter reason I absolutely don't want it blocked by the way: you have to go and do a recall to get it out of retail channels, and unless it's court ordered you'd probably still have used copies lingering. To me eliminating used games is only acceptable if there's a strong guarantee of every game staying accessible for as long as is reasonable, and while I trust Steam there I'm not sure I trust Microsoft or Sony there, and Nintendo's complicated on that front.

It's pretty easy to explain... Consumers only care about their own needs, not the needs of the people they consume from. The consumers don't care that the Earthbound games are a legal minefield, only that they never come to the US which peeves the fans of that series off. They don't care that Steam has DRM which means you can't resell them and need to hope Valve stays in business, only that it sells games for cheap during their sales. If enough consumers and retailers out there care that they can't resell their physical games and there are enough alternative options out there like say Sony not going that route, then Microsoft's rumored plan to kill the used game market will fail and developers will have to deal with keeping that market around.

 

[lordchompy]

Depends on the game of course, the print run (normally First Press is worth much more than a reprint, especially for older games where it really mattered) and the condition. Like I previously said - Sierra + LucasArts games for example fetch a pretty good price on eBay most of the time and you need to be really lucky to get a lower price. And low means higher than current games on sale.

Just check out this used game for FM Towns. And don't say that noone would buy it at that price, because actually people do.

For the most part the only PC games to become valuable collector's items are a few from the 90s and 80s before digital distribution, and only if brand new, sealed. I still have my original Quake 2 CD and it's worth peanuts used.

 

[thesolidshark]

believe

Believe forever. So fucking want...with a side of SoR4/New Shinobi/SA3 launch please.

Yes they do.

You see - someone buys a game new for 60$. Sells it later for 40 or 50$. To whom? Those people. If you remove those, people will just buy less new games as well. And may wait even longer for price drops/sales and will also don't do blind buys anymore. Blocking used games will bite publishers in the ass, because they actually decrease the value of games by doing that.

Same with on-line passes. The argument is that the used buyer should pay a bit to the publisher. But actually only the one who sells the game pays, not the used buyer. For the first used buyer actually the original buyer pays. The original buyer has to sell the game for a lower price because of the online pass. He won't get as much money back like before.

I won't buy any console that does this shit, although I actually buy almost everything new and I even almost never sell games. BUT I want to be able to sell turds. And I also want to get games that are out of print. If every console would do this, I will actually quit my hobby (or play previous gens, I don't care).

I don't know why some people are having such a hard time seeing this perspective.

It also saddens me to see people expecting others to readily accept these changes that others would be greatly affected by. People seem to forget that stores smaller than Gamestop exist that dabble in new, and are a great used resource. Every store in my area I've known like that, I try to support over Gamestop. They'll suffer even more than GS will with these anti-used methods.

I'm willing to skip the next console generation that supports this (minus Wii U since I've already got that, and no arguments about it not being nextgen please), if it helps prove a point that that is worth holding back a purchase. I'm scared of any tactic they take these days. DLC makes me hesitant, and I'm actively avoiding games with online passes as much as I can (been lucky so far). Physical dist. leaving scares the shit out of me; DD isn't terrible, but it is a way for things to start heading toward anti-used.

This is just an option the consumer has that's been around since console games started, and it deserves to be around. Taking that option away hurts everyone, customers upfront, publishers and the industry eventually. As a fighting gamer, retro gamer, and a few other things pertaining to used, I'm sad to say I can see an end to gaming for me.

And the day a rumor comes up and people don't raise hell or discussions about it, I hope that's the day people are willing to embrace it fully, cause the industry will think the coast is clear. The only real positive for me is I get to catch up on the biggest backlog of anyone I know.

 

[Cru Jones]

If you want to put a corporations best interest in front of yourself as a consumer, be my guest. Everyone that has your mindset should send them a cheque so they can make as much money as they can since you are so concerned about there financial state. I think this would be a good scenario to offset the "leeches" who want to keep used games.

Everyone wins!

I want the industry to be as profitable as possible because it will attract more creative types to the medium, it will keep devs/publishers from going out of business, and result in more games in the eco-system.

I would rather have an extremely healthy industry where devs/publishers get paid on every single copy of their product that is sold. I believe that it is only fair that people who create something commercially should be paid for every copy sold.

Just like you can't believe that I want the "big, bad" corporations to make any money off of products they produce for my enjoyment, I can't believe that there are people like you who don't think they deserve to get paid for their hard work.

 

[Sky Chief]

Read the wikipedia entry again. It completely matters. The three items that have been shown in the US to dictate whether or not a license protects the copyright owner from the First Sales Doctrine are as follows:

1) whether copyright owner specifies that a user is granted a license;
2) whether the copyright owner significantly restricts the user's ability to transfer the software to others; and
3) whether the copyright owner imposes notable use restrictions on the software.

The reason that things like CDs aren't protected even if there is a EULA is because they don't comply with point number two. However, a system that we are talking about would explicitly bring console games into compliance with the three items above needed to avoid the first sales doctrine.

Admittedly, the EU is different and maybe they won't be able to implement this there, but I am sure they'll use it in whatever territories they are able to.

When you buy a video game made for a console you are not licensing the software, you are buying a physical thing. What happens when the disk scratches? Is your license still valid? This aspect of the physical nature of game disks needs to be addressed as well before such a licensing agreement would make sense. Until now the original, physical disk has always been needed to play console games. I wonder how the court system would interpret such an anti consumer change to a long established sales model.

 

[Cru Jones]

When you buy a video game made for a console you are not licensing the software, you are buying a physical thing. What happens when the disk scratches? Is your license still valid? This aspect of the physical nature of game disks needs to be addressed as well before such a licensing agreement would make sense. Until now the original, physical disk has always been needed to play console games. I wonder how the court system would interpret such an anti consumer change to a long established sales model.

I think they would need to implement it like they do with Steamworks games currently. You purchase the game, activate it, and then have the option of re-downloading it from the service. I think it would be tough to combat the first sales doctrine if they didn't allow for a way to access your license without the physical media. They would need to devalue the physical media as much as possible and have it seen as simply a more convenient delivery method, not something that is a tangible copy of the software.

 

[Jac_Solar]

Same with on-line passes. The argument is that the used buyer should pay a bit to the publisher. But actually only the one who sells the game pays, not the used buyer. For the first used buyer actually the original buyer pays. The original buyer has to sell the game for a lower price because of the online pass. He won't get as much money back like before.

The idea is that if people couldn't buy used games, they'd buy a new copy.

That is an extremely unlikely scenario for the majority, though, and due to the necessary price cuts of games on a no-rental/used game console, as well as the gaming economy (Funding new games with old games, rental games informing people of other games, etc.), I think they will lose far more money than they will earn.

And I don't think they would even reduce the price for a new game -- it's more likely that they would try to raise it, I think.

If a console that outright prevents used/rented games comes out, it will also create a precedent for that sort of thing. Other industries and types of media might also start looking into it.

 

[Glorified G]

I want the industry to be as profitable as possible because it will attract more creative types to the medium, it will keep devs/publishers from going out of business, and result in more games in the eco-system.

I would rather have an extremely healthy industry where devs/publishers get paid on every single copy of their product that is sold. I believe that it is only fair that people who create something commercially should be paid for every copy sold.

Just like you can't believe that I want the "big, bad" corporations to make any money off of products they produce for my enjoyment, I can't believe that there are people like you who don't think they deserve to get paid for their hard work.

They did get paid. Somebody bought that $60 copy. Once that transaction is done it's no longer the publisher's property. Does Toyota need to get paid twice if someone bought a civic used? Does Warner Bros need to get paid twice for their dvd if someone borrowed a copy?

If you don't believe the consumer has property rights over the product they paid for and feel the industry is getting screwed over I have no problem with that. What I do have problem with is that people with that mindset wants to impose that over others. As I said before, send them a personal cheque after every game release and keep supporting developers/publishers. Bobby Kotick would love that. I get to keep my rights as a consumer.

Everyone wins!

 

[Aaron Strife]

The real problem with dwindling profits is dev costs, not used games. Figure out how to make a game without throwing 100 million dollars at it and companies might start putting out more hits.

 

[Cru Jones]

They did get paid. Somebody bought that $60 copy. Once that transaction is done it's no longer the publisher's property. Does Toyota need to get paid twice if someone bought a civic used? Does Warner Bros need to get paid twice for their dvd if someone borrowed a copy?

If you don't believe the consumer has property rights over the product they paid for and feel the industry is getting screwed over I have no problem with that. What I do have problem with is that people with that mindset wants to impose that over others. As I said before, send them a personal cheque after every game release and keep supporting developers/publishers. Bobby Kotick would love that. I get to keep my rights as a consumer.

Everyone wins!

They don't get paid for the second, third, fourth, fifth, or sixth time that the game is sold back and then sold another person and I think that they should. With the proposed system they would and you would still be able to sell your copy of the game, it seems like you are the one who is imposing your mindset on others. What I am talking about is not abolishing the sale of used games, but a system in where pubs/devs get compensated when another person enjoys their game.

 

[Aaron Strife]

They don't get paid for the second, third, fourth, fifth, or sixth time that the game is sold back and then sold another person I think that they should.

Why? It's not their property anymore.

 

[Cru Jones]

Why? It's not their property anymore.

Under the proposed system it would be. In order for something like this to work, they would need to implement an EULA that gives the user a non-exclusive license to use the game, but the company still retains ownership of the software contained on the disc. Which is exactly what they would do.

 

[iSnakeTk]

Just went to amazon looking for Super Mario Galaxy 2. New copy 50 bucks, used copy 25 bucks. Of course I bought the used copy. Fuck Nintendo for holding the prices so high, that shit came out in 2010. I would never have bought the game if their was no used copy available. I know Nintendo didn't get any money from this but that is their own god damn fault.

 

[Dark Octave]

They did get paid. Somebody bought that $60 copy. Once that transaction is done it's no longer the publisher's property. Does Toyota need to get paid twice if someone bought a civic used? Does Warner Bros need to get paid twice for their dvd if someone borrowed a copy?

If you don't believe the consumer has property rights over the product they paid for and feel the industry is getting screwed over I have no problem with that. What I do have problem with is that people with that mindset wants to impose that over others. As I said before, send them a personal cheque after every game release and keep supporting developers/publishers. Bobby Kotick would love that. I get to keep my rights as a consumer.

Everyone wins!

What's going to happen is publishers will charge you and I a fee to register those used games on our systems, making buying used games more expensive than buying new.

Used game retailers can either ignore this or lower their used prices ($55 used for a $60 new title is ridiculous and pure greed). If they truly care about the consumer as much as they claim to, they would do the latter.

Used game retailers continue to receive 100% of their sales, publishers get their cut and you and I get used games at the same ridiculous used price as we always have or hopefully lower.

Everybody wins.

 

[HoodWinked]

Just went to amazon looking for Super Mario Galaxy 2. New copy 50 bucks, used copy 25 bucks. Of course I bought the used copy. Fuck Nintendo for holding the prices so high, that shit came out in 2010. I would never have bought the game if their was no used copy available. I know Nintendo didn't get any money from this but that is their own god damn fault.

well the idea is that the new game sales would fall as the demand dropped, the reason they have the price as high as it is because there is no way it can ever compete with used sale price since it will ALWAYS undercut the new price.

The real problem with dwindling profits is dev costs, not used games. Figure out how to make a game without throwing 100 million dollars at it and companies might start putting out more hits.

Why? It's not their property anymore.

is this guy for real.

 

[Cru Jones]

well the idea is that the new game sales would fall as the demand dropped, the reason they have the price as high as it is because there is no way it can ever compete with used sale price since it will ALWAYS undercut the new price.

Shhhh, you're making too much sense and are using sound economic reasoning. If Nintendo thought that lowering their price down to $25 would get them more sales then they would. But like Hoodwinked has indicated, the used sale price would just go down to $15 and nothing would be accomplished. Now, without used games being a part of the economic system there would be a much higher chance of publishers reducing their pricing.

 

[Vane_MagicCity]

I want the industry to be as profitable as possible because it will attract more creative types to the medium, it will keep devs/publishers from going out of business, and result in more games in the eco-system.

I would rather have an extremely healthy industry where devs/publishers get paid on every single copy of their product that is sold. I believe that it is only fair that people who create something commercially should be paid for every copy sold.

Just like you can't believe that I want the "big, bad" corporations to make any money off of products they produce for my enjoyment, I can't believe that there are people like you who don't think they deserve to get paid for their hard work.

I think the industry was more creative before it grew so big. They do get paid for every copy sold (barring theft), they just don't get paid more than once for each copy.

 

[Dali]

Although tbh, we've pretty much had no used PC games for a decade

But consoles aren't pcs. This is just part of a continuing trend of moving the shitty portions of pc gaming to the console space.

 

[Cru Jones]

I think the industry was more creative before it grew so big. They do get paid for every copy sold (barring theft), they just don't get paid more than once for each copy.

I disagree. I consider a used copy as a copy that has been sold. It is simply a copy that they aren't getting compensated for.

 

[Vane_MagicCity]

I disagree. I consider a used copy as a copy that has been sold. It is simply a copy that they aren't getting compensated for.

A used copy is not another copy, it is the same copy that they have already been paid for.

 

[Aaron Strife]

Under the proposed system it would be. In order for something like this to work, they would need to implement an EULA that gives the user a non-exclusive license to use the game, but the company still retains ownership of the software contained on the disc. Which is exactly what they would do.

Yeah, and that's the worst idea I've ever heard. What would stop the company then from revoking the privilege of playing the game if they still have some ownership over it? I'm not willing to cede property rights over a game because the executives at EA, Activision, Ubisoft and so and so forth can't figure out any other way of making money. How there are so many gamers who are willing to roll over just so they can play Halo 5 genuinely confounds me.

is this guy for real.

You're damn right I'm for real. When you buy a game it's your property. The publisher, developer, whoever has no say in what you do with it after that.

Why the fuck did Max Payne 3 cost over 100 million dollars to produce? Game development costs have skyrocketed over the past decade which means now, a company needs to sell 5 million copies on a big game to break even instead of 1 million or however many it would be in the PS2 era. Developers have gone out of business left and right this generation, and yes, a part of that is due to the recession (which has affected a lot more than video games), but game budgets have become bloated and out of control. If you dispute this then you are wrong.

This leads to publishers taking less risks on games and sticking with tried-and-true IPs, which gives gamers less to choose from. The line between big-budget FPS and niche indie eShop game has never been so distinct.

Shhhh, you're making too much sense and are using sound economic reasoning.

Oh cool, so you're actually a dismissive troll, here I thought this thread was meant to inspire actual conversation.

A used copy is not another copy, it is the same copy that they have already been paid for.

Exactly. The distributor has already done their job. They produced the game that was sold in a store to the consumer. They're no longer a part of the picture. Look at any other industry where second-hand sales are feasible and this dynamic still exists.

Let me make a prediction: If either of MS or Sony goes this route next gen, they will be steamrolled by the competition. If both do, gamers will stick to the PS3/360 or even the Wii U, because no one outside of a handful of enthusiasts are going to support this, and you can be guaranteed that every big franchise series (Madden, FIFA, CoD etc.) will continue on the current platforms in some fashion anyway.

 

[GraveRobberX]

Shhhh, you're making too much sense and are using sound economic reasoning. If Nintendo thought that lowering their price down to $25 would get them more sales then they would. But like Hoodwinked has indicated, the used sale price would just go down to $15 and nothing would be accomplished. Now, without used games being a part of the economic system there would be a much higher chance of publishers reducing their pricing.

Which console publisher has gone out of their way to lower prices?...

I'll wait

Most publishers know Day 1-30 is there bread and butter
Everything else is residuals

COD every year sells multi-million copies new, yet there are people who buy it used and play more than maybe a new purchaser
Do you see Activision going ape shit
Of all the companies to force $10 online activation fee, hell $20, it's COD, yet they are smart in not doing so
They let their franchise speak for itself, if the used purchaser plays enough and DLC is good enough, that is a sale right there, pure profit for Activision

Most publishers put up roadblocks before the damn game has shipped

Day 1 DLC, Project $10, Items ripped out for Pre-Order, certain storylines removed and turned into "Add-On"

Everyone on both sides has been bringing what if scenarios
Publishers will always look out for themselves, this gen proved it
Not once have I seen a publisher go out of their way for the consumer and combat used prices in a logical manner
It's always piss & moan about it, never do something about it

Sony's new Cross Buy initiative has been awesome, it truly does combat used sales in the right direction
Want Sly 4 for PS3 & Vita, buy new for $40
Want Sly 4 for PS3 & Vita for cheap as possible say < $20, now you gamble, either you wait till it drops to the price or try risking to get a used copy and hoping you get lucky
Want Sly 4 PS3 only, now up to you buy new, finish, re-sell @ higher used price due not using Vita version, or just buy a used a version
Want Sly 4 Vita, again look above, can buy the Vita version or use of the other ways possible

 

[PaulExcellent]

Sony's new Cross Buy initiative has been awesome, it truly does combat used sales in the right direction
Want Sly 4 for PS3 & Vita, buy new for $40
Want Sly 4 for PS3 & Vita for cheap as possible say < $20, now you gamble, either you wait till it drops to the price or try risking to get a used copy and hoping you get lucky
Want Sly 4 PS3 only, now up to you buy new, finish, re-sell @ higher used price due not using Vita version, or just buy a used a version
Want Sly 4 Vita, again look above, can buy the Vita version or use of the other ways possible

Agree to the max. Seriously. That's just awesome.
The reason I like the Vita as a console is because Sony gives it little things that make it great.
I'm expecting a PS4 this November, but will most likely get a PS3 + Vita combo by then.
Their Cross-Buy initiative is perfect for me, and I hope they keep going with it!

 

[Aaron Strife]

Sony's new Cross Buy initiative has been awesome, it truly does combat used sales in the right direction
Want Sly 4 for PS3 & Vita, buy new for $40
Want Sly 4 for PS3 & Vita for cheap as possible say < $20, now you gamble, either you wait till it drops to the price or try risking to get a used copy and hoping you get lucky
Want Sly 4 PS3 only, now up to you buy new, finish, re-sell @ higher used price due not using Vita version, or just buy a used a version
Want Sly 4 Vita, again look above, can buy the Vita version or use of the other ways possible

I don't have a Vita so I can't use this feature, but it sounds pretty awesome. One of Sony's better ideas for the Vita.

 

[Cru Jones]

I don't have a Vita so I can't use this feature, but it sounds pretty awesome. One of Sony's better ideas for the Vita.

If I am not mistaken, you are unable to resell that copy you get for your vita correct? Aren't they doing exactly what you guys are against?

 

[Cru Jones]

Which console publisher has gone out of their way to lower prices?...

I'll wait

Most publishers know Day 1-30 is there bread and butter
Everything else is residuals

COD every year sells multi-million copies new, yet there are people who buy it used and play more than maybe a new purchaser
Do you see Activision going ape shit
Of all the companies to force $10 online activation fee, hell $20, it's COD, yet they are smart in not doing so
They let their franchise speak for itself, if the used purchaser plays enough and DLC is good enough, that is a sale right there, pure profit for Activision

Most publishers put up roadblocks before the damn game has shipped

Day 1 DLC, Project $10, Items ripped out for Pre-Order, certain storylines removed and turned into "Add-On"

Everyone on both sides has been bringing what if scenarios
Publishers will always look out for themselves, this gen proved it
Not once have I seen a publisher go out of their way for the consumer and combat used prices in a logical manner
It's always piss & moan about it, never do something about it

Sony's new Cross Buy initiative has been awesome, it truly does combat used sales in the right direction
Want Sly 4 for PS3 & Vita, buy new for $40
Want Sly 4 for PS3 & Vita for cheap as possible say < $20, now you gamble, either you wait till it drops to the price or try risking to get a used copy and hoping you get lucky
Want Sly 4 PS3 only, now up to you buy new, finish, re-sell @ higher used price due not using Vita version, or just buy a used a version
Want Sly 4 Vita, again look above, can buy the Vita version or use of the other ways possible

I don't understand why people think that a company out to make profits should be going out of their way to lower prices if a market is bearing the price? Why do you feel entitled to pay less for your entertainment?

As for the bolded, yes they have been complaining about it for a long time. It would seem that they have now come up with a solution to their problem.

 

[PaulExcellent]

If I am not mistaken, you are unable to resell that copy you get for your vita correct? Aren't they doing exactly what you guys are against?

I'm not against anything. I'm planning on playing it on both consoles.
If I want to give the game to someone else, I'll just sell the disk to a friend.
Why would I sell my Vita code?

 

[crazy monkey]

90% of the game I buy are used. I do not pay more then 15 for most of the games. That is my budget. Used game save me a lot of money.

 

[Aaron Strife]

If I am not mistaken, you are unable to resell that copy you get for your vita correct? Aren't they doing exactly what you guys are against?

When you buy the PS3 game you get an extra copy of the game for another console at no extra charge. It's a freebie.

 

[Cru Jones]

I'm not against anything. I'm planning on playing it on both consoles.
If I want to give the game to someone else, I'll just sell the disk to a friend.
Why would I sell my Vita code?

I guess i just don't understand why you wouldn't want the option of reselling your Vita copy as well if you are taking the stance that you should be able to sell anything you've purchased.

 

[Cru Jones]

When you buy the PS3 game you get an extra copy of the game for another console at no extra charge. It's a freebie.

So, in the OP, with the proposed you are buying a $60 game and the activation code is just "a freebie." You have the right to resell the game, just the next person that buys it will have to buy that activation code that you got as "a freebie" with your new purchase.

 

[CambriaRising]

So, in the OP, with the proposed you are buying a $60 game and the activation code is just "a freebie." You have the right to resell the game, just the next person that buys it will have to buy that activation code that you got as "a freebie" with your new purchase.

You are being willfully dense about this entire thread.

The concept is anti consumer and is not, and will never be a good thing for anyone. Full stop. End of story. You are 100% wrong.

 

[Spira]

I manage to play every (good)60 dollar game that comes out without playing 60 dollars. I do this by trading games in and borrowing games from friends. I can't afford to pay 60 bucks, nor do I want a game I can't trade in once I'm done.

Fuck Microsoft if they try to pressure consumers by doing this.

 

[Aaron Strife]

So, in the OP, with the proposed you are buying a $60 game and the activation code is just "a freebie." You have the right to resell the game, just the next person that buys it will have to buy that activation code that you got as "a freebie" with your new purchase.

Except you're essentially getting two copies of the game - a physical copy for PS3 (which you can sell) and a digital download for Vita (which you can't sell), and it's for the same price as a normal game. Sly 4 in particular is $40, so even less. You can turn around and sell the PS3 version to someone who can play it without having to pay anything extra. You can also buy a physical copy of the game for Vita for less and be able to sell that, if that's what you're into.

Do you really not see the difference here or are you being willingly obtuse?

 

[PaulExcellent]

So, in the OP, with the proposed you are buying a $60 game and the activation code is just "a freebie." You have the right to resell the game, just the next person that buys it will have to buy that activation code that you got as "a freebie" with your new purchase.

In other words, buy the PS3 version, get the Vita free.
You can't sell the Vita one, but you did not 'buy' it. You got it for free.

 

[Aaron Strife]

In other words, buy the PS3 version, get the Vita free.
You can't sell the Vita one, but you did not 'buy' it. You got it for free.

True story - you can go on Amazon.com right now and buy either the PS3+Vita version of Playstation All-Stars for $40, or you can buy the standalone Vita version for $38. So you're literally getting it for free. It's not the same thing as this activation code silliness.

It's an incentive to buy new, not a punishment for not buying it new. Even then someone could just not use the code, sell the game and it'd work just the same as if you bought it new.

 

[Cru Jones]

In other words, buy the PS3 version, get the Vita free.
You can't sell the Vita one, but you did not 'buy' it. You got it for free.

Yes, I am being "willfully obtuse" because I feel like you are framing very similar situations in two different lights and it is a little ridiculous. The package includes a copy for PS3 and a copy for Vita, to say that you are not buying the Vita version is ridiculous (IMO of course). You are buying a game that has the ability to be played on two different platforms. Do you also think that when you purchase a Blizzard PC game you should be able to give/sell someone else the disc and continue playing as long as they only install the Mac version of the game? (In case you were wondering, Blizzard is notorious for including both PC and Mac version of the game on the same disc).

Selling the PS3 version and keeping the Vita version IMO is exploiting the technical shortcomings of the current system. This shortcoming will most likely be rectified with the new consoles. Maybe once they can be certain that people won't be able to split up any offerings like these we'll see a lot more of them, which would be great for the consumer.

 

[clutch.as.it.gets.]

The main problem is something like this.
In 20 years, you will go to a flea market and see this old classic game called Call of Duty 5 : Operation Black
You will buy it for 1$ and then go home and dust off your old 720.
You will try to boot it and NOPE. Cant play it. Microsoft servers are down since they went out of business and so YOU CANNOT play the game. The game will be forever stuck on the disk. You will have to go find a way to pirate your 720 to play games you OWN because you cannot play them without registering them.
Imagine if the NES had something like that?

Yes, this is the main point.

Until two years ago i bought every game new, i only changed that because all that DLC nickel and diming shit started to really piss me off and i felt it isn`t it worth anymore to buy new games day one with all the content cut - DLC devalued games for me.

But always online or anti used games is more than that. Like you said, anti used games means you can`t play your game 10 years later when the servers are down. Your game got useless. It was a game with an expiration date. That´s ridiculous. Say goodbye to retro gaming, say goodbye to your games collection you invested a lot of money in... that´s just a fucking joke.

 

[Cru Jones]

True story - you can go on Amazon.com right now and buy either the PS3+Vita version of Playstation All-Stars for $40, or you can buy the standalone Vita version for $38. So you're literally getting it for free. It's not the same thing as this activation code silliness.

It's an incentive to buy new, not a punishment for not buying it new. Even then someone could just not use the code, sell the game and it'd work just the same as if you bought it new.

Ok, come on, since when does $40-$38 = $0?

 

[Aaron Strife]

Yes, I am being "willfully obtuse" because I feel like you are framing very similar situations in two different lights and it is a little ridiculous. The package includes a copy for PS3 and a copy for Vita, to say that you are not buying the Vita version is ridiculous (IMO of course). You are buying a game that has the ability to be played on two different platforms. Do you also think that when you purchase a Blizzard PC game you should be able to give/sell someone else the disc and continue playing as long as they only install the Mac version of the game? (In case you were wondering, Blizzard is notorious for including both PC and Mac version of the game on the same disc).

The PSVita version is a digital download. No one has the expectation of being able to sell it.

This would be comparable if PS4/720 games were being sold as download codes and not as a physical medium. But then why would anyone go through the effort of doing that vs. buying it via the online store.

Selling the PS3 version and keeping the Vita version IMO is exploiting the technical shortcomings of the current system. This shortcoming will most likely be rectified with the new consoles. Maybe once they can be certain that people won't be able to split up and offerings like these we'll see a lot more of them, which would be great for the consumer.

that's not a bug. that's a feature.

Ok, come on, since when does $40-$38 = $0?

Oh, right, I'm sorry. You're paying 2 dollars more for the PS3+Vita than just Vita. So yes, let me rephrase that. You're almost getting the Vita version for free. Or maybe more accurately, you're almost getting the PS3 version for free? Whatever, you're deliberately missing the point.

 

[davepoobond]

They did get paid. Somebody bought that $60 copy. Once that transaction is done it's no longer the publisher's property. Does Toyota need to get paid twice if someone bought a civic used? Does Warner Bros need to get paid twice for their dvd if someone borrowed a copy?

they dont go to Toyota for free repairs. Warner Bros. has probably already made you pay for that movie twice already.

people who buy used games that used the online mode use the publisher's resources for "free"

 

[Zizbuka]

This generation of younger folk has a very inflated sense of entitlement, they complain about everything that doesn't cater to their needs.

 

[Cru Jones]

The PSVita version is a digital download. No one has the expectation of being able to sell it.

This would be comparable if PS4/720 games were being sold as download codes and not as a physical medium. But then why would anyone go through the effort of doing that vs. buying it via the online store.


that's not a bug. that's a feature.


Oh, right, I'm sorry. You're paying 2 dollars more for the PS3+Vita than just Vita. So yes, let me rephrase that. You're almost getting the Vita version for free. Or maybe more accurately, you're almost getting the PS3 version for free? Whatever, you're deliberately missing the point.

I don't understand why you are creating a double standard for digital vs. physical though? Shouldn't the principles be the same, haven't you purchased the game and shouldn't you be able to do anything you want with the game that you have purchased?

I am not trying to be combative, I am genuinely interested why some people would fight tooth and nail for their rights as a consumer to be able to resell physical copies, but are willing to give a pass to the exact same item in digital form.

As for what I have bolded above, that would be because stores might have a sale that a digital storefront does not. This happens with PC games and it is very "pro consumer." What is wrong with options as long as the content makers are getting paid?

 

[Aaron Strife]

This generation of younger folk has a very inflated sense of entitlement, they complain about everything that doesn't cater to their needs.

Yeah, I remember having to pay fees to Sega and Nintendo to play used games on their systems when I was a kid too.

I don't understand why you are creating a double standard for digital vs. physical though? Shouldn't the principles be the same, haven't you purchased the game and shouldn't you be able to do anything you want with the game that you have purchased?

I am not trying to be combative, I am genuinely interested why some people would fight tooth and nail for their rights as a consumer to be able to resell physical copies, but are willing to give a pass to the exact same item in digital form.

The nature of digital download (you're not paying for a tangible product) makes it hard to figure out a system that allows the consumer to sell a digital copy - however, I'd be completely interested in exploring a digital marketplace for used game sales as well!

 

[Neuromancer]

I want to believe the rumor is bullshit... But there are enough rumblings about it that I have to wonder. I have a real bad feeling about it maybe being true.

There would have to be something in place to make up for no more used games that would benefit consumers somehow. I have no idea what that may be though. I can't see day one prices being lower or anything, that's just not realistic.

 

[Vane_MagicCity]

they dont go to Toyota for free repairs. Warner Bros. has probably already made you pay for that movie twice already.

people who buy used games that used the online mode use the publisher's resources for "free"

Don't get the Toyota example. The Warner Bros example is pretty weak because I could just say that you probably haven't paid twice. Even if you have, you probably haven't paid twice for the DVD.

What online resources would that be? An automated database entry? I mean, only one person can use that disc to play online at any given time and that was paid for with the first sale.

 

[BobLoblaw]

I want to believe the rumor is bullshit... But there are enough rumblings about it that I have to wonder. I have a real bad feeling about it maybe being true.

There would have to be something in place to make up for no more used games that would benefit consumers somehow. I have no idea what that may be though. I can't see day one prices being lower or anything, that's just not realistic.

I'm just assuming that it is at this point. I don't buy that always online bullshit, though. My guess is each game will require online authentication, just like PC games. Once it's been authenticated, it'll be free to play on or offline. I also think that Microsoft wouldn't make this move unless they knew that Sony planned on following suite. My guess is publishers really lobbied hard for this to be implemented during the initial design phase of the new consoles.