PA Report - The Xbox One will kill used games, that's good

Cheech

Member
Aug 14, 2007
6,655
0
0
Michigan
Comparisons of XBONE's DRM to Steam do not fucking hold up. The PC is a platform not tied to any one piece of hardware. Steam will fucking move to other machines. If Microsoft wanted to do this, they could have been doing it already but they're not.
You can log into another Xbox One with your account and play your games. They've already stated this.

I can't say the entire model is exactly like Steam, nobody can, because they haven't said anything concrete yet. Penny Arcade's article was well reasoned and level headed, which is something that's been notably absent on GAF since Tuesday with regard to Xbox One. People are going batshit insane on speculative information.
 

Biker19

Banned
Apr 1, 2013
6,623
0
0
It all boils down to this incredibly simple fact:

Corporations are not your friends.

They do not have your best interest at heart. They exist to make money, and because our society places no theoretical cap on how much profit you can generate, their endgame is an infinite and unattainable goal which they are always striving to reach. Everything they do, every sliver of "give" they sacrifice from that profit margin is because of competition and not out of the kindness of their hearts. They want as much of your money as they can get while giving you as little as they possibly have to in return and anything you do to give up what rights you have turns this tug of war further and further in their favor.
Which is why people should stop defending & supporting companies for any wrongdoings when it comes to not favoring consumers (such as anti-consumer practices & On-Disc DLC & online passes).

We are the ones who helps keep them around in the business world. It's their job to make us happy. We can easily make them or break them.
 

Equus Bellator Apex

Junior Member
Nov 9, 2009
6,286
0
0
You can log into another Xbox One with your account and play your games. They've already stated this.

I can't say the entire model is exactly like Steam, nobody can, because they haven't said anything concrete yet. Penny Arcade's article was well reasoned and level headed, which is something that's been notably absent on GAF since Tuesday with regard to Xbox One. People are going batshit insane on speculative information.
He's talking about cross generation portability.
 

DopeyFish

Not bitter, just unsweetened
Jun 6, 2004
37,147
1
0
And?

Replace "game A" and "game B" with "chair A" and "chair B"

It's the same thing
Uh

The amount of lost money is incalculable

This is short life entertainment.

If someone has a game, resells it, does it still have the same value to the person as the day he bought it? No.
 

faceless007

Member
Mar 11, 2008
10,279
0
0
Right. You can buy my used copy of Starcraft 2 on disc. Nobody is stopping you. It just won't work unless you pay Blactivision for it.

Until the courts have indicated otherwise, you don't have the right to re-sell digital content.
The courts are wrong. Not for the first time.

And you have no argument getting up in arms about it in this case unless you are equally up in arms about Valve, Apple, and all sorts of other companies that do the same thing.
You have no business defending Microsoft unless you have equally defended Valve, Apple, and all sorts of other companies that do the same thing.
 

mrklaw

MrArseFace
Jun 10, 2004
59,901
0
0
Windsor, UK
First-sale applies primarily to tangible copies. A DD-only marketplace is theoretically not susceptible to first-sale concerns, though this has not been fully clarified in the law yet.
arguably the PC games market is too small to have really pushed this. If mainstream consoles start doing it, it WILL be taken up and clarified in law
 

Omegasquash

Member
Apr 13, 2007
15,037
0
905
Which is why people should stop defending & supporting companies for any wrongdoings when it comes to not favoring consumers (such as anti-consumer practices).

We are the ones who help keep them around in the business world. It's their job to make us happy. We can easily make them or break them.
Yes, but "we" and "us" are a small segment of the market. I don't think that the target audience in this case is gamers, used game buyers or friends/family that lend/swap games. They're just cordoning off our ability to do so to generate revenue.

Shitty, to be sure, but I won't operate under the illusion that core gamers are the target audience here at all.
 

AHA-Lambda

Member
Jul 19, 2011
23,085
0
0
Wow, I seriously expected better from Ben Kuchera than this.

Killing off the second hand market is exactly the sort of action that will cause a contraction int he console space; this is very clearly not a good thing.
 

Jacksonlee

Member
Jan 31, 2012
1,451
1
0
I don't generally buy used games, and I don't generally trade them either, but I really have to ask..

Why in the hell are we as consumers willing to accept anything less than the ability to buy, sell, and trade the things we purchase?
^ this seems to be overlooked;


yes, gaf,

why?
 

Cheech

Member
Aug 14, 2007
6,655
0
0
Michigan
He's talking about cross generation portability.
That makes even less sense, as backwards compatibility has never been a sure thing. Some systems have had it, most haven't. If you want to play your old console games, keep your old consoles. If you don't want to keep a bunch of old consoles sitting around, play your games on PC.
 

Burai

shitonmychest57
Oct 19, 2006
6,711
0
0
People just seem to look at this as "a traded in game enables a first hand purchase". But it also enables a second hand purchase for someone else that takes away a new sale and benefits no one but GameStop.

Whether or not you think that's a problem is a personal decision, but people ignore the fact the 3 games you trade in to buy GTA5 are 3 lost new sales for those games.
But Gamestop would never accept that original trade if person 2 wasn't going to buy the used game. Why shouldn't Gamestop benefit? They are the middleman. You just want them to give people free money and throw the discs away?

No, here's the problem. Tomb Raider sold 3.4m units in the space of a month and it's a "failure" because it will fail to recoup its budget.

THREE POINT FOUR MILLION FUCKING UNITS FOR WHAT IS ESSENTIALLY A B-TIER FRANCHISE AND THAT'S STILL NOT ENOUGH TO MAKE ANY MONEY.

And killing used games would have solved this how? Would it have made the execs at Squenix who thought throwing $100m budget at a franchise that's been irrelevant since the turn of the century suddenly get a clue?

Oh, but no, they argue "GAMERS PUSH FOR HIGHER AND HIGHER BUDGETS AND WE HAVE TO GIVE THEM WHAT THEY WANT! THEIR ENTITLEMENT COMPLEX CAN'T BE SATIATED! WE HAVE NO CHOICE BUT TO LET BUDGETS SPIRAL OUT OF CONTROL!" and that's lovely, but since when did they ever give a fuck about what we actually thought?

Are Microsoft going to turn around and backtrack on this DRM fiasco because "WE HAVE TO GIVE GAMERS WHAT THEY WANT!"? Are they fuck.

Are EA going to throw all their games up on Steam and patch Sim City to not need the stupid Origin authentication because "THAT'S WHAT THOSE ENTITLED GAMERS ARE SCREAMING FOR!"? Fuck no.

If you couldn't afford to give people what they wanted, then why didn't you just turn around and say no like you do with every other thing we complain about? Here's why; Every publisher big and small decided to get into a dick waving contest and it turns out that not everyone has a big dick. Squenix got its tiny little acorn cock out and went up against Mandingo Activision screaming "LOOK AT MY MASSIVE JUNK! YOU'LL WANT TO CARE FOR IT!" and everyone just turned around and shrugged and bought something else.

Not everyone has a big dick. Acting like you have a big dick when you don't have a big dick is going to make the reveal of your tiny little penis all the more humiliating. And that's what happened here. Squenix acted like Tomb Raider, a franchise that habitually sells less than 3m lifetime per entry was going to suddenly sell COD numbers just because they spent $100m on it and guess what happened? THE FUCKING INEVITABLE.

In terms of the franchise post-Core, the game is going to do really well, probably double what you'd expect from a Tomb Raider game post-PSone but it cost far, far too much.

But no, it's all used games that did this. Used games made Capcom make some horrible design decisions on DmC and piss off the entire fanbase. Used games made Activision and EA flood the market with guitar games and accessories long after people stopped caring. Used games made Microsoft make a fourth Gears of War game that nobody asked for from a developer nobody cares about. Used games made Sony pump out another God of War game after they spent the past few years flooding the market with HD remasters. Used games made Sony make a Smash Bros clone with no appealing characters to help sell it. Used games made Bizarre Creations make James Bond and racing games no-one wanted. Used games make publishers shutter studios the moment the game they were working on goes gold, before they've even had a chance to sell a single new copy, let alone a used one.

I could go on. And on. And on. You could write a book about every single executive level screw-up this gen and yet these same people with their million dollar salaries and their shill puppets still try to insult our intelligence and blame used games and awful, entitled consumers for companies shutting and talented people losing their jobs.

So please forgive our cynicism when we don't want to buy into the bullshit you're spouting.
 

2MF

Member
Jun 3, 2011
3,827
0
0
What Penny Arcade is discussing is not "killing used games". They're just talking about a scenario where used games always go through Microsoft.

What I hope MS does is implement a system where you can:

- gift games to anyone of your choice (this allows you to lend games to your buddies after playing them)
- sell a game to someone at a price chosen by you.
- sell back your license to the market at the current market price (perhaps through)

If MS allowed all of the above, I do believe something positive could come out of it. In fact I think all digital platforms may be forced to do some/all of the above at some point (by courts that is).
 
Apr 8, 2011
10,630
0
0
Uh

The amount of lost money is incalculable

This is short life entertainment.

If someone has a game, resells it, does it still have the same value to the person as the day he bought it? No.
Again, it's not "lost" money when it was never there in the first place. Game companies have never been able to bank on revenue from used games and any company that expects that money to be there is delusional. In the literal definition of the word.

But no, it's all used games that did this. Used games made Capcom make some horrible design decisions on DmC and piss off the entire fanbase. Used games made Activision and EA flood the market with guitar games and accessories long after people stopped caring. Used games made Microsoft make a fourth Gears of War game that nobody asked for from a developer nobody cares about. Used games made Sony pump out another God of War game after they spent the past few years flooding the market with HD remasters. Used games made Sony make a Smash Bros clone with no appealing characters to help sell it. Used games made Bizarre Creations make James Bond and racing games no-one wanted. Used games make publishers shutter studios the moment the game they were working on goes gold, before they've even had a chance to sell a single new copy, let alone a used one.

I could go on. And on. And on. You could write a book about every single executive level screw-up this gen and yet these same people with their million dollar salaries and their shill puppets still try to insult our intelligence and blame used games and awful, entitled consumers for companies shutting and talented people losing their jobs.
I love everything about this post.
 

Omegasquash

Member
Apr 13, 2007
15,037
0
905
^ this seems to be overlooked;


yes, gaf,

why?
According to some, we're entitled little shits, according to others, we're a bunch of dirty pirates, and according to others it's OK, because businesses are here to make money and we ought to be AOK with that.

Edit: Clarifying on that last bit...we ought to be AOK at them charging us in new ways for functionality that we've always had, like letting a buddy borrow a game.
 

Proteus

BOSS
Apr 8, 2006
68,104
459
1,440
Toronto
And?

Replace "game A" and "game B" with "chair A" and "chair B"

It's the same thing
It seems that a disc with software on it is different than other products in this day and age. I don't agree with it, but that's the perception.

Would the people who are supportive of the quashing of used game sales been against the sale of used LPs and cassettes when they were the hot item back in the day? Are they against it now when the music on those LPs/cassettes can be purchased online with the money going directly to the creators?
 

Ace Harding

Member
Mar 29, 2009
6,120
0
0
Philadelphia, PA
You have no business defending Microsoft unless you have equally defended Valve, Apple, and all sorts of other companies that do the same thing.
Its not about defending companies. Its saying that these companies can do whatever they want - as long as its legal and doesn't hurt anybody - in order to make as much money as they can. At the same time, I can choose to purchase their products, or not. So yeah in that sense I would "defend" all of those other companies.

I'm not defending Microsoft. I think its a shit company and I really don't like the direction the new console is taking.

hardcastlemccormick said:
It's always pissed me off. Are you going to stop dismissing my arguments now?
Yes.
 

macewank

Member
Oct 15, 2006
1,540
0
980
Uh

The amount of lost money is incalculable

This is short life entertainment.

If someone has a game, resells it, does it still have the same value to the person as the day he bought it? No.
So replace "Game A/B" with "Car A/B". The argument holds.

For some reason people in the gaming industry think it's unique. That they're somehow different than every other consumer goods industry on the planet.

You made ONE copy of a game, I bought ONE copy of the game and sold it back. Someone else bought my ONE copy of the game. The net sale here? ONE.

Not two, not 1.5. One.
 

Socky

Member
Feb 9, 2013
579
0
0
UK
Except this argument doesn't work here, at least based on the model proposed in the article.

The article is saying that this can still be the case - in this model, you'd trade in your license for credit towards a new game.

It would actually be pretty brilliant. The biggest loser would be GameStop.

So you can't buy a used game for 90% of the new price, and sell it for 120% of the used price, but maybe you can sell it for 50% of the new price.

I am very, very OK with this model, but who knows how it will actually work.
From the article:

Based on this information, it sounds like you’ll be able to “sell” your used games, but no one except Microsoft will buy able to buy them. Microsoft becomes the entity that controls the entirety of the transaction, and no lower-priced tier of “used games” is ever created in this scenario. They simply give you some amount of something in exchange for turning off your license, while anyone who wants to play the game still has to pay full price.
What possible incentive would Microsoft have – besides positive PR – to give anyone anything more than a token for a license that you have to buy to play and have no other way of selling? The license itself literally has no value.

Anyone think they’ll give you 50% back? I'd be surprised if it was 25%. In Live credit.
 

Father_Brain

Banned
Jun 7, 2004
22,707
0
0
33
New York, NY
- gift games to anyone of your choice (this allows you to lend games to your buddies after playing them)
- sell a game to someone at a price chosen by you.
- sell back your license to the market at the current market price (perhaps through)
Don't count on any of those happening. The cost of a license to play a game and the value of a "trade-in" will be whatever MS/publishers say it is, no more, no less.
 

RedNumberFive

Banned
Oct 6, 2006
9,556
0
0
Chicagoland
According to some, we're entitled little shits, according to others, we're a bunch of dirty pirates, and according to others it's OK, because businesses are here to make money and we ought to be AOK with that.

Edit: Clarifying on that last bit...we ought to be AOK at them charging us in new ways for functionality that we've always had, like letting a buddy borrow a game.
Hey, Ballmer gotta eat!

 

Zemm

Member
Oct 11, 2012
6,855
0
0
If I was a games 'journalist' I'd be embarrassed putting my name next to this piece, Christ.
 

2MF

Member
Jun 3, 2011
3,827
0
0
Business sells game A for $60
Customer returns game A for $40
Customer buys game B for $60
Business resells game A for $50

What happened here for the publisher?

They sold 2 games and get $100~ and lost $50 due to the used game

The money goes back to buy new games, yes, but that used game sale only lines the pockets of the retailer and removes revenue that should be for the publisher
But it should not be for the publisher. They already make their money from the new copies.

If publishers think that used games are so profitable, why didn't they set up their own used game stores?
 

faceless007

Member
Mar 11, 2008
10,279
0
0
Its not about defending companies. Its saying that these companies can do whatever they want - as long as its legal and doesn't hurt anybody - in order to make as much money as they can. At the same time, I can choose to purchase their products, or not. So yeah in that sense I would "defend" all of those other companies.

I'm not defending Microsoft. I think its a shit company and I really don't like the direction the new console is taking.
What's your point? We should stop trying to make our voices heard to companies and rely solely on not buying things to try to send a message? What's the point of discussing anything at all then? If companies can do "whatever they want", then we as consumers can do exactly the same thing and communicate our concerns to them as vocally as possible. Why are you giving them more leeway than consumers to manipulate the marketplace?
 

Jacksonlee

Member
Jan 31, 2012
1,451
1
0
According to some, we're entitled little shits, according to others, we're a bunch of dirty pirates, and according to others it's OK, because businesses are here to make money and we ought to be AOK with that.

Edit: Clarifying on that last bit...we ought to be AOK at them charging us in new ways for functionality that we've always had, like letting a buddy borrow a game.
man.... people really do think like that, huh..
 

Omegasquash

Member
Apr 13, 2007
15,037
0
905
What Penny Arcade is discussing is not "killing used games". They're just talking about a scenario where used games always go through Microsoft.

What I hope MS does is implement a system where you can:

- gift games to anyone of your choice (this allows you to lend games to your buddies after playing them)
- sell a game to someone at a price chosen by you.
- sell back your license to the market at the current market price (perhaps through)

If MS allowed all of the above, I do believe something positive could come out of it. In fact I think all digital platforms may be forced to do some/all of the above at some point (by courts that is).
I agree with this. If they did that, sure. It would create a controlled marketplace to be sure, but I'd be OK. Since their entire catalog with be available digitally, I do not think that the second choice would happen. Maybe you could sell the game for an amount Allards. Maybe.
 
May 2, 2006
11,974
315
1,165
But Gamestop would never accept that original trade if person 2 wasn't going to buy the used game. Why shouldn't Gamestop benefit? They are the middleman. You just want them to give people free money and throw the discs away?

No, here's the problem. Tomb Raider sold 3.4m units in the space of a month and it's a "failure" because it will fail to recoup its budget.

THREE POINT FOUR MILLION FUCKING UNITS FOR WHAT IS ESSENTIALLY A B-TIER FRANCHISE AND THAT'S STILL NOT ENOUGH TO MAKE ANY MONEY.

And killing used games would have solved this how? Would it have made the execs at Squenix who thought throwing $100m budget at a franchise that's been irrelevant since the turn of the century suddenly get a clue?

Oh, but no, they argue "GAMERS PUSH FOR HIGHER AND HIGHER BUDGETS AND WE HAVE TO GIVE THEM WHAT THEY WANT! THEIR ENTITLEMENT COMPLEX CAN'T BE SATIATED! WE HAVE NO CHOICE BUT TO LET BUDGETS SPIRAL OUT OF CONTROL!" and that's lovely, but since when did they ever give a fuck about what we actually thought?

Are Microsoft going to turn around and backtrack on this DRM fiasco because "WE HAVE TO GIVE GAMERS WHAT THEY WANT!"? Are they fuck.

Are EA going to throw all their games up on Steam and patch Sim City to not need the stupid Origin authentication because "THAT'S WHAT THOSE ENTITLED GAMERS ARE SCREAMING FOR!"? Fuck no.

If you couldn't afford to give people what they wanted, then why didn't you just turn around and say no like you do with every other thing we complain about? Here's why; Every publisher big and small decided to get into a dick waving contest and it turns out that not everyone has a big dick. Squenix got its tiny little acorn cock out and went up against Mandingo Activision screaming "LOOK AT MY MASSIVE JUNK! YOU'LL WANT TO CARE FOR IT!" and everyone just turned around and shrugged and bought something else.

Not everyone has a big dick. Acting like you have a big dick when you don't have a big dick is going to make the reveal of your tiny little penis all the more humiliating. And that's what happened here. Squenix acted like Tomb Raider, a franchise that habitually sells less than 3m lifetime per entry was going to suddenly sell COD numbers just because they spent $100m on it and guess what happened? THE FUCKING INEVITABLE.

In terms of the franchise post-Core, the game is going to do really well, probably double what you'd expect from a Tomb Raider game post-PSone but it cost far, far too much.

But no, it's all used games that did this. Used games made Capcom make some horrible design decisions on DmC and piss off the entire fanbase. Used games made Activision and EA flood the market with guitar games and accessories long after people stopped caring. Used games made Microsoft make a fourth Gears of War game that nobody asked for from a developer nobody cares about. Used games made Sony pump out another God of War game after they spent the past few years flooding the market with HD remasters. Used games made Sony make a Smash Bros clone with no appealing characters to help sell it. Used games made Bizarre Creations make James Bond and racing games no-one wanted. Used games make publishers shutter studios the moment the game they were working on goes gold, before they've even had a chance to sell a single new copy, let alone a used one.

I could go on. And on. And on. You could write a book about every single executive level screw-up this gen and yet these same people with their million dollar salaries and their shill puppets still try to insult our intelligence and blame used games and awful, entitled consumers for companies shutting and talented people losing their jobs.

So please forgive our cynicism when we don't want to buy into the bullshit you're spouting.
Great post, completely nailed it. Getting tired of these companies consistently blaming consumers for their fucked up business models. It's like the pr spin spiralled so far out of control that they actually believe it now.
 

Walshicus

Member
Aug 10, 2007
16,895
1
0
34
Eng, EU
How can so many people not understand that the used game market supports the new game market?
Because it's probably not true. The used game market depresses the new game market. I've yet to see an actual model for how second hand games fuel *incremental* new game sales that stands up to rigour.
 

8byte

Banned
May 12, 2012
3,053
0
0
Are they really expecting pubs I reduce prices if their profit margins increase? HA.
 
Aug 8, 2012
6,623
1
0
According to some, we're entitled little shits, according to others, we're a bunch of dirty pirates, and according to others it's OK, because businesses are here to make money and we ought to be AOK with that.

Edit: Clarifying on that last bit...we ought to be AOK at them charging us in new ways for functionality that we've always had, like letting a buddy borrow a game.
Actually if this was all then it would be bad enough. What I find mind boggling is that people are arguing that this all will be a good thing for the consumer in the end. That is fucking laughable.

Giving MS complete control in a closed system with no threat of piracy is the absolute worst case scenario for a consumer.
 

DoubleTap

Member
Jan 17, 2007
2,067
0
0
But Gamestop would never accept that original trade if person 2 wasn't going to buy the used game. Why shouldn't Gamestop benefit? They are the middleman. You just want them to give people free money and throw the discs away?

No, here's the problem. Tomb Raider sold 3.4m units in the space of a month and it's a "failure" because it will fail to recoup its budget.

THREE POINT FOUR MILLION FUCKING UNITS FOR WHAT IS ESSENTIALLY A B-TIER FRANCHISE AND THAT'S STILL NOT ENOUGH TO MAKE ANY MONEY.

And killing used games would have solved this how? Would it have made the execs at Squenix who thought throwing $100m budget at a franchise that's been irrelevant since the turn of the century suddenly get a clue?

Oh, but no, they argue "GAMERS PUSH FOR HIGHER AND HIGHER BUDGETS AND WE HAVE TO GIVE THEM WHAT THEY WANT! THEIR ENTITLEMENT COMPLEX CAN'T BE SATIATED! WE HAVE NO CHOICE BUT TO LET BUDGETS SPIRAL OUT OF CONTROL!" and that's lovely, but since when did they ever give a fuck about what we actually thought?

Are Microsoft going to turn around and backtrack on this DRM fiasco because "WE HAVE TO GIVE GAMERS WHAT THEY WANT!"? Are they fuck.

Are EA going to throw all their games up on Steam and patch Sim City to not need the stupid Origin authentication because "THAT'S WHAT THOSE ENTITLED GAMERS ARE SCREAMING FOR!"? Fuck no.

If you couldn't afford to give people what they wanted, then why didn't you just turn around and say no like you do with every other thing we complain about? Here's why; Every publisher big and small decided to get into a dick waving contest and it turns out that not everyone has a big dick. Squenix got its tiny little acorn cock out and went up against Mandingo Activision screaming "LOOK AT MY MASSIVE JUNK! YOU'LL WANT TO CARE FOR IT!" and everyone just turned around and shrugged and bought something else.

Not everyone has a big dick. Acting like you have a big dick when you don't have a big dick is going to make the reveal of your tiny little penis all the more humiliating. And that's what happened here. Squenix acted like Tomb Raider, a franchise that habitually sells less than 3m lifetime per entry was going to suddenly sell COD numbers just because they spent $100m on it and guess what happened? THE FUCKING INEVITABLE.

In terms of the franchise post-Core, the game is going to do really well, probably double what you'd expect from a Tomb Raider game post-PSone but it cost far, far too much.

But no, it's all used games that did this. Used games made Capcom make some horrible design decisions on DmC and piss off the entire fanbase. Used games made Activision and EA flood the market with guitar games and accessories long after people stopped caring. Used games made Microsoft make a fourth Gears of War game that nobody asked for from a developer nobody cares about. Used games made Sony pump out another God of War game after they spent the past few years flooding the market with HD remasters. Used games made Sony make a Smash Bros clone with no appealing characters to help sell it. Used games made Bizarre Creations make James Bond and racing games no-one wanted. Used games make publishers shutter studios the moment the game they were working on goes gold, before they've even had a chance to sell a single new copy, let alone a used one.

I could go on. And on. And on. You could write a book about every single executive level screw-up this gen and yet these same people with their million dollar salaries and their shill puppets still try to insult our intelligence and blame used games and awful, entitled consumers for companies shutting and talented people losing their jobs.

So please forgive our cynicism when we don't want to buy into the bullshit you're spouting.
My Man.

 

Ace Harding

Member
Mar 29, 2009
6,120
0
0
Philadelphia, PA
From the article:



What possible incentive would Microsoft have – besides positive PR – to give anyone anything more than a token for a license that you have to buy to play and have no other way of selling? The license itself literally has no value.

Anyone think they’ll give you 50% back? I'd be surprised if it was 25%. In Live credit.
I would hope they would recognize a massive incentive - more people might actually consider buying their console. If they totally block used game sales and somehow make games MORE expensive than on other platforms, they are fucked. If the industry thinks it can increase the net prices gamers pay for games and not suffer, in this environment, they are completely wrong.

50%? Hell no. 25%? Maybe. That's about what you get now unless you sell back very quickly.
 
Apr 8, 2011
10,630
0
0
I would hope they would recognize a massive incentive - more people might actually consider buying their console. If they totally block used game sales and somehow make games MORE expensive than on other platforms, they are fucked.

50%? Hell no. 25%? Maybe. That's about what you get now unless you sell back very quickly.
That's just Gamestop. If you sell it yourself on eBay/Half you can get much more than 25%, or even 50%. I've got some smaller stores around here that give pretty good cash back.

It won't be next generation forever.
 

blu

Wants the largest console games publisher to avoid Nintendo's platforms.
May 4, 2007
13,639
192
1,175
gaf is always a tear fest with candlelight vigils everytime a studio is closed yet a system that helps the industry stay alive and profitable is being demonized.
I suspect there's an overwhelming dose of irony in this post. I just can't quite put my finger on it.