Is The Used Game Market Doomed?
See Full ImageIt seems incredibly unlikely, as the removal of the used game market could absolutely cripple the retail industry.
But publishers have clearly expressed their disapproval of the way the pre-owned market works; retailers like GameStop can sell a title countless times over and keep raking in the profit, while the game makers never see another dime beyond the initial sale. Hence, the emergence of online passes from major manufacturers like EA, THQ, and Sony.
But that's mere child's play to what may happen in the next generation. The hot rumor involves Microsoft's next-generation console and according to Kotaku, the machine may actually block the playing of used games. How exactly, we're not sure. But if Microsoft and Sony incorporate such a feature in their next-gen hardware, used games may be forced to go the way of the dodo. There's not much game makers can do about it, either, if they're cut off at the source (i.e., the systems themselves).
Let's not forget that a huge portion of GameStop's profits come from pre-owned sales and with the increasing popularity of digital gaming, consoles that won't play used games could put GameStop in a critical position. After all, they're mastered the art of taking in a game for a certain price and selling it for three times the trade-in value. The profit margin is about 300% and of course, they don't enjoy any such margin with new products. Not even close, really. But what about consumers? They've become familiar with used games being available and fans seem to love the option, even if the pre-owned copy is only $5 cheaper than a new copy.
We're not sure how the next generation will pan out, but we should probably expect some significant changes. The death of used games is probably unlikely, but at this rate...who knows?
Tags: video games, gaming industry, used games, preowned games
1/25/2012 8:37:43 PM Ben Dutka
Put this on your webpage or blog:
Email this to a friend
Follow PSX Extreme on Twitter
Comments (197 posts)
johnld
Thursday, January 26, 2012 @ 3:12:01 AM
Last edited by johnld on 1/26/2012 3:15:50 AM
5 up, 5 down
zabak74
Thursday, January 26, 2012 @ 7:36:48 AM
3 up, 13 down
Underdog15
Thursday, January 26, 2012 @ 8:23:50 AM
2 up, 6 down
Underdog15
Thursday, January 26, 2012 @ 8:25:30 AM
All this is going to do is force Gamestop to sell used games at a reasonable price that ISN'T just $5 less than full price. They may sell it at $15 less than full price and include the DLC code that is likely worth $10 or so.
If anything, this will become more affordable for consumers anyways.
Additionally, DLC is already transferable to up to 5 accounts (movies excepted). So you'd still be able to swap games with friends, I'm sure.
Definitely not worth everyone getting in a tizzy about. (Not that anyone above this post has done that. I mean in general.)
Last edited by Underdog15 on 1/26/2012 8:26:46 AM
2 up, 6 down
matt99
Thursday, January 26, 2012 @ 9:51:17 AM
5 up, 2 down
bigrailer19
Thursday, January 26, 2012 @ 10:27:20 AM
All you have to consider is the amount spent on a used game, and the developers can consider that a *potential* loss.
I see what you're saying though, I did buy Heavy Rain used but I also got it like 6 months after it released, at that point I wasnt willing to buy it new for $60 when I got it used for $30. So QD probably wouldn't have gotten money from me until the game dropped in shelf price. I hate to say I bought it used cus after playing it I love the game and I absolutely would spend $60 on it new. At the time I just wasn't sure.
1 up, 3 down
manofchao5
Sunday, January 29, 2012 @ 11:34:35 AM
0 up, 0 down
Temjin001
Wednesday, January 25, 2012 @ 9:27:09 PM
Reply
Personally, as I've stated in the past, I have no problem with publishers wanting compensation for server hosting, but I do most definately dislike the idea of prohibiting a game, particularly a single player game, entirely from a resell market. A self contained product boxed and sold, independant of any contingent services, should be treated as a freely traded commidity, if you ask me.
17 up, 0 down
Temjin001
Wednesday, January 25, 2012 @ 11:20:49 PM
0 up, 0 down
Qubex
Thursday, January 26, 2012 @ 1:56:52 AM
Many people can only afford "used games". I think to simply block a product someone has already bought and wants to sell it on is almost criminal in a sense. It is taking the right away from the individual to do what he wants with the product he or she owns. Why not then simply go digital so no one can do anything anymore.
Another aspect to this will be feeding pirates and hackers with more reasons to create a black market for hacked and cracked systems and games. Hackers are sophisticated, they will not be beat by something like this.
Q!
"play.experience.enjoy"
7 up, 0 down
Temjin001
Thursday, January 26, 2012 @ 2:15:19 AM
0 up, 0 down
johnld
Thursday, January 26, 2012 @ 3:21:05 AM
1 up, 0 down
Temjin001
Thursday, January 26, 2012 @ 10:54:49 AM
Anyway, the news of the Next Xbox running off of a 6670 is more concerning to me.... my laptop has a 6770. I already have a GPU more powerful than the new xbox, if rumors are true =p
Last edited by Temjin001 on 1/26/2012 10:55:42 AM
0 up, 0 down
FatherSun
Wednesday, January 25, 2012 @ 9:46:54 PM
Reply
12 up, 1 down
Underdog15
Thursday, January 26, 2012 @ 8:31:16 AM
But this would only cause gamestop et al to sell used games at more reasonable prices. $55 for a used game? Gimme a break... No one is "saving" all their hard earned cash by buying it for $5 less. It's not even 10% off. If buying access code's is $10, they would HAVE to sell at a minimum $45 or at least provide the codes. Basically, it won't make any real difference to consumers beyond entering the code, but gamestop will take a smaller profit cut and the developer's get a piece.
It's a win for everyone. (This isn't going to put gamestop out of business. haha!)
1 up, 2 down
Fane1024
Friday, January 27, 2012 @ 2:34:37 AM
To be fair, at least in our home country (at EB Games), you'd actually pay $49.50 for that $55 used game (before taxes) if you were a regular buyer of used games, so the savings is greater than 10% (17.5% off).
Last edited by Fane1024 on 1/27/2012 2:36:07 AM
1 up, 0 down
Underdog15
Friday, January 27, 2012 @ 10:33:26 AM
In Canada, at EBGames, you have to pay for that frequent used games card, I'm pretty sure. It's worth it if you buy enough, I'm sure.
0 up, 0 down
dlte
Wednesday, January 25, 2012 @ 9:50:31 PM
Reply
10 up, 0 down
hellish_devil
Wednesday, January 25, 2012 @ 10:37:22 PM
1 up, 0 down
johnld
Thursday, January 26, 2012 @ 3:23:29 AM
1 up, 0 down
NoSmokingBandit
Wednesday, January 25, 2012 @ 9:57:36 PM
Reply
Everyone knows Gamestop makes almost nothing on new games. Retails prices are set for them and the don't get a good price from the distributor. If all gamestop sold was new games and accessories they would be out of business in no time at all. More retail stores selling games means that more people will go reserve games and pick them up on day 1 - good news for the publisher. But what does GS stand to gain from this?
I feel like if publishers want to bi*** and moan about used game sales they need to lower their cost to stores. I do the purchasing for several departments at a local store (not a game store) and i'd push used sales if new only got me a slim % margin. Publishers seem to be looking out for themselves only without regard for anyone else. They dont care about the retailers, they dont care about the consumers (overpriced, day-1 dlc is evident of this). All they care about is getting as much money as possible and screwing over as many people as possible along the way.
The game industry survived with used sales since the Atari was king. If this generation is suffering from used sales then publishers are doing something wrong. Activision spends tens of millions on an ultimately mediocre game like MW3 then whine that they arent making enough back on their investment. Rather than spending their money smarter they just try to suck out wallets clean and destory brick-and-mortar stores.
This is not the gaming i grew up with, and its not the gaming i love. This generation has caused the entire industry to devolve into a giant mess. The next generation doesnt interest me at all. I can't care about an industry that has made such a radical shift in such a short time. Its really disappointing.
9 up, 3 down
Ben Dutka PSXE [Administrator]
Wednesday, January 25, 2012 @ 10:05:06 PM
It didn't cost a huge chunk of money and resources to put out a game in the Atari days. That's a very new phenomenon. If you want all these fancy games and still believe you can pay what you paid 25 years ago ($60 was the cost of some SNES cartridges), then you're just asking for far too much, IMO. By all rights, games could cost $100 apiece these days.
Last edited by Ben Dutka PSXE on 1/25/2012 10:06:15 PM
7 up, 10 down
Temjin001
Wednesday, January 25, 2012 @ 10:10:28 PM
So while we can take what we want from that, especially considering how much crap was shoveled on the Wii, it does illustrate quite well how there is a concern for such things and that really, for $60(and a dollar that's worth less than it was in the 90's) we should be saying thank you.
4 up, 4 down
bluedarrk
Wednesday, January 25, 2012 @ 10:11:44 PM
7 up, 0 down
Excelsior1
Wednesday, January 25, 2012 @ 11:04:50 PM
10 up, 2 down
Temjin001
Wednesday, January 25, 2012 @ 11:13:44 PM
5 up, 1 down
Excelsior1
Wednesday, January 25, 2012 @ 11:45:44 PM
Last edited by Excelsior1 on 1/25/2012 11:53:54 PM
5 up, 1 down
Ben Dutka PSXE [Administrator]
Thursday, January 26, 2012 @ 12:03:05 AM
...consumers seemed to respond back then. There just weren't nearly as many games.
4 up, 6 down
Excelsior1
Thursday, January 26, 2012 @ 12:53:09 AM
7 up, 1 down
bigrailer19
Thursday, January 26, 2012 @ 1:48:22 AM
Games today should probably cost $100 when you factor in everything that goes into them. We are lucky they don't. But I do agree that people probably wouldn't pay that much on every new release like some do now. They would be a little more reserved. I'd still buy games obviously but it would have to be a game like Uncharted or The elder scrolls. Something I know I'll enjoy for extended periods of time.
But we are not talking about CD's anymore. We have Blu-ray a much more sophisticated and definitely better format. The technology is well worththe price to say the least.
Last edited by bigrailer19 on 1/26/2012 1:53:17 AM
2 up, 6 down
Excelsior1
Thursday, January 26, 2012 @ 2:38:03 AM
I put this question to fellow PSXE members before when this $100 game talk was brought up last time. How many of you feel like most games are even worth the full $60 asking price? The consensus was not even half the games on the market are really worth that much. The market would not be able to sustain a $100 game price point and publishers know this. Good luck even raising the prices $10 in this economy. $60 is pushing it in terms of impulse buys anyways.
Publisher's already have artificial ways of raising the price of games with DLC.
10 up, 1 down
Phoenix
Thursday, January 26, 2012 @ 4:59:31 AM
Quality, this is a thing most games lack this gen, with the odd exception here and there, and this is a major reason for why I only own 5 ps3 titles, when I've got well over 30 ps2, and about 60 ps1. Sure, games look better these days, no doubt, but there just isnt much soul in most of them, and when you see devs taking out content for dlc to make more money, or pumping out games as quick as possible to make a fast buck, it makes me sad for the future of gaming. This indusrty use to have to put out gold to pull in the cash, and it was a wonderful era for both consumer and devs, but my lord how things have changed with this gen.
Money, they want it as quick as possible, and quality be damned if it gets in the way, and they will whore themselves out for profit, this is why we get a new cod game every year, this is why FF is a dead title to me and most others now, and this is why we get day 1 DLC, or close enough to it, for most titles. So I wouldnt be shocked at all if both sony/ms did something like this, to try and make more.... though I wonder if it's the devs pushing for this so they can make more, or is it sony/ms that want more for their titles...
6 up, 1 down
NoSmokingBandit
Thursday, January 26, 2012 @ 6:26:46 AM
Yes. Its called capitalism. They can offer your $5 for it if they wanted to. Consumers need to be intelligent in the whole process as well. I was was selling my car and somebody offered me half of what its worth i just wouldnt sell them the car. I definitely wouldnt sell them my car then whine about their low offer like they ripped me off due to me being a moron. Everyone wants to be a victim instead of doing the intelligent thing.
Consumers let companies treat them like crap then whine about it like its everybody else's fault.
Yes, development costs have risen, but so have sales. You didnt see SNES titles selling millions of copies on launch day. The fact is that publishers arent making as much money as they'd like, and rather than ask themselves how they can do a better job they ask themselves how they can make more money from the same product by screwing over retailers and end users. When profits for my departments at work start to decline i dont try to charge customers more for the same product, i make sure me and my staff arent slacking off and missing opportunity. Its not really a difficult concept. Game companies have no service standards.
And as far as development costs go, its not just as easy as saying games cost more to make unilaterally. MW3 was one of the most costly games to make and theres a massive absence of quality. Yet Uncharted 3 blows it out of that water in every way and cost less than half as much to make with probably 1/10 the staff. Giant publishers arent spending their money well and are willing to pass that cost and inconvenience on to the customers rather than fix their own problems.
The only game i bought this fall was Dark Souls because the other games i wanted were riddled with dlc and online-pass BS. Its amazing, but you *dont* have to buy a game if you disagree with the business practices. Stop supporting companies that treat you like a walking billfold and things may actually change for the better.
15 up, 2 down
twenty8nine
Thursday, January 26, 2012 @ 8:46:40 AM
I do understand how they publishers don't make any money on used game sales, so I propose a different system: Pay to play. This system would work where you pay so much to play so long on a particular game disc. Say 250 hours come with a brand new disc, and then you can buy 250 more hours on that disc when that first amount expires. After buying more time, then it will go to an unlimited option, where the price for it will be great enough that people don't just get unlimited and continue to make a profit for themselves.
0 up, 0 down
bigrailer19
Thursday, January 26, 2012 @ 9:10:40 AM
Excel- you missed my point. I don't care how much it cost a developer to make a cartridge, if it cost more or less doesn't matter. My point is a cartridge let alone a CD doesn't hold near a much data as a Blu-ray disc, it doesn't have the ability for 7.1 surround, HD, and most games today wouldn't come close to fitting on one. That in turn costs money to develop for though, and with all that technology and content on one disc, well again we are lucky we don't pay more. This isn't about what it's worth, because I have games I wouldn't pay $60 for again, but I at least acknowledge the money that developers have to put into a game for it to go gold.
2 up, 2 down
Excelsior1
Thursday, January 26, 2012 @ 10:04:32 AM
There are some publishers like Valve that actually think game prices are too high.
Ofcourse I am a consumer and want low prices but the truth is I do think a lot of games aren't worth $60. It's not because I'm cheap but because they just are not worth it considering what I get out of them. There are probably many who feel the same way. That's a problem for any price hikes. Consumers just don't see the value.
There are select games I will gladly pay $60 because I know what I will get out of them.
Last edited by Excelsior1 on 1/26/2012 10:10:11 AM
7 up, 2 down
Ben Dutka PSXE [Administrator]
Thursday, January 26, 2012 @ 10:17:12 AM
They sell more now because gaming has gone mainstream but this doesn't change the fact that if publishers AND developers want to make money, one million in sales is probably a bare minimum for a big-budget game. Plus, given inflation, $60 absolutely is $100 today so the argument doesn't really matter, anyway.
Used games can die tomorrow for all I care. That's the long and short of it.
4 up, 10 down
Highlander
Thursday, January 26, 2012 @ 10:22:33 AM
You also wrote
"bluedarrk asked if its right for GS to offer $15 for a game they sell for $55.
Yes. Its called capitalism. They can offer your $5 for it if they wanted to. "
That's just the worst excuse ever for this BS. You're saying it's OK for GS to gouge people senseless, but it's not OK for the people that make the games to try to recover some of the revenue lost to used game sales? So GS version of capitalism is more valid than that of the creators? BS, that's rationalization to excuse GameStop's practice of screwing the customer, nothing more, nothing less. At least be honest about the fact that you are excusing them.
Last edited by Highlander on 1/26/2012 10:31:39 AM
3 up, 6 down
jimmyhandsome
Thursday, January 26, 2012 @ 10:41:17 AM
People need to be smart about trading in used games and buying used games. Personally, I buy most of my games new (usually off Amazon after the price drops $20 within a couple of weeks of release). Meanwhile, Gamestop will sell a game $55 used well up to 6 months after its release. I have no idea why people are willing to pay that. If you look around on places like Amazon or Newegg you can usually get the same game much cheaper NEW.
I do however, take advantage of trading in my games, especially through online outlets like Amazon because they offer MUCH more money than gamestop does. I bought Rage on black friday last November for $30, played it for about a week and came away disappointed. The next week I was able to send it back to Amazon for $24. Basically paid for a $6 rental. Unfortunately most people are either to lazy or stupid to look for the better deal, and would just be happy trading it into gamestop for $9.
Also, as Excelsior says, alot of games aren't worth the $60 price tag. Just because a company has high development costs, doesn't mean that the consumer should pay for something that is overpriced due to lack of quality. Everyone is different, and everyone should be capable of valuing a product based on their past experiences or tastes.
All that being said, I feel that if Microsoft and/or Sony decides to block out used games would be a huge mistake. The market, like any market, will adjust to what the consumer is willing to pay. People like me who buy a game new, knowing that if I'm not satisfied with the product I can fall back on trading it in to recoup my losses, will be alot more hesitant if that used game market no longer exists. I think that alot of consumers aren't willing to pay the $60 (or rumored $70 for next gen games) price of admission for each and every game released.
6 up, 1 down
Temjin001
Thursday, January 26, 2012 @ 10:49:31 AM
1 up, 1 down
Jawknee
Thursday, January 26, 2012 @ 5:22:21 PM
0 up, 1 down
Phoenix
Saturday, January 28, 2012 @ 10:08:40 AM
Now, on topic, there are those that side with devs not getting money from used sails, and those that think it best that the used market dry up and die, however I think we should all remember that in order for a used game to exist, it had to have been bought new, and the devs have already seen the profit from that purchase, should they really see more income from the same disc again? I dont think that is fair, this is an industry that makes quite a lot of money as is, and they are just simply crying because they lose a small amount to the used market.
1 up, 0 down
maxpontiac
Wednesday, January 25, 2012 @ 10:22:30 PM
Reply
2 up, 0 down
Warrior Poet
Wednesday, January 25, 2012 @ 10:22:31 PM
Reply
0 up, 0 down
WorldEndsWithMe
Wednesday, January 25, 2012 @ 10:31:18 PM
12 up, 0 down
Qubex
Thursday, January 26, 2012 @ 1:59:00 AM
Q!
"play.experience.enjoy"
5 up, 0 down
WorldEndsWithMe
Wednesday, January 25, 2012 @ 10:29:43 PM
Reply
The other side of the coin is that me buying a game used (and thus cheap) has the potential to introduce me to a new franchise that I love and am willing to pony up the full cost of when a sequel arrives.
If I was never going to buy it new, then there is no sale lost to them. If I can't buy it used, then they've lost a potential fan for future installments.
9 up, 1 down
johnld
Thursday, January 26, 2012 @ 3:35:47 AM
0 up, 0 down
matt99
Thursday, January 26, 2012 @ 9:57:19 AM
It's almost impossible to calculate how much they're losing or if they're even losing at all, and like you pointed out they may even be gaining.
2 up, 0 down
jimmyhandsome
Thursday, January 26, 2012 @ 12:35:53 PM
0 up, 0 down
Superman915
Wednesday, January 25, 2012 @ 10:45:40 PM
Reply
Last edited by Superman915 on 1/25/2012 10:45:52 PM
0 up, 1 down
johnld
Thursday, January 26, 2012 @ 3:37:21 AM
0 up, 0 down
Excelsior1
Wednesday, January 25, 2012 @ 10:52:52 PM
Reply
6 up, 1 down
Temjin001
Wednesday, January 25, 2012 @ 11:08:54 PM
2 up, 1 down
maxpontiac
Wednesday, January 25, 2012 @ 11:20:10 PM
3 up, 1 down
Temjin001
Wednesday, January 25, 2012 @ 11:26:19 PM
4 up, 0 down
Excelsior1
Wednesday, January 25, 2012 @ 11:27:50 PM
@max
I hope you are right. I suspect we will see another 360 price cut that will keep that from happening THIS gen. Plus 360 sales have been oddly accelerating recently possibly do to Kinect. I think Sony was within 1.7 million consoles so it definitely could happen, but it feels like it is taking forever. If it did happen it would make this particular Sony fan very happy.
Last edited by Excelsior1 on 1/25/2012 11:41:27 PM
4 up, 1 down
Temjin001
Wednesday, January 25, 2012 @ 11:48:16 PM
Last edited by Temjin001 on 1/25/2012 11:48:51 PM
0 up, 0 down
556pineapple
Wednesday, January 25, 2012 @ 11:16:30 PM
Reply
4 up, 0 down
johnld
Thursday, January 26, 2012 @ 3:40:00 AM
2 up, 1 down
Buckeyestar
Wednesday, January 25, 2012 @ 11:59:00 PM
Reply
5 up, 0 down
johnld
Thursday, January 26, 2012 @ 3:41:43 AM
0 up, 1 down
Buckeyestar
Thursday, January 26, 2012 @ 9:15:48 AM
0 up, 0 down
Highlander
Thursday, January 26, 2012 @ 10:33:20 AM
0 up, 1 down
Buckeyestar
Thursday, January 26, 2012 @ 11:48:31 AM
1 up, 0 down
sha4dowknight05
Thursday, January 26, 2012 @ 12:04:05 AM
Reply
Maybe more codes????
1 up, 0 down
gumbi
Thursday, January 26, 2012 @ 12:06:01 AM
Reply
How would the console know the difference between a borrowed game, and a used game?
Lets also consider the fact that this would instantly kill the video game rental industry.
Blocking used games is just not practical. They won't do it. I mean, go for it if you want Microsoft. No skin off my back, but I guarantee Sony won't do this.
The best they can do is offer incentives to pursuade consumers to buy new, or decentives to dissuade consumers from purchasing used games. Blocking is out of the question.
5 up, 1 down
johnld
Thursday, January 26, 2012 @ 3:43:36 AM
1 up, 0 down
gumbi
Thursday, January 26, 2012 @ 9:38:59 AM
As long as the game can be played. It's just impractical and, in my opinion, unethical to completely block a second hand game.
1 up, 0 down
JDC80
Thursday, January 26, 2012 @ 12:08:56 AM
Reply
And I don't see how this move would help with their bottom line, if I don't have the money to get a game day one blocking used versions isn't going to make me go damn I better get this game day one. It's going to make me wait until company cut the price.
3 up, 0 down
Fane1024
Thursday, January 26, 2012 @ 1:38:39 AM
0 up, 0 down
Temjin001
Thursday, January 26, 2012 @ 2:04:09 AM
0 up, 0 down
johnld
Thursday, January 26, 2012 @ 3:45:09 AM
0 up, 0 down
Rogueagent01
Thursday, January 26, 2012 @ 12:30:12 AM
Reply
The rental industry would not be killed instantly since the publishers could always come up with a stamp of sorts that the system would allow. As for Gamestop please try and kill them they are one of the worst companies on the planet, they rape consumers and then profit off of it. The only places I would feel sympathy for would be the little mom & pop shops that sell used games as many of them already struggle to survive. One of the little shops by me has stayed in business by offering better trade in value then Gamestop and then selling it cheaper at the same time, they also will import anything you want for a very small fee. It is refreshing to see that not all retailers are money grubbing capitalist pigs.
2 up, 0 down
bigrailer19
Thursday, January 26, 2012 @ 12:42:22 AM
Reply
Late picking up I'll usually try an find it used first.
But the point is, if this happens it could destroy gaming for consumers! I believe buying new is best for the developers, but used games really are an outlet for those who can't afford a New game once a month or even one every three months. So... There could be an issue there.
Last edited by bigrailer19 on 1/26/2012 12:44:20 AM
3 up, 0 down
johnld
Thursday, January 26, 2012 @ 3:48:02 AM
0 up, 1 down
gray_eagle
Thursday, January 26, 2012 @ 12:56:05 AM
Reply
than split the profits with the publishers.
Last edited by gray_eagle on 1/26/2012 12:56:56 AM
0 up, 0 down
shadowscorpio
Thursday, January 26, 2012 @ 1:25:33 AM
Of course it would mean that Sony and/or Microsoft would have to jump into yet another market. This particular market directly effects publishers of games and games effect the consoles so its not like it wouldn't be worth looking into for Sony & MS.
1 up, 0 down
johnld
Thursday, January 26, 2012 @ 3:50:52 AM
1 up, 0 down
___________
Thursday, January 26, 2012 @ 2:22:45 AM
Reply
if anything it will only hurt the manufactures!
if i had a nickel for every time id be trying to recommend a game to someone and the first question they would ask is does it have a online pass?
if i say yes then they instantly refuse to buy it because they only buy games used and refuse to pay extra again just to access MP.
some will grin and bare it, some wont care, but some will just stop buying games all together!
and they want to stop piracy........
no renting games, no trading in games, no returning games, no lending games to friends, only buying them brand new and holding onto them forever!
yea thats really going to help stop piracy!
BRILLIANT!
rolls eyes!
Last edited by ___________ on 1/26/2012 2:25:01 AM
5 up, 1 down
THEVERDIN
Thursday, January 26, 2012 @ 2:32:59 AM
Reply
0 up, 0 down
dmiitrie
Thursday, January 26, 2012 @ 2:33:26 AM
Reply
Gamestop go out of business. I also believe that the industry would mostly survive if future consoles put in these type of restrictions, as retailers like Wal-Mart, Amazon, Best Buy, and others who don't depend so heavily used games would be much less affected.
That being said, however, I think such a move by Sony and / or Microsoft would be entirely too much. In addition to the used game market, this action would kill rental businesses like Gamefly, Red Box, and Blockbuster (which, unfortunately, still exists as a Netflix clone). Rentals provide a very valuable function to the industry and, unlike used sales, actually can, and do, lead to purchases.
Overall, I greatly approve of Online Passes and would like to see publishes move further in that direction, as well as further towards digital distribution, to combat used sales as opposed to more drastic measures which may have far reaching, unintended consequences.
0 up, 5 down
Palpatations911
Thursday, January 26, 2012 @ 5:04:20 AM
Before you know it, you can't even sell a lawnmower in the classifieds because John Deer isn't making money on the used purchase.
2 up, 1 down
Highlander
Thursday, January 26, 2012 @ 10:35:34 AM
2 up, 7 down
dmiitrie
Thursday, January 26, 2012 @ 1:03:59 PM
As I already said, I'm opposed to consoles not playing used games; I think that's just too much. But there is a very big problem in today's industry when people expect publishers and developers to continue spending money years after a games release without ever contributing to the cost of that infrastructure.
Which is why I think Online Passes are an appropriate measure. With those, the only people who pay extra when buying used are the people that require extra and continued support from the devs.
3 up, 1 down
Highlander
Thursday, January 26, 2012 @ 1:18:21 PM
0 up, 0 down
killerbee12
Thursday, January 26, 2012 @ 4:20:13 AM
Reply
3 up, 1 down
dbyzforce
Thursday, January 26, 2012 @ 9:05:34 AM
0 up, 0 down
Palpatations911
Thursday, January 26, 2012 @ 4:46:23 AM
Reply
In fact, it should apply to digital media also. I should legally be able to transfer the media to another party and also transfer ownership.
They are in no way losing money from used games because once a consumer purchases a game from a retailer, the consumer is the sole owner of that physical copy and the only person who deserves to profit from selling that game at a used price is the OWNER.
Don't let these corporations convince you to allow them to squeeze more money out of your pocket because this is absolutely insane.
When does the madness stop? Will people start believing that Honda is "losing money" because I bought a used car? Are contractors "losing money" because I bought a pre-owned house instead of building a new one?
I am finished with my rant, and to answer your question, Ben; Yes. The game market is absolutely doomed if people allow corporations to do this to them.
9 up, 1 down
Palpatations911
Thursday, January 26, 2012 @ 4:59:17 AM
Those gamers will spend less on new games when they know they can't sell a used game.
Last edited by Palpatations911 on 1/26/2012 4:59:47 AM
3 up, 1 down
Highlander
Thursday, January 26, 2012 @ 10:37:43 AM
3 up, 4 down
gumbi
Thursday, January 26, 2012 @ 5:15:06 PM
Maybe the big thing here is to distinguish the difference between a purchased product, a licensed product, and a service. And where video games fit into this scheme. In today's model, console games are purchased products. The consumer owns the product and it should be 100% transferable.
If I decide to sell my copy of Assassins Creed: Revelations to my neighbour, Ubisoft is NOT entitled to anything from that transaction. That's a simple transfer of ownership from me to him.
Now, Ubisoft also offers a service with this game in its online play. If my neighbour wants to play online and take advantage of this ongoing service being provided by Ubisoft then he has to buy a pass. And I think that's perfectly fair. They get paid for the service they are providing by anyone who uses that service.
If publishers/developers want to make money off of every individual who uses their software then this entire business model of how video games are purchased, delivered, and played needs to change. They would have to treat video games like commercial software. Where you don't really purchase the product, you purchase a license to use the product. If you transfer the media to someone else, it's useless to them unless they purchase a license to use it.
Video game publishers aren't licensing their software, they're selling it. Second hand sales are a fair bi-product of this business model and unless publishers collectively change their business model, used game sales aren't going away.
3 up, 1 down
Highlander
Thursday, January 26, 2012 @ 7:06:27 PM
Game discs are 100% purchasable products that you own, yes. But the game on the disc, the software embodied on the disc is licensed to you. The license isn't transferable. Not only that but the disc is a copyrighted work, and subject not only to the licensing terms but also the copyright laws.
The way that copyright works - generally - you have the right to sell the game disc, and that 'copy' to another person, that is permitted under the way that copyright works. What was not envisaged when that operational standard for copyright law was established was that the copy being sold would be every bit as good as the original work. Copyright was intended to protect content creators.
The sale of used works was considered OK under the law (look up doctrine of first sale) because a used copy of a book, a record (old style vinyl) and that kind of thing is physically inferior to the original. In fact the price paid for a used work varies by the condition that particular book, tape or album is in. The protection for the creator being that the physical copy of something will deteriorate over time reducing it's value, and producing an incentive for buyers to buy a new, original instead of an old, used copy.
With digital media that do not even scratch unless you really try to scratch them, things are not the same, because the work itself does not deteriorate.
Now, back to the point about you selling your game to another person. that's perfectly permitted because you are the original first sale owner. The so called doctrine of *first* sale covers you. This doctrine or legal precedent is in operation in various forms throughout the world. The thing is that copyright and license laws differ in scope, so that the sale of the disc is covered, but the software on it is not. That license is not transferable by you, making the use of the software on the disc by the person you sell it to, unlicensed.
All that aside, go back to the copyright issue and the sale of used items. When a used game on BluRay is sold, it is generally in near mint condition, because the discs do not scratch or deteriorate. Yet that used product is sold in direct competition with the new product. In effect the used product is actually hurting the creator. This was not the aim of copyright law. Because these discs and the digital works held by them do not deteriorate, they break the fundamental balance of the way copyright operates. Used books are dog-eared old things with tears and stains and are clearly inferior works. So there is an incentive to buy new. With a use game disc, where is that incentive?
1 up, 3 down
gumbi
Friday, January 27, 2012 @ 9:05:25 AM
My point is that when you play a second hand game today you are in no violation of any copyright. The rights to use that software apply to the owner of the physical media it's printed on.
The same applies to second hand sales of movies and music. These days it's all digital content and regardless of the condition of the case/booklet, the content is typically the same quality. Nevertheless, the owner of the physical media is 100% entitled to use the content.
My argument isn't that it's fair, or just. Only that under current copyright and licensing laws it is legitimate. It's not the position of the console makers to block content if they think it's second hand. At least, not until the developers and console manufacturers work together to implement a new means of delivering, validating, and activating software licenses. I'm not entirely opposed to this either. I buy my games new anyway, and unless they stink I don't sell them. I like my collections. I will, however, greatly mourn the loss my freedom to lend and borrow games with my friends.
0 up, 0 down
Highlander
Friday, January 27, 2012 @ 6:10:13 PM
In other words I have no problem with individual sales, but I do have a problem with commercial involvement in the used market.
0 up, 0 down
Palpatations911
Thursday, January 26, 2012 @ 5:09:42 AM
Reply
Last edited by Palpatations911 on 1/26/2012 5:10:31 AM
1 up, 1 down
D1g1tal5torm
Thursday, January 26, 2012 @ 6:37:30 AM
Reply
6 up, 0 down
Highlander
Thursday, January 26, 2012 @ 10:38:47 AM
2 up, 0 down
D1g1tal5torm
Thursday, January 26, 2012 @ 3:05:33 PM
Let's take a game like MGS4 - who bought it new and resold it?
I'd bet the percentages resold is pretty darn low.
0 up, 0 down
Underdog15
Friday, January 27, 2012 @ 10:43:43 AM
Modern Warfare 2 came out the same year as WKC (3 months prior). MW2 is $19.99 used. Are you suggesting that people are equally as likely to keep both titles on their shelf?
Fallout 3 is only $14.99 used, and you can find that in any EB as well. Is that game not good enough for people to keep? Apparently it got high scores, critical acclaim, and great sales. Mass Effect 2 is already $14.99 used. Is that also not good enough to keep?
The list goes on and on and on. And unless you have some insanely unfair idea of what constitutes "good enough to keep", as apparently, all the very best games ever made go cheaply used quickly, while the "worst" are more expensive (and more rare, and therefore harder to find)...
then it would seem to me, that people will trade in games when they are finished. Regardless of how well it's done. The fact is, games that sell high hit the used market just as fast as the games that sell low and at the exact same percentages. There's a reason for that, you know.
I'm afraid highlander has a point.
0 up, 0 down
D1g1tal5torm
Friday, January 27, 2012 @ 12:05:38 PM
Lighten up.
0 up, 0 down
Underdog15
Friday, January 27, 2012 @ 12:32:06 PM
"I'd bet the percentages sold are pretty darn low".
I'm not sure how I can take that metaphorically, philosophically, or otherwise. You made an objective observation... so did I.
I don't really think I need to lighten up, because I wasn't upset or angry or anything... I merely disagreed and said why...
So ya... not really sure what to tell ya. i enjoy discussion. I don't really feel I can get much lighter and still enjoy myself. :p
Last edited by Underdog15 on 1/27/2012 12:33:27 PM
0 up, 0 down
Xzer0
Thursday, January 26, 2012 @ 6:55:09 AM
Reply
Sorry for my grammar.
Last edited by Xzer0 on 1/26/2012 6:55:57 AM
2 up, 0 down
Ignitus
Thursday, January 26, 2012 @ 8:19:56 AM
Reply
Now with this rumor about MS doing just that, Sony might finally do it. It should be interesting to see how that unfolds. Who knows? Maybe we all will end up buying a WiiU instead.
OFF TOPIC.
Yesterday I read another rumor story over at Eurogamer that states the Xbox Next will use Bluray and an AMD 6670 for its GPU. What a laugh!
If that's the case Sony might easily make the PS4 much more powerfull.
On the other hand, we might just get cheaper but underpowered next generation boxes. We know Sony doesn't want to repeat the headache of another PS with a high price at launch.
0 up, 0 down
Dustinwp
Thursday, January 26, 2012 @ 8:36:02 AM
Nintendo made a killing with this approach and Microsoft seems to be following their blue print. All the kiddie games, heavy focus on Kinect, Microsoft's statements on cheaper launch price, and rumors of cheaper hardware, almost guarantee this theory.
I just don't see Sony using a piece of crap graphics chip like that.
Last edited by Dustinwp on 1/26/2012 8:40:52 AM
0 up, 0 down
jimmyhandsome
Thursday, January 26, 2012 @ 8:36:29 AM
Reply
0 up, 0 down
airwedge1
Thursday, January 26, 2012 @ 8:45:52 AM
Reply
A car company doesn't complain that they don't get any revenue off a used car sale, and they still honor a warranty. The car company made the money of the original sale of the car.
It is no different with a video game. The publisher makes the money off the original sale of the game. It doesn't matter who is playing the game.
We are buying the game, not buying a SAS license for the game.
5 up, 1 down
twenty8nine
Thursday, January 26, 2012 @ 8:49:56 AM
1 up, 2 down
Highlander
Thursday, January 26, 2012 @ 10:44:33 AM
3 up, 5 down
Underdog15
Friday, January 27, 2012 @ 10:50:44 AM
It would even be a little more fair to publishers and devs because people would be more likely to buy new over used if they got back what their games were worth.
However, Gamestop's got an excellent strategy where they make an enormous over 30% turn-around (in some cases 50%). And you only get enough back from them that 90-99% of the time it makes more sense to buy a used copy of what you want over the new one. On top of that, they try to sell you some sort of insurance for $3... thus bringing your used game close to the cost of a new one. (Sometimes higher depending on the price of the used game you're buying)
Of course we can cling to capitalism. However, since most people don't know the impact it has on the industry (or refuse to see it in an effort to not having to change in some cases), it does no good.
Gamestop have an excellent hold on the industry and are more profitable themselves than even Activision.
I'm ok with used game sales, but I do think devs and pubs need to do more to get some of that market share back... especially since they're the ones making the games.
0 up, 0 down
slugga_status
Thursday, January 26, 2012 @ 9:19:10 AM
Reply
Something like this would also encourage piracy even more. It's bad enough that piracy is growing by the day and we even have generators the spit you a usable code to unlock x,y, and z.
Lastly, devs fails to realize that if a person buys your product used and likes it, more than likely they'll be willing to pay full price for your next product as you've installed faith of your creative abilities.
3 up, 1 down
Underdog15
Thursday, January 26, 2012 @ 10:01:07 AM
Reply
THINK about the effect it would have in terms of how the retailers would adjust. You all act like they would just lie down and die because of it.
COME on, guys, be intelligent.
HERE'S what will happen... Retailers, gamefly... all of them... they'll adjust.
The consumer will likely see no changes other than having to enter in a code.
Gamestop will no longer be able to sell you a used game for $55. (Less than 10% off a new price. Any intelligent consumer would buy new, anyways, for such a rip off. Either that or wait.) Instead, they will either sell to you for $55 along with a dlc code, or they'll sell it for $55 minus the cost of you getting the code yourself. (So $45 if it's a $10 code)
Consumers will still get the same pricing for purchasing games. Stop acting like you won't. What WILL happen, is that retailers now have to either sell for less, or they charge the same but return a cut to developers by grouping in the codes. Either way, everyone wins. Gamestop continues to sell used games (but at more reasonable prices), Developers get their FAIR cut (admit it... it's only unfair to you if YOU feel a negative effect... prissy little capitalists, you. :p), and consumers feel NOTHING.
We already get to put DLC on 5 different accounts/PS3's (movies excepted for obvious reasons). So you can still share with friends.
And places like Gamefly will just incorporate having to either purchasing rental licenses or have deals with devs to share a percentage us usage fees. (Not dissimilar to music and movie industries rental agreements)
It's SO funny to me that you all scream bloody murder... That gamestop will not survive.... that consumers have to spend $200 on a game (who the hell said that?!?!). And Palpatations screaming the end of society like a freakin' Mayan?
GUYS... come on... get with the times. These companies are huge. They will learn to adapt. Blockbuster didn't die because of rules and regulations. They died because they couldn't compete with the ease of digital distribution. Because they became obsolete.
If games become more digital based in the future, Gamestop may already have a ticking clock anyways.
But it's DEFINITELY not because developers want their fair share of getting a cut from the many unlicensed users of their software.
I'm not defending one way or the other... but come on... there's no way this could possibly have a significant effect on the consumer.
I mean really.... other pansy's out there shouting, "I'LL NEVER GAME AGAIN!" Well, pfft fine. From the sounds of it, devs were never getting your supper anyways. Whoop-dee-freakin-doo. Besides, we all know you're bluffing anyways.
Anyways kids.... it's time to grow the hell up and be realistic here. It's not going to happen, and even if it did, it won't end up being that big of a deal.
Downvote away. I don't care. I'm right, and I know it, too.
6 up, 8 down
Excelsior1
Thursday, January 26, 2012 @ 10:37:25 AM
hehe. You called Qubex a pansy indirectly. He said "I definitely won't be part of it either!" I'm only kidding but I think he and World said they were bailing if this happens if I read their posts correctly. I won't go that far and I won't downvote you either. Your post was a good enough read.
Another thing. Sony reduced it to two accounts/PS3's recently. It's no longer 5.
8 up, 1 down
Ben Dutka PSXE [Administrator]
Thursday, January 26, 2012 @ 10:40:01 AM
For the most part, it's a $5 difference and always has been. Sometimes it's $10, but that appears to be rare at the GameStops I go to.
1 up, 4 down
Highlander
Thursday, January 26, 2012 @ 10:45:13 AM
0 up, 2 down
jimmyhandsome
Thursday, January 26, 2012 @ 11:38:42 AM
You're assuming that there will just be a code that can be purchased for a used game from the publisher/developer. According to the article the console will completely block the used game from being played. Of course you could be right too as all of this is just speculation.
That being said, lets assume that the game CAN'T be played on other consoles other than the original, that will most definately affect the consumer and the profit margins of retailers. Like Ben said, most of gamestop's profits come from used game sales. If they can no longer sell used games then yes, that will hurt the retailers. And I can't imagine places that have such low margins to begin with like Bestbuy to be too happy either.
The game market will adjust (I'm thinking that people will not be willing to pay a full $60 for each game, driving down the prices more quickly)....but if that happens, again, the retailer is going to suffer.
No this isn't the end of the world like some are making it out to be, but it will absolutely affect businesses in a negative manner.
3 up, 1 down
Excelsior1
Thursday, January 26, 2012 @ 11:39:14 AM
7 up, 0 down
Temjin001
Thursday, January 26, 2012 @ 12:13:41 PM
6 up, 0 down
Highlander
Thursday, January 26, 2012 @ 1:06:00 PM
So, wait, let me repeat what you said for reference;
"Like Ben said, most of gamestop's profits come from used game sales. If they can no longer sell used games then yes, that will hurt the retailers. "
I've said the same thing about GameStop's profits. But what you appear to be saying is that gamestop's potential economic trouble is a reason to shaft the publishers and developers. You're effectively saying that without gouging users and publishers with the used game market, GameStop can't continue doing business. That's ridiculous and if it's the case it's got nothing to do with thin margins on games anD everything to do with how they structure their business. Approximately a third of the retail price of a game stays in the retail/wholesale channel. the remaining 2 thirds go to the publisher, and about half of what the publisher gets (1/3 of the total) goes on the costs of distribution, production, localization and promotion. The remainder is split with the developer. The developer and publisher typically see less per new game sold than the retailer does, and they see nothing from used game sales.
But you're actually defending GameStop? It's as if you think that their continued existence is more important than the financial well being of console makers, game developers and publishers. Ridiculous.
As for hurting retailers, the majors that recently got into used game sales got into it because they saw the monstrous pile of cash that GameStop were making on used game sales and wanted in on the market. They did not enter the market because their traditional new product sales were unprofitable. Perhaps the retailers simply need to figure out how to make a profit on selling new product without gouging customers over used games?
1 up, 2 down
Underdog15
Thursday, January 26, 2012 @ 1:19:24 PM
Each downvoter just proves my theory about end-consumer bias. No one is able to see logic beyond their thinly lined purse.
There are very few things I will roll my eyes at when people disagree with me on. But this is one of them. It's actually funny to me. I'm not angry. Perhaps frustrated. But it's just so absolutely hilarious to me that people get all up in arms over this unrealistically.
Excelsior provides a single solitary example of a game that isn't a $5 difference, and it's like half a decade old almost. What's funnier still, is that the whole $5 issue isn't at -ALL- the point I was making. Not even close. I used it as an example because it's the most common one out there. (By well over 90% of the time, I'm sure of it)
Look.... downvoters. The issue isn't the amount of money. The _FACT_ is that it will cost consumers the -EXACT- same amount of money as if there were no limitations on used sales. (Whether costs are inflated or not). The -POINT- of my post, if you would actually read and be capable of reading comprehension, is that these used game companies will find a way to adapt. And the end result will simply be that their 30%+ margin of profit on used sales would no longer be as large. Instead, some would go to the developer.
It is SO hilarious to me that you would argue a point that was not the primary focus of my post, and continue to have other ninnies agree with you. It means people out there truly are that hopeless.
@Jimmy
-IF- it were only capable of being played on one system, then yes it would cause problems. But many more beyond used sales. Lets say, for example, the XBOX has a 30% failure rate on it's initial release systems. (That would NEVER happen, right? .... guys??? lol) You'd have to buy a new game for every system.
Additionally, it would absolutely have an impact on household sales and new-consumer interest. It's too obvious of a problem for many many many other reasons. It's actually something PSN has already figured out (hence the 5 system/account allowance). There's no way they would act like it doesn't matter.
True... if it happened, you would have a point. But I think that's -exceedingly- unlikely. So in my reasoning, I've ruled that out as a possibility. Sony's policy is already a 5 system/account allowance. And it works very well for them managing their DLC content. In fact, they can track it on their servers, and if you have something bad happen, like your system dies and you buy a new one, you can call up customer service to have them deactivate the old and reactivate the new. You just have to explain why you need it corrected.
Look, everyone.... I just -REALLY- think everyone is making a big stink over nothing. Because making a stink is fun. And we all feel justified and more important when we get a chance to vent about our "freedoms" and "rights". But I think that clouds people's judgement from being able to see how it affects all parties. I find it even funnier still that people defend it in the name of "capitalism"... because if Gamestop wants to buy it cheap, then they can if they want... it's up to the consumer to decide....
Yeah well... it applies the other way around.
It just infuriates me that people have double standards, and they would use a theorem to defend themselves, then turn around and ignore that same theorem when it serves to diminish their position.
The inconsistency here is mind boggling by most (not all, like Jimmy who's at least reasonable and intelligent despite the fact we don't 100% agree).
The fact is... it's not a big deal. And it won't have a major impact other than Gamestop will make a little less, and developers make a little more. It gives control to the people that matter. The consumers and the developers. Why people are so quick to defend the third party that is completely unassociated to the process is beyond me. Look beyond your immediate purses, guys. And when you see the whole picture... well... damn... it's not so bad afterall... and what do ya know... I can still rent (rental agreements exist for music and movies and are very successful) and buy used... well shit... Underdog was right, and I made a giant ass of myself.
I cannot WAIT to deliver the big ol' 'i told ya so'.
And i will do that.
3 up, 0 down
Underdog15
Thursday, January 26, 2012 @ 1:33:18 PM
I think Excelsior would be an excellent person to create his own religion. Mainly because he'd get a good following.
Why?
Because he's excellent at using part truths to somehow justify the greater meaning of the points he tries to make. He can take a couple fact, however unrelated to the topic at hand, and use them effectively while ignoring any other legitimate piece of rebuttal.
Combine that with his charisma (due to his heroic defense of the poor, feeble commoner, again, however unrealistic) he manages to get people to feel good about agreeing with him.
A master manipulator.
So good, in fact, he doesn't even realize it! In fact, he's manipulated himself many times over!!
Last edited by Underdog15 on 1/26/2012 1:33:34 PM
0 up, 8 down
Underdog15
Thursday, January 26, 2012 @ 2:06:58 PM
0 up, 0 down
jimmyhandsome
Thursday, January 26, 2012 @ 2:21:01 PM
No. You are twisting my words. I have gone on record in both this thread and previous threads stating that I in no way condone the way Gamestop runs their used game business. They are like predatory salesmen constantly trying to get uninformed customers to buy a used copy that they state is "just as good" as the new copy for $5 less. Unfortunately most people don't know any better.
I said earlier on that Amazon and other online retailers offer much better deals for trade-ins, and sales on both new and used games. eBay is also another way to buy used games for much cheaper than gamestop.
When I made my comment that you misinterpreted, I was simply stating a fact, and it was in reply to Underdog. If used games are completely banned from next gen consoles (and who knows how true this is, but we're just speculating here) then yes, that will hurt consumers, who will now have alot less options, and retailers like Gamestop, Bestbuy, Amazon, and whoever else participates in the used game market. I never said that Gamestop wouldn't be able to continue to do business. I just reiteriated what Ben orginally said, that it will severely cut into their profit margins. Just because you don't like their business model or people who buy used games, doesn't mean it'll suck any less for those parties.
And those retail outlets DO have low margins, just like grocery stores....and most of GS's profit DOES come from used game sales. Those are just facts. And you're right, those companies will need to adapt if this used game ban is in fact implemented. Good companies can do that. But does that mean I'm defending them? No, not at all. I just think that this would offer less options for the consumer, who might be hesitant to buy a new game because they can't trade it in anymore. There are companies out there like Amazon that do it right and don't "gouge" anyone. And last I checked they made plenty of money both before and after they started buying and selling used games.
I also never said nor do I think, that Gamestop's existence is more important to the industry than the financial well-being of developers, console makers, etc. There are two sides of the coin however, as other's have stated that the popularity of used game sales could bring in potential future buyers for game companies. This is obviously unmeasurable, as is stating that everyone who bought a game used would've bought it new.
@ Underdog,
You're right. The fact that MS or Sony would flat out ban used games from working on their consoles seems extreme. They would have to work around letting people borrow games from friends, as well as game rental companies being able to continue to do business. I'm sure things will probably fall somewhere inbetween the current PSN/Online passes we have now, and a complete ban that is rumored.
IMO, a ban would hurt the console makers way more than they would help. As you could see by the number of replies in this thread, alot of people would be more pissed at the console makers than inclined to just buy the game new.
FOr the record I didn't thumb you down....I just thumbed you up so you feel a little better about it!
4 up, 1 down
killerbee12
Thursday, January 26, 2012 @ 2:27:02 PM
Last edited by killerbee12 on 1/26/2012 2:29:58 PM
0 up, 0 down
Underdog15
Thursday, January 26, 2012 @ 2:36:26 PM
haha I didn't think you downvoted me. You don't seem like the voting type. I rarely vote up or down for people either. It's sort of... strange. Even if an opinion is crass, rude, or downright offensive, I still respect someone that responds to me far more than a fly-by downvoter. So... I find it entertaining to call them all out like a single entity incapable of individual thought. :p (j/k sorta)
As for people saying they're upset, I just believe people are way more upset than they need to be. I think many people are assuming the extreme and getting worked up about it. Tomorrow, most won't even care any more, and when things actually happen, guess what 95% + of the complainers here will still be buying games?
I just feel like people are complaining just to make themselves feel better. And I definitely think most aren't actually thinking about it beyond a first, uninformed first impression. And when they defend the first impression to the nines without considering points (like you do), it makes me a little frustrated.
I've thought about this topic a whole-freakin' lot. And my opinion has changed dramatically from my initial "used sales are ALL bad, ALWAYS" mentality I had this time last year. And I continue to morph my thoughts as I learn more. yet some refuse to give it the same thought and act like non-extremists have nothing to offer to the conversation.
That's my frustration.
@Killerbee
W/e, dude. I say that to your original, unedited post. Dunno why you deleted it. I would have preferred the more ballsy response you had to me originally.
Last edited by Underdog15 on 1/26/2012 2:37:40 PM
3 up, 1 down
Highlander
Thursday, January 26, 2012 @ 2:40:28 PM
You're wrong about the margins that GameStop and other retailers gain on new game sales. The margin on hardware is wafer thin, but the games are far more profitable. I'm not going to illustrate the point again since I have already done so twice, but retailers are not hurting for profit from new game sales.
0 up, 3 down
killerbee12
Thursday, January 26, 2012 @ 3:17:34 PM
Referring to Underdog
Last edited by killerbee12 on 1/26/2012 3:18:54 PM
3 up, 2 down
Excelsior1
Thursday, January 26, 2012 @ 5:39:06 PM
Yeah, my example was an old game released like 3-4 years ago BUT that is where you will find the greatest price differences between new and used games at Gamestop. That's even if you can find the game new anymore. Sometimes there is no choice but to buy used. How the hell are we supposed to find those bargains if the used game market is gone? A lot of games are only sold new for limited amount of time. If this does happen it will hurt consumers, but I do not think it will.
Last edited by Excelsior1 on 1/26/2012 5:55:16 PM
3 up, 0 down
Underdog15
Friday, January 27, 2012 @ 11:04:38 AM
I would argue this is the only topic I get really mad about.
But you guys are different. Ignorance for the sake of ignorance needs to be called out from time to time. And on a forum of people I never have to meet face to face, I don't need to mince words. Hopefully your a big enough boy to handle hearing something from someone you've never met.
Apparently your need to think my kid will be an a-hole proves your own insecurities, but that's a topic for another counselor, I'm sure.
Since my wife devotes so much time to kids with developmental disabilities, and I volunteer with youth more beyond my work, and I get paid to do presentations to Child and Youth Worker programs at colleges once a semester, I'd say he'll grow up seeing 2 parents who value and commit their entire careers to helping others less fortunate than ourselves. I'll be leading by example in what I say or do. The one or two times I've been an outright a-hole on some internet forum about video games isn't going to jeopardize that. (Which is why you need to take it with a grain of salt and maybe address the topic at hand instead of little jabs here and there)
He'll also grow up with parents who do not cling to their first impressions and are constantly trying to better themselves. We change our opinions regularly (as I have on this topic numerous times, but many of you cannot get out of extreme points of view). He'll see we value reason.
He might grow up to be an a-hole. Who knows? I've known kids that are a-holes who have wonderful parents, too. Of course we won't be perfect parents. We'll have our mistakes and issues, but with parents who love each other, who never outright yell, who refuse to go to bed angry at each other (promise we made at marriage. Kept it so far), and who have never and WILL never resort to violence, I hope he has a decent shot. He's also lucky enough to have 4 grandparents who love and support him as well as lots of extended family and friends.
But I'd say he has a great chance. Especially since neither me wife nor I plan on making any of his future plans for him. If he likes sports, he likes sports... if he likes ballet, he likes ballet, if he likes girls he likes girls, and if he likes boys he likes boys.
We'll make mistakes as parents, sure. But I think at the very least we'll have a good shot and helping him become confident and caring. (My two biggest hopes)
The fact of the matter is, I have no patience for ignorance nor close-mindedness. And that is all that ever comes out of people in this topic. It makes me mad that I have made --many-- concessions on this topic over the last year, but the extremists cannot get out of their flipping heads or tiny purses to even CONSIDER another point of view. Some people on this forum have acknowledged points I've made despite continuing to disagree with them. (Jimmy, Beamboom in the past, Fane, Slugga) and guess what you see from me? I apologized to Slugga yesterday for a misunderstanding, and I treated the others with respect. I don't need people to agree with me. I need them to flipping THINK.
So yeah... I called those people out HARD. How many have tried to prove me wrong: that they actually can thin? ONE. (Near the bottom stgclawson) All I get are people like you who essentially say nothing but that a 3 month old will be an a-hole.... real mature. Real big, buddy.
You want my respect, kid? Then think intelligently about topics. And if you continue to make comments like you have without taking a position, calling out names, then retracting comments because you were scared of your own original aggressiveness.... then I don't give two flips about your respect. I got plenty of that from other more important sources. i don't come here to get respect. I come here to learn PS3 news, share my opinion, and once or twice a year, vent about things like this. (Better I take my frustration out here than at work or something, right?)
Why should I refrain myself and use tact? No one else does... I mean really... why.... because people don't agree with me? Because I shouldn't want people to think in a 3-dimensional way that considers points beyond their own? Come on.
So Killerbee... I've met many a-holes in life. Especially athletes I've played against in the OCAA. It's a regular occurrence. But most people ignore them. If I'm truly an a-hole, and perhaps I am being one here, what insecurities about you does that indicate when you have a need to call out a 3 month old infant to lash back?
Hmmm.... me calling out a bunch of adults.... or you calling out a 3 month old...
Who's the a-hole here? Who's the immature one?
Grow up a little. You hate what I have to say, then prove me wrong with -facts-.
I could be equally as immature and I could attempt to be as big an a-hole as you by saying any of your future children will grow up to be push-overs who lack the ability to think things through critically and grow up to spend their entire lives trying desperately to become middle management.... only to fail.
But I would never stoop to your level and say all that.
Last edited by Underdog15 on 1/27/2012 11:26:55 AM
2 up, 2 down
Underdog15
Friday, January 27, 2012 @ 11:08:56 AM
I've said in the past that old games are not subject to licensing. In fact, once no longer in distribution, licenses are null and void. Trade away without a care in the world at that point.
The reason is, once distribution has ceased, the publisher has effectively said, they no longer are looking to make a profit on that title. If you want it... go elsewhere.
0 up, 1 down
Underdog15
Friday, January 27, 2012 @ 12:35:35 PM
I think I'm actually enjoying this. :p This is probably the only thing in my life that provides me with any real controversy right now.
I kinda like it.... lol
2 up, 2 down
wiley_kyotee
Thursday, January 26, 2012 @ 10:29:01 AM
Reply
I could see this happening. Lets face it, there will be a futrue generation that will be all digital content only and digital games cannot be traded in. There are a lot of developers wanting this digital generation to come sooner rather than later.
2 up, 1 down
Underdog15
Thursday, January 26, 2012 @ 1:35:47 PM
When you consider eventual Cloud or digital gaming, this whole concept is an inevitability anyways.
Look at a service like Steam, for example. Seems to me consumers get tremendous deals. In fact, far greater than any console gamer could hope for. And there's definitely no used sales.
0 up, 0 down
dmiitrie
Thursday, January 26, 2012 @ 8:08:34 PM
0 up, 0 down
Highlander
Thursday, January 26, 2012 @ 10:46:55 AM
Reply
If gamers are so tight on money, they should learn to live within their means instead of whining about having to actually pay for something.
1 up, 5 down
slugga_status
Thursday, January 26, 2012 @ 12:57:59 PM
2 up, 0 down
Highlander
Thursday, January 26, 2012 @ 1:11:17 PM
Seriously, what are you saying? Are you saying that people should not live within their means? People have different circumstances, yes, but how does that mean that someone with more limited means should not live within their budget? Are you saying that just because they want it, a new game that costs $60 should be only $30 because someone with less money might want it? I mean, I want an Aston Martin DB9, but there's no way in hell that they are going to reduce the price to match my means to pay, are they?
People need to learn to live within their means and deal with that situation. Whining and complaining about the expense of something that has not risen in price in 6 years isn't going to get them anywhere.
1 up, 1 down
Underdog15
Thursday, January 26, 2012 @ 1:39:18 PM
I'm sorry, but there's nothing you could say that would make me say ANYONE actually -deserves- luxury. That kind of argument is a slap in the face to the billions living in poverty both in our own countries and abroad.
you live within your means, as Highlander says. If you can't afford luxury, (And that's exactly what gaming is) then you can't afford luxury. If you "need" luxury, then set personal short and long term goals to attain them. It's not always easy, sure. But it can be done.
This insane sense of entitlement in our society is what got us into the economic downturn to begin with.
1 up, 1 down
slugga_status
Thursday, January 26, 2012 @ 2:25:47 PM
Living within their means is why some gamers do buy used. Regardless of how much of a discounts, sale, etc. I'm not saying just because guy X is cash strapped that all games need to come down in price. That's just silly. What I do get is the rationale behind a game that comes out not worth the $60 but that price remains. I understand the production and development cost is sky high these days. Yet in todays gaming, if you're spending that kind of money to create a game then it should be the absolutely be good enough to call for guy X to save his cash and purchase it.
I know this won't happen, but I think when a game comes to completion they need to sit back and say "would I pay $60 for this?"
@Underdog
Everything in life is a luxury. Not one person is entitled to anything. I just think, again I know this won't happen, that devs, pubs, whoever..need to be realistic about the products they put out there and price them accordingly.
This was likely a misunderstanding..but in any event game on fellas!
Last edited by slugga_status on 1/26/2012 2:27:49 PM
0 up, 0 down
Underdog15
Thursday, January 26, 2012 @ 2:43:12 PM
I think some devs/publishers go about their business all wrong, for sure. Activision lives for the profit, and not for making the industry better. SE lives by a similar principle. But there are others out there who take all the profit and reinvest in their company to create new ips and make new development teams. (Creating more jobs, more games, and more diversity)
I don't think Activision suffers from all this at all, because they've managed to create a culture that needs to be constantly engaged in their product. But what about original SP experiences you can be done with? Once someone is done with your product, someone else will get it, but at no benefit to you. One could argue they need to make their game more re-playable. But I think that runs the risk of a heavier online focus where only the SP should have relevance. (See Heavy Rain)
So yeah... I agree with you.... some devs/pubs do business for their own profit... and with greed in some cases. But most of the games I buy, are not from big house corporated developers. Some, sure... but the big corporations don't suffer from used sales really. They do fine. It's the little guys that suffer. And as a result, I just see corporated greed from Gamestop et al hurting the potential the industry could have if more of our investment was put back into the industry.
That's sort of my motivation for all this.
0 up, 0 down
slugga_status
Thursday, January 26, 2012 @ 2:51:15 PM
0 up, 0 down
stgclawson
Thursday, January 26, 2012 @ 12:05:52 PM
Reply
6 up, 1 down
Highlander
Thursday, January 26, 2012 @ 1:13:02 PM
1 up, 4 down
Underdog15
Thursday, January 26, 2012 @ 1:46:08 PM
And I understand your personal concern. But developers do not care about that because they see none of your money anyways. They wouldn't make a sequel to a game that made no money just because the fans want it. Why would they adjust their services to fit the "fans" that don't invest in them?
Personally, I still see it as a cop-out answer, and I still see it as not being able to see the effect it has beyond your own purse.
And again... it's NOT ABOUT THE MONEY YOU SAVE. None of us have made that point. You will still be able to sell used games, I'm sure of it. But you'll have to sell for less in a way that ensures developers get a cut for all end users of their license. Gamestop will still give you good deals. But their profit will be less. And it won't drastically affect the user side of used sales, because they will want to make sure it's still worth it to sell through them and not a different service.
This will affect used game sales companies more than anyone else. The consumer will feel next to nothing. We all get why you would pay $5 less. But that is NOT our point.
0 up, 5 down
stgclawson
Thursday, January 26, 2012 @ 1:54:37 PM
2 up, 0 down
Underdog15
Thursday, January 26, 2012 @ 2:07:30 PM
No. It's nothing like that. *sigh*
1 up, 5 down
stgclawson
Thursday, January 26, 2012 @ 2:19:21 PM
Last edited by stgclawson on 1/26/2012 2:20:22 PM
3 up, 1 down
Underdog15
Thursday, January 26, 2012 @ 2:23:21 PM
Not only that, but upkeep of homes, cars, etc. are always needed. Tradesmen are called back for more work all the time because it's needed. In otherwords, they are industries that will never -stop- giving back to the industry they are apart of.
Secondly, you drive a car off a lot... it depreciates in value. The dealer will not buy it back from you then sell it at near-new price. It's depreciated and cannot go near the original price point. It just can't. (Unless they take you for a ride. HA! See what I did there?)
But finally, and most importantly, Software -CANNOT- be owned by the end user. Not music. Not movies. and Not video games. It's why all industries (not just games) fight used sales that do not give back. Because we are only license owners... of a non-transferable license. Software does not depreciate in value, and it does not require maintenance. The physical disk may break, sure, but you actually own that.
However, all these arguments are simply NOT THE POINT of this article.
I simply raise them because you can't compare it to other industries like you are trying to do. It's just not that simplistic.
1 up, 5 down
Underdog15
Thursday, January 26, 2012 @ 2:25:11 PM
Give me an argument that addresses the whole picture, and not just your own purse. This is what I talked about earlier when I expressed frustration at people's double standards when something means potentially re-evaluating their consumer morality. God forbid you be investing in a way that harms the industry!
That very mentality is why we are in the economic crisis we're in.
In other words....
It's FLAWED.
1 up, 4 down
stgclawson
Thursday, January 26, 2012 @ 2:49:33 PM
When I buy a video game disc there is no end license user agreement that I must check off that I agree like there is with software. It's not the same thing at all.
4 up, 1 down
Underdog15
Thursday, January 26, 2012 @ 3:03:13 PM
Where did you buy the materials? Did you invest ANYTHING back into the industry? Even if you did it yourself?
you're still ignoring the points at hand. Digital goods are not equal to physical goods, period.
yet, again, that is not the argument at hand here.
Stay on task and read my points. If you come back to this silly software being equal to a car theory, I won't respond. It's just stupid wrong. Even the LAW doesn't see it as the same thing. And I'm pretty sure the Law gets to call the shots in most countries.
2 up, 2 down
Fane1024
Friday, January 27, 2012 @ 3:27:35 AM
The differences between cars and video games as products (which you have detailed very effectively) are fewer than their similarities.
p.s. I still agree with you and Highlander on the core moral principle of these issues (supporting developers and online passes), but not on all of the details of your arguments.
Last edited by Fane1024 on 1/27/2012 3:37:05 AM
1 up, 0 down
Underdog15
Friday, January 27, 2012 @ 10:28:07 AM
The reason is they are completely different in nature on many complex levels. For that reason alone, they cannot be treated the same way. The law isn't perfect, I agree. In fact, I think it needs to be revised drastically to keep up legitimately with the times.
But that's not the argument that's supposed to be happening right now.
I won't even spend any time on the slavery analogy being relevant at all. Some laws like that that violate people's rights should be abolished. Licensing software helps protect the owners of that software. The consumers aren't really hurt by it at all. If anything, the law needs to be redefined. Not abolished.
Holding a software license hostage is hardly comparable to holding a human being hostage. Especially when holding licenses isn't even regulated. There are no grey areas in slavery. Grey is all there is in licensing.
I just think everyone is blowing this whole thing out of proportion. Nothing drastically bad is going to happen. 15 years from now, we will still be playing games, and we'll still be getting games at cheaper prices than others, and customers will still be able to decide which purchases are better and which ones are not.
Last edited by Underdog15 on 1/27/2012 10:31:49 AM
1 up, 0 down
Fane1024
Saturday, January 28, 2012 @ 2:44:53 AM
I think you have a lot of good points, but both you and Highlander get uncharacteristically testy on this issue and don't always give enough credit to people who dispute specific points. I think people on both sides are advocating principles, though there are definitely some whose motivation is a sense of entitlement.
My main point is always that the issue is more complex than the strongest advocates on both sides paint it to be. And I know you've agreed with that point in your less agitated moments.
I also hope you understand that, despite our minor disputes on this issue (and on the nature of RPGs), I have nothing but respect for both you and Highlander.
p.s. I'm definitely even more committed to buying games new, though at a discount, rather than used as a result of your arguments on this topic.
Last edited by Fane1024 on 1/28/2012 2:52:19 AM
0 up, 0 down
stgclawson
Thursday, January 26, 2012 @ 12:09:53 PM
Reply
For those who say: "What if you want to reply the game again". Fine - I do that! But by the time I get the urge to reply a game, I can buy it super cheap and replay it....and then again resell it.
So, if I can't resell my games, I won't be able to afford to buy as many games as I do right now because reselling is where I get my money to buy new games.
5 up, 1 down
jimmyhandsome
Thursday, January 26, 2012 @ 12:31:44 PM
1 up, 1 down
Underdog15
Thursday, January 26, 2012 @ 1:47:28 PM
No matter how you look at it, the effect on gamers will be small if anything.
1 up, 0 down
stgclawson
Thursday, January 26, 2012 @ 1:51:55 PM
4 up, 1 down
Underdog15
Thursday, January 26, 2012 @ 2:08:41 PM
0 up, 4 down
stgclawson
Thursday, January 26, 2012 @ 2:14:53 PM
2 up, 1 down
Underdog15
Thursday, January 26, 2012 @ 2:27:24 PM
The difference?
I have used objective arguments to substantiate the probability of my predictions.
You, on the other hand, are assuming the worst case scenario. One that I can GUARANTEE won't come to fruition. Dev's and console makers have already been dabbling in pass codes, etc. They're already testing the waters.
If they wanted to go to the furthest extreme possible, they wouldn't bother trying things out to find a good middle ground that positively affects their bottom line and continues to encourage consumer loyalty.
They'd just go ahead and do it.
Last edited by Underdog15 on 1/26/2012 2:28:41 PM
1 up, 1 down
stgclawson
Thursday, January 26, 2012 @ 2:53:49 PM
2 up, 1 down
Underdog15
Thursday, January 26, 2012 @ 3:06:20 PM
you're opinion is fine. I've heard the same thing before, and I adjusted my opinion in light of it in the past. (I was far more extreme in my beliefs on this topic once. Ask Jimmy.) You have made no attempt to acknowledge anything I have said, where as I at least said I understood the attractiveness of being cost effective.
ALL I'm asking you to do, is look at the whole picture. You haven't even bothered considering that. It's extremely juvenile.
I think one thing you'll quickly learn about me is that although I can be abrupt, forceful, opinionated, and argumentative (only when I feel informed, however) one thing I am absolutely not, is a hypocrite.
That name calling you're resorting to is based solely on this build-up of assumptions you made from assuming I have no room for games in my house (which don't take up much room if you have a simple box) to assuming I must do something since I therefore have no space, to assuming I therefore sold them or gave them away. (Which were over 10 years old which falls outside of licensing restrictions, so oddly and unintentionally is perfectly legal and acceptable within the realm of licensed software. lol) and therefore must be a hypocrite because you assume that I immediately sold or gave away software within the licensing window or within a timeframe that a new copy would be otherwise available.
I'm sorry, but that's quite a stretch... lol
Last edited by Underdog15 on 1/26/2012 3:11:43 PM
1 up, 1 down
stgclawson
Thursday, January 26, 2012 @ 3:23:08 PM
First and foremost...my original post wasn't responding to you at all. I was reading this thread and saw post after post about how could anyone support or shop at Gamestop (and it's not just Gamestop...what about Ebay, Amazon, Craiglist, etc). I gave my opinion stating why I choose to shop @ Gamestop sometimes to buy used games and why I choose to sell my games when I am done with them and that I don't find anything wrong with it...it's not illegal afterall. That's it. Simple as that. And you are more than welcome to do what you choose to do. I didn't say once that anything you did was wrong. If you want to buy only new games and never sell them - so be it. I couldn't care less. I didn't say it was wrong. But for so many posts from so many people to judge and accuse that anyone who buys used is somehow just awful & terrible - is just ridiculous. I was responding to the entire thread.
3 up, 1 down
Underdog15
Friday, January 27, 2012 @ 10:21:31 AM
But I completely understand why buying used makes sense. I really do! And I don't want you to think that's what I'm criticizing here. My main argument was meant just to point out that I really don't think this whole thing will come to fruition in a way that will severely hurt the consumer.
imho, the worst case scenario is really only going to be a minor inconvenience for the consumer, but nothing more. There are things worth complaining about, sure, but not to the degree that would mean your buying used days are over.
1 up, 0 down
DjEezzy
Thursday, January 26, 2012 @ 12:41:25 PM
Reply
2 up, 1 down
Highlander
Thursday, January 26, 2012 @ 1:16:52 PM
I honestly cannot believe that so many people are so selfish and short sighted that they are effectively defending gamestop over and above the people that make the consoles, and develop/publish the games. Talk about having your priorities the wrong way round....
1 up, 3 down
Underdog15
Thursday, January 26, 2012 @ 1:48:10 PM
This is why I laugh.
1 up, 3 down
slugga_status
Thursday, January 26, 2012 @ 2:34:23 PM
2 up, 0 down
Underdog15
Thursday, January 26, 2012 @ 2:45:46 PM
I just can't see used sales as becoming anything other than what the normal depreciated value would be for any other real product.
P.s. to anyone else reading.
Why can't more of you argue your points like Slugga and Jimmy? Knowledgeable, insightful, opinions based on objective facts, and they don't ignore legitimate points. Rather, they intelligently address it. And most of the time, both sides learn something.
Last edited by Underdog15 on 1/26/2012 2:47:21 PM
2 up, 2 down
D1g1tal5torm
Thursday, January 26, 2012 @ 3:07:10 PM
3 up, 0 down
Highlander
Thursday, January 26, 2012 @ 5:10:30 PM
2 up, 0 down
DjStiv3
Thursday, January 26, 2012 @ 2:57:38 PM
Reply
0 up, 0 down
DjEezzy
Thursday, January 26, 2012 @ 3:21:58 PM
Reply
4 up, 0 down
slugga_status
Friday, January 27, 2012 @ 7:30:09 AM
1 up, 0 down
Underdog15
Friday, January 27, 2012 @ 10:16:54 AM
1 up, 0 down
WorldEndsWithMe
Thursday, January 26, 2012 @ 4:19:16 PM
Reply
3 up, 0 down
dmiitrie
Thursday, January 26, 2012 @ 8:29:52 PM
However, this gen has definitely taught us that the best of previous gens' games will continue to be made available online for cheap. So I don't think people will have to worry much about that unless they want super obscure titles.
Last edited by dmiitrie on 1/26/2012 8:30:23 PM
0 up, 0 down
Fane1024
Friday, January 27, 2012 @ 3:48:26 AM
Only games which greatly underperformed would likely be available indefinitely.
That said, you would probably be able to download a copy of any game released (in your region) during the next generation.
Last edited by Fane1024 on 1/27/2012 3:50:55 AM
0 up, 0 down
PMartinNL
Thursday, January 26, 2012 @ 4:39:16 PM
Reply
I would be curious to know how Microsoft or Sony could distinguish the difference between a used game and a game you are bringing over to your friends house to have a game. I really don't see this happening. But if there's a way, there's a will.
2 up, 0 down
Underdog15
Friday, January 27, 2012 @ 11:31:20 AM
They wouldn't be testing the waters like they have been with DLC account sharing, activation codes, etc. if they were just going to go to an extreme.
At least that's what I think.
0 up, 0 down
Highlander
Friday, January 27, 2012 @ 6:01:46 PM
Last edited by Highlander on 1/27/2012 6:01:58 PM
1 up, 0 down
Fane1024
Saturday, January 28, 2012 @ 2:57:09 AM
Sony really should have gone to 3 activations and checked the effect on game sharing before going to the more restrictive policy of only 2.
0 up, 0 down
Palpatations911
Friday, January 27, 2012 @ 3:06:26 PM
Reply
1 up, 0 down
riptide8
Sunday, January 29, 2012 @ 2:04:38 PM
Reply
Last edited by riptide8 on 1/29/2012 2:11:16 PM
0 up, 0 down
Ather
Sunday, January 29, 2012 @ 2:47:08 PM
Reply
0 up, 0 down
AnonymousPoster
Sunday, January 29, 2012 @ 6:47:37 PM
Reply
Imagine if Hollywood decided that you could only watch DVDs and BluRays on ONE video player, the first one you use. That would be ridiculous. You couldn't watch them at a friend's house, you can't lend your favorites, you can't rent before buying, you couldn't even watch them in a second room in your own house. It's stupid, and everyone knows it. Yet this is exactly what the game industry is trying to do.
I would be perfectly happy becoming a retro gamer, if this occurred, because I will not put myself under the heel of greedy publishers trying to control how I use my bought-and-paid-for property.
1 up, 0 down
Badger1975
Sunday, January 29, 2012 @ 7:06:38 PM
Reply
I think it's going to be a real hell raiser for many people and there will probally be alot of really mad people and there will be thousands of Protest about so in the long run, the game makers and the console makers will suffer big time due to this mistake.
Thats my 2 cents.
0 up, 0 down
Badger1975
Sunday, January 29, 2012 @ 7:08:06 PM
Reply
I think it's going to be a real hell raiser for many people and there will probally be alot of really mad people and there will be thousands of Protest about so in the long run, the game makers and the console makers will suffer big time due to this mistake.
Thats my 2 cents.
0 up, 0 down
HazySun
Monday, January 30, 2012 @ 4:54:49 AM
Reply
0 up, 0 down
Gravelight
Tuesday, January 31, 2012 @ 12:37:02 AM
Reply
0 up, 0 down
Hypntick
Tuesday, January 31, 2012 @ 12:15:16 PM
Reply
0 up, 0 down
Nas Is Like
Reply
Wednesday, January 25, 2012 @ 9:20:55 PM