Sony: The Latest To Look For Money In Used Games
MoneyIt seems like every publisher and game maker is looking at ways to turn a profit in the used game market.
We already have EA's Online Pass program, THQ recently announced it would bundle access to online play with new copies of WWE Smackdown vs. Raw 2011 and charge used game players a fee for online admission, and Activision has also expressed a desire to take similar steps. Now, it's Sony's turn. During a recent GamesIndustry.biz interview, SCEE head man Andrew House said the company "supports publisher incentives to monetize the second-hand game market through charging for online play." Said House:
"On the principle of making online portions of the game available or unlocked from the disc-based release for a fee, we're broadly supportive of that. And we're exploring actively the same option for our own content."
Although it has been refuted since, we had heard that Activision would install a subscription service to play their popular Call of Duty franchise online, but House said Sony would have difficulty adopting that method. House makes a point of saying they have a 70% connection rate across consoles concerning the Network, and he attributes that number to the lack of a price barrier. And remember, this only relates to used games, so it won't affect those who typically purchase their games new.
Tags: sony, used games, scee andrew house
8/24/2010 9:26:05 PM Ben Dutka
Put this on your webpage or blog:
Email this to a friend
Follow PSX Extreme on Twitter
Comments (278 posts)
Neo_Aeon666
Wednesday, August 25, 2010 @ 12:07:08 AM
geh I still believe that when you own the copy of a game you should be able to do whatever you want with it. Are they going to start implementing lines that dissappear in books once they change owner so that every one buys new books only? XD
Seriously this gen makes me believe I don't own anything I buy and I personnally thinkn it b**w*.
Yes it is sad for them poor rich compagnies to lose a portion of their fortune to people who just can't afford to own 70 games and trade them in to get credit on newer ones... You know I really miss the time when we all purchased a different game on n64 and shared it one with another XD and I don't recall that killing any gaming compagny. And you know the ones who really hurt them are hackers and is that stopping them? lol heck no.
I say s c r e w em! :D Give us full rights on what we purchase and stop imposing your stupid activation codes. Seriously starting to p**s me off.
Seriously this gen makes me believe I don't own anything I buy and I personnally thinkn it b**w*.
Yes it is sad for them poor rich compagnies to lose a portion of their fortune to people who just can't afford to own 70 games and trade them in to get credit on newer ones... You know I really miss the time when we all purchased a different game on n64 and shared it one with another XD and I don't recall that killing any gaming compagny. And you know the ones who really hurt them are hackers and is that stopping them? lol heck no.
I say s c r e w em! :D Give us full rights on what we purchase and stop imposing your stupid activation codes. Seriously starting to p**s me off.
15 up, 5 down
WorldEndsWithMe
Wednesday, August 25, 2010 @ 12:16:48 AM
Be fair man, games cost a lot more to make these days and the online portion means someone's got to pay for servers.
8 up, 8 down
Neo_Aeon666
Wednesday, August 25, 2010 @ 12:33:37 AM
Yeah but the games are also more expensive and you got all those add-on map packs to pay for in order to keep playing the game online since if you don't buy em you get left behind by the crowd.
And isnt the ps3 a p2p thing? Thought we were our own servers at the exeption of a few big titles.
And arent we a heck of alot more to buy games these days too? O_O
Because by doing so they will destroy the value of our games. Whats the point of owning any game then? Just make us pay 200$ per year to have access to all games on the network and keep control over us the way they want... And like depending on your subscription you may have access to more or fewer games per year. Not bad huh?
Because paying 67.72 can dollars for a game thats going to be worth not even 20$ once it is opened is kind of sad anyway. Imagine those collector guys also: ''yeah I have that crazy ps3 game from 10yrs ago... Though I'm missing half the content since its a used one I got from ebay :( '' lol
I think that for this gen they should stick to giving us full games that we do whatever we want with ( no copies though lol that IS evil ) and go play at friends houses with em if we want and all that crap. And then NEXT GEN maybe they could consider cloud gaming and subscription and stuff. Because doing the switch halfway isnt really cutting it with me and alot of people probably :(
Last edited by Neo_Aeon666 on 8/25/2010 12:39:08 AM
And isnt the ps3 a p2p thing? Thought we were our own servers at the exeption of a few big titles.
And arent we a heck of alot more to buy games these days too? O_O
Because by doing so they will destroy the value of our games. Whats the point of owning any game then? Just make us pay 200$ per year to have access to all games on the network and keep control over us the way they want... And like depending on your subscription you may have access to more or fewer games per year. Not bad huh?
Because paying 67.72 can dollars for a game thats going to be worth not even 20$ once it is opened is kind of sad anyway. Imagine those collector guys also: ''yeah I have that crazy ps3 game from 10yrs ago... Though I'm missing half the content since its a used one I got from ebay :( '' lol
I think that for this gen they should stick to giving us full games that we do whatever we want with ( no copies though lol that IS evil ) and go play at friends houses with em if we want and all that crap. And then NEXT GEN maybe they could consider cloud gaming and subscription and stuff. Because doing the switch halfway isnt really cutting it with me and alot of people probably :(
Last edited by Neo_Aeon666 on 8/25/2010 12:39:08 AM
8 up, 6 down
Highlander
Wednesday, August 25, 2010 @ 2:34:11 AM
Sorry, you're wrong. Games are less expensive today in real terms than they were 4 years ago when the PS3 launched, and less expensive than they were when the PS1 ruled the roost. People only ever look at the base price. But when you account for inflation, games have in fact come down in price - in real terms. So let's not argue that games are more expensive as an excuse for not paying shall we?
8 up, 12 down
Killa Tequilla
Wednesday, August 25, 2010 @ 4:09:49 AM
Ok well they SOLD the new game. They got there money. The NEW game gets traded in, now it's used... Gamestop wants to RESELL it but the developers wont get cash. Well they already SOLD it didn't they? Oooh I see :) It's all about the money! Silly me money's are for developers.
9 up, 4 down
Wissam
Wednesday, August 25, 2010 @ 6:57:41 AM
I see this as a counteract for what happened last week. that's mean people with limited budget will have to wait for a price drop to buy the games.
2 up, 1 down
Zorigo
Wednesday, August 25, 2010 @ 8:01:45 AM
It's actually a good point.
the other reason i get used sometimes is coz something aren't worth the money... and im a very skint student.
the other reason i get used sometimes is coz something aren't worth the money... and im a very skint student.
3 up, 2 down
Dustinwp
Wednesday, August 25, 2010 @ 8:50:03 AM
@Neo_Aeon666 Microsoft uses P2P for online play, Sony uses servers. So WorldEnds has a valid point about the cost of server upkeep.
Last edited by Dustinwp on 8/25/2010 8:55:02 AM
Last edited by Dustinwp on 8/25/2010 8:55:02 AM
2 up, 2 down
Underdog15
Wednesday, August 25, 2010 @ 9:11:49 AM
In terms of the servers, Neo, even the ones that are P2P often require a server from the dev to evaluate clients or matchmake. True, they require minimal maintenance (if any, in terms of MW2), but they do exist.
I'm not going to get into licensing laws again, this time around. I'll just remind everyone that digital goods are different from physical ones. So stop comparing the data on those game disks to the disks themselves, books, cars, etc. As far as the law is concerned, they aren't the same. If you can't figure it out, I'm certainly not wasting my time trying to help you all out again.
Last edited by Underdog15 on 8/25/2010 9:13:44 AM
I'm not going to get into licensing laws again, this time around. I'll just remind everyone that digital goods are different from physical ones. So stop comparing the data on those game disks to the disks themselves, books, cars, etc. As far as the law is concerned, they aren't the same. If you can't figure it out, I'm certainly not wasting my time trying to help you all out again.
Last edited by Underdog15 on 8/25/2010 9:13:44 AM
6 up, 1 down
Simcoe
Wednesday, August 25, 2010 @ 9:31:35 AM
Just to pick up on what TheHighlander said about the cost of video games going down over time (in terms of purchasing power); I recently came across a box containing all my old NES games from over 20 years ago. The price right on the box of each of them was $59.99, the price that I know find on new AAA titles today.
4 up, 1 down
THEVERDIN
Wednesday, August 25, 2010 @ 4:44:57 PM
You know how many people rent games to see if it's any good before you buy them. Why should we be pentilized for devs that can't make decent games and then charge you $60 bucks you'll never get back.
3 up, 1 down
Neo_Aeon666
Thursday, August 26, 2010 @ 12:04:22 AM
Anyhow its not about an excuse for anything but diminishing the value of my purchase to such an extent is downright wrong and I wont forgive them for it. That is all XD
@ underdog15 I get what you mean and I know that the law is that way :( but doesn't mean I don't think it is wrong and to me a book is no different than a few data lines on a disc.
And I don't think any of that changes the fact that in the past we were more *free* to do what we wanted with the products we purchased. They are slowly putting a choker around our neck to control us like we are their little money cows XD
Last edited by Neo_Aeon666 on 8/26/2010 12:10:06 AM
@ underdog15 I get what you mean and I know that the law is that way :( but doesn't mean I don't think it is wrong and to me a book is no different than a few data lines on a disc.
And I don't think any of that changes the fact that in the past we were more *free* to do what we wanted with the products we purchased. They are slowly putting a choker around our neck to control us like we are their little money cows XD
Last edited by Neo_Aeon666 on 8/26/2010 12:10:06 AM
2 up, 1 down
Underdog15
Thursday, August 26, 2010 @ 11:09:01 AM
Yeah, that's fair. I said at another point a bit about differing moral values for being the reason for heated discussion. I personally have varying opinions that eventually land on just saying each user should contribute to the person that made it. But that doesn't mean I can't respect other opinions.
The only reason I get heated is because people seem to be heavily opinionated while ignoring the facts... Why can't people develop opinions while acknowledging what is fact? Those are the people I get mad at.
But as for you, I fully get what you're saying.
The only reason I get heated is because people seem to be heavily opinionated while ignoring the facts... Why can't people develop opinions while acknowledging what is fact? Those are the people I get mad at.
But as for you, I fully get what you're saying.
0 up, 0 down
WorldEndsWithMe
Tuesday, August 24, 2010 @ 10:08:11 PM
Reply
Well, after all is said and done this horning in on the used game market is gonna be good for me. I don't care for online play at all, and there's a chance this might drop prices of certain games on ebay.
I wonder if all of this will stimulate more full price sales, or squash used sales. Interesting. And I doubt Bobby Kotex can resist charging money for a service that EA is making money with for very long. It may not be a subscription, but it'll be something.
I wonder if all of this will stimulate more full price sales, or squash used sales. Interesting. And I doubt Bobby Kotex can resist charging money for a service that EA is making money with for very long. It may not be a subscription, but it'll be something.
8 up, 1 down
Temjin001
Tuesday, August 24, 2010 @ 10:09:43 PM
Reply
These ideas make sense.
I wonder, though. If this sort of measure were implemented, would we see used games drop lower in price than they are now?
That is, if the average used game drops $5-10 to compensate for the lack of online play, I would really like this business model. This way, I could choose whether or not I want to pay extra for online play.
I wonder, though. If this sort of measure were implemented, would we see used games drop lower in price than they are now?
That is, if the average used game drops $5-10 to compensate for the lack of online play, I would really like this business model. This way, I could choose whether or not I want to pay extra for online play.
5 up, 0 down
556pineapple
Tuesday, August 24, 2010 @ 10:22:10 PM
Reply
I understand where they are coming from, but I don't see publishers removing songs from used CDs or chapters from used books. For me personally, the fact that it's used is tarnish enough. Most of the used games I buy are older ones, like PS2 and earlier. I like my new games new.
Last edited by 556pineapple on 8/24/2010 10:22:28 PM
Last edited by 556pineapple on 8/24/2010 10:22:28 PM
8 up, 1 down
Scarecrow
Tuesday, August 24, 2010 @ 10:36:24 PM
Reply
I haven't bought a used game in years, like many years.
I know the games I want. I'm well informed.
I know the games I want. I'm well informed.
6 up, 1 down
Mavfan321
Wednesday, August 25, 2010 @ 12:20:04 AM
The only used games I buy for the most part is older PS2 games I lose over the years or missed out on, or PS3 games that at the time it was more economical for me to get used since they were fairly old.
0 up, 0 down
StangMan80
Wednesday, August 25, 2010 @ 12:24:33 AM
I'm the same, I decide if I want a game b4 it comes out. the last time I bought a used game was a couple of years ago when I had a PS2.
plus I don't play much online, if I do it's for a trophy unless I like it, but the only online experience I liked was COD4:MW(not MW2, the entire game sucks and is way, way over rated) and Dirt 2(which was my first platinum).
The next online experience I will enjoy is GT5 and maybe MOH.
plus I don't play much online, if I do it's for a trophy unless I like it, but the only online experience I liked was COD4:MW(not MW2, the entire game sucks and is way, way over rated) and Dirt 2(which was my first platinum).
The next online experience I will enjoy is GT5 and maybe MOH.
2 up, 1 down
WorldEndsWithMe
Tuesday, August 24, 2010 @ 10:37:44 PM
Reply
This is a scoash off topic but in the same mileau so perhaps it can be forgiven. I was gone for a couple days but I don't think I saw anything on PSXE about it. Square Enix's now delayed Final Fantasy XIV is going to penalize you if you play for more than an hour per day. Can you believe it!? They have officially lost their minds. I could see if you weren't paying a monthly subscription MAYBE, but this is insane.
Every hour after that first one cuts your XP until it is zero. Then it takes a few days for this "fatigue" to go away.
Every hour after that first one cuts your XP until it is zero. Then it takes a few days for this "fatigue" to go away.
0 up, 0 down
WorldEndsWithMe
Tuesday, August 24, 2010 @ 11:32:50 PM
If you play for 4 hours you will gain no more XP until your "fatigue" runs out. I think it is just a way of keeping the servers unpacked, but SE is saying they are doing it to get people to make more characters and try different classes, etc and so forth.
It is in a Famitsu interview, I'm sure there will be an english translation making the rounds soon.
Last edited by WorldEndsWithMe on 8/24/2010 11:37:19 PM
It is in a Famitsu interview, I'm sure there will be an english translation making the rounds soon.
Last edited by WorldEndsWithMe on 8/24/2010 11:37:19 PM
0 up, 0 down
Scarecrow
Wednesday, August 25, 2010 @ 12:41:24 AM
I wouldn't play an MMO for 4 hours...unless it's one of those crazy nights.
But this is really weird of Square...hmmm maybe they want to encourage people not to spend 24 hours playing this game. Yes...there are people who get addicted badly to these MMOs...
But this is really weird of Square...hmmm maybe they want to encourage people not to spend 24 hours playing this game. Yes...there are people who get addicted badly to these MMOs...
0 up, 0 down
Highlander
Wednesday, August 25, 2010 @ 2:37:21 AM
Say what now? Perhaps they're scared of being taken to court by some soft-minded gamer who got hooked on FFXIV?
Still, if they cap the amount of XP you can gain in a session, it will limit the speed with which you can advance your character.
Still, it seems an odd decision...
Still, if they cap the amount of XP you can gain in a session, it will limit the speed with which you can advance your character.
Still, it seems an odd decision...
3 up, 5 down
Alienange
Wednesday, August 25, 2010 @ 12:30:15 PM
a few DAYS for the fatigue to go away? What kind of nonsense is this now?
1 up, 0 down
WorldEndsWithMe
Wednesday, August 25, 2010 @ 2:40:49 PM
I'd offer you the link, but it isn't work-friendly. Just sit tight, I'm betting Ben will report on it soon.
0 up, 0 down
Cuetes
Tuesday, August 24, 2010 @ 10:48:35 PM
Reply
I disagree with this, it seems like another way to penny pinch the gamer. That being said, I usually buy my games new anyway. I will point out that used games usually cost 5-10 dollars less than the new version and if they start to charging for the online portion in these used games, the price will be just as much as a new game. In other words don't be so cheap and support you hobbie.
1 up, 0 down
hellish_devil
Tuesday, August 24, 2010 @ 10:56:15 PM
Reply
Ohhh I just buy used games, and I only buy new ones if they are cheap on ebay =(
Bad news for me, but I don't do much online, just Killzone 2
Bad news for me, but I don't do much online, just Killzone 2
0 up, 0 down
A2K78
Tuesday, August 24, 2010 @ 11:09:15 PM
Reply
Every attempt to fight the used game market only end up in failure and only help to fuel the used game market.
If game developers really want curb the used game market(and piracy), then stop bleeding consumers and release NEW games at cheaper/affordable prices.
If game developers really want curb the used game market(and piracy), then stop bleeding consumers and release NEW games at cheaper/affordable prices.
1 up, 4 down
LegendaryWolfeh
Wednesday, August 25, 2010 @ 12:04:48 AM
And then the used game prices would just drop along side and you'd be in the same predicament....
5 up, 1 down
Highlander
Wednesday, August 25, 2010 @ 2:39:27 AM
Bleeding gamers? Oh, will you listen to yourself? You're complaining about having to pay a legitimate price for a luxury hobby.
Quite apart from anything else, games are not more expensive now than they've ever been. In fact they're less expensive now (in real terms) than they were 4 years ago when the PS3 launched. Not only that they are less expensive than PS1 or SNES games were (again - in real terms).
Quite apart from anything else, games are not more expensive now than they've ever been. In fact they're less expensive now (in real terms) than they were 4 years ago when the PS3 launched. Not only that they are less expensive than PS1 or SNES games were (again - in real terms).
5 up, 8 down
DeejayDeez
Wednesday, August 25, 2010 @ 9:28:52 AM
@highlander
This guy is forever supporting the “Company” and not the gamer, so take what he says with a grain of salt. Anyways, the reason people complain Highlander is because all games are not created equal. Example: I have spent 125 hours playing RDR @ $60 value…that’s a whole 48 cents an hour. Then you have say God of War III, also $60, but it only takes 8 hours to complete…that’s $7.50 an hour of game play. So the complaint is that all games shouldn’t be $60…they should be 50 cents an hour. And this is why people buy used…they read reviews and find out the game they want is only a 4 hour game play and decide they will wait and buy it for $30 in 2 weeks when it’s used…Is that their fault for being a smart consumer? I think not.
This guy is forever supporting the “Company” and not the gamer, so take what he says with a grain of salt. Anyways, the reason people complain Highlander is because all games are not created equal. Example: I have spent 125 hours playing RDR @ $60 value…that’s a whole 48 cents an hour. Then you have say God of War III, also $60, but it only takes 8 hours to complete…that’s $7.50 an hour of game play. So the complaint is that all games shouldn’t be $60…they should be 50 cents an hour. And this is why people buy used…they read reviews and find out the game they want is only a 4 hour game play and decide they will wait and buy it for $30 in 2 weeks when it’s used…Is that their fault for being a smart consumer? I think not.
4 up, 4 down
Highlander
Wednesday, August 25, 2010 @ 9:43:21 AM
@Deej,
You know, I'm truly sick of people who don't think, blundering into these discussions and making claims about what I believe.
What I believe is that people should get paid for their work. If you can't or won't take the time to consider the topic before responding, then don't respond.
Answer the question I've posed elsewhere. Why is it OK to reward GameStop for gouging the purchaser of used games, but not reward the developer of the game? When you buy a game used you are not paying the developer/publisher anything. They are the ones that worked to make and deliver the game to you. All GameStop did to get you the used copy you buy is pay pennies on the dollar to some other schmuck who was willing to accept their derisory offer. Now after a swift 120% mark-up, they're selling that game to you and keeping every cent they make on the deal. If I was supporting the company, why am I not supporting GameStop? Gamestop clearly are better than the develoers, after all the developers want us to pay them for their work, and GameStop want us to pay them for ripping off someone else. Sure seems like GameStop's used game business is the way to go...
::rolls eyes::
What's wrong with paying the developer for their work? If you don't think the game is worth a purchase new, then rent it.
You know, I'm truly sick of people who don't think, blundering into these discussions and making claims about what I believe.
What I believe is that people should get paid for their work. If you can't or won't take the time to consider the topic before responding, then don't respond.
Answer the question I've posed elsewhere. Why is it OK to reward GameStop for gouging the purchaser of used games, but not reward the developer of the game? When you buy a game used you are not paying the developer/publisher anything. They are the ones that worked to make and deliver the game to you. All GameStop did to get you the used copy you buy is pay pennies on the dollar to some other schmuck who was willing to accept their derisory offer. Now after a swift 120% mark-up, they're selling that game to you and keeping every cent they make on the deal. If I was supporting the company, why am I not supporting GameStop? Gamestop clearly are better than the develoers, after all the developers want us to pay them for their work, and GameStop want us to pay them for ripping off someone else. Sure seems like GameStop's used game business is the way to go...
::rolls eyes::
What's wrong with paying the developer for their work? If you don't think the game is worth a purchase new, then rent it.
5 up, 8 down
Alienange
Wednesday, August 25, 2010 @ 12:34:40 PM
I'm with TheHighlander! No more schmucks selling to GameStop !
1 up, 0 down
DeejayDeez
Wednesday, August 25, 2010 @ 1:38:26 PM
@Highlander
You crack me up with statements like “You know, I'm truly sick of people who don't think, blundering into these discussions and making claims about what I believe.” Yet you are the one who puts your 2 cents in on everyone else’s comments…and if you haven’t noticed, most of your comments get thumbs down. At least on this topic.
It’s funny how you always speak of the developer and how they should be paid for their work. And from my point of view, they are, from those “First sale” of their product that you speak about. So basically they already made their money the first time around and everything else is just greed. Brings to mind Metallica and Napster back in the day. BooHoo the multi-million dollars artist wants more money…ie greed! Yet nobody ever had an issue with people recording songs off the radio…technically the same thing as a download, right? I mean you still weren’t buying it, but you never heard any complaints. Artist’s use to just be happy that people were enjoying what they created…now artist’s (developers) are just worried about the extra money they might be losing from used game sales and profit margins instead of letting as many enjoy the experience as possible. And no, I have no monetary issues with buying as many new games as I want, it’s more of a principle (like the price per hour that I previously mentioned), so I don’t fall into the whole eat or play category.
That doesn’t mean I buy games used from Gamestop that much either. They are usually still way overpriced. But I have no problem with going to a local store like Slacker’s or shopping on ebay. And unfortunately what you want to do would basically put local second hand game stores out of business by cutting their profits in half.
So the day that EA or Activision goes bankrupt from used game sales is the same day that I give a rats ass about the few million dollars lost to a billion dollar company.
To me, it really sounds like this guy is one of those “Let the rich get richer” type of people.
You crack me up with statements like “You know, I'm truly sick of people who don't think, blundering into these discussions and making claims about what I believe.” Yet you are the one who puts your 2 cents in on everyone else’s comments…and if you haven’t noticed, most of your comments get thumbs down. At least on this topic.
It’s funny how you always speak of the developer and how they should be paid for their work. And from my point of view, they are, from those “First sale” of their product that you speak about. So basically they already made their money the first time around and everything else is just greed. Brings to mind Metallica and Napster back in the day. BooHoo the multi-million dollars artist wants more money…ie greed! Yet nobody ever had an issue with people recording songs off the radio…technically the same thing as a download, right? I mean you still weren’t buying it, but you never heard any complaints. Artist’s use to just be happy that people were enjoying what they created…now artist’s (developers) are just worried about the extra money they might be losing from used game sales and profit margins instead of letting as many enjoy the experience as possible. And no, I have no monetary issues with buying as many new games as I want, it’s more of a principle (like the price per hour that I previously mentioned), so I don’t fall into the whole eat or play category.
That doesn’t mean I buy games used from Gamestop that much either. They are usually still way overpriced. But I have no problem with going to a local store like Slacker’s or shopping on ebay. And unfortunately what you want to do would basically put local second hand game stores out of business by cutting their profits in half.
So the day that EA or Activision goes bankrupt from used game sales is the same day that I give a rats ass about the few million dollars lost to a billion dollar company.
To me, it really sounds like this guy is one of those “Let the rich get richer” type of people.
5 up, 2 down
Highlander
Wednesday, August 25, 2010 @ 4:15:09 PM
@Deej,
So now I'm a company man, I'm a rich get richer type and if I'm to believe others here I'm something of a socialist and a communist to boot. Wow, I must really get around.
There is an expression that I think covers this entire day's commenting by many on this topic. It goes like this;
There are none so blind as those who cannot (or will not) see.
Last edited by Highlander on 8/25/2010 4:18:04 PM
So now I'm a company man, I'm a rich get richer type and if I'm to believe others here I'm something of a socialist and a communist to boot. Wow, I must really get around.
There is an expression that I think covers this entire day's commenting by many on this topic. It goes like this;
There are none so blind as those who cannot (or will not) see.
Last edited by Highlander on 8/25/2010 4:18:04 PM
2 up, 5 down
DeejayDeez
Wednesday, August 25, 2010 @ 4:56:32 PM
@HIGHLANDER
At least you've let me know that I'm not the only one on this forum who thinks you are a loony tune.
Oh and enough with the philosophical babble bs statements...no one cares that you know how to copy and paste from the web to sound smart...i think you did the same thing when we all were discussing licensing agreements a while back.
Here's how to become a master know-it-all like Highlander...
Control "C"
Control "V"
At least you've let me know that I'm not the only one on this forum who thinks you are a loony tune.
Oh and enough with the philosophical babble bs statements...no one cares that you know how to copy and paste from the web to sound smart...i think you did the same thing when we all were discussing licensing agreements a while back.
Here's how to become a master know-it-all like Highlander...
Control "C"
Control "V"
2 up, 0 down
Highlander
Wednesday, August 25, 2010 @ 5:22:13 PM
@Deej,
Sorry, but you are mistaken. I don't need to look up a pithy comment on some wiki and cut and paste. Although you seem very familiar with that procedure.
By the way, you never did answer the one simple question I posed.
Why is it OK to reward GameStop for gouging the purchaser of used games, but not reward the developer of the game?
Last edited by Highlander on 8/25/2010 5:24:03 PM
Sorry, but you are mistaken. I don't need to look up a pithy comment on some wiki and cut and paste. Although you seem very familiar with that procedure.
By the way, you never did answer the one simple question I posed.
Why is it OK to reward GameStop for gouging the purchaser of used games, but not reward the developer of the game?
Last edited by Highlander on 8/25/2010 5:24:03 PM
0 up, 2 down
just2skillf00l
Thursday, August 26, 2010 @ 1:11:53 AM
Well I didn't get around to reading everyone's comments but it seems that I semi-agree with Highlander while semi-agreeing with the rest of the herd.
I believe Highlander is right when he says that publishers are losing out on games when people exchange games through systematic means. Returning games to Gamestop puts back games on the shelf that have already been bought by the consumer. Therefore, when a consumer looking for a particular game sees both the used and new game on the shelf, those consumers that purchase the used game give all their money to Gamestop. However, if that consumer were to purchase the new game, the publisher would have received some payment for their work.
Just imagine every time a game is released a guy posts the data for the game online and sells it as a digital download for the world. Everyone decides to pay the online seller because he only charges $25 for a game that would have cost $60 and even sends each of his customers a complimentary bluray disc for their purchases. Basically, the company publisher would only receive $60 for the one guy's purchase while the guy distributing the downloads would reap the benefits of the developer's and publisher's product.
I believe Highlander is right when he says that publishers are losing out on games when people exchange games through systematic means. Returning games to Gamestop puts back games on the shelf that have already been bought by the consumer. Therefore, when a consumer looking for a particular game sees both the used and new game on the shelf, those consumers that purchase the used game give all their money to Gamestop. However, if that consumer were to purchase the new game, the publisher would have received some payment for their work.
Just imagine every time a game is released a guy posts the data for the game online and sells it as a digital download for the world. Everyone decides to pay the online seller because he only charges $25 for a game that would have cost $60 and even sends each of his customers a complimentary bluray disc for their purchases. Basically, the company publisher would only receive $60 for the one guy's purchase while the guy distributing the downloads would reap the benefits of the developer's and publisher's product.
1 up, 1 down
DeejayDeez
Thursday, August 26, 2010 @ 7:58:28 AM
@Highlander
You asked:
"Why is it OK to reward GameStop for gouging the purchaser of used games, but not reward the developer of the game?"
Well, the developer already was rewarded with the sale of the first game and then GameStop is then rewarded for the sale of a used game using their brilliant business sense and ability to find loopholes in the law. And why are you so adamant about this with the “game” industry? Have you never bought a used DVD from Blockbuster? What if when you purchased a used DVD and you were only allowed to watch ¾ of the movie and then had to pay the difference between the used version and the new version of say $5.00 to watch the ending…sounds pretty dumb to me, yet you seem to argue for it. If you are going to argue for one form of media then you have to argue for all forms or you’re a hypocrite. So I’m guessing you’ve never burned a CD from a friend or downloaded a song; borrowed a book from a friend (thief!!!) or hell even borrowed a DVD (also thief, because you should have paid full price at the store so that the movie studio gets their cut)….cause if you’ve done any of these things then your arguments have no ground beneath them and you would indeed be being a hypocrite.
You asked:
"Why is it OK to reward GameStop for gouging the purchaser of used games, but not reward the developer of the game?"
Well, the developer already was rewarded with the sale of the first game and then GameStop is then rewarded for the sale of a used game using their brilliant business sense and ability to find loopholes in the law. And why are you so adamant about this with the “game” industry? Have you never bought a used DVD from Blockbuster? What if when you purchased a used DVD and you were only allowed to watch ¾ of the movie and then had to pay the difference between the used version and the new version of say $5.00 to watch the ending…sounds pretty dumb to me, yet you seem to argue for it. If you are going to argue for one form of media then you have to argue for all forms or you’re a hypocrite. So I’m guessing you’ve never burned a CD from a friend or downloaded a song; borrowed a book from a friend (thief!!!) or hell even borrowed a DVD (also thief, because you should have paid full price at the store so that the movie studio gets their cut)….cause if you’ve done any of these things then your arguments have no ground beneath them and you would indeed be being a hypocrite.
2 up, 1 down
Highlander
Thursday, August 26, 2010 @ 9:49:55 AM
I'm adamant about this with games because games are different to DVDs.
With Movies and TV, the DVD/BluRay sales are pure gravy for the production company. The Movie has already made it's money in the cinema, and the TV show was already paid for by syndication and advertising revenue. the DVD and Bluray sales are additional, they are the icing on the cake.
With games, it's the core revenue stream. They have no alternative revenue stream other than selling the game. The sales of each copy of the game are not icing, they are the cake. The icing is the money from things like DLC. If two people buy and use a game and one of the purchases is 'used, then the producer/developer only ever see's half the revenue for that game disc. One of the users did not pay the publisher/developer for the game.
People continually try to say that someone already paid for the game so it's OK. No it's not. That's like saying that when you go to the cinema, you can take your ticket outside after seeing the movie and resell it at a slight discount to someone else in line for the movie.
You would agree that in that case, the movie theater and the maker of the movie both lose out on the ticket sale, correct? You also have to agree that if you did that, you could actually be arrested for trying to sell your used movie ticket to another customer. But tell me what is the difference between selling a used movie ticket and selling a used game? In both cases the original purchaser has viewed the content, they consumed the product. Now they want to sell it to someone else...
As for the rest of your post.... Borrowing a book from a friend, like borrowing a book from a library is covered, in fact, by both the fair use principle with copyright and the first sale doctrine. Libraries could not exist otherwise. When you are loaned a book, no transaction takes place.
To answer your challenge about burning Cds or DVDs. I've never downloaded and burned a CD from the Internet, or a DVD. Nor have I borrowed a CD or DVD to do so. I've ripped my own CDs that I have purchased and used the MP3s I created, but that is a mode shift that falls under fair use - since I already owned the CD. I can say the same about DVDs.
But the thing is even if I had borrowed a DVD from a friend to view, borrowing someone else's copy is permissible under copyright law. There is no sale, no money changes hands, it's all legal and above board.
You see, I do know about copyright, and I do everything I can, as a consumer, to ensure that I remain within the law and reward content creators for their work.
Last edited by Highlander on 8/26/2010 9:52:59 AM
With Movies and TV, the DVD/BluRay sales are pure gravy for the production company. The Movie has already made it's money in the cinema, and the TV show was already paid for by syndication and advertising revenue. the DVD and Bluray sales are additional, they are the icing on the cake.
With games, it's the core revenue stream. They have no alternative revenue stream other than selling the game. The sales of each copy of the game are not icing, they are the cake. The icing is the money from things like DLC. If two people buy and use a game and one of the purchases is 'used, then the producer/developer only ever see's half the revenue for that game disc. One of the users did not pay the publisher/developer for the game.
People continually try to say that someone already paid for the game so it's OK. No it's not. That's like saying that when you go to the cinema, you can take your ticket outside after seeing the movie and resell it at a slight discount to someone else in line for the movie.
You would agree that in that case, the movie theater and the maker of the movie both lose out on the ticket sale, correct? You also have to agree that if you did that, you could actually be arrested for trying to sell your used movie ticket to another customer. But tell me what is the difference between selling a used movie ticket and selling a used game? In both cases the original purchaser has viewed the content, they consumed the product. Now they want to sell it to someone else...
As for the rest of your post.... Borrowing a book from a friend, like borrowing a book from a library is covered, in fact, by both the fair use principle with copyright and the first sale doctrine. Libraries could not exist otherwise. When you are loaned a book, no transaction takes place.
To answer your challenge about burning Cds or DVDs. I've never downloaded and burned a CD from the Internet, or a DVD. Nor have I borrowed a CD or DVD to do so. I've ripped my own CDs that I have purchased and used the MP3s I created, but that is a mode shift that falls under fair use - since I already owned the CD. I can say the same about DVDs.
But the thing is even if I had borrowed a DVD from a friend to view, borrowing someone else's copy is permissible under copyright law. There is no sale, no money changes hands, it's all legal and above board.
You see, I do know about copyright, and I do everything I can, as a consumer, to ensure that I remain within the law and reward content creators for their work.
Last edited by Highlander on 8/26/2010 9:52:59 AM
0 up, 1 down
IonHawk
Thursday, August 26, 2010 @ 10:34:27 AM
Why is everyone so angry with Gamestop? I love Gamestop - I use them all the time to unload my used games, although only when they have a 50% extra trade-in credit or similar offer going on. I never buy (used or new) from Gamestop, I usually just accumulate store credit until there's enough to just go in and buy hardware tax free. For e.g., I used the 200$ trade-in offer for trading in my 60GB PS3 Phat and got a slim for 0$ out of pocket - just used 100$ of store credit. I still have about 370$ of store credit left which will now help in buying both Kinect and Move (again tax free). Games I buy new but usually after a week or 2 (except for ones I'm really waiting for like GOW3 or Uncharted) of release since they usually dip by 10-20$. The money still goes to the devs, just not the full 60$.
0 up, 5 down
IonHawk
Thursday, August 26, 2010 @ 10:34:36 AM
Why is everyone so angry with Gamestop? I love Gamestop - I use them all the time to unload my used games, although only when they have a 50% extra trade-in credit or similar offer going on. I never buy (used or new) from Gamestop, I usually just accumulate store credit until there's enough to just go in and buy hardware tax free. For e.g., I used the 200$ trade-in offer for trading in my 60GB PS3 Phat and got a slim for 0$ out of pocket - just used 100$ of store credit. I still have about 370$ of store credit left which will now help in buying both Kinect and Move (again tax free). Games I buy new but usually after a week or 2 (except for ones I'm really waiting for like GOW3 or Uncharted) of release since they usually dip by 10-20$. The money still goes to the devs, just not the full 60$.
0 up, 5 down
IonHawk
Thursday, August 26, 2010 @ 10:34:38 AM
Why is everyone so angry with Gamestop? I love Gamestop - I use them all the time to unload my used games, although only when they have a 50% extra trade-in credit or similar offer going on. I never buy (used or new) from Gamestop, I usually just accumulate store credit until there's enough to just go in and buy hardware tax free. For e.g., I used the 200$ trade-in offer for trading in my 60GB PS3 Phat and got a slim for 0$ out of pocket - just used 100$ of store credit. I still have about 370$ of store credit left which will now help in buying both Kinect and Move (again tax free). Games I buy new but usually after a week or 2 (except for ones I'm really waiting for like GOW3 or Uncharted) of release since they usually dip by 10-20$. The money still goes to the devs, just not the full 60$.
0 up, 5 down
IonHawk
Thursday, August 26, 2010 @ 10:34:40 AM
Why is everyone so angry with Gamestop? I love Gamestop - I use them all the time to unload my used games, although only when they have a 50% extra trade-in credit or similar offer going on. I never buy (used or new) from Gamestop, I usually just accumulate store credit until there's enough to just go in and buy hardware tax free. For e.g., I used the 200$ trade-in offer for trading in my 60GB PS3 Phat and got a slim for 0$ out of pocket - just used 100$ of store credit. I still have about 370$ of store credit left which will now help in buying both Kinect and Move (again tax free). Games I buy new but usually after a week or 2 (except for ones I'm really waiting for like GOW3 or Uncharted) of release since they usually dip by 10-20$. The money still goes to the devs, just not the full 60$.
0 up, 5 down
IonHawk
Thursday, August 26, 2010 @ 10:34:40 AM
Why is everyone so angry with Gamestop? I love Gamestop - I use them all the time to unload my used games, although only when they have a 50% extra trade-in credit or similar offer going on. I never buy (used or new) from Gamestop, I usually just accumulate store credit until there's enough to just go in and buy hardware tax free. For e.g., I used the 200$ trade-in offer for trading in my 60GB PS3 Phat and got a slim for 0$ out of pocket - just used 100$ of store credit. I still have about 370$ of store credit left which will now help in buying both Kinect and Move (again tax free). Games I buy new but usually after a week or 2 (except for ones I'm really waiting for like GOW3 or Uncharted) of release since they usually dip by 10-20$. The money still goes to the devs, just not the full 60$.
0 up, 5 down
IonHawk
Thursday, August 26, 2010 @ 10:34:40 AM
Why is everyone so angry with Gamestop? I love Gamestop - I use them all the time to unload my used games, although only when they have a 50% extra trade-in credit or similar offer going on. I never buy (used or new) from Gamestop, I usually just accumulate store credit until there's enough to just go in and buy hardware tax free. For e.g., I used the 200$ trade-in offer for trading in my 60GB PS3 Phat and got a slim for 0$ out of pocket - just used 100$ of store credit. I still have about 370$ of store credit left which will now help in buying both Kinect and Move (again tax free). Games I buy new but usually after a week or 2 (except for ones I'm really waiting for like GOW3 or Uncharted) of release since they usually dip by 10-20$. The money still goes to the devs, just not the full 60$.
0 up, 5 down
IonHawk
Thursday, August 26, 2010 @ 10:36:37 AM
Why is everyone so angry with Gamestop? I love Gamestop - I use them all the time to unload my used games, although only when they have a 50% extra trade-in credit or similar offer going on. I never buy (used or new) from Gamestop, I usually just accumulate store credit until there's enough to just go in and buy hardware tax free. For e.g., I used the 200$ trade-in offer for trading in my 60GB PS3 Phat and got a slim for 0$ out of pocket - just used 100$ of store credit. I still have about 370$ of store credit left which will now help in buying both Kinect and Move (again tax free). Games I buy new but usually after a week or 2 (except for ones I'm really waiting for like GOW3 or Uncharted) of release since they usually dip by 10-20$. The money still goes to the devs, just not the full 60$.
0 up, 5 down
IonHawk
Thursday, August 26, 2010 @ 10:36:40 AM
Why is everyone so angry with Gamestop? I love Gamestop - I use them all the time to unload my used games, although only when they have a 50% extra trade-in credit or similar offer going on. I never buy (used or new) from Gamestop, I usually just accumulate store credit until there's enough to just go in and buy hardware tax free. For e.g., I used the 200$ trade-in offer for trading in my 60GB PS3 Phat and got a slim for 0$ out of pocket - just used 100$ of store credit. I still have about 370$ of store credit left which will now help in buying both Kinect and Move (again tax free). Games I buy new but usually after a week or 2 (except for ones I'm really waiting for like GOW3 or Uncharted) of release since they usually dip by 10-20$. The money still goes to the devs, just not the full 60$.
0 up, 5 down
IonHawk
Thursday, August 26, 2010 @ 10:36:42 AM
Why is everyone so angry with Gamestop? I love Gamestop - I use them all the time to unload my used games, although only when they have a 50% extra trade-in credit or similar offer going on. I never buy (used or new) from Gamestop, I usually just accumulate store credit until there's enough to just go in and buy hardware tax free. For e.g., I used the 200$ trade-in offer for trading in my 60GB PS3 Phat and got a slim for 0$ out of pocket - just used 100$ of store credit. I still have about 370$ of store credit left which will now help in buying both Kinect and Move (again tax free). Games I buy new but usually after a week or 2 (except for ones I'm really waiting for like GOW3 or Uncharted) of release since they usually dip by 10-20$. The money still goes to the devs, just not the full 60$.
0 up, 5 down
IonHawk
Thursday, August 26, 2010 @ 10:36:42 AM
Why is everyone so angry with Gamestop? I love Gamestop - I use them all the time to unload my used games, although only when they have a 50% extra trade-in credit or similar offer going on. I never buy (used or new) from Gamestop, I usually just accumulate store credit until there's enough to just go in and buy hardware tax free. For e.g., I used the 200$ trade-in offer for trading in my 60GB PS3 Phat and got a slim for 0$ out of pocket - just used 100$ of store credit. I still have about 370$ of store credit left which will now help in buying both Kinect and Move (again tax free). Games I buy new but usually after a week or 2 (except for ones I'm really waiting for like GOW3 or Uncharted) of release since they usually dip by 10-20$. The money still goes to the devs, just not the full 60$.
0 up, 5 down
IonHawk
Thursday, August 26, 2010 @ 10:37:40 AM
Why is everyone so angry with Gamestop? I love Gamestop - I use them all the time to unload my used games, although only when they have a 50% extra trade-in credit or similar offer going on. I never buy (used or new) from Gamestop, I usually just accumulate store credit until there's enough to just go in and buy hardware tax free. For e.g., I used the 200$ trade-in offer for trading in my 60GB PS3 Phat and got a slim for 0$ out of pocket - just used 100$ of store credit. I still have about 370$ of store credit left which will now help in buying both Kinect and Move (again tax free). Games I buy new but usually after a week or 2 (except for ones I'm really waiting for like GOW3 or Uncharted) of release since they usually dip by 10-20$. The money still goes to the devs, just not the full 60$.
0 up, 5 down
IonHawk
Thursday, August 26, 2010 @ 10:37:44 AM
Why is everyone so angry with Gamestop? I love Gamestop - I use them all the time to unload my used games, although only when they have a 50% extra trade-in credit or similar offer going on. I never buy (used or new) from Gamestop, I usually just accumulate store credit until there's enough to just go in and buy hardware tax free. For e.g., I used the 200$ trade-in offer for trading in my 60GB PS3 Phat and got a slim for 0$ out of pocket - just used 100$ of store credit. I still have about 370$ of store credit left which will now help in buying both Kinect and Move (again tax free). Games I buy new but usually after a week or 2 (except for ones I'm really waiting for like GOW3 or Uncharted) of release since they usually dip by 10-20$. The money still goes to the devs, just not the full 60$.
0 up, 5 down
IonHawk
Thursday, August 26, 2010 @ 10:37:51 AM
Why is everyone so angry with Gamestop? I love Gamestop - I use them all the time to unload my used games, although only when they have a 50% extra trade-in credit or similar offer going on. I never buy (used or new) from Gamestop, I usually just accumulate store credit until there's enough to just go in and buy hardware tax free. For e.g., I used the 200$ trade-in offer for trading in my 60GB PS3 Phat and got a slim for 0$ out of pocket - just used 100$ of store credit. I still have about 370$ of store credit left which will now help in buying both Kinect and Move (again tax free). Games I buy new but usually after a week or 2 (except for ones I'm really waiting for like GOW3 or Uncharted) of release since they usually dip by 10-20$. The money still goes to the devs, just not the full 60$.
0 up, 5 down
IonHawk
Thursday, August 26, 2010 @ 10:38:00 AM
Why is everyone so angry with Gamestop? I love Gamestop - I use them all the time to unload my used games, although only when they have a 50% extra trade-in credit or similar offer going on. I never buy (used or new) from Gamestop, I usually just accumulate store credit until there's enough to just go in and buy hardware tax free. For e.g., I used the 200$ trade-in offer for trading in my 60GB PS3 Phat and got a slim for 0$ out of pocket - just used 100$ of store credit. I still have about 370$ of store credit left which will now help in buying both Kinect and Move (again tax free). Games I buy new but usually after a week or 2 (except for ones I'm really waiting for like GOW3 or Uncharted) of release since they usually dip by 10-20$. The money still goes to the devs, just not the full 60$.
0 up, 5 down
IonHawk
Thursday, August 26, 2010 @ 10:38:06 AM
Why is everyone so angry with Gamestop? I love Gamestop - I use them all the time to unload my used games, although only when they have a 50% extra trade-in credit or similar offer going on. I never buy (used or new) from Gamestop, I usually just accumulate store credit until there's enough to just go in and buy hardware tax free. For e.g., I used the 200$ trade-in offer for trading in my 60GB PS3 Phat and got a slim for 0$ out of pocket - just used 100$ of store credit. I still have about 370$ of store credit left which will now help in buying both Kinect and Move (again tax free). Games I buy new but usually after a week or 2 (except for ones I'm really waiting for like GOW3 or Uncharted) of release since they usually dip by 10-20$. The money still goes to the devs, just not the full 60$.
0 up, 5 down
IonHawk
Thursday, August 26, 2010 @ 10:38:46 AM
Why is everyone so angry with Gamestop? I love Gamestop - I use them all the time to unload my used games, although only when they have a 50% extra trade-in credit or similar offer going on. I never buy (used or new) from Gamestop, I usually just accumulate store credit until there's enough to just go in and buy hardware tax free. For e.g., I used the 200$ trade-in offer for trading in my 60GB PS3 Phat and got a slim for 0$ out of pocket - just used 100$ of store credit. I still have about 370$ of store credit left which will now help in buying both Kinect and Move (again tax free). Games I buy new but usually after a week or 2 (except for ones I'm really waiting for like GOW3 or Uncharted) of release since they usually dip by 10-20$. The money still goes to the devs, just not the full 60$.
0 up, 5 down
IonHawk
Thursday, August 26, 2010 @ 10:39:06 AM
Why is everyone so angry with Gamestop? I love Gamestop - I use them all the time to unload my used games, although only when they have a 50% extra trade-in credit or similar offer going on. I never buy (used or new) from Gamestop, I usually just accumulate store credit until there's enough to just go in and buy hardware tax free. For e.g., I used the 200$ trade-in offer for trading in my 60GB PS3 Phat and got a slim for 0$ out of pocket - just used 100$ of store credit. I still have about 370$ of store credit left which will now help in buying both Kinect and Move (again tax free). Games I buy new but usually after a week or 2 (except for ones I'm really waiting for like GOW3 or Uncharted) of release since they usually dip by 10-20$. The money still goes to the devs, just not the full 60$.
0 up, 5 down
DeejayDeez
Thursday, August 26, 2010 @ 11:13:23 AM
@Highlander
“With games, it's the core revenue stream. They have no alternative revenue stream other than selling the game. The sales of each copy of the game are not icing, they are the cake. The icing is the money from things like DLC. If two people buy and use a game and one of the purchases is 'used, then the producer/developer only ever see's half the revenue for that game disc. One of the users did not pay the publisher/developer for the game.”
-Not true. Games are made into movies (icing), dev/publisher sell t-shirts, guides and other items along those lines (also icing) and as you state DLC (still icing). Oh and I didn’t even think about the money they make by selling you virtual goods for the game in HOME. Seems like they actually might make a little more money off side stuff for the game than you are giving them credit for.
”People continually try to say that someone already paid for the game so it's OK. No it's not. That's like saying that when you go to the cinema, you can take your ticket outside after seeing the movie and resell it at a slight discount to someone else in line for the movie.”
-Well this scenario is somewhat flawed. You can’t even compare the two. Since the ticket is only good for a specific showing time and a sale of the used ticket would be worthless for admittance to the show at a different time vs. a used game that will play until the disc deteriorates and no longer can be read.
“But the thing is even if I had borrowed a DVD from a friend to view, borrowing someone else's copy is permissible under copyright law.”
-So this would include renting (borrowing) a game from Blockbuster. Which would mean you can rent, put in the code for online (which the game companies are suggesting), return, and then go buy the used copy to work online. Sounds like another loophole to me. See these companies really think they can control what they can’t…where there’s a will there’s a way. I’m sure the gaming industry will keep making games even if the whole used game thing stays around…why…because they are all still making profits and always have been, no matter how you look at it, just like the music and movie industries are overcoming the piracy age. Companies wanting extra $$$$ = Greedy people.
Anyways, I’m kinda done with this topic…bored…I’ll just do what I do and you do what you do.
“With games, it's the core revenue stream. They have no alternative revenue stream other than selling the game. The sales of each copy of the game are not icing, they are the cake. The icing is the money from things like DLC. If two people buy and use a game and one of the purchases is 'used, then the producer/developer only ever see's half the revenue for that game disc. One of the users did not pay the publisher/developer for the game.”
-Not true. Games are made into movies (icing), dev/publisher sell t-shirts, guides and other items along those lines (also icing) and as you state DLC (still icing). Oh and I didn’t even think about the money they make by selling you virtual goods for the game in HOME. Seems like they actually might make a little more money off side stuff for the game than you are giving them credit for.
”People continually try to say that someone already paid for the game so it's OK. No it's not. That's like saying that when you go to the cinema, you can take your ticket outside after seeing the movie and resell it at a slight discount to someone else in line for the movie.”
-Well this scenario is somewhat flawed. You can’t even compare the two. Since the ticket is only good for a specific showing time and a sale of the used ticket would be worthless for admittance to the show at a different time vs. a used game that will play until the disc deteriorates and no longer can be read.
“But the thing is even if I had borrowed a DVD from a friend to view, borrowing someone else's copy is permissible under copyright law.”
-So this would include renting (borrowing) a game from Blockbuster. Which would mean you can rent, put in the code for online (which the game companies are suggesting), return, and then go buy the used copy to work online. Sounds like another loophole to me. See these companies really think they can control what they can’t…where there’s a will there’s a way. I’m sure the gaming industry will keep making games even if the whole used game thing stays around…why…because they are all still making profits and always have been, no matter how you look at it, just like the music and movie industries are overcoming the piracy age. Companies wanting extra $$$$ = Greedy people.
Anyways, I’m kinda done with this topic…bored…I’ll just do what I do and you do what you do.
1 up, 2 down
Highlander
Thursday, August 26, 2010 @ 11:52:24 AM
Sorry, I was willing to discuss this with you while we were in the realm of reality. But when you claim that game developers and publishers have significant revenue streams like movies of games and T-Shirts that make up for any significant lost revenue? When you do that, I just have to laugh and walk away. You're not doing to discuss the issue on solid ground, you seek to redefine everything in a narrow way so that you can then knock down the straw man you created by redefining the issue. No thanks. Not playing any more.
2 up, 2 down
DeejayDeez
Thursday, August 26, 2010 @ 12:33:59 PM
So does that mean you're not going to play with anyone? sure hope so! it takes way to much time to thumbs down every single one of your dumbass comments! and just like when another poster questioned your time spend here, I will do the same. How do you have time to comment so much? lack of a job, no education so you work 3rd shift, or a job that you don't really do well cause you're always on forums...which is it? Or are you Ben's second login for this site; here just to ruffle the feathers of patrons?
2 up, 3 down
Underdog15
Friday, August 27, 2010 @ 11:40:59 AM
DeejayDeez... you're a poor excuse for a human being. Just throwing that out there. Take your type 2 morality elsewhere.
1 up, 1 down
BikerSaint
Tuesday, August 24, 2010 @ 11:13:28 PM
Reply
Well, I don't know where this will fit in with me since I don't do MP mode.
But regardless,
Since I'm a collector, I still have to buy most of my titles rather late & mostly used, or new sometimes when I find a great deal, just because I'm still probably missing a couple hundred games already out for my PS3 & 360(not to mention all the older retro systems I still need games for too).
And I'm certainly not Richy Rich, Big Daddy Warbucks, or Bill Gates!!!
But regardless,
Since I'm a collector, I still have to buy most of my titles rather late & mostly used, or new sometimes when I find a great deal, just because I'm still probably missing a couple hundred games already out for my PS3 & 360(not to mention all the older retro systems I still need games for too).
And I'm certainly not Richy Rich, Big Daddy Warbucks, or Bill Gates!!!
2 up, 0 down
Qubex
Tuesday, August 24, 2010 @ 11:37:04 PM
...but Biker, what will you do with this collection one day? Do you have time to play them. Are they just sitting on shelf for admiration? Do you want to bequeath them to a museum one day?
Just asking...
Q!
"play.experience.enjoy"
Just asking...
Q!
"play.experience.enjoy"
0 up, 0 down
Lawless SXE
Wednesday, August 25, 2010 @ 2:06:09 AM
They are to be buried alongside him so that he can take them to the afterlife and play them...
1 up, 0 down
Mr_Nice_Guy
Tuesday, August 24, 2010 @ 11:52:41 PM
Reply
Well this is a very good topic of discussion. On one hand, you have the publishers, who feel that used game sales are tapping into their profits. On the other hand you have the gamers who just can't afford to buy new, so they buy used and save a few bucks. The publishers see none of that money from the used game sale, so they charge for the online portion or provide the gamer who bought the game new with extra DLC. In the end, it comes down to money, and if the publisher isn't making the money they want from new game sales, they will try to make it up elsewhere.
It pretty much goes without saying that once the DLC era started, this was the next logical step. I personally don't buy DLC because I feel that most of what is released as DLC could've more than likely been included with the regular game. Game development is expensive I know, and unless your a AAA title, you probably won't recoup your development costs. So they, the publishers and developers, try to make it, the money, up elsewhere.
It's going to come down to us as gamers voting with our wallets. We'll have to say "enough is enough" and not support games that charge a fee for what used to be free. So there you have it. If you don't like the changes to the industry, don't buy the games. Otherwise, we'll have to suck it up and continue to take what they give us. We have the choice, we just have to use it.
It pretty much goes without saying that once the DLC era started, this was the next logical step. I personally don't buy DLC because I feel that most of what is released as DLC could've more than likely been included with the regular game. Game development is expensive I know, and unless your a AAA title, you probably won't recoup your development costs. So they, the publishers and developers, try to make it, the money, up elsewhere.
It's going to come down to us as gamers voting with our wallets. We'll have to say "enough is enough" and not support games that charge a fee for what used to be free. So there you have it. If you don't like the changes to the industry, don't buy the games. Otherwise, we'll have to suck it up and continue to take what they give us. We have the choice, we just have to use it.
6 up, 0 down
Highlander
Wednesday, August 25, 2010 @ 2:52:04 AM
No more Mr Nice Guy?
Hey, a question. Who would you rather pay for a game? A publisher/developer who will turn around and make a sequel if a game sells well, or a Game retailer selling used games so that their CEO can drive a bigger car?
Seriously, this is a question gamers should be asking themselves.
Exactly 0% of the revenue from a used game sale goes to the publisher/developer. But 100% of the use of the game goes to the gamer. why is it OK or fair that the people that worked to make the game get nothing from used game sales? OK some people save a few $$, but in the end, doesn't it mean that the developer sells fewer copies and makes less money, which doesn't exactly encourage future development...?
You say you'll vote with your wallet and not buy games that charge for online. When you buy the game new, you aren't charged. If you're buying games used, you're already voting with your wallet, and all you're doing is telling the game developers that you don't give a damn about their ability to break even on a game.
Hey, a question. Who would you rather pay for a game? A publisher/developer who will turn around and make a sequel if a game sells well, or a Game retailer selling used games so that their CEO can drive a bigger car?
Seriously, this is a question gamers should be asking themselves.
Exactly 0% of the revenue from a used game sale goes to the publisher/developer. But 100% of the use of the game goes to the gamer. why is it OK or fair that the people that worked to make the game get nothing from used game sales? OK some people save a few $$, but in the end, doesn't it mean that the developer sells fewer copies and makes less money, which doesn't exactly encourage future development...?
You say you'll vote with your wallet and not buy games that charge for online. When you buy the game new, you aren't charged. If you're buying games used, you're already voting with your wallet, and all you're doing is telling the game developers that you don't give a damn about their ability to break even on a game.
4 up, 8 down
Mr_Nice_Guy
Wednesday, August 25, 2010 @ 3:14:13 AM
Sorry, maybe I should've been a bit more clear. I was essentially saying that, if this idea is going to fly, it'll come down to whether or not gamers continue to buy games that support these sort of actions. I personally buy all of my games new. I haven't bought a used game this entire generation. I have traded games in, but I stopped that about year ago because the trade in values are incredibly low and I like seeing my big game library.
I am all for supporting the publisher/developer, when they aren't nickel and diming their customers. We're seeing more and more fees everyday, from flying to using credit cards to buying homes. I honestly think most people are getting sick of additional fees being added everywhere in their lives. Games are a hobby and should be treated as such. But when you start adding fees to a person's funtime, they begin to associate that with money grubbing and greed.
Like I said before, in the end, this practice of the online pass will be determined by gamers voting with their wallets. It won't affect me because I only buy brand new games. But for the gamer looking to save a few bucks by buying used through whatever means, Gamestop, eBay, or Craigslist, this online pass stuff is gonna be very annoying. And then what about all the people that rent through Gamefly and Blockbuster. Where does this practice of the online pass leave them? I suppose we'll just have to wait and see where this is gonna go. But in the end, we'll have the final say because we are the ones buying the games.
I am all for supporting the publisher/developer, when they aren't nickel and diming their customers. We're seeing more and more fees everyday, from flying to using credit cards to buying homes. I honestly think most people are getting sick of additional fees being added everywhere in their lives. Games are a hobby and should be treated as such. But when you start adding fees to a person's funtime, they begin to associate that with money grubbing and greed.
Like I said before, in the end, this practice of the online pass will be determined by gamers voting with their wallets. It won't affect me because I only buy brand new games. But for the gamer looking to save a few bucks by buying used through whatever means, Gamestop, eBay, or Craigslist, this online pass stuff is gonna be very annoying. And then what about all the people that rent through Gamefly and Blockbuster. Where does this practice of the online pass leave them? I suppose we'll just have to wait and see where this is gonna go. But in the end, we'll have the final say because we are the ones buying the games.
5 up, 0 down
BikerSaint
Wednesday, August 25, 2010 @ 1:32:19 PM
Qubex,
I actually sample every game I get, and if I like it, then I'll continue to play it.
But if I don't like it, then it goes directly into the collection on the shelf.
I do normally like most RPG's, RTS's or sports, so I only buy them mainly just for collection purposes(and when between $2 to $10 used range).
And as for backlogged games, luckily I think there's only 150-175 out of around 1500 I still need to play, so every time I've finished my mostcurrent games, I go back & play some of the one's I haven't yet like I just did with inFamous, then Fear1&2, & now Alone in the Dark:Inferno, and on my bot box, FarCry:Instincts/Predator. Plus I'm also thinking of popping into my PS2, Beyond good & evil too for good measure too.
As for now, I still enjoy collecting & playing on all my systens except for my SNES(it's packed away due to no space for it), but when the time comes that I stop playing altogether, or my heath is failing, I'll either send my entire collection to auction to the highest bidder(with a reserve on it, of course), or I'll will the whole collection to the Smithsonian Institute(museum) if they want it, just so that we gamers will always have our place, & part, in history too.
It will probably wind up being the Smithsonian, but I just haven't made my final decision yet.
Lawless,
Yeah I'd love to be able to take my collection with me when I kick it just so I can still keep playing in the afterlife.
But could you imagine what my funeral expenses would be??? 52 extra funeral cars to carry my collection, a couple hundred pallbearer's to carry the extra load, and a hole dug as deep & wide enough to fill 1/2 a city block????
Anyways, at only 57, I can't go yet cause I still have at least another 1/2 century or more of gaming left in this skin.
BTW, "Mr. Bone's" told me so
(POP Quizz:The above name is referenced to what console)????
Last edited by BikerSaint on 8/25/2010 1:46:15 PM
I actually sample every game I get, and if I like it, then I'll continue to play it.
But if I don't like it, then it goes directly into the collection on the shelf.
I do normally like most RPG's, RTS's or sports, so I only buy them mainly just for collection purposes(and when between $2 to $10 used range).
And as for backlogged games, luckily I think there's only 150-175 out of around 1500 I still need to play, so every time I've finished my mostcurrent games, I go back & play some of the one's I haven't yet like I just did with inFamous, then Fear1&2, & now Alone in the Dark:Inferno, and on my bot box, FarCry:Instincts/Predator. Plus I'm also thinking of popping into my PS2, Beyond good & evil too for good measure too.
As for now, I still enjoy collecting & playing on all my systens except for my SNES(it's packed away due to no space for it), but when the time comes that I stop playing altogether, or my heath is failing, I'll either send my entire collection to auction to the highest bidder(with a reserve on it, of course), or I'll will the whole collection to the Smithsonian Institute(museum) if they want it, just so that we gamers will always have our place, & part, in history too.
It will probably wind up being the Smithsonian, but I just haven't made my final decision yet.
Lawless,
Yeah I'd love to be able to take my collection with me when I kick it just so I can still keep playing in the afterlife.
But could you imagine what my funeral expenses would be??? 52 extra funeral cars to carry my collection, a couple hundred pallbearer's to carry the extra load, and a hole dug as deep & wide enough to fill 1/2 a city block????
Anyways, at only 57, I can't go yet cause I still have at least another 1/2 century or more of gaming left in this skin.
BTW, "Mr. Bone's" told me so
(POP Quizz:The above name is referenced to what console)????
Last edited by BikerSaint on 8/25/2010 1:46:15 PM
0 up, 0 down
THEVERDIN
Wednesday, August 25, 2010 @ 6:07:24 PM
@Mr Nice Guy
Well put, now you have to convince the masses.
Last edited by THEVERDIN on 8/25/2010 6:11:24 PM
Well put, now you have to convince the masses.
Last edited by THEVERDIN on 8/25/2010 6:11:24 PM
1 up, 0 down
Bloodysilence19
Wednesday, August 25, 2010 @ 12:14:16 AM
Reply
im not fan of having to put in a code order to play a game online. i understand the point of wanting to make money on used games since the developers don't make the money off them. it sucks for people who buy the games used cause like some gamers, they don't have the money to buy a new game and so they go the used game way. why cant developers just charge gamestop or other gaming stores a certain percent of how many used games get sold in that month and just get little bit of that stores profit from it, hope that made sense.
see its like back in the day when movie industry wasn't making money off rental movies. eventually movie companies got passed where any movie that is rented the movie industry get a certain percent of it. so like i said developers should just get a percent of the gaming stores profit of the used games they sell.so that way gamers dont have to pay extra $10 just to play that certain game online.
see its like back in the day when movie industry wasn't making money off rental movies. eventually movie companies got passed where any movie that is rented the movie industry get a certain percent of it. so like i said developers should just get a percent of the gaming stores profit of the used games they sell.so that way gamers dont have to pay extra $10 just to play that certain game online.
4 up, 0 down
DeathOfChaos
Wednesday, August 25, 2010 @ 12:26:26 AM
Reply
I still don't see the deal with this, what the hell is the problem? The game gets sold, and that's money in their pocket. If I were to buy a PS3 game at a yard sale, I doubt Sony would see any money from that because they already have! If I were to sell something I made with my own two hands, I highly doubt that if that person I sold it to sold it again, I would get no money from it, even if it were copyrighted and I had it mass produced. The game companies make money by selling their games, not selling them and then reselling them over and over.They get more than enough money by getting money from each game being sold once already. I know it puts food on their table, but it already gives them expensive cars, large houses, and trips around the world. It's a sad world we live in when a game sells for millions of dollars and it turns out not to be enough...
2 up, 1 down
Highlander
Wednesday, August 25, 2010 @ 2:45:22 AM
Software licensing. I'm not going to explain it again. Just learn about software licensing and think of it from the game publisher/developer's point of view. Remember if 10 people buy the game and 5 of them bought it second hand, the publisher sees 10 players but only get's paid for 5 of them. There's no magical transference of money when you buy used.
Let me ask you a question. Let's say you're going to buy a new game. It's available from the 'new' shelf for $60, and the used bin at $55. Why would you want to screw the developer for the sake of $5? When you pay $55 for the used game, all of that $55 goes to the seller of the used game. None to the publisher. So why would you punish the people who's work you are about to enjoy by not paying them for the game? That doesn't sound too fair does it? And all to save $5? You save $5, and cost the developer a game sale into the bargain. How much incentive does that leave the developer to make more games for you?
Last edited by Highlander on 8/25/2010 2:45:43 AM
Let me ask you a question. Let's say you're going to buy a new game. It's available from the 'new' shelf for $60, and the used bin at $55. Why would you want to screw the developer for the sake of $5? When you pay $55 for the used game, all of that $55 goes to the seller of the used game. None to the publisher. So why would you punish the people who's work you are about to enjoy by not paying them for the game? That doesn't sound too fair does it? And all to save $5? You save $5, and cost the developer a game sale into the bargain. How much incentive does that leave the developer to make more games for you?
Last edited by Highlander on 8/25/2010 2:45:43 AM
5 up, 9 down
DeathOfChaos
Wednesday, August 25, 2010 @ 10:51:09 AM
If the difference is only $5, I don't buy the damn game. If it's not worth buying brand new, it's not worth buying for $55.And why would I 'screw' the game developers out of their money? Because they've already been paid for that product. That's like saying you go buy some meat at the grocery store, and then you sell some meat to a freind. The Grocery store deserves money from that transaction! It's the same damn principle, game developers are just getting too damn greedy for their own good. If they have enough money from copies of games being sold once and afford very expensive things, then they're making enough money, they don't need to make more. But they're in dire need of that extra money, you say, they need to have even more money when they have way more than they could possibly need already. If I were to produce a game and it made 100 million bucks, I would be very happy with the result and wouldn't care about the measly money being made of the used games anyway. People have been selling used games for a very long time now, and for some reasons, it's starting to really get to be a problem? If it wasn't a problem in the yesteryears, then why is it now?
3 up, 1 down
telly
Wednesday, August 25, 2010 @ 11:22:27 AM
@Highlander, agree 100 percent. Why in God's name would people reward Gamestop and companies like them for flipping a product? I not only never buy used games (unless I'm looking for something out of print, in which case I can say truthfully the publishers leave me no choice) I haven't sold a game to a gamestop or other such place in easily a decade-plus. I just refuse to be part of a system that benefits bullshit stores like gamestop that will first rip ME off by not giving me fair value for the game, then rip the next CUSTOMER off who buys that used game by selling it at an outrageously high price, and ultimately rip the PUBLISHER off by not sending them a single cent. It's infuriating, it's not fair, and I'll have no part of it.
3 up, 3 down
chedison
Wednesday, August 25, 2010 @ 12:56:27 AM
Reply
Maybe if there weren't so many crappy games coming out now a days, we wouldn't feel the need to buy them used. Its not our fault they aren't publishing games up to certain expectations...
8 up, 0 down
Highlander
Wednesday, August 25, 2010 @ 2:46:20 AM
So basically you are saying you buy used to punish the developers?
You're kidding right?
You're kidding right?
2 up, 10 down
chedison
Wednesday, August 25, 2010 @ 9:15:15 AM
I admit, that sounds harsh. But what I mean, is there are two reasons I can think of that people buy used games. One, is they don't have enough money to be buying full priced games but still want to continue playing video games. The other is, and this is usually the reason I buy used games, is because the game isn't worth paying 60 dollars.
5 up, 0 down
Highlander
Wednesday, August 25, 2010 @ 9:27:45 AM
If it's not worth $60, and a lot aren't, then rent it, or wait for the price to drop - it will...
2 up, 6 down
Jawknee
Wednesday, August 25, 2010 @ 1:55:30 AM
Reply
I agree with chedison, though if it must be done, I suppose I favor EA's idea. Seems fairest.
3 up, 0 down
Lawless SXE
Wednesday, August 25, 2010 @ 2:12:20 AM
Reply
I wasn't expecting to see as much hate here as in the other columns about companies saying similar things. And I was right! What I'm not sure of though is whether it is because it we are now talking about Sony, or whether we have become acclimatised to the Publishers trying to squeeze us.
Enough with the making fun of the community. I'd like to see Sony's answer to this type of thing. They are a company that certainly seems to listen to the fans, and must know that the fans do not want to support this type of activity, so maybe they will be able to come to a compromise. Perhaps PSPlus membership will automatically allow you to play used games online? Give me details and you will hear my thoughts.
Peace.
Enough with the making fun of the community. I'd like to see Sony's answer to this type of thing. They are a company that certainly seems to listen to the fans, and must know that the fans do not want to support this type of activity, so maybe they will be able to come to a compromise. Perhaps PSPlus membership will automatically allow you to play used games online? Give me details and you will hear my thoughts.
Peace.
3 up, 0 down
Highlander
Wednesday, August 25, 2010 @ 2:41:18 AM
Personally I think that one way to encourage game ownership is to make it so that you have to pay for an activation code (when you buy used) to allow things like game trophies, and Home rewards, as well as online access. That way, you pay for the things that are additional to what is on the disk. The trophies being unavailable without an activation code would be a bit of a killer for some.
4 up, 11 down
fluffer nutter
Wednesday, August 25, 2010 @ 3:25:07 AM
Reply
"And we're exploring actively the same option for our own content."
Not only are they exploring it but they've already implemented it in one game since it released. ModNation Racers for the PSP. The add-on is called Online Entitlement, $14.99, 05/24/2010.
Here's another one. SOCOM: FireTeam Bravo 3, Online Entitlement, $19.99, 02/15/2010. They probably have more that I didn't notice before.
Last edited by fluffer nutter on 8/25/2010 3:27:17 AM
Not only are they exploring it but they've already implemented it in one game since it released. ModNation Racers for the PSP. The add-on is called Online Entitlement, $14.99, 05/24/2010.
Here's another one. SOCOM: FireTeam Bravo 3, Online Entitlement, $19.99, 02/15/2010. They probably have more that I didn't notice before.
Last edited by fluffer nutter on 8/25/2010 3:27:17 AM
2 up, 0 down
___________
Wednesday, August 25, 2010 @ 3:25:14 AM
Reply
what the 100+ i pay for games is not enough i have to pay more to play online?
sony should be careful with this, MP is a advertised feature of the game so by law they could get sued for charging more for it.
why are sony turning into M$?
i promise you this sony, the day i have to pay to play my games online (even if there preowned who cares! some of us dont have million dollar paychecks like sony you know?) i swear to god the day i have to pay to play my ps3 games online is the day my ps3 and all my games go on ebay, and im never buying a sony product ever again!
that means no sony TVs, no sony stereos, no sony gaming, no sony car stereos, no sony laptops.
thats fine sony want to treat there fans like a cash machine than its time for a sony boycott!
you know what?
fine, sony want to be this greedy and treat there loyal fans like cash machines, i hope everyone buys ps jailbreak and sony goes bankrupt!
maybe they will learn to appreciate the support their fans give them!
i can not honestly understand the logic of companies these days!
what ever happened to customer service?
the customer is always right?
as the saying goes, you catch more flies with honey than vinegar!
Last edited by ___________ on 8/25/2010 3:27:26 AM
sony should be careful with this, MP is a advertised feature of the game so by law they could get sued for charging more for it.
why are sony turning into M$?
i promise you this sony, the day i have to pay to play my games online (even if there preowned who cares! some of us dont have million dollar paychecks like sony you know?) i swear to god the day i have to pay to play my ps3 games online is the day my ps3 and all my games go on ebay, and im never buying a sony product ever again!
that means no sony TVs, no sony stereos, no sony gaming, no sony car stereos, no sony laptops.
thats fine sony want to treat there fans like a cash machine than its time for a sony boycott!
you know what?
fine, sony want to be this greedy and treat there loyal fans like cash machines, i hope everyone buys ps jailbreak and sony goes bankrupt!
maybe they will learn to appreciate the support their fans give them!
i can not honestly understand the logic of companies these days!
what ever happened to customer service?
the customer is always right?
as the saying goes, you catch more flies with honey than vinegar!
Last edited by ___________ on 8/25/2010 3:27:26 AM
0 up, 10 down
Snaaaake
Wednesday, August 25, 2010 @ 4:36:10 AM
Umm dude, put yourself in the shoe of a businessman and you'll understand.
This is all business and no, Sony is not charging you online, they're just charging you online for used game.
Last edited by Snaaaake on 8/25/2010 4:37:05 AM
This is all business and no, Sony is not charging you online, they're just charging you online for used game.
Last edited by Snaaaake on 8/25/2010 4:37:05 AM
5 up, 3 down
Highlander
Wednesday, August 25, 2010 @ 9:07:25 AM
I can never understand your logic, so I am unsurprised that you don't understand the logic of the real world.
7 up, 4 down
fluffer nutter
Wednesday, August 25, 2010 @ 12:00:20 PM
Was this a serious rant because I'm finding it hard not to laugh?
6 up, 1 down
RebelJD
Wednesday, August 25, 2010 @ 3:35:26 AM
Reply
I purchased Madden 11 the other day, that was the first time I came across the EA Online pass. It's not that bad. If you use the code, everyone who plays on your console has access to online play. Secondly, if you play Madden 11 at a buddies house, you can log into your account and play online there as well.
I'm not much of an online gamer but if some game offered a 'must-play' multi-player I'm sure I'd purchase it new. Possibly on release date even, which would entitle me to a free code to play it any way.
I tend to buy great games used (and in great condition) for their single player experience. Most online games that people like to hump heavy seem to be FPS, of which I'm not much a fan of.
Hey, maybe this will encourage gamers to actually make a trip to a friend's house and play some games, in person. Back to the buddy system where dudes met up to do some gaming...rather than meet up online. When a friend has the big TV and can afford the latest games, all others will flock on over to join in on the fun. Does everyone need to own their own copy of a game JUST to game with their buddies? I didn't think so.
Last edited by RebelJD on 8/25/2010 3:36:15 AM
I'm not much of an online gamer but if some game offered a 'must-play' multi-player I'm sure I'd purchase it new. Possibly on release date even, which would entitle me to a free code to play it any way.
I tend to buy great games used (and in great condition) for their single player experience. Most online games that people like to hump heavy seem to be FPS, of which I'm not much a fan of.
Hey, maybe this will encourage gamers to actually make a trip to a friend's house and play some games, in person. Back to the buddy system where dudes met up to do some gaming...rather than meet up online. When a friend has the big TV and can afford the latest games, all others will flock on over to join in on the fun. Does everyone need to own their own copy of a game JUST to game with their buddies? I didn't think so.
Last edited by RebelJD on 8/25/2010 3:36:15 AM
1 up, 0 down
Phoenix
Wednesday, August 25, 2010 @ 4:17:12 AM
Reply
Is it just me, or has this gen of consles taken a big step backwards...
They first come out, and cost what, $600+ to buy? aswell as games going back up to $60-80...
Then comes the whole DLC phase, companies put out overpriced DLC that is poor quality at best, and they purposely with hold content, just to try to make a quick buck...
And now we have this, having to not only pay for a used game, but having then to purchase an online pass, just to get full access to the game you just bought. I know some of you are in favor of companies doing this so they can recoup money, and its not fair if someone buys it used without them seein a dime, but how do u think it got on that previously owned wall... yeah, somebody ALREADY payed for it!!!! So please, dont try and use that as some cheap argument.
They first come out, and cost what, $600+ to buy? aswell as games going back up to $60-80...
Then comes the whole DLC phase, companies put out overpriced DLC that is poor quality at best, and they purposely with hold content, just to try to make a quick buck...
And now we have this, having to not only pay for a used game, but having then to purchase an online pass, just to get full access to the game you just bought. I know some of you are in favor of companies doing this so they can recoup money, and its not fair if someone buys it used without them seein a dime, but how do u think it got on that previously owned wall... yeah, somebody ALREADY payed for it!!!! So please, dont try and use that as some cheap argument.
3 up, 5 down
Highlander
Wednesday, August 25, 2010 @ 9:15:45 AM
It's just you.
First of all, that initial price tag (for the PS3) was a huge bargain. An before anyone leaps to the defense of anyone arguing that the console was too expensive, I never said it wasn't. I am simply pointing out that those that paid $600 (including me) for the original PS3 with a 60GB HDD got a system that cost at least $900 to make. So the only rip off going on was the consumer ripping Sony off to the tune of #300 or more per unit purchased.
Games at $60 are less expensive in real terms than they were on the PS1 and about the same as they were on the PS2. Actually the PS2 had games that cost $50 as well, so in real terms $60 is cheaper than those 450 games on the PS2.
I wish people would stop claiming it's so expensive to game now. It isn't. Inflation happens.
As for paying to play online. You only pay for the online pass if you buy the game used. If you buy the game new, you get the online access code with the game.
But if you take that game and trade it, the next buyer of the game does not get that code. Personally I find this a fair thing since when the used buyer purchases the game, they are not in fact paying the developer/publisher anything for the game. So if you buy a game used and want to go online, I see no problem at all with the publisher/developer demanding that you pay them for the privilege since you will be using their servers and their online software.
So what if someone else already paid for the game you now have in your grubby hands. Who did you pay for it? Did you pay the developer, or did you pay GameStop? Why is it OK for people to pay GameStop and others for a second hand game, but it's so uncool to reward the developers of the game by paying them?
First of all, that initial price tag (for the PS3) was a huge bargain. An before anyone leaps to the defense of anyone arguing that the console was too expensive, I never said it wasn't. I am simply pointing out that those that paid $600 (including me) for the original PS3 with a 60GB HDD got a system that cost at least $900 to make. So the only rip off going on was the consumer ripping Sony off to the tune of #300 or more per unit purchased.
Games at $60 are less expensive in real terms than they were on the PS1 and about the same as they were on the PS2. Actually the PS2 had games that cost $50 as well, so in real terms $60 is cheaper than those 450 games on the PS2.
I wish people would stop claiming it's so expensive to game now. It isn't. Inflation happens.
As for paying to play online. You only pay for the online pass if you buy the game used. If you buy the game new, you get the online access code with the game.
But if you take that game and trade it, the next buyer of the game does not get that code. Personally I find this a fair thing since when the used buyer purchases the game, they are not in fact paying the developer/publisher anything for the game. So if you buy a game used and want to go online, I see no problem at all with the publisher/developer demanding that you pay them for the privilege since you will be using their servers and their online software.
So what if someone else already paid for the game you now have in your grubby hands. Who did you pay for it? Did you pay the developer, or did you pay GameStop? Why is it OK for people to pay GameStop and others for a second hand game, but it's so uncool to reward the developers of the game by paying them?
3 up, 9 down
Underdog15
Wednesday, August 25, 2010 @ 10:14:40 AM
Phoenix, man, PLEASE do some research next time. You clearly don't grasp licensing as a concept, and similarly, you seem selective in what fits your terms of morality.
Why do you think it's better to support gamestop than devs? (By the way, gamestop is bigger than any dev!!) The only reason people think it's MORE morally sound to support gamestop is because it costs them less... The issue isn't twisted businesses... it's corrupt morality of the masses.
Why do you think it's better to support gamestop than devs? (By the way, gamestop is bigger than any dev!!) The only reason people think it's MORE morally sound to support gamestop is because it costs them less... The issue isn't twisted businesses... it's corrupt morality of the masses.
4 up, 2 down
Phoenix
Wednesday, August 25, 2010 @ 4:20:19 PM
@highlander
You keep talking about inflation, and it makes me laugh. Inflation doesnt really effect the cost of games, it never has, instead it seems to be determined by the tech used, and if u insist on using inflation for your argument, you've gotta realise, back in the ps2 era, things were also a lot cheaper then they are now, gas prices, hydro, water, phone, internet, insurance, etc etc. So this means, that in this day and age, adult gamers have even less money in their pocket then they did 10 years ago.
@underdog
you clearly dont seem to understand that the game company have already made thier money from the game being bought in the first place, I dont understand how some of u can be so thick to not understand this. By your logic, if I buy a toaster, and then I want to sell said toaster, the person buying it should only get the shell, and have to pay the company for the guts. Insane.
5 up, 5 down
fluffer nutter
Wednesday, August 25, 2010 @ 4:40:14 PM
If you're an adult with less money, nowadays, then you have some serious problems. Seriously.
1 up, 6 down
Phoenix
Wednesday, August 25, 2010 @ 4:46:03 PM
Well you must not be, because if you were, you would know that inflation has risen much faster then what people get payed.
7 up, 2 down
fluffer nutter
Wednesday, August 25, 2010 @ 6:56:08 PM
Inflation rate, on average, is 4% per year. My raises are in the double digits so yes, I'm beating inflation by a large margin.
Last edited by fluffer nutter on 8/25/2010 6:56:44 PM
Last edited by fluffer nutter on 8/25/2010 6:56:44 PM
0 up, 4 down
Underdog15
Friday, August 27, 2010 @ 11:36:40 AM
hoo boy Phoenix... you need to figure out quickly, that digital goods are removed from physical goods.
Similarly, ... you know what? Nevermind. you suck.
Similarly, ... you know what? Nevermind. you suck.
1 up, 1 down
Snaaaake
Wednesday, August 25, 2010 @ 4:34:17 AM
Reply
I don't mind all these cause I don't buy used game and I won't sell my game, I only buy what's good and what I like.
Usually demo first or watch a lot a lot of gameplay footage(I did this for ACII and my hardwork paid off cause ACII was uber awesome).
We're not in a place to complain about this, you pay full price for the original and sealed copy and you pay extra for used copy.
Buying used game doesn't make them money so they had to take this measure.
I'm sure Highlander already explained a lot(he's the friggin' best on PSXE!!).
Usually demo first or watch a lot a lot of gameplay footage(I did this for ACII and my hardwork paid off cause ACII was uber awesome).
We're not in a place to complain about this, you pay full price for the original and sealed copy and you pay extra for used copy.
Buying used game doesn't make them money so they had to take this measure.
I'm sure Highlander already explained a lot(he's the friggin' best on PSXE!!).
0 up, 2 down
Ultimadream
Wednesday, August 25, 2010 @ 4:37:45 AM
Reply
I think this is terrible, We pay for the game already, so we should have the rights to play it online for free, if every company does this online play is going to end up very, VERY expensive, I only play online because it's free. I refuse to be con'd like that.
As for pre-owned games, I by alot of my games pre-owned. I only pay full price if it's something i have really been antcipating like Heavy Rain, Final Fantasy XIII and for this quater possibly Enslaved. That all one is 100-120 pounds which is not cheap. While other games i can wait for like Assassins Creed II: Complete Edition is not under 20 pounds. I have sen Bioshock 2 and AlienVSPredator in a 2 for 20 deal, pre-owned and yes i wil be picking that up. I am buying the game ligitimately from a Gamestation store, i should not be penalized for that.
As for pre-owned games, I by alot of my games pre-owned. I only pay full price if it's something i have really been antcipating like Heavy Rain, Final Fantasy XIII and for this quater possibly Enslaved. That all one is 100-120 pounds which is not cheap. While other games i can wait for like Assassins Creed II: Complete Edition is not under 20 pounds. I have sen Bioshock 2 and AlienVSPredator in a 2 for 20 deal, pre-owned and yes i wil be picking that up. I am buying the game ligitimately from a Gamestation store, i should not be penalized for that.
3 up, 0 down
Highlander
Wednesday, August 25, 2010 @ 9:18:19 AM
If you paid the publisher/developer for the game, you have the ability to play online without further payment.If on the other hand you did not pay them, then you don't and will have to buy the online content. What's the problem here?
Again, I ask why do people have no problem buying a used game from GameStop but find it so uncool and wrong to reward the people that made the bloody game by paying them instead of GameStop? Is that $5 saving on a new game really that worth it to you? When you buy a used game from GameStop or their like, all the money goes to the retailer, and none to the developer. So why should the publisher/developer provide that used buyer with any of the additional content that is online? They haven't been paid for their work.
Again, I ask why do people have no problem buying a used game from GameStop but find it so uncool and wrong to reward the people that made the bloody game by paying them instead of GameStop? Is that $5 saving on a new game really that worth it to you? When you buy a used game from GameStop or their like, all the money goes to the retailer, and none to the developer. So why should the publisher/developer provide that used buyer with any of the additional content that is online? They haven't been paid for their work.
3 up, 6 down
Ultimadream
Wednesday, August 25, 2010 @ 11:40:42 AM
Because it should come with the purchase of the game. I refuse to pay for games online line because the games are expensive enough as it is. By the looks of things Every developer company is now trying to cash in with online accounts to their company. if they all do this the price really does add up. I bought the PS3 believing online was free, though it is looking like soon that will not be so.
1 up, 1 down
Simcoe
Wednesday, August 25, 2010 @ 12:47:00 PM
So after you buy a used game, those publishers/developers are just going to let you play online for free, use up their resources, ie. servers, electricity to power and cool those servers, bandwidth, people to maintain those servers, etc.), with you not paying one single cent to them? They're not running a charity or some government service, they're running a business.
1 up, 0 down
shaydey77
Wednesday, August 25, 2010 @ 5:06:54 AM
Reply
If they all want a slice of the used game pie, all they need to do is come together and open their own brick and mortar shops AND a website.
Sony,EA,Activision,Microsoft..whoever. (Getting them all to agree would be the hard part but i dont think any would turn down money.)
Then offer better trade in rates than gamestop and other traders.
Split the profits equally or if they wish between the developers and publsihers of the game sold.
Prices stay cheap for used, and the people that deserve the second hand money get it.
Sony,EA,Activision,Microsoft..whoever. (Getting them all to agree would be the hard part but i dont think any would turn down money.)
Then offer better trade in rates than gamestop and other traders.
Split the profits equally or if they wish between the developers and publsihers of the game sold.
Prices stay cheap for used, and the people that deserve the second hand money get it.
1 up, 0 down
BikerSaint
Wednesday, August 25, 2010 @ 2:25:19 PM
I had proposed the same idea in another thread of this same kind a long long time ago.
Where all developers & publishers should just come together in 1 single hub, to buy & sell pre-owned games.
Not only would you get a better trade in value for your games, you'd also get a better deal buying them too, plus you know that they'd be polished so there's no scratches(non-Blurays), & all manuals & cover art would be there, and in mint shape or replaced.
And at the same time the developer & publisher would retain all & share the profits in that pre-owned game, again & again & again.
Where all developers & publishers should just come together in 1 single hub, to buy & sell pre-owned games.
Not only would you get a better trade in value for your games, you'd also get a better deal buying them too, plus you know that they'd be polished so there's no scratches(non-Blurays), & all manuals & cover art would be there, and in mint shape or replaced.
And at the same time the developer & publisher would retain all & share the profits in that pre-owned game, again & again & again.
0 up, 0 down
FullmetalX10
Wednesday, August 25, 2010 @ 5:54:47 AM
Reply
I don't really mind actually, since I buy my games new anyway, unless I can't find it anywhere and I actually HAVE to buy it used, but that hasn't happened to me so, meh, they can charge if they want to, it would just be annoying to me when I borrow a game, but people usually borrow my games and not the other way around...
0 up, 0 down
SnipeySnake
Wednesday, August 25, 2010 @ 5:59:25 AM
Reply
So...when i bring a game over to a friends house, i can't play online without paying a fee?
Anyway, i think its a stupid idea. I mean, as Arolladora said, they got they're money right? They're just being greedy.
Last edited by SnipeySnake on 8/25/2010 6:01:42 AM
Anyway, i think its a stupid idea. I mean, as Arolladora said, they got they're money right? They're just being greedy.
Last edited by SnipeySnake on 8/25/2010 6:01:42 AM
0 up, 1 down
Underdog15
Wednesday, August 25, 2010 @ 9:24:48 AM
You could just sign in with your PSN id... that would work...
2 up, 1 down
Highlander
Wednesday, August 25, 2010 @ 9:26:31 AM
If you log in to PSN with YOUR PSN ID, you can play on your friend's PS3 without paying an additional fee. You can activate a game on up to 5 PS3 systems with your ID. But keep track of those activations, there is a hard limit of 5 systems. So deactivate when you leave your friend's place. You can always re-activate on your next visit.
4 up, 4 down
Gordo
Wednesday, August 25, 2010 @ 6:05:35 AM
Reply
In Australia new games cost around $100. If you can't get any money back from a trade in then thats a big hit.
You might in that case buy three or four games a year. If you can get $40 back from a trade in then that means you might be able to buy ten games a year.
What's better? Your money is still being spent buying games and it benefits the games industry.
You might in that case buy three or four games a year. If you can get $40 back from a trade in then that means you might be able to buy ten games a year.
What's better? Your money is still being spent buying games and it benefits the games industry.
2 up, 0 down
Deleted User
Wednesday, August 25, 2010 @ 7:33:07 AM
Reply
frist off your welcome Psxextreme staff. I read this story 2 days ago over at gameinformer's web site and i even emailed you this as a news tip. anyways......this is excleey why i cut back on gaming from 4 games a month to 3 games a month just new or a year old. like take month games for exsample i plan on getting Mafia II and Kane & Lynch 2: Days a long with Heavy Rain or Final Fantsay XIII the old days i used to be able to get all 5 but now in days i can only get 3.
0 up, 3 down
Highlander
Wednesday, August 25, 2010 @ 9:24:16 AM
Well, we are obviously in awe of your tipping abilities. Clearly you are a god among Men. You'll find that PSXExtreme will not - generally - simply repost a news tip that's been reported on another site. they will generally verify the news elese where before going ahead. They may in fact quote another source - such as Game Informer - but not without independently verifying the story. It avoids publishing stories that amount to little more than rumor, but sometimes it takes longer than simply republishing someone else's story.
It can feel frustrating to see a story you tipped them about appear a day or so later, but in truth it's not because your tip was ignored, it's more a case of checking the story before publishing.
It can feel frustrating to see a story you tipped them about appear a day or so later, but in truth it's not because your tip was ignored, it's more a case of checking the story before publishing.
6 up, 3 down
BikerSaint
Wednesday, August 25, 2010 @ 2:59:25 PM
ThEInFamOusgOd,
Wow, I send Ben tips & articles all the time & I NEVER feel the need to crow about it.
And as Highlander just said, the PSXE staff has to verify any stuff I send them to it's original source. And that's why I also send the link too, just so that they can track down the source if they thought the article was newsworthy enough.
And when I send in articles, some get used & some don't. Oh well, that's life.
Also, and even though I get a ton of email daily from different developers, publishers, industry sites, along with numerous newsletters too, I'm sure that PSXE also receives many, if not more, of the same one's that I do.
So yeah, it would be nice to see your article being posted here, and I wished they would also give credit to any reader who's article doe's get posted, instead of just saying "a Reader alerted/sent us...,
But in the end, you know what?
Sometimes you just can't be all thing's to all people, so it's OK with me.
Wow, I send Ben tips & articles all the time & I NEVER feel the need to crow about it.
And as Highlander just said, the PSXE staff has to verify any stuff I send them to it's original source. And that's why I also send the link too, just so that they can track down the source if they thought the article was newsworthy enough.
And when I send in articles, some get used & some don't. Oh well, that's life.
Also, and even though I get a ton of email daily from different developers, publishers, industry sites, along with numerous newsletters too, I'm sure that PSXE also receives many, if not more, of the same one's that I do.
So yeah, it would be nice to see your article being posted here, and I wished they would also give credit to any reader who's article doe's get posted, instead of just saying "a Reader alerted/sent us...,
But in the end, you know what?
Sometimes you just can't be all thing's to all people, so it's OK with me.
0 up, 0 down
Orvisman
Thursday, August 26, 2010 @ 10:13:54 AM
What Biker wrote!
Didn't I chastize you for this in another thread on another article. Big friggin woop, there are a lot of us here who tip Ben off when we see an interesting article on another site.
Didn't I chastize you for this in another thread on another article. Big friggin woop, there are a lot of us here who tip Ben off when we see an interesting article on another site.
0 up, 0 down
Amazingskillz
Wednesday, August 25, 2010 @ 8:39:50 AM
Reply
If the new rule is: you must pay for online play when you buy a used game. That seems fair enough as long as that is the only stipulation. If they leave it at that then fine. This begs the question as to how much of revenue used games account for to retailers like Gamestop, EB etc. I think this will eventually cut into that revenue as they will undoubtedly have to lower the prices of used games. This indirectly represents another shot fired at the brick n mortar establishment pushing us closer to all digital downloads.
0 up, 1 down
Highlander
Wednesday, August 25, 2010 @ 9:20:21 AM
GameStop makes a huge profit on their used game sales. In fact, the revenue from the used games is what keeps them afloat and happy.
Seriously though people, why do people prefer to pay someone like GameStop for the used game knowing that the people who spent money and time developing the game get nothing from the sale? All you're doing is rewarding GameStop for their standard practice of ripping off the person that traded the game, and at the same time punishing the developer who never see's your purchase of their game, or the revenue from it.
Seriously though people, why do people prefer to pay someone like GameStop for the used game knowing that the people who spent money and time developing the game get nothing from the sale? All you're doing is rewarding GameStop for their standard practice of ripping off the person that traded the game, and at the same time punishing the developer who never see's your purchase of their game, or the revenue from it.
2 up, 5 down
Underdog15
Wednesday, August 25, 2010 @ 9:36:17 AM
Reply
I'm sorry guys, but seriously... the biggest cop out I hear people saying is about, "poor me, I have no money, I should buy it cheap!"
For god's sake, guys, it's a LUXURY!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Gaming is not a necessity. If you can't afford a LUXURY, you typically cannot expect to afford everything you want unless you have disposable income. When I was a student, I bought a lot less than I do now. That's the way it is. You aren't somehow entitled to good deals just because you can't afford it. You aren't entitled to a 3DTV, Lamborghini, mansion, vacation, etc. for uber cheap just because you can't afford it full price... Come on guys, get real!
There are charities for victims, those without food, those without shelter, there's welfare for those without work or with disabilities, there's employment insurance for those who get laid off, but there is absolutely NO charity that provides poor students with video games or the disabled with Lamborghinis! "Well, Geeze Underdog, why not??" <-- is basically what many of you are saying.
Also, as if you guys are criticizing publishers and devs for wanting to earn money for their work.
You know who makes even MORE money than those supposed "greedy" devs?
I'll tell you. The CEO's of GAMESTOP who make money off of flipping a product for which they contributed nothing.
Vote with your wallets? Yeah... for sure... but vote in a way that makes sense beyond an early conclusion that happens to be convenient for you.
I can understand you guys 100% if the issue was paying extra for something you bought new. I personally rarely buy DLC myself! I agree! But honestly, you can't seriously think GAMESTOP are the good guys and the publishers/developers are the bad guys. Most dev's aren't Activision... most aren't that rich. Even Activision and SE aren't worth as much as Gamestop.
I'm not even going to START on some people's limited knowledge of licensing laws.
But honestly, if you're a poor student and have to buy used, then you need to come to terms with the fact that you obviously cannot afford a full version. For frigs sake, get your priorities straight. When I was a student, I didn't get nearly as many games as I liked...
So long as these extra fees apply only to those who buy used, I support them 100%!!
I'm sorry... but I just don't get your guys unrealistic sense of entitlement. It's a bit disgusting at times. I hate the "me" mentality of our society...
Last edited by Underdog15 on 8/25/2010 9:38:56 AM
For god's sake, guys, it's a LUXURY!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Gaming is not a necessity. If you can't afford a LUXURY, you typically cannot expect to afford everything you want unless you have disposable income. When I was a student, I bought a lot less than I do now. That's the way it is. You aren't somehow entitled to good deals just because you can't afford it. You aren't entitled to a 3DTV, Lamborghini, mansion, vacation, etc. for uber cheap just because you can't afford it full price... Come on guys, get real!
There are charities for victims, those without food, those without shelter, there's welfare for those without work or with disabilities, there's employment insurance for those who get laid off, but there is absolutely NO charity that provides poor students with video games or the disabled with Lamborghinis! "Well, Geeze Underdog, why not??" <-- is basically what many of you are saying.
Also, as if you guys are criticizing publishers and devs for wanting to earn money for their work.
You know who makes even MORE money than those supposed "greedy" devs?
I'll tell you. The CEO's of GAMESTOP who make money off of flipping a product for which they contributed nothing.
Vote with your wallets? Yeah... for sure... but vote in a way that makes sense beyond an early conclusion that happens to be convenient for you.
I can understand you guys 100% if the issue was paying extra for something you bought new. I personally rarely buy DLC myself! I agree! But honestly, you can't seriously think GAMESTOP are the good guys and the publishers/developers are the bad guys. Most dev's aren't Activision... most aren't that rich. Even Activision and SE aren't worth as much as Gamestop.
I'm not even going to START on some people's limited knowledge of licensing laws.
But honestly, if you're a poor student and have to buy used, then you need to come to terms with the fact that you obviously cannot afford a full version. For frigs sake, get your priorities straight. When I was a student, I didn't get nearly as many games as I liked...
So long as these extra fees apply only to those who buy used, I support them 100%!!
I'm sorry... but I just don't get your guys unrealistic sense of entitlement. It's a bit disgusting at times. I hate the "me" mentality of our society...
Last edited by Underdog15 on 8/25/2010 9:38:56 AM
8 up, 4 down
NoSmokingBandit
Wednesday, August 25, 2010 @ 9:49:51 AM
Owning a car is a luxury but surely you dont think everyone should buy new cars instead of a used, do you?
So what if Gamestop is making money, thats how capitalism works. Tons of used car dealer buy/trade-in cars and resell them, should we avoid them because GM/Ford/Whoever isnt making anything on the sale?
The used game business is no different than any other used merchandise.
Licensing works, but so does the first-sale doctrine, so i am allowed to sell my license of the software to whomever i choose.
Last edited by NoSmokingBandit on 8/25/2010 9:53:00 AM
So what if Gamestop is making money, thats how capitalism works. Tons of used car dealer buy/trade-in cars and resell them, should we avoid them because GM/Ford/Whoever isnt making anything on the sale?
The used game business is no different than any other used merchandise.
Licensing works, but so does the first-sale doctrine, so i am allowed to sell my license of the software to whomever i choose.
Last edited by NoSmokingBandit on 8/25/2010 9:53:00 AM
5 up, 5 down
Highlander
Wednesday, August 25, 2010 @ 9:51:47 AM
Cars are not software Bandit, that argument fails before the key is turned in the ignition.
On a side note. I think that my sig will be "Quality is our Dignity", this has to be one of the most ironic pieces of terrible translation from whatever language the spammer's original one is.
~Quality is our Dignity~
Last edited by Highlander on 8/25/2010 9:57:41 AM
On a side note. I think that my sig will be "Quality is our Dignity", this has to be one of the most ironic pieces of terrible translation from whatever language the spammer's original one is.
~Quality is our Dignity~
Last edited by Highlander on 8/25/2010 9:57:41 AM
3 up, 5 down
Ben Dutka PSXE [Administrator]
Wednesday, August 25, 2010 @ 10:20:00 AM
Agree entirely with Underdog. I always see a ton of whining whenever such articles are posted and unfortunately, there's nothing valid beneath that whining...it's just people being cheap.
It's amazing how freaked out people can become over a few dollars, and how they will twist all rational thoughts to the point where they're almost unrecognizable.
It's amazing how freaked out people can become over a few dollars, and how they will twist all rational thoughts to the point where they're almost unrecognizable.
5 up, 1 down
NoSmokingBandit
Wednesday, August 25, 2010 @ 10:24:23 AM
HIghlander, read this if you want to bring licensing into it:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-sale_doctrine
"the copyright holder's rights to control the change of ownership of a particular copy ends once that copy is sold, as long as no additional copies are made"
As long as no copies are made then the the original owner (Sony, Activision, etc) have no right to do anything regarding subsequent sales.
So yes, it is just like buying a used car, a used book, a used sock...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-sale_doctrine
"the copyright holder's rights to control the change of ownership of a particular copy ends once that copy is sold, as long as no additional copies are made"
As long as no copies are made then the the original owner (Sony, Activision, etc) have no right to do anything regarding subsequent sales.
So yes, it is just like buying a used car, a used book, a used sock...
3 up, 2 down
Underdog15
Wednesday, August 25, 2010 @ 10:24:29 AM
Bandit, I KNOW I've been over this with you before... physical goods are NOT the same. You cannot sell licenses. No one can own a license as if it were something you can sell. A license means you have certain rights.
You know this, man... why are you trying to use that logic? It doesn't fit you. You're a really smart guy! You say really smart things in other discussions. You truly do! I am NOT being sarcastic. I truly like your points of view on other topics. I know to you the licensing laws aren't "right" or dont make sense, but that's irrelevant because it's the way it is right or not.
But it is not the same. And you still don't address what many people here seem to cling to lately... And that is this: Why support gamestop before devs/publishers? It seriously is a painful thing to think about!
Personally, I just believe devs/publishers should be rewarded for their work. Even if they were money grubbing, they aren't as money grubbing as Gamestop et. al. I just don't understand why people prefer to support those CEO's to the game developers they want more games from...
You know this, man... why are you trying to use that logic? It doesn't fit you. You're a really smart guy! You say really smart things in other discussions. You truly do! I am NOT being sarcastic. I truly like your points of view on other topics. I know to you the licensing laws aren't "right" or dont make sense, but that's irrelevant because it's the way it is right or not.
But it is not the same. And you still don't address what many people here seem to cling to lately... And that is this: Why support gamestop before devs/publishers? It seriously is a painful thing to think about!
Personally, I just believe devs/publishers should be rewarded for their work. Even if they were money grubbing, they aren't as money grubbing as Gamestop et. al. I just don't understand why people prefer to support those CEO's to the game developers they want more games from...
4 up, 2 down
Highlander
Wednesday, August 25, 2010 @ 10:54:16 AM
First sale.
If you as the buyer of the game from the copyright holder sell that game, you are allowed under "first sale" to do so. However, the buyer of the game from you is not covered by "first sale", and if they then resell the game, it is *not* covered by "first sale".
Gamestop is entitled under "first sale" to buy the game from you. but when they resell it, guess what, it's no longer the "first sale" and the user buying the used game from Gamestop is hosed.
If someone were to buy their game from you, used, and you were the original purchaser, that transaction would indeed be covered.
However, none of that addresses the moral and ethical question about rewarding developers for their work, and none of it covers in any way the online portions of the game that are not purchased with the game disc, but are in fact downloaded at a later time. The "first sale" doctrine may have been appropriate when copyright works were produced in physical, tangible ways, such as print on pages. That doctrine was not established within the context of the digital age, where perfect reproduction over and over again occurs ever time you run the software on a disc. In so far as the doctrine of "first sale" is a precedent of law at present, you are correct regarding the legality of an original purchaser selling a game. But that doctrine doesn't cover subsequent sales, and nor does it reflect the ethical or moral situation we have in the digital age.
Last edited by Highlander on 8/25/2010 10:56:21 AM
If you as the buyer of the game from the copyright holder sell that game, you are allowed under "first sale" to do so. However, the buyer of the game from you is not covered by "first sale", and if they then resell the game, it is *not* covered by "first sale".
Gamestop is entitled under "first sale" to buy the game from you. but when they resell it, guess what, it's no longer the "first sale" and the user buying the used game from Gamestop is hosed.
If someone were to buy their game from you, used, and you were the original purchaser, that transaction would indeed be covered.
However, none of that addresses the moral and ethical question about rewarding developers for their work, and none of it covers in any way the online portions of the game that are not purchased with the game disc, but are in fact downloaded at a later time. The "first sale" doctrine may have been appropriate when copyright works were produced in physical, tangible ways, such as print on pages. That doctrine was not established within the context of the digital age, where perfect reproduction over and over again occurs ever time you run the software on a disc. In so far as the doctrine of "first sale" is a precedent of law at present, you are correct regarding the legality of an original purchaser selling a game. But that doctrine doesn't cover subsequent sales, and nor does it reflect the ethical or moral situation we have in the digital age.
Last edited by Highlander on 8/25/2010 10:56:21 AM
3 up, 5 down
Highlander
Wednesday, August 25, 2010 @ 11:21:47 AM
Further to my comment about "first sale".
Technically the first sale only occurs when the purchase is from the copyright owner. GameStop is not the copyright owner. No retailer is. The doctrine of first sale may cover their initial purchase of the game from the publisher. But unless they are acting as an agent for the copyright holder, when they sell a 'new' game, the buyer is not buying the game from the copyright owner. It is not "first sale".
Secondly, even if we accept that buying a game new constitutes first sale, you have to accept that anything not included on the disc is not covered. This includes online components, DLC, and game patches. So there is no obligation on the copyright owner to provide any ongoing service, such as bug fixes. An ongoing service obligation would only be covered by a software license, which is absolutely not covered in any way by the doctrine of "first sale".
Last edited by Highlander on 8/25/2010 11:27:12 AM
Technically the first sale only occurs when the purchase is from the copyright owner. GameStop is not the copyright owner. No retailer is. The doctrine of first sale may cover their initial purchase of the game from the publisher. But unless they are acting as an agent for the copyright holder, when they sell a 'new' game, the buyer is not buying the game from the copyright owner. It is not "first sale".
Secondly, even if we accept that buying a game new constitutes first sale, you have to accept that anything not included on the disc is not covered. This includes online components, DLC, and game patches. So there is no obligation on the copyright owner to provide any ongoing service, such as bug fixes. An ongoing service obligation would only be covered by a software license, which is absolutely not covered in any way by the doctrine of "first sale".
Last edited by Highlander on 8/25/2010 11:27:12 AM
3 up, 5 down
DeathOfChaos
Wednesday, August 25, 2010 @ 11:27:10 AM
You know, the jist of it is this: There are so many game developers developing a game and getting payed for every game once, which is fair because in natural order, everything should only have to be paid for once. But there are WAY more consumers of the product, and they do need to save money. People who claim that people 'freak out' over a few dollars, those few dollars add up to more. I live in a rural community, and I take a 50min. drive to another town that is a bit larger than my own. When I go there, I like to looking around and I actually rarely buy anything because it's just hanging out with friends and having fun. I pack a certain amount of money with me, just enough to eat and maybe buy one game. I found a game I wanted to buy, but if I bought it, I wouldn't be able to eat with my friends afterwords, so I search for a used copy of the game. There were no used copies of the game, so I didn't buy the game and decided eating with my friends was a better choice. I could have saved $5-$10 and have had just enough to eat after we were done there, but I couldn't, no saved copy. Not only have I still not been able to buy that game, but I probably never will now because I have my sights locked on to better things now. It was probably a great title, but I'll never know now...
1 up, 2 down
fluffer nutter
Wednesday, August 25, 2010 @ 12:04:46 PM
Yes. Always buy new cars. Your tip for the day because you don't want to sit in someone else's brown spot. :p
0 up, 2 down
WorldEndsWithMe
Wednesday, August 25, 2010 @ 2:46:55 PM
Gamestop sucks, if you can't afford new games then buy used from individuals on ebay. That way the game they are done with sees new life and gains more word of mouth advertising and through posts, forums, and discussions with friends, will see new sales. I know people who only buy new just because they don't trust anything used.
2 up, 0 down
NoSmokingBandit
Wednesday, August 25, 2010 @ 9:39:06 AM
Reply
I will not buy one game that is intentionally gimped.
Does Random House get all pissy when i buy a used book from the flea market?
Does Island act like a di** when i buy a used copy of The Killers' cd at the record store?
Does Random House get all pissy when i buy a used book from the flea market?
Does Island act like a di** when i buy a used copy of The Killers' cd at the record store?
2 up, 2 down
Underdog15
Wednesday, August 25, 2010 @ 10:25:37 AM
So buy it new! Those games aren't gimped. The used ones will be. lol
This isn't about DLC. It's about new vs. used.
This isn't about DLC. It's about new vs. used.
2 up, 1 down
Simcoe
Wednesday, August 25, 2010 @ 1:12:47 PM
Um, book publishers do have problems with university text books as they are very expensive to produce, there are also often incentives for buying new texts too.
It is the same problem with CD resellers, but it's just that the music industry currently has bigger fish to fry. Do you really thing the artist is seeing any revenue from that used CD you purchased?
It is the same problem with CD resellers, but it's just that the music industry currently has bigger fish to fry. Do you really thing the artist is seeing any revenue from that used CD you purchased?
1 up, 0 down
Nlayer
Wednesday, August 25, 2010 @ 9:51:43 AM
Reply
Well, this doesn't really effect me at all seeing as how I never play online. It does kind of bug me that I wouldn't be able to use the whole game if used.
Actually, why don't they lower the price of the New games down and then charge every game a small one-time fee for online use. It would be fair, especially to people like me who could care less about online gaming.
Last edited by Nlayer on 8/25/2010 9:55:36 AM
Actually, why don't they lower the price of the New games down and then charge every game a small one-time fee for online use. It would be fair, especially to people like me who could care less about online gaming.
Last edited by Nlayer on 8/25/2010 9:55:36 AM
2 up, 0 down
Highlander
Wednesday, August 25, 2010 @ 9:58:59 AM
You can use the whole game if you buy it used. But the online parts that are not on the disc cost extra. You're not paying to access something on the disc, you're paying to access something additional provided online.
5 up, 4 down
NoSmokingBandit
Wednesday, August 25, 2010 @ 10:26:00 AM
But its no more taxing on the server than before. If sony sells 1mil copies at $60 then they have $60m to run their online servers with (not actual numbers, but it works for the example). If half of those million sell their copy to someone else there is still 1 million copies going online, and Sony still has $60m to spend on their servers. Nothing changes on Sony's end. Nothing.
2 up, 5 down
Underdog15
Wednesday, August 25, 2010 @ 10:39:46 AM
Not true. Sony makes a small tiny bit of cash on every game sold for publishing rights. They lose on used sales too. Everyone loses except gamestop. Yes, even the consumer loses. Why do you think devs who are not AAA put less into games and more into DLC?? Gotta recoup losses somehow.
Personally, I'm glad used buyers are getting charged a fee. It's not the best conclusion, but it at least helps. I mean seriously... if a dev makes a good game, they should be rewarded for it so they make another one.
Personally, I'm glad used buyers are getting charged a fee. It's not the best conclusion, but it at least helps. I mean seriously... if a dev makes a good game, they should be rewarded for it so they make another one.
3 up, 3 down
DeathOfChaos
Wednesday, August 25, 2010 @ 11:13:50 AM
Someone buys a game that has online. They play online, sure. Then they take it somewhere and sell it or sell it to a friend. That person that first owned the game isn't using the number in the server anymore, but this other person is now. So let's say you've got 40,000 people in the server. The person who bought it makes it 40,001. Then the person gets rid of it, and the person who ends up buying the game plays it online. That other guy isn't online anymore because it got rid of it, so it's still 40,001 people on the server. If the guy were to buy it again, he can either buy new or used. If he buys it new, it adds onto the number of people in the server and ranks up to 40,002. If he buys a used game, it stays at 40,001. It's just like filling up a room full of chairs with people. People leave the room and go into the room at different times. One person sells his chair to another person so they can have a chair in the room. If there are multiple used games still in the store, then there are multiple chairs left empty waiting for the people who buy that used game that represents that chair. If a game were to snap in half or something, then I guess that chair is eternally be empty? lol. Now a download only game, they have all these chairs open, right? Then there are people who never play online or get bored of it and never play the game again, so there is no way in reusing those chairs again, just as if the game were to have snapped in half if it were disc based. So, charging people to play online for a game that is used is like taking an empty chair that some sold to someone, and then telling them they have to pay another $10 once they walk into the room and try to sit down. It kind of reminds me of these commercials where the guy gives a good deal to one kid and then rips off the other kid, lol. It's a pretty sad predicament, though.
1 up, 2 down
Simcoe
Wednesday, August 25, 2010 @ 2:05:14 PM
@DeathOfChaos
I understand where you are coming from with the chair analogy but consider how many servers are going to be required and the cost used to house, run, maintain and cool them (plus bandwidth too), which will be based on a certain percentage of users. The publisher will plan ahead for these resources. Now a publisher will consider say 85% of people who buy the game will play online, and say on average each spends 50 hours online over the life of the game, now if the publisher sells 1,176,470 games at retail that means they will expect one million online users, meaning that they will have to plan for enough server capacity and all those other costs of online play for 50,000,000 user hours. Now half those users go on to resell and those people play on average for 50 hours then that will push up the total amount of user hours up to 75,000,000 user hours, requiring much more than the fifty million user hours their sales told them to expect.
So for the chair analogy, each chair will endure more wear and tear therefore increasing the chance of chair maintenance and even chair failure.
I understand where you are coming from with the chair analogy but consider how many servers are going to be required and the cost used to house, run, maintain and cool them (plus bandwidth too), which will be based on a certain percentage of users. The publisher will plan ahead for these resources. Now a publisher will consider say 85% of people who buy the game will play online, and say on average each spends 50 hours online over the life of the game, now if the publisher sells 1,176,470 games at retail that means they will expect one million online users, meaning that they will have to plan for enough server capacity and all those other costs of online play for 50,000,000 user hours. Now half those users go on to resell and those people play on average for 50 hours then that will push up the total amount of user hours up to 75,000,000 user hours, requiring much more than the fifty million user hours their sales told them to expect.
So for the chair analogy, each chair will endure more wear and tear therefore increasing the chance of chair maintenance and even chair failure.
0 up, 0 down
Nlayer
Thursday, August 26, 2010 @ 1:56:02 PM
Well if the online parts are going to only be DLC and not be on the disk, then I don't have much of a problem with this. I wouldn't be able to download it online with my connection anyways. Perhaps they will focus less on the online Multiplayer this way, that would be great for me.
So, perhaps I can sell my code to someone if I were to get one? Otherwise I wouldn't use it.
Either way, this whole thing will convert me to play online through the computer as it seems like a better choice to me now ($50 for the game on PC, plus extra content I believe like Mods). =/
I own consoles for single-player campaigns only. I usually buy New Games, unless I can't buy it and it goes off shelves. If I can't buy new, then I have no other choice then to buy used! I hate these people who are looking down on me for buying Used as if I am some kind of trash. Would you buy a game like Rouge Warrior at full price? :(
Last edited by Nlayer on 8/26/2010 1:59:06 PM
So, perhaps I can sell my code to someone if I were to get one? Otherwise I wouldn't use it.
Either way, this whole thing will convert me to play online through the computer as it seems like a better choice to me now ($50 for the game on PC, plus extra content I believe like Mods). =/
I own consoles for single-player campaigns only. I usually buy New Games, unless I can't buy it and it goes off shelves. If I can't buy new, then I have no other choice then to buy used! I hate these people who are looking down on me for buying Used as if I am some kind of trash. Would you buy a game like Rouge Warrior at full price? :(
Last edited by Nlayer on 8/26/2010 1:59:06 PM
0 up, 0 down
Simcoe
Thursday, August 26, 2010 @ 2:59:37 PM
The only way that these publishers were looking to be compensated for second-hand games was through the online use of the games. So users like yourself, that mainly enjoy the single-player game would be unaffected by these charges/changes.
I do wish that more time was focused on the single-player aspects of today's games I for one think that MW1 and MW2 single-player campaigns were way to short, and I was ultimately disappointed. I am hoping that the new Medal of Honor game will prove different, in that EA LA is working on the single player and DICE on the multi-player.
A trend that I have heard about, and am concerned with, was those games that require an "always on" internet connection to play the offline single-player portion of the game. But I believe that is more to do with PC gaming and to prevent piracy, so it's kind of off-topic.
I do wish that more time was focused on the single-player aspects of today's games I for one think that MW1 and MW2 single-player campaigns were way to short, and I was ultimately disappointed. I am hoping that the new Medal of Honor game will prove different, in that EA LA is working on the single player and DICE on the multi-player.
A trend that I have heard about, and am concerned with, was those games that require an "always on" internet connection to play the offline single-player portion of the game. But I believe that is more to do with PC gaming and to prevent piracy, so it's kind of off-topic.
1 up, 0 down
Amazingskillz
Wednesday, August 25, 2010 @ 10:14:55 AM
Reply
@ HLnder - Hmmm...I'm not so sure who the true villian is here. The ultimate question to be answered will reveal answers some might not expect. That ultimate question is "whose game is it"? Once a new game is sold to a customer they own it. The retailer or developer/publishers don't own it anymore. When that game is traded in, the customer doesn't own it anymore. The retailer now does. Once the retailer resells it, the new buyer owns it. Why should the developer/publisher get paid twice on a game they created or published once? They are wrong and greedy. Their business model is flawed because the dev/pubs do not own any retail outlets. If the dev/pubs owned the retail outlets there would be no issue because they'd be making the resell money. Gamestop does not force anyone to trade their games in. It is also beneficial to the gamer to get any $'s credit they can for the used game. They are not being ripped off because they have a choice. Furthermore, the buyer of a used game has a choice too. I they are dumb enough to buy a used game for 5 or 10 dollars less than the new game that's not the retailers i.e. Gamespot or EB's wrongdoing. If you think this through clearly the retailer isn't doing anything wrong.
0 up, 2 down
Underdog15
Wednesday, August 25, 2010 @ 10:29:18 AM
Actually, by your logic, you're wrong. The one fact you're misguided on is that officially, the gamer never owns the game. They merely obtain a license to use it. (Which cannot be transferred) The physical disk CAN however be transferred. However, technically, even though you can sell the disk, you aren't allowed to transfer the license to use the media on that disk.
If you bear that fact in mind, your logic is flawed. The only reason you don't see people get in trouble is because it isn't criminal law breaking. It's civil law breaking... in other words... Activision would have to sue you personally for $60 for using their game without a license... Can you imagine what that would be like? It would be impossible. This whole make people pay for online is the only way to counter it without losing money doing so.
If you bear that fact in mind, your logic is flawed. The only reason you don't see people get in trouble is because it isn't criminal law breaking. It's civil law breaking... in other words... Activision would have to sue you personally for $60 for using their game without a license... Can you imagine what that would be like? It would be impossible. This whole make people pay for online is the only way to counter it without losing money doing so.
1 up, 3 down
Highlander
Wednesday, August 25, 2010 @ 10:31:18 AM
Actually the buyer owns the disc, and a license to play the software on the disc. The software and all it's copyrights belong to the original owner - the developer/publisher. Buying a game, or any other software product, is not like buying physical goods.
The car analogy, although convenient, only works for physical goods, not software.
The car analogy, although convenient, only works for physical goods, not software.
3 up, 3 down
DeathOfChaos
Wednesday, August 25, 2010 @ 11:02:28 AM
And the original owner is tucked away in some computer database, recorded for the purpose of being able to sell a game more than once. Really, if this subject were to come up in the days of the SNES and Sega Genesis, game developers would would probably look at all of this and wonder what the hell is wrong with people. It's only a bad thing when you mass produce your own copies and sell them for your own prophet. Somehow a new way to jip customers is rising once again...
0 up, 2 down
Underdog15
Wednesday, August 25, 2010 @ 11:22:07 AM
You know what jips customers? Buying a game from joe, and selling it to steve for a 120% profit. You're not even getting a legit copy for almost full price... Sucker... lol
3 up, 2 down
Amazingskillz
Wednesday, August 25, 2010 @ 10:18:28 AM
Reply
Now if a gamer buys a used game they should be charged for multiplayer to help pay the cost of the servers etc. Aside from that, the dev/pubs should not get paid twice on a product they only created once. They should understand that Gamestop and the other retailers have a more savvy smart business model. I applaud gamestop for their model because it is ultimately gamer friendly.
0 up, 2 down
Underdog15
Wednesday, August 25, 2010 @ 10:30:56 AM
I disagree. Gamestop is richer than any dev because it sells disks. They encourage the illegal transfer of licensing without transferring it themselves.
There's a reason they don't take your license instead of test the used games. If they tested all used games, they could be sued. The way it is now, they take a giant target off their backs and put small un-hittable ones onto every customer.
There's a reason they don't take your license instead of test the used games. If they tested all used games, they could be sued. The way it is now, they take a giant target off their backs and put small un-hittable ones onto every customer.
1 up, 4 down
Amazingskillz
Wednesday, August 25, 2010 @ 10:21:46 AM
Reply
I have to agree with the Smokingbandit. If you buy a car from Ford or GM then later sell it to some other person. Why should Ford or GM deserve to get a piece of that money? They only made the car once! They should however charge the new owner for the OnStar service. Its a good analogy.
0 up, 2 down
Underdog15
Wednesday, August 25, 2010 @ 10:33:06 AM
It's not the same, though. lol. You can re-sell anything physical because it deteriorates and loses value. You can't resell anything digital, because it doesn't change unless purposely altered (which is also illegal). That's why licensing laws exist for digital goods.
Again, you must know I think it incredibly strange you would want to support gamestop before the guys who MADE the game you enjoy. It's selective morality...
Again, you must know I think it incredibly strange you would want to support gamestop before the guys who MADE the game you enjoy. It's selective morality...
3 up, 3 down
DeathOfChaos
Wednesday, August 25, 2010 @ 10:56:45 AM
But is it on physical media and therefore resellable. You could put this logic into any other product, and all of a sudden, it's alright because it's not a video game. It's like you go buy a used car and then people complaining that the Crystler and Ford should get some money out of the deal. If you say it's not, then you're just lying to yourself and others. There needs to be some type of court hearing for this, even though no matter how the verdict may stand int he end, it wont ever change how people feel. It all comes down to very rich people wanting to be even more rich.
3 up, 3 down
Underdog15
Wednesday, August 25, 2010 @ 11:19:19 AM
oh... my ..... GOOOOOODDDDDDD!!!! Stop using the car analogy it doesnt work!!!!!
PLEASE do yourself a favor and research licensing laws. You sound REALLY uneducated. It doesn't MATTER what's on the physical disk! THEY ARE REMOVED FROM EACH OTHER BY LAW AND COMPLETELY SEPARATE! I'm sorry! It's true! They are NOT the same! GET OVER IT!!! Take some rational thought! It truly is not difficult to understand, and I am SO SO SO frustrated by the huge volumes of normally intelligent people on this site being SO blinded by their own cheapness! I just... don't... get... why you guys refuse to accept fact as fact. Why? Seriously... why? Because you don't want to admit your wrong? Because you don't want to have to think about how saving a buck might be wrong?
I bet you think Disney and Coke-a-Cola aren't corrupt businesses either!
Seriously... .Fudge it. This isn't worth the blood pressure. I give up. but for god's sake guys... LEARN about what you talk about first. Don't assume you know the truth just because it makes logical sense in your head. BELIEVE ME... I wouldn't lie to you. This isn't my opinion I'm stating here! it's pure and simple fact! I'm sorry! It is!
My OPINION is that I'm glad devs are gonna charge for services on used games.
My KNOWLEDGE is everything else I've written in this thread.
Last edited by Underdog15 on 8/25/2010 11:20:57 AM
PLEASE do yourself a favor and research licensing laws. You sound REALLY uneducated. It doesn't MATTER what's on the physical disk! THEY ARE REMOVED FROM EACH OTHER BY LAW AND COMPLETELY SEPARATE! I'm sorry! It's true! They are NOT the same! GET OVER IT!!! Take some rational thought! It truly is not difficult to understand, and I am SO SO SO frustrated by the huge volumes of normally intelligent people on this site being SO blinded by their own cheapness! I just... don't... get... why you guys refuse to accept fact as fact. Why? Seriously... why? Because you don't want to admit your wrong? Because you don't want to have to think about how saving a buck might be wrong?
I bet you think Disney and Coke-a-Cola aren't corrupt businesses either!
Seriously... .Fudge it. This isn't worth the blood pressure. I give up. but for god's sake guys... LEARN about what you talk about first. Don't assume you know the truth just because it makes logical sense in your head. BELIEVE ME... I wouldn't lie to you. This isn't my opinion I'm stating here! it's pure and simple fact! I'm sorry! It is!
My OPINION is that I'm glad devs are gonna charge for services on used games.
My KNOWLEDGE is everything else I've written in this thread.
Last edited by Underdog15 on 8/25/2010 11:20:57 AM
3 up, 5 down
DeathOfChaos
Friday, August 27, 2010 @ 11:50:35 PM
I've sold some games to a few friends, now I'm in trouble because I didn't give 10% of the money I earned from selling my used game to my friend. Really? I don't see how a licensing law makes any damn sense when it comes to selling a used copy of a game and how the car analogy doesn't pertain to it. It's like you take a common practice and try to make it into a legal debate, when it's nowhere near a law breaking act. I know a store called A to Z games, and they have a room called 'Cartridge Heaven' for crying out loud. They carry everything from Atari games to PS3 games as well as consoles to go with them. They have a Super Famicon version of Final Fantasy V. If they sell it for it's base price, I'm sure Square-Enix wont be seeing a dime of it and it's completely legal. Same goes with every other video game gem in the store. It's a gamers heaven, truly is, and you probably wouldn't go there because it's 'bringing down the man', lol.
0 up, 0 down
Underdog15
Wednesday, August 25, 2010 @ 10:34:21 AM
Reply
I swore I wouldn't get into licensing laws again... apparently it's inevitable. Frig people... do some damn research.
The real ones with the greedy wallets are those unwilling to pay the devs/publishers for their work. It's really disgusting to me.
There. I said it.
Last edited by Underdog15 on 8/25/2010 10:34:39 AM
The real ones with the greedy wallets are those unwilling to pay the devs/publishers for their work. It's really disgusting to me.
There. I said it.
Last edited by Underdog15 on 8/25/2010 10:34:39 AM
1 up, 4 down
Underdog15
Wednesday, August 25, 2010 @ 10:43:11 AM
Reply
Gamestop is ....really.... the video game version of a pawn shop with a shoddy character at the front desk who will also forge you an illegal driver's license.
Last edited by Underdog15 on 8/25/2010 10:44:21 AM
Last edited by Underdog15 on 8/25/2010 10:44:21 AM
2 up, 4 down
Amazingskillz
Wednesday, August 25, 2010 @ 10:45:52 AM
Reply
@Underdog - No you're analysis is limited and flawed making your point invalid. Here's how: If it was civil law breaking, then the dev/pubs would be able to sue the retailer a zillion times over for each and every game resold by Gamestop & EB etc. It would be a huge windfall of cash for them. Think about all the used games that have been sold. To think of it as not being worth sueing over a $60 game is extreme pidgeon hole analysis. Take Assassins Creed for example, the dev/pub could have a blanket lawsuit against every single gamestop for every single unit ever sold. That would be a billions dollars minimum. They would sue in a heartbeat! If the gamer owns the functioning disc that is resellable then the whole licensing issue is moot so the logic is sound. The disc is all that matters. With that said. The anger toward Gamestop is misplaced. They are gamer friendly. Sorry Underdog you were short sighted on that one...Next!
0 up, 4 down
Underdog15
Wednesday, August 25, 2010 @ 10:59:13 AM
No. They can't go after the people that resold it. lol YOU are vastly flawed. I'm sorry! NEXT!!!
Seriously, it's perfectly legal to sell the physical disks, etc. In this sense, Gamestop does nothing wrong.
However, the license belongs to the original owner. Gamestop ONLY does something illegal if they actually access the media on that disk. That is why they don't test it. If they tested every game, they could get sued.
However, as is... they are untouchable. The retailer is UNTOUCHABLE because they are not using media they have no license for. It is 100% in their rights to resale the physical disk, manual, box, a million times over!! It's the data they cannot touch. AND THEY DONT!
SO don't go trying to insult me. You don't even know how licensing works. I guarantee you I have a very complete and overarching understanding of the issue at hand.
You, the consumer, are the one who makes the illegal act using something you have no license to do so with. You do NOT own the data. The dev/publisher does. You merely own the disk. They could sue you for $60 and win, but lets be honest... Such an onslaught of millions of people would lose them far more money than they would make. Then they'd have to prove beyond reasonable doubt that you actually used it and didn't just put it into your collection.
Quite an undertaking!! So, it is far easier for them to do what we see them doing now.
Don't call me shortsighted on a topic you have no understanding for. I guarantee you I am very educated on such issues. Bring on the next question. I am not confident in things I don't know well, but when it comes to this, I know I can own you.
Last edited by Underdog15 on 8/25/2010 11:03:01 AM
Seriously, it's perfectly legal to sell the physical disks, etc. In this sense, Gamestop does nothing wrong.
However, the license belongs to the original owner. Gamestop ONLY does something illegal if they actually access the media on that disk. That is why they don't test it. If they tested every game, they could get sued.
However, as is... they are untouchable. The retailer is UNTOUCHABLE because they are not using media they have no license for. It is 100% in their rights to resale the physical disk, manual, box, a million times over!! It's the data they cannot touch. AND THEY DONT!
SO don't go trying to insult me. You don't even know how licensing works. I guarantee you I have a very complete and overarching understanding of the issue at hand.
You, the consumer, are the one who makes the illegal act using something you have no license to do so with. You do NOT own the data. The dev/publisher does. You merely own the disk. They could sue you for $60 and win, but lets be honest... Such an onslaught of millions of people would lose them far more money than they would make. Then they'd have to prove beyond reasonable doubt that you actually used it and didn't just put it into your collection.
Quite an undertaking!! So, it is far easier for them to do what we see them doing now.
Don't call me shortsighted on a topic you have no understanding for. I guarantee you I am very educated on such issues. Bring on the next question. I am not confident in things I don't know well, but when it comes to this, I know I can own you.
Last edited by Underdog15 on 8/25/2010 11:03:01 AM
3 up, 3 down
Underdog15
Wednesday, August 25, 2010 @ 11:03:57 AM
Imagine, AmazingSkillz, if you HAD amazing skills enough to freaking READ what people say. I don't know how many times myself and others have explained licensing. You have no excuse to be so clueless at this point. Especially if you're going to mock me.
See... your whole post was a waste of time... They CANNOT go after GameStop because technically, they do nothing wrong. It's SOOOO simple! It's the same reason music stores can sell used music!
Napster was untouchable until they started allowing people to hear clips of the music they were browsing. Once Napster included firmware that allowed people to test the music they were distributing, they got HAMMERED. Why? Because they used what they had no license to use. After that, Napster and other companies were forced to become file sharing sites to place blame on the individual distributing, and music companies became forced to add more to their licensing agreements which allowed them to limit who can distribute their music (iTunes, for example).
I guarantee you Gamestop will not make that same mistake. Instead, they take your license, so if a customer comes back and says "This game is fooked", they can call you on it later without testing it.
Last edited by Underdog15 on 8/25/2010 11:10:15 AM
See... your whole post was a waste of time... They CANNOT go after GameStop because technically, they do nothing wrong. It's SOOOO simple! It's the same reason music stores can sell used music!
Napster was untouchable until they started allowing people to hear clips of the music they were browsing. Once Napster included firmware that allowed people to test the music they were distributing, they got HAMMERED. Why? Because they used what they had no license to use. After that, Napster and other companies were forced to become file sharing sites to place blame on the individual distributing, and music companies became forced to add more to their licensing agreements which allowed them to limit who can distribute their music (iTunes, for example).
I guarantee you Gamestop will not make that same mistake. Instead, they take your license, so if a customer comes back and says "This game is fooked", they can call you on it later without testing it.
Last edited by Underdog15 on 8/25/2010 11:10:15 AM
2 up, 3 down
Snaaaake
Wednesday, August 25, 2010 @ 10:52:53 AM
Reply
Sometimes I think many gamers tend to forget developers make games for a living.
Jeez man, think about the online play, the free DLC for some games like RDR outlaw to the end.
First you buy it used, Rockstar make $0, then you go online and you don't download DLC that needs money, and you download free DLC. Again, Rockstar MAKES NOTHING.
In the end, you play something they MADE, download something they uploaded and MADE.
You didn't pay a single rock to them and you're enjoying their hardwork.
This is their right to do so, you're in no place to complain as you're buying it used.
Customer is always right?
Well, that depends.
KNOW YOUR PLACE!!!!!
Jeez man, think about the online play, the free DLC for some games like RDR outlaw to the end.
First you buy it used, Rockstar make $0, then you go online and you don't download DLC that needs money, and you download free DLC. Again, Rockstar MAKES NOTHING.
In the end, you play something they MADE, download something they uploaded and MADE.
You didn't pay a single rock to them and you're enjoying their hardwork.
This is their right to do so, you're in no place to complain as you're buying it used.
Customer is always right?
Well, that depends.
KNOW YOUR PLACE!!!!!
3 up, 0 down
JPBooch
Wednesday, August 25, 2010 @ 11:01:42 AM
Reply
I still can't understand why people buy used games from Gamestop or EB. They give you 20 bucks for a game and then turn around and sell it for 54.99. It's insulting. I've never bought anything remotely new from them in the used game section.
The developers should work out a deal with retailers to get a piece of the used game market. Afterall, they are the ones supplying the games.
As far as the value of games, they were always over-priced. I remember buying games for my Atari 2600 and the new ones costed 50 bucks. (When I was 8)
If the developers could charge more, they would. No one is going to pay more than 60 for new games. Especially if it's not AAA.
Alienange has a good point about popping a trophy for buying the game. It would also kill Gamefly too. Probably another thorn in the side of developers.
Last edited by JPBooch on 8/25/2010 11:03:26 AM
The developers should work out a deal with retailers to get a piece of the used game market. Afterall, they are the ones supplying the games.
As far as the value of games, they were always over-priced. I remember buying games for my Atari 2600 and the new ones costed 50 bucks. (When I was 8)
If the developers could charge more, they would. No one is going to pay more than 60 for new games. Especially if it's not AAA.
Alienange has a good point about popping a trophy for buying the game. It would also kill Gamefly too. Probably another thorn in the side of developers.
Last edited by JPBooch on 8/25/2010 11:03:26 AM
3 up, 0 down
Amazingskillz
Wednesday, August 25, 2010 @ 11:01:45 AM
Reply
@Underdog - LOL! Shady pawnshop owner. Your description is so vivid I can see the guy. All you left out was the smokey cigar in his mouth. Anyway, if someone will give me $20 for a used game I maxed out already, toward the purchase of a brand new game why wouldn't I favor them? That means I can get a brand new game for $40 instead of $60. That's a no brainer! It's not selective morality its selective concise common sense. On the one hand we have the dev/pubs who want to get paid twice for one product...on the other other hand we have a retailer that will give you a trade in discount on a brand new game. Oh that's easy. Your anger at Gamestop is based on some emotion instead of pure business logic. Their whole business model is very gamer friendly. Sit back a minute and think about it.
0 up, 3 down
Underdog15
Wednesday, August 25, 2010 @ 11:15:06 AM
You're right. It's very sound business logic. Most consumers don't know about licensing, and GameStop knows exactly how to keep blame off themselves. It's actually really easy. Small business owners can do the same no problem.
But this is why companies are making people pay for services like online that are not included on the disk already. It's a good way to make sure they recoup some loss. As long as your buddy you sold it to for $20 is ok with not getting those services, then go ahead and make your cool $20. There's no way the dev will ever try to claim $60 from him in court...
Which I suppose could suggest, from a law perspective, a degree of disconcern on the part of the dev making it ok for your friend to use it until asked not to... But even that would have to be proven in court first. lol.
It's definitely a complex issue.
But this is why companies are making people pay for services like online that are not included on the disk already. It's a good way to make sure they recoup some loss. As long as your buddy you sold it to for $20 is ok with not getting those services, then go ahead and make your cool $20. There's no way the dev will ever try to claim $60 from him in court...
Which I suppose could suggest, from a law perspective, a degree of disconcern on the part of the dev making it ok for your friend to use it until asked not to... But even that would have to be proven in court first. lol.
It's definitely a complex issue.
3 up, 3 down
Amazingskillz
Wednesday, August 25, 2010 @ 11:10:53 AM
Reply
@ Snake - you're late to the argument dude. Your offering has already been crushed. There is no valid argument defending why a dev/pub should get paid twice for a product they've only produced once. Charging for multiplayer on used games is justified for server purposes. But trying to get more cash on a sales transaction they are not involved in is unrealistic. Once they've made the game/disc and sold it, it's not theirs anymore. The new owner can sell it to whomever they want and that person is in no way obligated to give the dev/pub any new money. Also, the retailers arent twisting anyones arms making them buy used games. It the buyers choice..albeit a dumb one but still there choice.
0 up, 2 down
Underdog15
Wednesday, August 25, 2010 @ 11:15:49 AM
@Snake, not crushed. This guy just doesn't understand licensing laws.
2 up, 3 down
Amazingskillz
Wednesday, August 25, 2010 @ 11:14:49 AM
Reply
Until DEV/PUBs own retail outlets, there is nothing they can do except charge for multiplayer on used games. Their business model is flawed.
0 up, 2 down
Jeej
Wednesday, August 25, 2010 @ 11:20:06 AM
Reply
While I am personally not a fan of this idea, most devs have a EULA that states "nonexclusive, non-transferable, limited right and license to use one copy of the Software for your personal non-commercial use for gameplay on a single computer or gaming unit, unless otherwise specified in the Software documentation" (taken from Rockstar Games).
What this leads to is the issue where you have a device failure and now your gameplay is limited until you pay a further charge to the play the locked content.
With how most devs word their EULA, I do wonder why it is legal to have such wide spread reselling of games - I can understand for rental - different agreement, but if the license is non-transferable, and no one is simply buying a game disc for decoration or display, why is this not something that is being policed? I understand how difficult it would be to police individuals, but with Gamestop and others aiding in the illegal game play, there must be some legal action devs could take, isn't there?
What this leads to is the issue where you have a device failure and now your gameplay is limited until you pay a further charge to the play the locked content.
With how most devs word their EULA, I do wonder why it is legal to have such wide spread reselling of games - I can understand for rental - different agreement, but if the license is non-transferable, and no one is simply buying a game disc for decoration or display, why is this not something that is being policed? I understand how difficult it would be to police individuals, but with Gamestop and others aiding in the illegal game play, there must be some legal action devs could take, isn't there?
0 up, 1 down
Underdog15
Wednesday, August 25, 2010 @ 11:25:04 AM
You're absolutely right, and probably worded it better than i ever did.
The reason it isn't policed is because it's civil law and not criminal.
In other words, it would have to be a class action suit. The dev's themselves would have to go after the person using their media and sue for $60 in small claims court for every person who has a copy AND prove beyond reasonable doubt that they actually used it. The person who sold it is clear because they can do whatever they want with the physical thing. It's definitely strange, but the physical goods of the disk, box, manual, are very transferrable, as are cars, houses, etc. But media is not subject to deterioration as it is merely data or information.
So that is the licensed part. Not the physical disk. So since Gamestop, although they promote the illegal activity, are not actually involved in illegal activity. The illegal activity is not transferring the disk; it's USING the information. Since Gamestop never actually uses the used game (they don't test anything!!! See how they do that?) they don't do anything illegal. Whoever uses what they don't have license to use is committing the act.
That's why devs CANNOT go after retailers.
Last edited by Underdog15 on 8/25/2010 11:30:00 AM
The reason it isn't policed is because it's civil law and not criminal.
In other words, it would have to be a class action suit. The dev's themselves would have to go after the person using their media and sue for $60 in small claims court for every person who has a copy AND prove beyond reasonable doubt that they actually used it. The person who sold it is clear because they can do whatever they want with the physical thing. It's definitely strange, but the physical goods of the disk, box, manual, are very transferrable, as are cars, houses, etc. But media is not subject to deterioration as it is merely data or information.
So that is the licensed part. Not the physical disk. So since Gamestop, although they promote the illegal activity, are not actually involved in illegal activity. The illegal activity is not transferring the disk; it's USING the information. Since Gamestop never actually uses the used game (they don't test anything!!! See how they do that?) they don't do anything illegal. Whoever uses what they don't have license to use is committing the act.
That's why devs CANNOT go after retailers.
Last edited by Underdog15 on 8/25/2010 11:30:00 AM
1 up, 3 down
Jeej
Wednesday, August 25, 2010 @ 3:46:42 PM
With governments rewording inadequate laws to try to catch up with the digital age, you would think that this would be an issue discussed and worked on.
Although with how much business is done in second hand games on the legal open market, it becomes difficult for laws to suddenly make it illegal.
Although with how much business is done in second hand games on the legal open market, it becomes difficult for laws to suddenly make it illegal.
0 up, 0 down
whooka
Wednesday, August 25, 2010 @ 11:32:40 AM
Reply
I'm glad I'm not the only one to recognize Highlander's arguments as often industry talking points (though he/she is entitled to their opinion like the rest of us). Anyways, while I don't like GameStop's used title practices between their phenomenal depreciation of game value when you trade it in then the seemingly miraculous re-appreciation of value once it goes back on the Used Games shelf, and the fact they run a shady 'game rental' operation (return any used games within one week and get full store credit! if only i were young and unemployed again...), this seems to be Sony's reaction to some of us recognizing, at least at this point, DLC is for suckers as it's the same price (or more, i.e. Infamous) for the DLC as it is for retail media where the company had to spend a few bucks on physical media, packaging, a tiny booklet, artwork, etc. It's a windfall for Sony. What Highlander, and Sony, are doing is a classic tactic we see in current US politics where they frame the 'working class' (in this case the developers) as victims where in reality the developers often only get 'x' amount of money for the title development and actual percentage of sales is determined differently and often is not much (very often like the 'point' system the music industry ripped artists off with for years). I used to work for a game developer and know this to be true. None of us are against developers making money if the game is a quality game. Alot of us are against Sony nickel and diming us and their moves to take away any real 'ownership' of what we pay real money for. I'd argue the money the actual developers lose off of used game sales is very small to what Sony takes in (or does not). If developers have a deal based upon actual sales then they get money from the initial retail sale regardless. If a game is really really good, and has alot of replay value, people will not be quick to sell it once they are done with it. If it's not 'resold' to GameStop or whomever within a few months of it's release then the argument becomes void as Sony usually lowers the cost of the actual retail game significantly anyways at that point. Brutal Legend, anyone? How much did the developers lose when Sony dropped it from $60 to $20 within less then a year of it's release? If anyone think Sony cares about their blue collar developers in the long run, you're deluded.
As for games costing less these days per inflation, etc, etc, that's also not exactly accurate. Most games were overpriced to begin with per what the manufacturing costs were however:
- Games used to come with larger booklets, more extras, etc, actual printed media, which costed money. They come with less of that sort of thing now so they cost less to manufacture.
- The price of physical media to print the games on has dropped considerably, esp bluray, over the past several years. It was never much for publishers to begin with considering their profits and what a consumer pays for blank media but it's gone way way down since whatever days he's referring to.
- Less games are actually 'manufactured/printed' for PS3 then the other consoles mentioned. Again less cost overall for Sony.
- Arguably the packaging and physical contents of the 'more expensive games of old' is equal to the 'collector's edition' of many new games. How much are those collector's editions? Usually $80-$90. That sounds about on par with the games of old prices per inflation (idiot).
If you really want to focus on actual 'victims' it's loads of folks who lose their jobs at the publishing places/factories where they print retail cases/labels/booklets, package them up for shipping, the carriers who delivered them to the stores each week, etc. They area all out of jobs as Sony and others try to make DLC king. And what does less labor add up to? More profits for Sony.
It's a fairly silly argument that, like most, can be spun either way but I feel (and it's only my opinion) that the developers are not the ones losing out here and if they are it's only because Sony's screwing them, not the consumer.
As far as I know there's no way to play pirated games on a PS3 yet (though the dongle thing sounds like a hoot and since Sony removed Linux to avoid something like this and it's apparently being done after that castration firmware update, haha to Sony), so Sony can't blame piracy for bad game sales when a title just plain sucks. That's gotta be painful for them, I know, but don't take it out on your consumers. As they change their business practices more and more I find myself using my PS3 less and less.
As for games costing less these days per inflation, etc, etc, that's also not exactly accurate. Most games were overpriced to begin with per what the manufacturing costs were however:
- Games used to come with larger booklets, more extras, etc, actual printed media, which costed money. They come with less of that sort of thing now so they cost less to manufacture.
- The price of physical media to print the games on has dropped considerably, esp bluray, over the past several years. It was never much for publishers to begin with considering their profits and what a consumer pays for blank media but it's gone way way down since whatever days he's referring to.
- Less games are actually 'manufactured/printed' for PS3 then the other consoles mentioned. Again less cost overall for Sony.
- Arguably the packaging and physical contents of the 'more expensive games of old' is equal to the 'collector's edition' of many new games. How much are those collector's editions? Usually $80-$90. That sounds about on par with the games of old prices per inflation (idiot).
If you really want to focus on actual 'victims' it's loads of folks who lose their jobs at the publishing places/factories where they print retail cases/labels/booklets, package them up for shipping, the carriers who delivered them to the stores each week, etc. They area all out of jobs as Sony and others try to make DLC king. And what does less labor add up to? More profits for Sony.
It's a fairly silly argument that, like most, can be spun either way but I feel (and it's only my opinion) that the developers are not the ones losing out here and if they are it's only because Sony's screwing them, not the consumer.
As far as I know there's no way to play pirated games on a PS3 yet (though the dongle thing sounds like a hoot and since Sony removed Linux to avoid something like this and it's apparently being done after that castration firmware update, haha to Sony), so Sony can't blame piracy for bad game sales when a title just plain sucks. That's gotta be painful for them, I know, but don't take it out on your consumers. As they change their business practices more and more I find myself using my PS3 less and less.
2 up, 5 down
Highlander
Wednesday, August 25, 2010 @ 11:52:14 AM
1) why bring politics into this?
2) I am an individual with an opinion, I do not work for a game developer, publisher, retailer, or console maker.
3) Your post is so full of inaccuracies, basesless assertions, straw men, and false assumptions that I simply do not know how to address it.
4) The next time someone has the gall to complain that games are too expensive and says that they have to choose between eating and buying games new, I will literally scream.
What kind of spoiled, entitlement minded, brats have such a distorted reality that they think it's a valid choice to make between eating (a necessity of life) and gaming (a luxury/leisure activity not necessary for life)? I mean, be serious people. It's utterly ridiculous to claim that you have to buy used games because if you did not you wouldn't be able to eat properly. Where in god's name are your priorities is this is how you truly think?
Now I'm just plain disgusted.
2) I am an individual with an opinion, I do not work for a game developer, publisher, retailer, or console maker.
3) Your post is so full of inaccuracies, basesless assertions, straw men, and false assumptions that I simply do not know how to address it.
4) The next time someone has the gall to complain that games are too expensive and says that they have to choose between eating and buying games new, I will literally scream.
What kind of spoiled, entitlement minded, brats have such a distorted reality that they think it's a valid choice to make between eating (a necessity of life) and gaming (a luxury/leisure activity not necessary for life)? I mean, be serious people. It's utterly ridiculous to claim that you have to buy used games because if you did not you wouldn't be able to eat properly. Where in god's name are your priorities is this is how you truly think?
Now I'm just plain disgusted.
3 up, 5 down
Ben Dutka PSXE [Administrator]
Wednesday, August 25, 2010 @ 12:05:30 PM
whooka, you're completely wrong on a lot of points there, but perhaps the most ridiculous one is the idea that LESS games are being produced now for the PS3 than for past consoles.
You obviously aren't old enough to remember a time when a mere handful of titles were produced for old-school systems.
You might also want to examine how publishers in all entertainment industries do the exact same thing as Sony. It's called business.
Last edited by Ben Dutka PSXE on 8/25/2010 12:06:53 PM
You obviously aren't old enough to remember a time when a mere handful of titles were produced for old-school systems.
You might also want to examine how publishers in all entertainment industries do the exact same thing as Sony. It's called business.
Last edited by Ben Dutka PSXE on 8/25/2010 12:06:53 PM
7 up, 0 down
Underdog15
Wednesday, August 25, 2010 @ 12:49:13 PM
@Highlander
My sentiments exactly concerning entitlement.
@Ben
You're right too. Why wouldn't these companies want to recoup their cost? I mean, what do they care if someone who buys their product used gets mad? It's not like they're a customer they need.
I mean, it's a win-win situation for devs incorporating this new pay to access feature.
Here's what it boils down to:
The people paying them for their work are happy either way.
The people NOT paying them will get mad if they have to pay them... I mean seriously, used game buyers... what are you gonna do? Not buy their game used if they charge you money? To that, the dev's say.... uh... ok then. Big fat hairy deal, man. It's not like this is a losing forumla for them.
In the end, I could scream til I'm blue trying to HELP you guys understand what's going on. But I think, instead, I will stop and let everyone here scream until they're blue about being upset about having to pay the dev's for their hard work.
Whether you understand that or not, suddenly doesn't matter anymore. ^.^
Still though... that sense of entitlement is rather disgusting... And it's not because I work for a non-profit working with people who TRULY can't afford video games... let alone food. It's so pious, it's sickening. I share Highlander's sentiment.
My sentiments exactly concerning entitlement.
@Ben
You're right too. Why wouldn't these companies want to recoup their cost? I mean, what do they care if someone who buys their product used gets mad? It's not like they're a customer they need.
I mean, it's a win-win situation for devs incorporating this new pay to access feature.
Here's what it boils down to:
The people paying them for their work are happy either way.
The people NOT paying them will get mad if they have to pay them... I mean seriously, used game buyers... what are you gonna do? Not buy their game used if they charge you money? To that, the dev's say.... uh... ok then. Big fat hairy deal, man. It's not like this is a losing forumla for them.
In the end, I could scream til I'm blue trying to HELP you guys understand what's going on. But I think, instead, I will stop and let everyone here scream until they're blue about being upset about having to pay the dev's for their hard work.
Whether you understand that or not, suddenly doesn't matter anymore. ^.^
Still though... that sense of entitlement is rather disgusting... And it's not because I work for a non-profit working with people who TRULY can't afford video games... let alone food. It's so pious, it's sickening. I share Highlander's sentiment.
2 up, 2 down
whooka
Wednesday, August 25, 2010 @ 12:53:58 PM
Ben, I'm flattered you replied to my comment as I do still enjoy visiting this site and have been a regular reader for a couple of years now. Keep up the good work, I'm sure it's time consuming and a labor of love.
For the record I was not bringing politics into the discussion, merely a method of framing a discussion that is common throughout any sort of debate that basically is about money/corporate profits and we're led to believe it's about people who live and work below the glass ceiling.
I am probably twice as old as you are and do remember when a handful of games were developed for the older consoles. Most likely due to not being able to distribute development kits as readily as they can be now, no way to quickly collaborate with others who aren't in the same room as yourself, and an industry who's workforce did not include those who did four year technical programs for videogame development. All these advancements have definitely been exponential over the years but I do recall buying games way back when and the product coming with much more physically produced (aka, 'costs') materials.
One cannot compare any former age of technology to the current one. There were not as many 'game companies', consoles, etc, so we had less choices as consumers and also did not have the Internet at our fingertips to overwhelm us with other sources of entertainment, etc. It's not the same world so there's no real way to correlate data from the 1980s to the present time without a heap of economic/global/etc factors in there, which no one is doing in this forum nor would have the time.
Is anyone going to argue that DLC should cost less than physical, retail media? And that the move to DLC does mean less labor (and jobs, and income) for those who were involved in the 'box design' process (a HUGE part of any game publishing business, or it used to be), manufacturing and printing of physical media? And that less labor means less expenses for the publishers and more profit?
I am not singling out Sony by any means but what you are hearing from me these days I guess is just anger that what was once a company that I held above others for their business practices and innovation (only recently some lame poll indicated Sony had the best 'reputation' of most entertainment companies) is now doing what all the other publishers are doing (as you yourself stated in your reply). I guess I just need to get over it and ironically it's most likely due to the fact I am older and can remember a time that there was no fine print involved when you paid for a game. You bought it, it was yours, that was that. But again since it's a different age of gaming I need to update my perspective but it also reinforces the idea that any comparison to previous 'ages' are fairly irrelevant.
Not everything printed here, nor what Highlander says is 'accurate' as well. Highlander also apparently has alot of time on his hands to spend in these forums which makes me suspicious of his credibility on some levels only because those of us working in the tech sector at the non-management level are way too busy during the day to be replying to threads every two minutes. That's why you only get treated to my nonsense every couple of weeks.
Whooka101
PS3
Sony Receiver
Uses blank Sony media all the time
For the record I was not bringing politics into the discussion, merely a method of framing a discussion that is common throughout any sort of debate that basically is about money/corporate profits and we're led to believe it's about people who live and work below the glass ceiling.
I am probably twice as old as you are and do remember when a handful of games were developed for the older consoles. Most likely due to not being able to distribute development kits as readily as they can be now, no way to quickly collaborate with others who aren't in the same room as yourself, and an industry who's workforce did not include those who did four year technical programs for videogame development. All these advancements have definitely been exponential over the years but I do recall buying games way back when and the product coming with much more physically produced (aka, 'costs') materials.
One cannot compare any former age of technology to the current one. There were not as many 'game companies', consoles, etc, so we had less choices as consumers and also did not have the Internet at our fingertips to overwhelm us with other sources of entertainment, etc. It's not the same world so there's no real way to correlate data from the 1980s to the present time without a heap of economic/global/etc factors in there, which no one is doing in this forum nor would have the time.
Is anyone going to argue that DLC should cost less than physical, retail media? And that the move to DLC does mean less labor (and jobs, and income) for those who were involved in the 'box design' process (a HUGE part of any game publishing business, or it used to be), manufacturing and printing of physical media? And that less labor means less expenses for the publishers and more profit?
I am not singling out Sony by any means but what you are hearing from me these days I guess is just anger that what was once a company that I held above others for their business practices and innovation (only recently some lame poll indicated Sony had the best 'reputation' of most entertainment companies) is now doing what all the other publishers are doing (as you yourself stated in your reply). I guess I just need to get over it and ironically it's most likely due to the fact I am older and can remember a time that there was no fine print involved when you paid for a game. You bought it, it was yours, that was that. But again since it's a different age of gaming I need to update my perspective but it also reinforces the idea that any comparison to previous 'ages' are fairly irrelevant.
Not everything printed here, nor what Highlander says is 'accurate' as well. Highlander also apparently has alot of time on his hands to spend in these forums which makes me suspicious of his credibility on some levels only because those of us working in the tech sector at the non-management level are way too busy during the day to be replying to threads every two minutes. That's why you only get treated to my nonsense every couple of weeks.
Whooka101
PS3
Sony Receiver
Uses blank Sony media all the time
1 up, 5 down
Highlander
Wednesday, August 25, 2010 @ 1:17:34 PM
Since you know nothing of me, my work, or my schedule, you might as well drop the personal potshots.
4 up, 5 down
Underdog15
Wednesday, August 25, 2010 @ 1:55:38 PM
lol... so... apparently I'm suspect too since I reply fairly regularly most days too...
Or... maybe... I have a managerial role where I have a flexible schedule where I'm paid a salary based only on the stats I deliver regardless of the hours I put in. Some weeks I work 50 hours, others I work 22... either way... on salary... I make exactly the same amount... whether it's 22 or 50 hours.
If I need to write a proposal to the government, obviously, I'll be working an absolute TON.
My point... whooka... what a pointless pot shot at Highlander. Not everyone is paid by the hour, dude.
Or... maybe... I have a managerial role where I have a flexible schedule where I'm paid a salary based only on the stats I deliver regardless of the hours I put in. Some weeks I work 50 hours, others I work 22... either way... on salary... I make exactly the same amount... whether it's 22 or 50 hours.
If I need to write a proposal to the government, obviously, I'll be working an absolute TON.
My point... whooka... what a pointless pot shot at Highlander. Not everyone is paid by the hour, dude.
4 up, 2 down
Ben Dutka PSXE [Administrator]
Wednesday, August 25, 2010 @ 3:09:27 PM
You don't appear to be making any real point. All you're doing is ranting and whining. You haven't proved why Sony can't or shouldn't look to monetize their first-party second-hand games, you haven't explained why the differences between then and now (of which you're apparently well aware) are null and void in the argument, and you didn't offer anything in the way of constructive suggestions or criticism.
That was a rant, my friend. They're fun because they're emotionally charged for the writer, but they don't exactly do anything for those who have to read it.
Last edited by Ben Dutka PSXE on 8/25/2010 3:10:02 PM
That was a rant, my friend. They're fun because they're emotionally charged for the writer, but they don't exactly do anything for those who have to read it.
Last edited by Ben Dutka PSXE on 8/25/2010 3:10:02 PM
3 up, 1 down
Amazingskillz
Wednesday, August 25, 2010 @ 12:34:26 PM
Reply
@Highlander - LOL "Now I'm just plain disgusted" Can't you see Whooka was all over the place. I stopped reading when he said "What Highlander, and Sony, are doing is a classic tactic we see in current US politics where they frame the 'working class' (in this case the developers) as victims". I flat out unplugged after that comment.
1 up, 1 down
Highlander
Wednesday, August 25, 2010 @ 12:47:36 PM
Indeed, Whooka is a bit of an idealogue.
LOL!
LOL!
3 up, 3 down
Alienange
Wednesday, August 25, 2010 @ 12:39:19 PM
Reply
*checks big ass law book*
Yup, buying and selling used games is still legal.
You don't like it? Well... who the hell are you?
Yup, buying and selling used games is still legal.
You don't like it? Well... who the hell are you?
1 up, 1 down
Underdog15
Wednesday, August 25, 2010 @ 12:52:47 PM
Well... sure. It's legal to purchase the disks and what not... but oddly enough, you can't legally use it under civil law.
Personally, I think it needs major reform. But that won't happen. Too much pressure from big companies.
Personally, I think it needs major reform. But that won't happen. Too much pressure from big companies.
2 up, 2 down
Amazingskillz
Wednesday, August 25, 2010 @ 12:42:25 PM
Reply
@underdog - The bottom line is that Gamestop isn't really doing anything wrong. So no real reason to have angst against them. Except they tend to hang onto the XBoX360's balls for dear life sometimes.
I think the pub/dev's are sour because they couldn't see the future on post game resales. There corporate strategy is finite. For example, Activision should take some of the MW2 money they've made and open up Activision retails spots. Similar to smaller versions of the Apple Stores. They would control and profit from everything. They are going about it all wrong.
I think the pub/dev's are sour because they couldn't see the future on post game resales. There corporate strategy is finite. For example, Activision should take some of the MW2 money they've made and open up Activision retails spots. Similar to smaller versions of the Apple Stores. They would control and profit from everything. They are going about it all wrong.
0 up, 0 down
Underdog15
Wednesday, August 25, 2010 @ 12:56:21 PM
Apple definitely had the right idea, you're right.
Although I understand the way the laws work and the logic behind what they are doing, I don't understand much about the dev's/publishers distribute their profit. So I don't have much good to add to that discussion.
But I do agree that if it's truly to be fixed, it would need a major rehash. I think the dev/publishers have probably just decided it's easier and cheaper to charge a small fee for extra services to folks who buy used. For them it's no harm no foul. I mean what are they gonna do? Piss off the people who already don't get them any money? Path of least resistance, I guess.
Although I understand the way the laws work and the logic behind what they are doing, I don't understand much about the dev's/publishers distribute their profit. So I don't have much good to add to that discussion.
But I do agree that if it's truly to be fixed, it would need a major rehash. I think the dev/publishers have probably just decided it's easier and cheaper to charge a small fee for extra services to folks who buy used. For them it's no harm no foul. I mean what are they gonna do? Piss off the people who already don't get them any money? Path of least resistance, I guess.
2 up, 1 down
Underdog15
Wednesday, August 25, 2010 @ 1:42:29 PM
It's hot topic because you get a clash between a number of different values. No matter what way you look at it, there is a flaw in morality. And each person will perceive the more important moral path differently.
On one end, you have the pro-consumer, who believes the consumer, once provided with a service, should continue to get that service conscience and consequence free. Afterall, according to the pursuit of happiness, the better the deal, the better you are as a person. This is typical of people who are very consumer-centric.
On another end, you have the pro-creator approach. These are the folks who believe it most important to reward the originator of a particular work. This is typical of artists and tradesmen.
At another side, you have pro-capitalists who believe in rewarding those with the most profitable business approach. (aka Gamestop) These are usually business people who take this side.
And at ANOTHER side still, you have those who support democracy and the law hardcore... and no matter how porous or how many loopholes the law might have, they feel it should be abided 100%.
So, when you have all these differing preferences to morality together, they clash and we have a heated topic. I'm personally on the side that believes the dev's should get paid for their work, obviously. I'm not so much law 100% in all this. I just understand it.
On one end, you have the pro-consumer, who believes the consumer, once provided with a service, should continue to get that service conscience and consequence free. Afterall, according to the pursuit of happiness, the better the deal, the better you are as a person. This is typical of people who are very consumer-centric.
On another end, you have the pro-creator approach. These are the folks who believe it most important to reward the originator of a particular work. This is typical of artists and tradesmen.
At another side, you have pro-capitalists who believe in rewarding those with the most profitable business approach. (aka Gamestop) These are usually business people who take this side.
And at ANOTHER side still, you have those who support democracy and the law hardcore... and no matter how porous or how many loopholes the law might have, they feel it should be abided 100%.
So, when you have all these differing preferences to morality together, they clash and we have a heated topic. I'm personally on the side that believes the dev's should get paid for their work, obviously. I'm not so much law 100% in all this. I just understand it.
3 up, 2 down
Snaaaake
Wednesday, August 25, 2010 @ 1:07:05 PM
Reply
I'd say this will be the only topic we're going for each other's throat.
So....PEACE!!
So....PEACE!!
0 up, 0 down
DjEezzy
Wednesday, August 25, 2010 @ 1:47:30 PM
Reply
As someone who has two kids and also loves his "Luxury Hobbies", I think it's crap that they want to charge for online use. I didn't ask them to put multiplayer in there. They are offering it in the game. I'm also a Dj and I believe that Developers/Producers should get paid for their hard work. But don't get greedy. It's not like they are saving lives. They have a relatively easy job compared to some and they get to sit on their ass and do what they love. God forbid they only make $70,000+ a year or whatever they get paid. Oh and god forbid the big wigs like EA,Activision or Sony only make a couple Hundred million dollars in PROFIT.
I understand some of the business aspect... but i'm not on that end of the spectrum. I'm the consumer and I want as much value as I can get for the price of $60. I don't care who you are, $60 dollars is a lot of money when you have other bills like a mortgage and mouths to feed. I don't mind paying for games but with my budget sometimes i have to buy used. What it almost feels like, is like they are punishing us for being broke.
It really amazes me how some of you actually side with the companies that are taxing the crap out of us. LOL. You may just be the reason these companies are nickel and diming us more and more.
Everyone blames Gamestop but they are really no worse than Sony, Microsoft, Activision or EA. They are trying to make as much money as they can. Charging $30-$40 for a game thats worth $20 is no worse than paying $60 for a game thats worth $20. I think they need to stop worrying so much about what gamestop is doing with used and try to make more money on new ideas and concepts.
I understand some of the business aspect... but i'm not on that end of the spectrum. I'm the consumer and I want as much value as I can get for the price of $60. I don't care who you are, $60 dollars is a lot of money when you have other bills like a mortgage and mouths to feed. I don't mind paying for games but with my budget sometimes i have to buy used. What it almost feels like, is like they are punishing us for being broke.
It really amazes me how some of you actually side with the companies that are taxing the crap out of us. LOL. You may just be the reason these companies are nickel and diming us more and more.
Everyone blames Gamestop but they are really no worse than Sony, Microsoft, Activision or EA. They are trying to make as much money as they can. Charging $30-$40 for a game thats worth $20 is no worse than paying $60 for a game thats worth $20. I think they need to stop worrying so much about what gamestop is doing with used and try to make more money on new ideas and concepts.
3 up, 2 down
Underdog15
Wednesday, August 25, 2010 @ 1:58:20 PM
Just ask yourself one question... If the devs make no money off you... what do they owe you? So they charge you a fee... cause if you don't like it... what are you gonna do? What? Not buy their game second hand anymore? They've got nothing to lose.
3 up, 2 down
DeejayDeez
Wednesday, August 25, 2010 @ 2:53:11 PM
@DjEezzy
Finally someone with some sense. Thumbs up bro! But watch out, TheHighlander and Underdog15 with bash for those ideas. Cause heaven forbid that people might have different opinions than them.
Finally someone with some sense. Thumbs up bro! But watch out, TheHighlander and Underdog15 with bash for those ideas. Cause heaven forbid that people might have different opinions than them.
1 up, 3 down
Underdog15
Thursday, August 26, 2010 @ 10:41:44 AM
It's fine to have opinions on the matter... Check out the discussion we had up a bit higher on morality. That's what it boils down to.
What's annoying is the complete lack of interest in fact. You DJ's seem to be ignoring the basics. You can still have your opinions as they are even after you accept the facts. But what's annoying is that you are purposely avoiding to accept the facts because it might prove you wrong.
It doesn't really prove anyone wrong. But the moral strand you follow, whichever of the 4 it is, will determine which way you go after you accept facts. It's not even about opinions anymore. it's about you guys being heavily opinionated about an issue you have no knowledge base for. It's annoying.
What's annoying is the complete lack of interest in fact. You DJ's seem to be ignoring the basics. You can still have your opinions as they are even after you accept the facts. But what's annoying is that you are purposely avoiding to accept the facts because it might prove you wrong.
It doesn't really prove anyone wrong. But the moral strand you follow, whichever of the 4 it is, will determine which way you go after you accept facts. It's not even about opinions anymore. it's about you guys being heavily opinionated about an issue you have no knowledge base for. It's annoying.
0 up, 0 down
Amazingskillz
Wednesday, August 25, 2010 @ 3:14:03 PM
Reply
@underdog - interesting comments on the morality segments. Somewhat accurate analysis on the four segments. I strictly look at the business model and how it affects my pocket. Maybe I'm the capitalist type.
1 up, 0 down
Amazingskillz
Wednesday, August 25, 2010 @ 3:14:06 PM
Reply
@underdog - interesting comments on the morality segments. Somewhat accurate analysis on the four segments. I strictly look at the business model and how it affects my pocket. Maybe I'm the capitalist type.
0 up, 0 down
Nynja
Wednesday, August 25, 2010 @ 3:25:43 PM
Reply
This isn't just going to hurt used game sales, it's going to kill game rentals and forget about ever borrowing a friends copy of a game if you want to play it online...
This might be the one thing to make me say "F U" to all consoles and go with PC only.
... who am I kidding, like I'd really give it up. I hope someone comes up with a better solution fast.
This might be the one thing to make me say "F U" to all consoles and go with PC only.
... who am I kidding, like I'd really give it up. I hope someone comes up with a better solution fast.
1 up, 0 down
A2K78
Wednesday, August 25, 2010 @ 3:53:32 PM
Reply
according to TheHighlander's flawed logic, if I resell my video games I'm breaking the law because some corporation isn't getting profits from it. Talk about being really flawed.
2 up, 1 down
Jeej
Thursday, August 26, 2010 @ 10:13:20 AM
It's not according to TheHighlander - if you were to read the End-User License Agreement from almost any developer, it will read similar to the one already posted in this thread - you can often find them online.
While Rockstar Games appears to allow the wholesale transfer of a game to another party in their EULA, EA notes that while you can transfer the game, updates and online content MAY not be transferable. Both are available online http://www.rockstargames.com/eula in Section I and http://tos.ea.com/legalapp/eula/US/en/PC/ in Section II)
Technically speaking, if you sell the game (transfer may be limited to gifting), you may be breaking a contract with the developer and they could sue you. That is all that TheHighlander is saying. And quite frankly, depending on the EULA, (whether any of us like it or not) he's right.
While Rockstar Games appears to allow the wholesale transfer of a game to another party in their EULA, EA notes that while you can transfer the game, updates and online content MAY not be transferable. Both are available online http://www.rockstargames.com/eula in Section I and http://tos.ea.com/legalapp/eula/US/en/PC/ in Section II)
Technically speaking, if you sell the game (transfer may be limited to gifting), you may be breaking a contract with the developer and they could sue you. That is all that TheHighlander is saying. And quite frankly, depending on the EULA, (whether any of us like it or not) he's right.
0 up, 0 down
Underdog15
Thursday, August 26, 2010 @ 10:18:48 AM
You aren't doing anything illegal by selling it. How many times has this been said now? Read about it before you comment, man. Frig.
It's illegal to USE software you don't have license to use...
You're the flawed one... If it's so bad to support a big corporation... why would you buy from Gamestop: a corporation bigger than any video game developer???
It's illegal to USE software you don't have license to use...
You're the flawed one... If it's so bad to support a big corporation... why would you buy from Gamestop: a corporation bigger than any video game developer???
0 up, 0 down
Jeej
Thursday, August 26, 2010 @ 2:29:59 PM
@Underdog15
According to the Rockstar EULA:
...
LICENSE CONDITIONS.
You agree not to:
a. Commercially exploit the Software;
b. Distribute, lease, license, sell, rent or otherwise transfer or assign the Software, or any copies of the Software, without the express prior written consent of Licensor or as set forth in this Agreement;
...
As per point b. you agree not to sell it.
It is possible, not being a legal professional I have misinterpreted this wording, but it seemed to me that it was fairly clear. That is where I was getting it from, not from postings within these comments.
According to the Rockstar EULA:
...
LICENSE CONDITIONS.
You agree not to:
a. Commercially exploit the Software;
b. Distribute, lease, license, sell, rent or otherwise transfer or assign the Software, or any copies of the Software, without the express prior written consent of Licensor or as set forth in this Agreement;
...
As per point b. you agree not to sell it.
It is possible, not being a legal professional I have misinterpreted this wording, but it seemed to me that it was fairly clear. That is where I was getting it from, not from postings within these comments.
0 up, 0 down
Underdog15
Friday, August 27, 2010 @ 11:29:02 AM
Yeah, you're right, and I'm super happy you did some research.
The loophole these companies like Gamestop get into is the fact that these clauses talk about the software. You can't sell, license, distribute, etc. copies of the software. Technically, the original disk it is on is not a copy. If you were to duplicate it, that is where you would run into problems with that section. Technically, in more law-like terms, they would have to word it as re-sale and not sale if they referred to the original disk. Keep in mind, it refers only to the information and not the physical disk... So in section b, it is in regards to actually copying the information and transferring those copies of the digital aspect.
They're actually not allowed to put "no selling the physical disk" into the purchase agreement. Physical property is seen as different from digital information...
I know... the law is stupid... it's silly... lol It makes you roll your eyes... But that ridiculousness is actually the MOST they can do to protect it. lol
Last edited by Underdog15 on 8/27/2010 11:31:33 AM
The loophole these companies like Gamestop get into is the fact that these clauses talk about the software. You can't sell, license, distribute, etc. copies of the software. Technically, the original disk it is on is not a copy. If you were to duplicate it, that is where you would run into problems with that section. Technically, in more law-like terms, they would have to word it as re-sale and not sale if they referred to the original disk. Keep in mind, it refers only to the information and not the physical disk... So in section b, it is in regards to actually copying the information and transferring those copies of the digital aspect.
They're actually not allowed to put "no selling the physical disk" into the purchase agreement. Physical property is seen as different from digital information...
I know... the law is stupid... it's silly... lol It makes you roll your eyes... But that ridiculousness is actually the MOST they can do to protect it. lol
Last edited by Underdog15 on 8/27/2010 11:31:33 AM
0 up, 0 down
DjEezzy
Wednesday, August 25, 2010 @ 3:59:59 PM
Reply
@Underdog15...
I don't produce music for the money. The money is a plus. If you make something good because you put your heart and soul into it then the money will come. Money should not be the determining factor on whether something is good or not, thats being greedy. If money is the only reason they're making games then i'd suggest another profession maybe because they'll never succeed with money as their goal. I guess the whole concept of taking pride in what you do went out the window along time ago for many. You're right, they don't owe me anything. They owe themselves. I guarantee the developers are making their fair share of money at the end of the day. It's the distributors like EA and Activision that are cashing in on this this fee, not the developers. I highly doubt that you have guys like Gabe Newell and David Jaffe saying that they're hurting from used games sales.
On a side note... I respect what both of them have to say. I actually think theHighlander is has got some great input on alot of different subjects. Don't really care about what underdog says. He obviously sees this subject from the eyes of EA or Sony. But i do think that he's sadly mistaken when he say's that developers are the ones taxing us. It's the distributors. And really in the end it's greed. All I know is that these stupid shennanigans cost me at the end of the day. It doesn't show any loyalty to fans who are and aren't willing to fork out the extra cheddar to fully enjoy the games that they're pushing down our throats. It's a slap in the face when they offer something, make millions and then turn around and say you don't make as much money as Johnny Fat Pockets and had to buy used, so you don't get the full package unless you pay us more. All i have to say is that bad things happen to those who get greedy. Maybe not now but someday. Mark my words.LOL
I don't produce music for the money. The money is a plus. If you make something good because you put your heart and soul into it then the money will come. Money should not be the determining factor on whether something is good or not, thats being greedy. If money is the only reason they're making games then i'd suggest another profession maybe because they'll never succeed with money as their goal. I guess the whole concept of taking pride in what you do went out the window along time ago for many. You're right, they don't owe me anything. They owe themselves. I guarantee the developers are making their fair share of money at the end of the day. It's the distributors like EA and Activision that are cashing in on this this fee, not the developers. I highly doubt that you have guys like Gabe Newell and David Jaffe saying that they're hurting from used games sales.
On a side note... I respect what both of them have to say. I actually think theHighlander is has got some great input on alot of different subjects. Don't really care about what underdog says. He obviously sees this subject from the eyes of EA or Sony. But i do think that he's sadly mistaken when he say's that developers are the ones taxing us. It's the distributors. And really in the end it's greed. All I know is that these stupid shennanigans cost me at the end of the day. It doesn't show any loyalty to fans who are and aren't willing to fork out the extra cheddar to fully enjoy the games that they're pushing down our throats. It's a slap in the face when they offer something, make millions and then turn around and say you don't make as much money as Johnny Fat Pockets and had to buy used, so you don't get the full package unless you pay us more. All i have to say is that bad things happen to those who get greedy. Maybe not now but someday. Mark my words.LOL
2 up, 3 down
Ben Dutka PSXE [Administrator]
Wednesday, August 25, 2010 @ 4:33:46 PM
I will guarantee you one thing: guys like David Jaffe and Gabe Newell may not be hurting, but they're not benefiting from used game sales. They can't. And don't think for one second they wouldn't if there was some second-hand monetizing for their used games.
In fact, if developers had a way of making money off those sales over the years, some studios would likely still be OPEN. It's a mistake to assume publishers control absolutely everything; if you listen to designers and developers speak about their relationship with Sony, for instance, they're often ecstatic about the situation.
It obviously depends on the terms of contract and the business arrangements - which can vary widely - but there usually aren't any conspiracy theories. Publishers want to make money. They want their stable of developers to make money, so those same developers will remain happy and make another great, money-making game. That's the formula that drives everything forward. Trust me. Anything beyond that is little more than your standard consumer bitterness and ignorance (no offense to anyone here).
In fact, if developers had a way of making money off those sales over the years, some studios would likely still be OPEN. It's a mistake to assume publishers control absolutely everything; if you listen to designers and developers speak about their relationship with Sony, for instance, they're often ecstatic about the situation.
It obviously depends on the terms of contract and the business arrangements - which can vary widely - but there usually aren't any conspiracy theories. Publishers want to make money. They want their stable of developers to make money, so those same developers will remain happy and make another great, money-making game. That's the formula that drives everything forward. Trust me. Anything beyond that is little more than your standard consumer bitterness and ignorance (no offense to anyone here).
3 up, 0 down
Orvisman
Thursday, August 26, 2010 @ 9:51:17 AM
@ Ben,
Have you ever bought a used book or DVD? Same thing. The authors and screenwriters deserve their royalties, don't they?
Have you ever bought a used book or DVD? Same thing. The authors and screenwriters deserve their royalties, don't they?
0 up, 0 down
Underdog15
Thursday, August 26, 2010 @ 10:36:53 AM
@Orvisman
Believe it or not, the same laws apply for music and dvd's as well. But it's not as rampant an issue since movies in particular do not profit from DVD sales as much as they do theatre sales. Sure, it's the same issue, but Games suffer more, which is why they are taking things into their own hands. Music did their own version of changes years ago after Napster. Laws don't protect books from resale because it is physical property, not software, and has no licensing. Digital books, however, do and cannot be resold.
@DjEezzy
I find it funny that you don't consider Gamestop the greedy party. I'm all for supporting artistry. And I'm certainly against publishers practices like Activision, and lately, SE as well. In fact, if you've ever read what I written, you would know that.
What I am against, is not supporting the creators of a project. I have a hard time believing your music is worth listening to. My brother in law is a fantastic musician. In fact, he's been nominated for prestigious awards like the Juno. My mother and my sister are professional Soprano's. My sister is soon touring Europe, and my mother is a lead for Opera Nova Scotia. My own band director from the band I used to be apart of is in Havanafax (real music... not whatever a dj does...) and my old piano teacher is one of the most renowned choir directors in the world. In fact, my sister was in her high school days, in his choir touring Germany, Russia, and other European countries between the two.
I know full well what musicians go through. And my brother-in-laws band??? Suffering from second hand sales and illegal file sharing. Funny story from him? They played a show in Ohio. The cd sales in Ohio were a measley barely 130 cds... but why did nearly the entire audience of 5 thousand know every single word?!?! It seems more people know their music than there are even legal copies!!
Similarly, Gamestop is a multi BILLION dollar agency. There are billions of dollars lost by devs and publishers YEARLY to used game sales. You can determine that by looking solely at Gamestop and no other company.
You really think they aren't affected?
Do some research, DjEezzy. You sound like a freaking moron calling me out with nothing but opinion. On many issues, we even agree, but you can't see past the FACTS I bring to the table because you're concerned with a quick buck and your own interpretation of your own self-efficacy.
So do I side with EA and SONY et al? On some issues, no. I don't like Activision's practices. Or SE. And much of what EA does makes me upset. But when it comes to return, yes... I actually believe that the person that creates something deserves to make money from it.. not someone else.
How fair would it be for me to sell your music for you and keep every penny? I mean, come on... you're basically telling me, that once you become a millionaire music producer, you no longer deserve to make money from what got you money in the first place? Get real, man.
Gamestop is a much bigger corporation than any publisher out there... and they make billions per year on used game sales...
let me translate for you, djezzy...
THAT'S (to be exact) $1.3billion dollars in the last QUARTER year that gamestop has made on used sales...
1.3 billion!!! That's again... 1.3billion dollars NOT going back into the gaming industry. It's lost money. Filled the pockets of gamestop to expand and buy their CEO's top quality time shares in the dominican.
If you're thankful for that 1.3 billion dollars lost, feel free to go up to guys like Jaffe and thank them for their hard work.
Get a grip people.
Last edited by Underdog15 on 8/26/2010 10:38:00 AM
Believe it or not, the same laws apply for music and dvd's as well. But it's not as rampant an issue since movies in particular do not profit from DVD sales as much as they do theatre sales. Sure, it's the same issue, but Games suffer more, which is why they are taking things into their own hands. Music did their own version of changes years ago after Napster. Laws don't protect books from resale because it is physical property, not software, and has no licensing. Digital books, however, do and cannot be resold.
@DjEezzy
I find it funny that you don't consider Gamestop the greedy party. I'm all for supporting artistry. And I'm certainly against publishers practices like Activision, and lately, SE as well. In fact, if you've ever read what I written, you would know that.
What I am against, is not supporting the creators of a project. I have a hard time believing your music is worth listening to. My brother in law is a fantastic musician. In fact, he's been nominated for prestigious awards like the Juno. My mother and my sister are professional Soprano's. My sister is soon touring Europe, and my mother is a lead for Opera Nova Scotia. My own band director from the band I used to be apart of is in Havanafax (real music... not whatever a dj does...) and my old piano teacher is one of the most renowned choir directors in the world. In fact, my sister was in her high school days, in his choir touring Germany, Russia, and other European countries between the two.
I know full well what musicians go through. And my brother-in-laws band??? Suffering from second hand sales and illegal file sharing. Funny story from him? They played a show in Ohio. The cd sales in Ohio were a measley barely 130 cds... but why did nearly the entire audience of 5 thousand know every single word?!?! It seems more people know their music than there are even legal copies!!
Similarly, Gamestop is a multi BILLION dollar agency. There are billions of dollars lost by devs and publishers YEARLY to used game sales. You can determine that by looking solely at Gamestop and no other company.
You really think they aren't affected?
Do some research, DjEezzy. You sound like a freaking moron calling me out with nothing but opinion. On many issues, we even agree, but you can't see past the FACTS I bring to the table because you're concerned with a quick buck and your own interpretation of your own self-efficacy.
So do I side with EA and SONY et al? On some issues, no. I don't like Activision's practices. Or SE. And much of what EA does makes me upset. But when it comes to return, yes... I actually believe that the person that creates something deserves to make money from it.. not someone else.
How fair would it be for me to sell your music for you and keep every penny? I mean, come on... you're basically telling me, that once you become a millionaire music producer, you no longer deserve to make money from what got you money in the first place? Get real, man.
Gamestop is a much bigger corporation than any publisher out there... and they make billions per year on used game sales...
let me translate for you, djezzy...
THAT'S (to be exact) $1.3billion dollars in the last QUARTER year that gamestop has made on used sales...
1.3 billion!!! That's again... 1.3billion dollars NOT going back into the gaming industry. It's lost money. Filled the pockets of gamestop to expand and buy their CEO's top quality time shares in the dominican.
If you're thankful for that 1.3 billion dollars lost, feel free to go up to guys like Jaffe and thank them for their hard work.
Get a grip people.
Last edited by Underdog15 on 8/26/2010 10:38:00 AM
0 up, 0 down
Underdog15
Thursday, August 26, 2010 @ 10:50:41 AM
So, DjEezzy... Lets hear a good opinion.
Why, in your opinion, SHOULDN'T Sony and their publisher/devs profit from the games they make?
Also, where can I find your stuff for download? I want to download it illegally and distribute it.
Why, in your opinion, SHOULDN'T Sony and their publisher/devs profit from the games they make?
Also, where can I find your stuff for download? I want to download it illegally and distribute it.
1 up, 0 down
ABUrabad
Wednesday, August 25, 2010 @ 4:09:21 PM
Reply
some people in some areas are not being able to buy new games at all , this is one of the reasons why a lot of people in developing countries are buying them over the web
Sony and other game developers should take that in consideration ,buying used games will encourage the old game owner how bought it new will invest the money back to buy a new game and this will push the new game cycle foreword
Sony could take in consideration the use of the IP address of the PS3 owner to determined his location to let him to play online for free or not when using a second hand game
in other hand i buy a lot of games from eBay as used the owner of a used game who is welling to sell it over there may now be convinced that his game is worthing now much less because of some contents are not available by then the new owner of the used game when he buy that game for a cheaper price he could invest some money for online gaming when the ask to new user code
Sony and other game developers should take that in consideration ,buying used games will encourage the old game owner how bought it new will invest the money back to buy a new game and this will push the new game cycle foreword
Sony could take in consideration the use of the IP address of the PS3 owner to determined his location to let him to play online for free or not when using a second hand game
in other hand i buy a lot of games from eBay as used the owner of a used game who is welling to sell it over there may now be convinced that his game is worthing now much less because of some contents are not available by then the new owner of the used game when he buy that game for a cheaper price he could invest some money for online gaming when the ask to new user code
0 up, 0 down
ABUrabad
Wednesday, August 25, 2010 @ 4:17:12 PM
and there is another point I didn't mention by this greedy way in treating the subject of used games sales will encourage the piracy of game consoles since a lot of users didn't crack their systems yet because of the online gaming this will change when they consider asking gamers to buy for online gaming on used games
1 up, 0 down
Underdog15
Thursday, August 26, 2010 @ 10:17:00 AM
Yup, and as it looks, those folks in developing countries will have to take into consideration they might need to pay an access fee for online use.
0 up, 0 down
tes37
Wednesday, August 25, 2010 @ 4:50:57 PM
Reply
People like me could one day benefit from the death of used game sales. I might could buy brand new games for $50 again instead of $60, or free dlc if people would support the developers.
I buy my games new, so it only makes sense for me to not be offended with Sony wanting to get paid.
I buy my games new, so it only makes sense for me to not be offended with Sony wanting to get paid.
1 up, 0 down
DazeOfWar
Wednesday, August 25, 2010 @ 5:32:04 PM
Game prices didn't go up because of used games. They went up because they have bigger production costs.
Also getting free DLC for supporting the developers sure didn't work when Activision/Infinty Ward made over $500 million dollars for MW2. The least they could have done was give everybody the rehashed maps from MW1 for free as thanks for making them rich and having the biggest selling game ever.
Also getting free DLC for supporting the developers sure didn't work when Activision/Infinty Ward made over $500 million dollars for MW2. The least they could have done was give everybody the rehashed maps from MW1 for free as thanks for making them rich and having the biggest selling game ever.
1 up, 0 down
tes37
Wednesday, August 25, 2010 @ 8:14:36 PM
No. But game prices won't come down because of them either.
0 up, 0 down
DazeOfWar
Wednesday, August 25, 2010 @ 9:32:10 PM
OK how about the games that sell millions. Halo, Madden, CoD, Gran Turismo, GTA, etc. those are all guaranteed to make lots and lots of money but they are still $60. Used game sales don't seem to hurt those titles. Maybe if the big titles would come out cheaper people might have some extra money for a not so big title.
0 up, 0 down
Highlander
Wednesday, August 25, 2010 @ 10:58:19 PM
@Daze,
Well, unless I miss my guess games that sell well on the pS3 usually come back for a re-release as a greatest hits game at half the original price. It sure seems that selling well does in fact reduce prices, you simply need to be patient.
Well, unless I miss my guess games that sell well on the pS3 usually come back for a re-release as a greatest hits game at half the original price. It sure seems that selling well does in fact reduce prices, you simply need to be patient.
1 up, 2 down
DazeOfWar
Thursday, August 26, 2010 @ 1:26:36 AM
@Highlander: You are correct there but on the other hand those games were going to go down in price anyways. Specially if they don't sell well. Usually greatest hits are put out after the game has been out a year or more.
0 up, 0 down
DazeOfWar
Wednesday, August 25, 2010 @ 5:28:11 PM
Reply
Man I can't believe I read through all these comments. There is some good stuff in here. One of the best things I saw, can't remember who wrote it, was to cut back on how many games you buy. I had to do that because there is just to much out there.
I have and still do buy used games sometimes but most of the time is when I get a great deal on it. Like when I saved 35% on FFXIII used when the game first came out. Paying $38 was a lot better than $65. Don't get me wrong I still buy most of my games new.
Other options for people that don't have much money is game trading websites. I use one and get great value for my finished games. I usually get games I would have never bought in the first place.
Ya the developers are missing out on some sales but it's not enough to hurt them. How come used games sales were never a problem years ago. When I worked at EB games 11 years ago I never heard or read anything about used games hurting the business.
People just aren't buying games like they use to. Look how slow this generation has been on systems selling. Hell the PS3 has been out 4 years and it's just starting really selling in the last year. The country is in a recession with thousands of people out of jobs. If people aren't working they're not spending. Not everybody makes big bucks and can just buy every game. When a game comes out and word gets out that it sucks nobody is going to buy it.
I love supporting the game industry but developers need start getting better on the quality checks. I bought Madden 11, 1st Madden for me in 6 years, and the damn online is screwed up. Can't get into any team play games with pisses me off. Imagine if I would have rented this and couldn't test this out because I had to buy an online pass. So I buy it and then find out the one game mode I want to play doesn't work right. So know I'm not sure if I will buy anymore Maddens again.
Well thanks for listening to me rant.
I have and still do buy used games sometimes but most of the time is when I get a great deal on it. Like when I saved 35% on FFXIII used when the game first came out. Paying $38 was a lot better than $65. Don't get me wrong I still buy most of my games new.
Other options for people that don't have much money is game trading websites. I use one and get great value for my finished games. I usually get games I would have never bought in the first place.
Ya the developers are missing out on some sales but it's not enough to hurt them. How come used games sales were never a problem years ago. When I worked at EB games 11 years ago I never heard or read anything about used games hurting the business.
People just aren't buying games like they use to. Look how slow this generation has been on systems selling. Hell the PS3 has been out 4 years and it's just starting really selling in the last year. The country is in a recession with thousands of people out of jobs. If people aren't working they're not spending. Not everybody makes big bucks and can just buy every game. When a game comes out and word gets out that it sucks nobody is going to buy it.
I love supporting the game industry but developers need start getting better on the quality checks. I bought Madden 11, 1st Madden for me in 6 years, and the damn online is screwed up. Can't get into any team play games with pisses me off. Imagine if I would have rented this and couldn't test this out because I had to buy an online pass. So I buy it and then find out the one game mode I want to play doesn't work right. So know I'm not sure if I will buy anymore Maddens again.
Well thanks for listening to me rant.
3 up, 0 down
Highlander
Wednesday, August 25, 2010 @ 5:38:35 PM
With respect, 11 years ago, used game sales were not nearly such big business as they are now.
2 up, 3 down
DazeOfWar
Wednesday, August 25, 2010 @ 5:43:33 PM
@Highlander: You gotta think though Gamestop really started picking used sales when the recession hit. People had more money back in the days to. Plus there wasn't 15 games coming out a month.
People are doing whatever they can nowadays to play games. If they have to buy used games so be it. Hell maybe if the game gets a sequel they'll buy that one new.
People are doing whatever they can nowadays to play games. If they have to buy used games so be it. Hell maybe if the game gets a sequel they'll buy that one new.
2 up, 1 down
Highlander
Wednesday, August 25, 2010 @ 11:01:09 PM
I don't have to think anything of the sort. I've watched the size of the displays of the Gamestops near me over the last 5-10 years and in the last 5 years or so, the used bin has grown to the point where more retail space is given over to used games than to new games.
I have no doubt that the money pressure of the recession has made saving $$ more attractive to people but the sheer size of the used game market, especially that handled by brokers like GameStop has been apparent since before the recession hit. You can't blame the recession for the impact of used games.
I have no doubt that the money pressure of the recession has made saving $$ more attractive to people but the sheer size of the used game market, especially that handled by brokers like GameStop has been apparent since before the recession hit. You can't blame the recession for the impact of used games.
1 up, 1 down
DazeOfWar
Thursday, August 26, 2010 @ 1:37:27 AM
I'm not blaming the sale of used games on the recession. I'm saying more and more people are buying them now because it's cheaper plus if you don't like it you can return it for a full refund within 7 days. You can't do that with real games.
Think about it, you spend $60 on a game and it ends up being utter crap. So now the devs just screwed you. So the only thing you can do is either keep it and never played it again, waste of money, or trade it in and get at least something back.
Think about it, you spend $60 on a game and it ends up being utter crap. So now the devs just screwed you. So the only thing you can do is either keep it and never played it again, waste of money, or trade it in and get at least something back.
0 up, 0 down
Underdog15
Thursday, August 26, 2010 @ 10:15:45 AM
In regards to renting, Daze, two things. Rental agencies like Blockbuster, have separate user agreements that allow them to rent games and share profit with devs. Also, I'm not sure if there would be a temp pass for rentals, but even if there wasn't you would still have full access to everything on that disc. Just not anything extra like online. (which could suck, I know)
1 up, 0 down
ABUrabad
Wednesday, August 25, 2010 @ 5:37:35 PM
Reply
how mush would coast an online pass for games in general if i needed to buy one?
Last edited by ABUrabad on 8/25/2010 5:40:30 PM
Last edited by ABUrabad on 8/25/2010 5:40:30 PM
0 up, 0 down
Underdog15
Thursday, August 26, 2010 @ 10:10:35 AM
Sounds like $10 or something like that.
0 up, 0 down
Sogi_Otsa
Wednesday, August 25, 2010 @ 5:40:19 PM
Reply
you buy something, sell it for a cheap price, the buyer enjoys it. someone buys something sells it to you. wouldn't you like to just enjoy it? because you shouldn't have to double pay for something that was already paid. if a game is out of print and the company stopped selling it and you buy it used, why should you have to pay the people that don't even offer it on their site? buy the working game used, because you can't buy it new, or even if you don't have enough to get it new, and enjoy the game.
while were looking at it, if that's the case why is it you can use copyrighted images/characters and not have to pay the company for using it.
while were looking at it, if that's the case why is it you can use copyrighted images/characters and not have to pay the company for using it.
0 up, 1 down
Underdog15
Thursday, August 26, 2010 @ 10:09:38 AM
You can use them because their copyrights only pertain to using them for personal gain and are removed from licensing use. Software has licensing agreements that restrict overall use. Images and characters, like in a play, can be used so long as it is not for gain.
Technically speaking (as a theatre major) even in theatre, you need a license to portray particular characters that someone still owns. Plays like Shakesphere are fair game because they are public domain. Most modern plays that are still owned by the playwright or family need to be paid a premium for their use.
Technically speaking (as a theatre major) even in theatre, you need a license to portray particular characters that someone still owns. Plays like Shakesphere are fair game because they are public domain. Most modern plays that are still owned by the playwright or family need to be paid a premium for their use.
0 up, 1 down
DeathOfChaos
Friday, August 27, 2010 @ 11:40:11 PM
Underdog, you conveniently call yourself a lot of things that somehow tries to make you sound like a reliable source, lol. Keep talking, man.
1 up, 0 down
Shadow_Striker
Wednesday, August 25, 2010 @ 5:55:11 PM
Reply
I think that this approach is the wrong one to make. If they want to get more money then they should be working with places like gamestop and gamefly or any other retailer who is willing to work with them. Heck, I'm sure that even Sony could set up a rental/used game service where they get a cut and the dev and pub would get a cut too. Personally I feel that places like gamestop should give a small percentage of money from the used product for up to 2 years after date of release. Gamestop will still make a boatload of money and devs/pubs will get compensation.
I fear what is going to happen if they go down this road is that you will get a whole bunch of angry people(regardless if it is justifiable or not)and they will seriously look for/work towards an illegal solution and we are going to be in a worse situation they we already are in.
I fear what is going to happen if they go down this road is that you will get a whole bunch of angry people(regardless if it is justifiable or not)and they will seriously look for/work towards an illegal solution and we are going to be in a worse situation they we already are in.
1 up, 0 down
Underdog15
Thursday, August 26, 2010 @ 10:06:04 AM
The legalities of copyright wouldn't weigh in on this situation. But you're right it would be nice to have some sort of deal between gamestop and devs, but we all know Gamestop won't do that since they aren't required to stop. (afterall, they aren't doing anything that could get them sued since they on paper only sell the disks)
0 up, 0 down
Simcoe
Wednesday, August 25, 2010 @ 6:05:34 PM
Reply
Seems to me many people are arguing that it's their right to play online because the package says so. Maybe Sony, EA, MS, Activision et al., just need to change their packaging.
1 up, 0 down
LittleBigMidget
Wednesday, August 25, 2010 @ 6:13:57 PM
Reply
If Sony does this, I'm going to be really upset and just might stop buying their games. I play my games on more than one account, and the "Pass" is ACCOUNT LOCKED. It'd be a pretty stupid move for Sony.
0 up, 2 down
Underdog15
Thursday, August 26, 2010 @ 10:01:35 AM
No, games would be assigned to a system, and not an account. And for those that own multiple systems, you get to activate it on 5 systems. (But it would be tied to your main account, so don't sell the remaining activations to people because they could potentially steal your info.)
0 up, 0 down
THEVERDIN
Wednesday, August 25, 2010 @ 6:23:20 PM
Reply
@Highlander
Heres the deal, I sold a pen I made to guy at work for $50 2 days later he asked if he could get another. I asked how many pens can you use at one time. He said he sold the pen he bought for $60, now I didn't ask him for a percentage. It was my time and my design and I also made my money plus he came back for more product. It's the same with a used game or rental, if you like it more than likely next time the dev makes a gameyou'll buy the game at full price.
Last edited by THEVERDIN on 8/25/2010 6:25:24 PM
Heres the deal, I sold a pen I made to guy at work for $50 2 days later he asked if he could get another. I asked how many pens can you use at one time. He said he sold the pen he bought for $60, now I didn't ask him for a percentage. It was my time and my design and I also made my money plus he came back for more product. It's the same with a used game or rental, if you like it more than likely next time the dev makes a gameyou'll buy the game at full price.
Last edited by THEVERDIN on 8/25/2010 6:25:24 PM
2 up, 2 down
Highlander
Wednesday, August 25, 2010 @ 11:02:59 PM
A pen is a physical item, not a virtual one. Copyrights material or software is not a physical product. Your analogy simply doesn't cover this because you're effectively comparing apples and oranges.
Last edited by Highlander on 8/25/2010 11:03:12 PM
Last edited by Highlander on 8/25/2010 11:03:12 PM
1 up, 4 down
Orvisman
Thursday, August 26, 2010 @ 9:47:41 AM
The game disks I hold in my hand seem pretty physical to me or am I imagining they have a physical form?
2 up, 1 down
Underdog15
Thursday, August 26, 2010 @ 9:59:47 AM
Orvisman, don't be dumb. Go read about licensing software laws. It's like you're trying to be oblivious just to be annoying.
0 up, 0 down
Underdog15
Thursday, August 26, 2010 @ 11:05:18 AM
For the record, I'm not saying you're dumb. I know you aren't dumb at all. Last time I used a phrase I use with my friends, I really offended someone. lol.
What I mean is, don't be silly. Like, I'm calling you out for intentionally stating what isn't true. Know what I'm getting at?
What I mean is, don't be silly. Like, I'm calling you out for intentionally stating what isn't true. Know what I'm getting at?
0 up, 0 down
THEVERDIN
Wednesday, August 25, 2010 @ 7:10:06 PM
Reply
Let's do this activation code thing. You buy a new game, put the disk in get to the final level a message appears "Please login into PSN for final DLC level cost $19.99". This is the road you're traveling down.
3 up, 2 down
Highlander
Wednesday, August 25, 2010 @ 11:04:00 PM
Yeah, and what about the rest of what is on the game disc? You're not going to play that? You're only renting it to play the DLC? Come on, that's simply unreasonable.
1 up, 2 down
DazeOfWar
Thursday, August 26, 2010 @ 1:32:20 AM
@Highlander: He is talking about the devs starting to charge people for the last level in the game so you can beat it. This could happen if companies really wanted people to buy their games new. It would be a load of BS but who knows exactly how far they will go to stop used game sales.
It would be like if you were playing Mario and the only way for you to fight Bowser and get the ending was to buy the DLC or have the One Time use code.
It would be like if you were playing Mario and the only way for you to fight Bowser and get the ending was to buy the DLC or have the One Time use code.
0 up, 0 down
Highlander
Thursday, August 26, 2010 @ 1:45:35 AM
You're absolutely right Daze, my apologies to Techy. I can only apologize for not reading properly and replying before I did so.
0 up, 1 down
DazeOfWar
Thursday, August 26, 2010 @ 9:42:15 AM
Bout time you knew what wass right Highlander. Lol. Really though I have no problems with ya Highlander. I find a lot of your comments since I've been coming to the site well worth reading. You'll always get my respect.
0 up, 0 down
Highlander
Thursday, August 26, 2010 @ 9:57:59 AM
@Daze,
That's what it's all about, we all have opinions and views, which we're entitled to. We're all entitled to thing each other is wrong. If we all thought the same thing and the same way, it would be a very boring world. Plus we'd never have anything to talk about. Besides, if I agreed with my friends about everything I would have nothing to kid them about over a drink.
Cheers!
That's what it's all about, we all have opinions and views, which we're entitled to. We're all entitled to thing each other is wrong. If we all thought the same thing and the same way, it would be a very boring world. Plus we'd never have anything to talk about. Besides, if I agreed with my friends about everything I would have nothing to kid them about over a drink.
Cheers!
0 up, 1 down
A2K78
Wednesday, August 25, 2010 @ 8:31:10 PM
Reply
"With respect, 11 years ago, used game sales were not nearly such big business as they are now."
Another flawed logic of TheHighlander. Anyhow used games have always been big business, why do you think there is so many people on craiglist or ebay selling games Panzer Dragoon Saga or Gaurdian Heros for insane prices?
Another flawed logic of TheHighlander. Anyhow used games have always been big business, why do you think there is so many people on craiglist or ebay selling games Panzer Dragoon Saga or Gaurdian Heros for insane prices?
2 up, 4 down
Highlander
Wednesday, August 25, 2010 @ 11:06:26 PM
Excuse me? Flawed logic?
*11* years ago. 1999. Ebay was an infant compared to today, Craig's list was similarly small.
"why do you think there is so many people on craiglist or ebay selling games Panzer Dragoon Saga or Gaurdian Heros for insane prices?"
Why do I think there are so many people selling vintage games on Ebay and Craig's list now? because those games are old, and rare, and valuable. That is *now*, not 11 years ago.
*11* years ago. 1999. Ebay was an infant compared to today, Craig's list was similarly small.
"why do you think there is so many people on craiglist or ebay selling games Panzer Dragoon Saga or Gaurdian Heros for insane prices?"
Why do I think there are so many people selling vintage games on Ebay and Craig's list now? because those games are old, and rare, and valuable. That is *now*, not 11 years ago.
3 up, 1 down
BikerSaint
Wednesday, August 25, 2010 @ 10:42:17 PM
Reply
On a related note, THQ is weighing in on the used buyers too...
THQ Does Not Care About Pre-Owned Buyers
http://www.industrygamers.com/news/thq-does-not-care-about-pre-owned-buyers/
THQ Does Not Care About Pre-Owned Buyers
http://www.industrygamers.com/news/thq-does-not-care-about-pre-owned-buyers/
0 up, 0 down
Highlander
Thursday, August 26, 2010 @ 1:43:55 AM
This is another symptom of how problematic the used game trade has become. Sides are polarizing and the developers are clearly stating that they are not happy with the situation.
0 up, 1 down
Imagi
Thursday, August 26, 2010 @ 9:18:16 AM
Reply
I would rather they work out a way to tax the retailer's that make such a profit on the second hand games market.
It would piss me off to spend $15 to access the online component of a game to find out their are no other players online, as I bet no refund would be given!
It would piss me off to spend $15 to access the online component of a game to find out their are no other players online, as I bet no refund would be given!
0 up, 0 down
Orvisman
Thursday, August 26, 2010 @ 10:14:18 AM
Reply
@Highlander,
When this discussion comes up (and it does over and over again), you trot out the software licensing argument but never realistically address the fact that if these software licenses were truly enforceable, why don't the game publishers and developers band together and file a class action suit and litigate GameStop out of existence? Therefore, setting a precedent they can use to stop Amazon, eBay, Best Buy, Wal-Mart, Toys 'R' Us, and the rest from selling used games.
Simple, because those software licensing agreements you so ardently support aren't worth the paper they are printed on; and the developers and publishers know this. Because if they were enforceable, you can bet Activision, EA, M$ft, Sony, and Nintendo would have pursued this already.
And don't say these companies do not try to litigate GameStop out of existence because they need GameStop to sell their new consoles and games. They don't, especially with all the viable retail channels and big-box retailers available to them.
And don't claim what GameStop is doing isn't illegal because they can legally sell the physical media. If licensing agreements were truly enforceable, what GameStop is doing is aiding and abetting in the facilitation of a crime because when we buy used games it is implied that we are buying them to play them, therefore violating the EULA. That is something game publishers could sue over in a civil court in a class action suit.
Then again, most of what you and others argue here is more moral and not legal.
Therefore, the other thing you never seem to address is that you obviously feel the game developers and publishers should receive some monetary compensation for their hard work and that the sale of used games deprives them of that money. I agree. But you do not seem to hold musicians, authors, comic book writers/illustrators, or all those people involved in making movies in the same regard. If you do, however, you never address how those creators deserve to be rewarded for their hard work too.
While you defend the rights of game developers and publishers to monetize their hard work, you don't seem to hold these creators in the same regard because when it is pointed out that no one seems to make such a big deal about the sale of used DVDs, CDs, books, or comic books you don't offer up a solid defense of why game makers deserve to be rewarded by the sale of their new games and these other creators don't deserve their royalties.
All we get is that it isn't the same thing. That is not a staunch defense.
Do the authors, musicians, comic book creators, and moviemakers not deserve the royalties for their hard work? Shouldn't the consumer of these products only buy their entertainment new and not used? None of these industries, however, have introduced systems that penalize used purchasers for buying second-hand merchandise by trying to sell them a code. Are any of these other industries packing in codes with the sale of new CDs or DVDs or books that you need to enter to access the content you just purchased so that when someone buys the same DVD, CD, or book used they will need to buy a new entitlement code? No.
And yes, I agree with you that the way things are going it won't be long before video game companies are packing in entitlement codes with new games that you will have to enter to access even the single-player content. If you buy the game used, GameStop or PSN or XBLA will sell you a new entitlement code for, say, $5. I was talking to someone last week about that same thing.
When this discussion comes up (and it does over and over again), you trot out the software licensing argument but never realistically address the fact that if these software licenses were truly enforceable, why don't the game publishers and developers band together and file a class action suit and litigate GameStop out of existence? Therefore, setting a precedent they can use to stop Amazon, eBay, Best Buy, Wal-Mart, Toys 'R' Us, and the rest from selling used games.
Simple, because those software licensing agreements you so ardently support aren't worth the paper they are printed on; and the developers and publishers know this. Because if they were enforceable, you can bet Activision, EA, M$ft, Sony, and Nintendo would have pursued this already.
And don't say these companies do not try to litigate GameStop out of existence because they need GameStop to sell their new consoles and games. They don't, especially with all the viable retail channels and big-box retailers available to them.
And don't claim what GameStop is doing isn't illegal because they can legally sell the physical media. If licensing agreements were truly enforceable, what GameStop is doing is aiding and abetting in the facilitation of a crime because when we buy used games it is implied that we are buying them to play them, therefore violating the EULA. That is something game publishers could sue over in a civil court in a class action suit.
Then again, most of what you and others argue here is more moral and not legal.
Therefore, the other thing you never seem to address is that you obviously feel the game developers and publishers should receive some monetary compensation for their hard work and that the sale of used games deprives them of that money. I agree. But you do not seem to hold musicians, authors, comic book writers/illustrators, or all those people involved in making movies in the same regard. If you do, however, you never address how those creators deserve to be rewarded for their hard work too.
While you defend the rights of game developers and publishers to monetize their hard work, you don't seem to hold these creators in the same regard because when it is pointed out that no one seems to make such a big deal about the sale of used DVDs, CDs, books, or comic books you don't offer up a solid defense of why game makers deserve to be rewarded by the sale of their new games and these other creators don't deserve their royalties.
All we get is that it isn't the same thing. That is not a staunch defense.
Do the authors, musicians, comic book creators, and moviemakers not deserve the royalties for their hard work? Shouldn't the consumer of these products only buy their entertainment new and not used? None of these industries, however, have introduced systems that penalize used purchasers for buying second-hand merchandise by trying to sell them a code. Are any of these other industries packing in codes with the sale of new CDs or DVDs or books that you need to enter to access the content you just purchased so that when someone buys the same DVD, CD, or book used they will need to buy a new entitlement code? No.
And yes, I agree with you that the way things are going it won't be long before video game companies are packing in entitlement codes with new games that you will have to enter to access even the single-player content. If you buy the game used, GameStop or PSN or XBLA will sell you a new entitlement code for, say, $5. I was talking to someone last week about that same thing.
1 up, 0 down
Highlander
Thursday, August 26, 2010 @ 10:23:42 AM
I think you'll find that Underdog did a stellar job of addressing precisely this point, so why should I repeat his words when they are already out there?
If you want to widen this to other forms of copyrighted work, that's fine with me, but off topic here. If you've read my posts in this article and others, you should already know how I feel about copyright infringement in general and the rights of content creators. I fully support the rights of content creators to be paid for their work, and not cheated.
I am very consistent in my stance on this issue with regard to *all* copyright material, not just games. That's one of the things that makes me so 'popular' among a certain group of PSXers...LOL!
I also have to add - as I have said many times in comments about this type of issue - technology has advanced to the point where mass infringement of copyright is trivially easy. That was not the case 10 years ago, or 20 years ago, and certainly not before that. Copyright exists to protect the creators of works and ensure they are rewarded for their creativity. The fact is that the laws have not kept pace with the technology, and the technology has advanced in it's ability to facilitate copyright infringement in ways that could not even have been dreamed about 30-40 years ago.
As an example, look at Books. Books biggest threat before photo-copiers was that someone would make an unauthorized re-print. But that requires printing presses and a distribution network, and was definitely something that copyright law could be used to prevent. Then the photocopier came along and the print media was in a lot of trouble. But along came 'fair use' that says you can copy small excerpts from a work, but not the whole work. If you go to most copy stores like Kinko's they will not allow you to photocopy an entire book. This is because of copyright law. Now along comes the digital age. a gook can be scanned to digital form, or even originally sold in digital form. Now it's possible to break the copyright on the entire book with the click of a mouse. want to be on how happy authors are now? But the law hasn't caught up. So we are left with proprietary copy protection schemes that are broken by hackers mere moments after they surface.
The same is true for VHS, CD, DVD and BluRay. They were all difficult to copy originally, and there are no businesses that allow you to make copies of these things. but as technology advanced we gained the ability to copy tapes, rips CDs, rips DVDs and even Bluray now. Sure it's more expensive to rip and reburn a BluRay right now, but like with CD and DVD, that price comes down. The next step is the digital distribution of content. But the thing is that the law has not kept pace with any of this. The law is an ass when it comes to the majority of this because it simply wasn't framed in a way that makes it enforceable when mass infringement is trivially easy.
I think that makes it a moral issue because we all know what is right and wrong. Others say that because it's so easy and everyone can do it, it shouldn't be against the law. Then they proceed to pick holes in the current laws governing copyright. Just as you have. The fact is that the basic law does cover this, but it has absolutely no way to be enforced in a real manner given the technology and mass infringement we have today. Do we criminalize everyone that's ever downloaded via P2P or torrent? Copyright law is a civil, not criminal law. so every infringement is a separate civil offense that has to be taken to court. How likely is that to happen? The RIAA (quite insanely) tried it, but it simply did not work. You can't sue your customers on your way to success.
It's a moral issue, precisely because the law is incompetent.
Last edited by Highlander on 8/26/2010 10:41:21 AM
If you want to widen this to other forms of copyrighted work, that's fine with me, but off topic here. If you've read my posts in this article and others, you should already know how I feel about copyright infringement in general and the rights of content creators. I fully support the rights of content creators to be paid for their work, and not cheated.
I am very consistent in my stance on this issue with regard to *all* copyright material, not just games. That's one of the things that makes me so 'popular' among a certain group of PSXers...LOL!
I also have to add - as I have said many times in comments about this type of issue - technology has advanced to the point where mass infringement of copyright is trivially easy. That was not the case 10 years ago, or 20 years ago, and certainly not before that. Copyright exists to protect the creators of works and ensure they are rewarded for their creativity. The fact is that the laws have not kept pace with the technology, and the technology has advanced in it's ability to facilitate copyright infringement in ways that could not even have been dreamed about 30-40 years ago.
As an example, look at Books. Books biggest threat before photo-copiers was that someone would make an unauthorized re-print. But that requires printing presses and a distribution network, and was definitely something that copyright law could be used to prevent. Then the photocopier came along and the print media was in a lot of trouble. But along came 'fair use' that says you can copy small excerpts from a work, but not the whole work. If you go to most copy stores like Kinko's they will not allow you to photocopy an entire book. This is because of copyright law. Now along comes the digital age. a gook can be scanned to digital form, or even originally sold in digital form. Now it's possible to break the copyright on the entire book with the click of a mouse. want to be on how happy authors are now? But the law hasn't caught up. So we are left with proprietary copy protection schemes that are broken by hackers mere moments after they surface.
The same is true for VHS, CD, DVD and BluRay. They were all difficult to copy originally, and there are no businesses that allow you to make copies of these things. but as technology advanced we gained the ability to copy tapes, rips CDs, rips DVDs and even Bluray now. Sure it's more expensive to rip and reburn a BluRay right now, but like with CD and DVD, that price comes down. The next step is the digital distribution of content. But the thing is that the law has not kept pace with any of this. The law is an ass when it comes to the majority of this because it simply wasn't framed in a way that makes it enforceable when mass infringement is trivially easy.
I think that makes it a moral issue because we all know what is right and wrong. Others say that because it's so easy and everyone can do it, it shouldn't be against the law. Then they proceed to pick holes in the current laws governing copyright. Just as you have. The fact is that the basic law does cover this, but it has absolutely no way to be enforced in a real manner given the technology and mass infringement we have today. Do we criminalize everyone that's ever downloaded via P2P or torrent? Copyright law is a civil, not criminal law. so every infringement is a separate civil offense that has to be taken to court. How likely is that to happen? The RIAA (quite insanely) tried it, but it simply did not work. You can't sue your customers on your way to success.
It's a moral issue, precisely because the law is incompetent.
Last edited by Highlander on 8/26/2010 10:41:21 AM
1 up, 0 down
Orvisman
Thursday, August 26, 2010 @ 10:27:30 AM
I address Underdog's points about EULAs and GameStop, and I don't full buy them.
0 up, 0 down
Orvisman
Thursday, August 26, 2010 @ 1:33:10 PM
@Highlander,
I would be remiss if I didn't point out that you are writing about the illegal copying of books and pirating of DVDs and CDs not the legal reselling of said goods.
So, you still haven't addressed my points about how the creators of these products are also missing royalties based on the legal resale of their goods. Shouldn't they, too, be able to monetize the resale of their hard work?
You know most authors and musicians don't make a lot of money from royalties, right? So, if you borrow a book or CD from a friend, which I'm sure you have, those artists aren't being compensated for their hard work. The same goes for movie and TV DVDs because the writers on those products also miss royalties from reselling or sharing.
I would be remiss if I didn't point out that you are writing about the illegal copying of books and pirating of DVDs and CDs not the legal reselling of said goods.
So, you still haven't addressed my points about how the creators of these products are also missing royalties based on the legal resale of their goods. Shouldn't they, too, be able to monetize the resale of their hard work?
You know most authors and musicians don't make a lot of money from royalties, right? So, if you borrow a book or CD from a friend, which I'm sure you have, those artists aren't being compensated for their hard work. The same goes for movie and TV DVDs because the writers on those products also miss royalties from reselling or sharing.
1 up, 0 down
Underdog15
Thursday, August 26, 2010 @ 3:00:41 PM
Indeed, Orvisman. The law is a very poor one in terms of protecting copyright licensing agreements. It needs reform, because it's behind the times by like 20-30 years. So it's easy to understand why people feel resale is acceptable. It has become the norm, and aside from personal moral beliefs, it's not wrong.
Books aren't protected properly at all, (especially now that they can be bought digitally!), dvd's, games, and music are all... well... Quote-Unquote "protected". But there's NO way that can be enforced. In the end, the whole thing is silly, and it comes down to what your beliefs are surrounding right and wrong. Are you a type 1, type 2, or type 3 moral personality? Most people are type 2, according to psychological study. So most people will be all for second-hand purchases despite moral objectivity.
Books aren't protected properly at all, (especially now that they can be bought digitally!), dvd's, games, and music are all... well... Quote-Unquote "protected". But there's NO way that can be enforced. In the end, the whole thing is silly, and it comes down to what your beliefs are surrounding right and wrong. Are you a type 1, type 2, or type 3 moral personality? Most people are type 2, according to psychological study. So most people will be all for second-hand purchases despite moral objectivity.
0 up, 0 down
Orvisman
Thursday, August 26, 2010 @ 10:29:03 AM
Reply
Sony was the first to do this with Socom Fireteam Bravo 3.
0 up, 0 down
IonHawk
Thursday, August 26, 2010 @ 10:38:12 AM
Reply
Why is everyone so angry with Gamestop? I love Gamestop - I use them all the time to unload my used games, although only when they have a 50% extra trade-in credit or similar offer going on. I never buy (used or new) from Gamestop, I usually just accumulate store credit until there's enough to just go in and buy hardware tax free. For e.g., I used the 200$ trade-in offer for trading in my 60GB PS3 Phat and got a slim for 0$ out of pocket - just used 100$ of store credit. I still have about 370$ of store credit left which will now help in buying both Kinect and Move (again tax free). Games I buy new but usually after a week or 2 (except for ones I'm really waiting for like GOW3 or Uncharted) of release since they usually dip by 10-20$. The money still goes to the devs, just not the full 60$.
0 up, 2 down
wryslok
Thursday, August 26, 2010 @ 11:19:10 AM
Reply
i buy new games ONLY if they offer a demo on the psn. otherwise, used all the way.
0 up, 1 down
Orvisman
Thursday, August 26, 2010 @ 12:01:50 PM
Reply
@ Underdog, Highlander, and Anyone Else Defending These Entitlements,
One question. Have you ever bought a used game? Be honest now.
One question. Have you ever bought a used game? Be honest now.
2 up, 0 down
Highlander
Thursday, August 26, 2010 @ 12:24:27 PM
What entitlements? The entitlement of a creator to the fruits of their labor? Or the Entitlement Generation that wants everything for free?
Come now Orvis, I spent a long time answering your challenge, and all you do is shift the ground and pick at the edges.
Since you asked, I don't buy games 'used' unless the game is unavailable 'new'. When I do buy a 'used' game, I do everything I can to buy from an individual, not GameStop or the like.
Come now Orvis, I spent a long time answering your challenge, and all you do is shift the ground and pick at the edges.
Since you asked, I don't buy games 'used' unless the game is unavailable 'new'. When I do buy a 'used' game, I do everything I can to buy from an individual, not GameStop or the like.
0 up, 3 down
Orvisman
Thursday, August 26, 2010 @ 12:35:28 PM
I'm not picking at the edges.
I honestly want to know if you and the others EVER buy used games? It is an honest question.
I honestly want to know if you and the others EVER buy used games? It is an honest question.
2 up, 1 down
DeejayDeez
Thursday, August 26, 2010 @ 12:38:18 PM
sure he does. he's saint highlander who does no wrong...there can only be one...(movie sucked by the way)
@Orvisman
Arguing with this "person" is pointless. he says everyone else only sees thing from their point of view, but that's like the pot calling the kettle black since he's the exact same way.
Last edited by DeejayDeez on 8/26/2010 12:38:59 PM
@Orvisman
Arguing with this "person" is pointless. he says everyone else only sees thing from their point of view, but that's like the pot calling the kettle black since he's the exact same way.
Last edited by DeejayDeez on 8/26/2010 12:38:59 PM
0 up, 2 down
Highlander
Thursday, August 26, 2010 @ 12:51:43 PM
@Orvis,
No problem. I've answered. I understand the reason for asking, and I would never describe myself as a saint. But, I've written software (not games) for a living before, and when you see things from that side of the issue, it changes your perspective a little.
No problem. I've answered. I understand the reason for asking, and I would never describe myself as a saint. But, I've written software (not games) for a living before, and when you see things from that side of the issue, it changes your perspective a little.
1 up, 3 down
Orvisman
Thursday, August 26, 2010 @ 1:04:45 PM
Well, that explains a lot.
Although I've been in publishing all my adult life, I've never had a problem buying used books or comics (and I worked for Marvel briefly).
I have discretionary income; but like BikerSaint (We Jersey guys should compare collections some time Biker.), I'm a collector (the same thing could be said about books/comics at one time); so I have to stretch my gaming dollar somehow. It has nothing to do with being cheap. If you guys only knew how much I spent on gaming every year.
Anyway, I don't know how you post so many long posts so often throughout the day every day. That one long post of mine took up a good chunk of my morning. Now, I have to publish another nine articles today to earn my paycheck. ;)
Although I've been in publishing all my adult life, I've never had a problem buying used books or comics (and I worked for Marvel briefly).
I have discretionary income; but like BikerSaint (We Jersey guys should compare collections some time Biker.), I'm a collector (the same thing could be said about books/comics at one time); so I have to stretch my gaming dollar somehow. It has nothing to do with being cheap. If you guys only knew how much I spent on gaming every year.
Anyway, I don't know how you post so many long posts so often throughout the day every day. That one long post of mine took up a good chunk of my morning. Now, I have to publish another nine articles today to earn my paycheck. ;)
2 up, 0 down
Highlander
Thursday, August 26, 2010 @ 1:22:56 PM
I type fast, and I have a window open most of the day. Sometimes I have a slow day, and can comment more, sometimes I have busy days and can't comment at all. sometimes I spend too much time commenting and work longer as a result. It's all about fitting it into the daily schedule.
1 up, 1 down
DeejayDeez
Thursday, August 26, 2010 @ 1:27:28 PM
His profile says he’s an IT Professional who works in a cube…which means he doesn’t do much unless there’s a problem with the network or someone’s computer. I know a lot of guys in IT so that’s just how it is…so I’m not bashin’ just explaining the “free time to blog” thing.
0 up, 0 down
Underdog15
Thursday, August 26, 2010 @ 2:29:57 PM
I only have 1 used game on my shelf. Post PS1 era. Everything PS1 and earlier I got used well after they were unavailable new.
The used game I own is a PS2 game, Killzone 1. The only reason I got it used was actually forced, believe it or not. lol. I rented Killzone from Blockbuster back when they had no late charges. I lost the game somehow, and couldn't return it. I eventually found it about a month or so later and returned it. Apparently Blockbuster charged it to my account, and I could no longer pay the reshelving fee. So I was forced to pay for the game, which they gave to me.
That is the only used game of the last 2 gen's I own.
I actually bought my PSP used, and the guy gave me some crapola game with it. I've never touched it, so it wasn't illegal use. lol. But to be honest, the reason I didn't play it wasn't for legal reasons... It's because it's metacritic score is like a 3/10 or something. I didn't even trade it in for store credit. I just threw it out. I would probably have only been worth $1 for trade in anyways. lol.
The used game I own is a PS2 game, Killzone 1. The only reason I got it used was actually forced, believe it or not. lol. I rented Killzone from Blockbuster back when they had no late charges. I lost the game somehow, and couldn't return it. I eventually found it about a month or so later and returned it. Apparently Blockbuster charged it to my account, and I could no longer pay the reshelving fee. So I was forced to pay for the game, which they gave to me.
That is the only used game of the last 2 gen's I own.
I actually bought my PSP used, and the guy gave me some crapola game with it. I've never touched it, so it wasn't illegal use. lol. But to be honest, the reason I didn't play it wasn't for legal reasons... It's because it's metacritic score is like a 3/10 or something. I didn't even trade it in for store credit. I just threw it out. I would probably have only been worth $1 for trade in anyways. lol.
0 up, 0 down
Underdog15
Thursday, August 26, 2010 @ 2:36:10 PM
DeejayDeez, I'm afraid Highlander is the one not attacking adhomonim it terms of debates. it is you.
I'm not sure why the two DJ's are such mean people...
I'm not sure why the two DJ's are such mean people...
0 up, 0 down
DeathOfChaos
Saturday, August 28, 2010 @ 12:07:41 AM
The last PS1 titles I bought new were Final Fantasy Chronicles and Final Fantasy IX. Damn good purchase too, and I feel it's one of the most worthy purchases that I've bought brand new along with Kingdom Hearts 2 that I had in Lay-away back when Wal-Mart still had the service. :p Hell, I've got Birth by Sleep Pre-Ordered and already paid for, just waiting for me to pick it up on the 7th. Awesome feeling, yes. Those kinds of games, to me, are worth buying brand new. I'll be buying Versus XIII brand new and pre-ordering that as soon as it becomes available to be pre-ordered, and make it the collectors/special edition as soon as that is available as well :p
0 up, 0 down
Highlander
Thursday, August 26, 2010 @ 1:25:49 PM
Reply
I have noticed that a lot of the most vociferous posters with this article are relatively new and unfamiliar names at PSX. I also notice that this particular discussion has taken on a much more personal note, which is unusual here.
The frequency of my posting here has been questioned, suggestions about my work ethic are implied. If that's the way it goes here and people are so concerned about the frequency of my commenting, perhaps I should simply stop.
Orvisman, please feel free to contact me via PM on the forum, your posts are *not* the reason I feel this way.
The frequency of my posting here has been questioned, suggestions about my work ethic are implied. If that's the way it goes here and people are so concerned about the frequency of my commenting, perhaps I should simply stop.
Orvisman, please feel free to contact me via PM on the forum, your posts are *not* the reason I feel this way.
2 up, 1 down
Orvisman
Thursday, August 26, 2010 @ 1:34:51 PM
Sorry to "hear" that. Don't let them get to you.
2 up, 0 down
Underdog15
Thursday, August 26, 2010 @ 3:08:57 PM
Yeah, don't let them bother you. Some people have disagreed with you and me very civilly, and it's been a fun discussion with them.
However, it's clear some people know no other way to argue other than by calling names and insulting you via made up assumptions. It's typical high school behavior and often found in games like MW2. (You know... the people who think they're originally funny by claiming they did your mom or something of the sort)
Highlander, you clearly have more education than those who resort to harassment, and the way you argue your points is clear about who the more intelligent person is. Most people I'm sure could disagree with you but still see you make more valid points than people who have been stabbing in the dark at you. They're just kids with $10 mixing programs on their computers that make them feel creative and musical. I wouldn't let them bother you, an actual professional.
I mean, come on. I have tonnes of time to comment on here. I don't get paid by the hour. I get a salary. All that matters is that I deliver the stats. Which I do! (Best exit stats in the organization @ 100% success rate over the last year. Target is 70%. I'm doing well.) I'm pretty sure I have a more meaningful and fruitful career than the ones staking claims on your profession. Maybe if they work hard, they can advance high enough that they can delegate and chill out on a comp from time to time.
Last edited by Underdog15 on 8/26/2010 3:11:38 PM
However, it's clear some people know no other way to argue other than by calling names and insulting you via made up assumptions. It's typical high school behavior and often found in games like MW2. (You know... the people who think they're originally funny by claiming they did your mom or something of the sort)
Highlander, you clearly have more education than those who resort to harassment, and the way you argue your points is clear about who the more intelligent person is. Most people I'm sure could disagree with you but still see you make more valid points than people who have been stabbing in the dark at you. They're just kids with $10 mixing programs on their computers that make them feel creative and musical. I wouldn't let them bother you, an actual professional.
I mean, come on. I have tonnes of time to comment on here. I don't get paid by the hour. I get a salary. All that matters is that I deliver the stats. Which I do! (Best exit stats in the organization @ 100% success rate over the last year. Target is 70%. I'm doing well.) I'm pretty sure I have a more meaningful and fruitful career than the ones staking claims on your profession. Maybe if they work hard, they can advance high enough that they can delegate and chill out on a comp from time to time.
Last edited by Underdog15 on 8/26/2010 3:11:38 PM
0 up, 0 down
Ben Dutka PSXE [Administrator]
Thursday, August 26, 2010 @ 4:14:27 PM
It's my fault. It slipped off my radar and I didn't really watch the Comments, which I should've done. I knew it would get personal the way it was going.
Just ignore the people who are here to cause trouble. You know they don't last long.
Just ignore the people who are here to cause trouble. You know they don't last long.
1 up, 0 down
Highlander
Thursday, August 26, 2010 @ 5:03:35 PM
Guys, it's not that they're getting to me. I'm honestly too old and life is too short to let folks like that get to me. It's more a case of it's just not very much fun.
Anyway, do not worry. I will admit though, I am profoundly saddened by some of the attitudes I have seen on display commenting on this article.
Anyway, do not worry. I will admit though, I am profoundly saddened by some of the attitudes I have seen on display commenting on this article.
1 up, 0 down
DeathOfChaos
Saturday, August 28, 2010 @ 12:01:15 AM
Seriously, it's all more or less a clash of personal opinions. Personal opinions are just opinions, and this is a heated subject, lol, no big deal really. Ones who may disagree with you in comments on this article may later agree whole heartily with you with another subject. I will admit I'm one who has disagreed with you, but that doesn't mean I hate you or something, loosen up.
Last edited by DeathOfChaos on 8/28/2010 12:02:33 AM
Last edited by DeathOfChaos on 8/28/2010 12:02:33 AM
0 up, 0 down
Highlander
Saturday, August 28, 2010 @ 4:03:15 AM
No. I won't 'loosen up'.
When people start going to your forum profile and pulling things out of that and then throwing them at you in comments here and making insinuations, that crosses a line. If you can't see that, that is *your* problem.
Thank you kindly for your advice, which I won't be taking. Oh, sorry, if I sound angry, you bet I am. Wonder how you'd feel in my shoes?
When people start going to your forum profile and pulling things out of that and then throwing them at you in comments here and making insinuations, that crosses a line. If you can't see that, that is *your* problem.
Thank you kindly for your advice, which I won't be taking. Oh, sorry, if I sound angry, you bet I am. Wonder how you'd feel in my shoes?
1 up, 0 down
tes37
Saturday, August 28, 2010 @ 7:18:42 AM
Highlander,
I won't try to tell you how to feel, but you do help a lot of people, including me. So please don't go anywhere or post less because of people with no manners or moral compass.
I won't try to tell you how to feel, but you do help a lot of people, including me. So please don't go anywhere or post less because of people with no manners or moral compass.
0 up, 0 down
DeathOfChaos
Saturday, August 28, 2010 @ 10:27:53 AM
Ok, Highlander, people are just dumbasses. They don't know the first thing about whatever job it is you do, people who do that are just plain retarded. Your personal information has nothing to do with arguments in comments, and if you get mad over people saying crap you know isn't true, then what's the point? How about taking down all your personal information on your page. For Christ's sake, do something instead of acting all pissy and complaining about, lol. Good, you're angry, but that doesn't prove or solve anything. Just delete your personal life details from your page and it wont happen again, damn, grouch...
0 up, 0 down
Highlander
Saturday, August 28, 2010 @ 5:59:10 PM
@Deathofchaos,
I have taken action.
I've been on the 'net for more than a decade, I'm well aware of how to protect myself. I've also dealt with truly nasty, truly personal attacks and persistent attacks. One thing I have learned is that trying to identify and stop such individuals is nearly impossible, so avoidance is best. It is never advisable to become too comfortable in one place, that is when you drop your guard.
I have taken action.
I've been on the 'net for more than a decade, I'm well aware of how to protect myself. I've also dealt with truly nasty, truly personal attacks and persistent attacks. One thing I have learned is that trying to identify and stop such individuals is nearly impossible, so avoidance is best. It is never advisable to become too comfortable in one place, that is when you drop your guard.
0 up, 0 down
smzdt76
Thursday, August 26, 2010 @ 3:58:35 PM
Reply
Too many spoiled people seem to have the viewpoint that:
"I should get everything cheap or free.
Bands don't deserve to make money for creating music. Game developers don't deserve to make money for creating games. Movie studios don't deserve to make money for creating films."
You're nothing but a thief when you steal something that people create and you're even worse than that when you complain about it.
As for buying something used, you certainly shouldn't expect to get everything you would if you bought it new.
"I should get everything cheap or free.
Bands don't deserve to make money for creating music. Game developers don't deserve to make money for creating games. Movie studios don't deserve to make money for creating films."
You're nothing but a thief when you steal something that people create and you're even worse than that when you complain about it.
As for buying something used, you certainly shouldn't expect to get everything you would if you bought it new.
3 up, 1 down
Knightedrik
Thursday, August 26, 2010 @ 10:34:14 PM
Reply
Personally, I feel this whole screw the consumer thing is going too far. I completely understand both sides of the argument, but here's the catch. Game dev's do deserve to get paid. Understood. I agree. But if they are worried about places like Gamestop taking all their profits.. then lower the cost of games sooner. Take Uncharted 2 for instance, on day 1 that game sold like 120 billion copies. So, the dev's got paid. Well, after that initial onslaught.. they should have thought about things. After the game had been out for say.. 6 -8 weeks.. they should have lowered the price. If they had lowered the price to say $29.95.. that would have not only sold more copies, but would have also helped people in their decision to buy it new or not. They already made 10's of millions of dollars off the game. And I'm just using U2 as an example.
Now on the other hand, Gamestop.. is screwing over people and making huge profits selling used games. Ok.. understood. But who's fueling that whole business? No offense, but it's ignorant people and thieves. If you just bought a game for $60 and you complete it in less than a week.. you have 3 choices. 1. Keep the game. 2. Sell it to a Gamestop type place and get screwed. 3. Sell on Amazon or eBay and get the going rate, which is what the game is worth to the end consumer. Well, if the game has been completed.. you might not ever play that game again. So, why would you want to keep it? If you take it to Gamestop and they offer you $25 bucks for a game you just paid $60 bucks for.. why would you take it? And people sell their games online cause they get a much better price for them.. right? So, why doesn't SONY buy your used games back.. and resell them for a much smaller profit margin? After all, they would be making money, and be able to share that money with the dev's. And at the same time they would be choking Gamestop to death. So.. it would be a win-win, and you the consumer could be proud to know that you are helping the dev's get paid for all their hard work.
It's just not fair to screw the end consumer out of their hard earned money. Sony said that they would never charge for online play. Then they turn around and let other companies do just that. Now most companies are jumping on the "screw the consumer" bandwagon.
If they are so mad about losing revenue due to people buying used games.. then why the hell not just be the seller? You see it all the time with car makers..
Or have realistic prices on their games. Let's be serious.. that stupid Naughty Bear game should have been $19.95 at launch. And if you paid like $60 for that.. then you have more problems then saving money. If the dev's earned it, I have no problem what-so-ever paying $59.95 + tax for a brand new game. Games like Castlevania Lords of Shadow and Fallout New Vegas I have even pre-ordered and paid for in full already. Because I know that those games will be worth every cent. But if you make a football game that will only be replaced by a new version of the same football game every so many months, and then are shocked as to why people would rather pay $10-20 for it used, thats just greed.
It's all about greed really, when it comes down to it. Someone earlier even said about text in books disappearing. Well, thats true.. ever heard of Kindle? Yeah, screw paying for a pre-read copy of a paperback when I can pay more to read it on a mobile device. Riiight.
Anyway, my point being.. why should we, the end consumer, have to pay to a trashed business model? These people look at us like we are batteries, and they do not care how much they milk us for. They do not care at all about their customers.. only about money and numbers. There is a massive crash coming soon.. and I hope to hell your all wearing your helmets. If you don't know of what I speak of.. then ask your father.
History repeats itself. Learn that well.
Now on the other hand, Gamestop.. is screwing over people and making huge profits selling used games. Ok.. understood. But who's fueling that whole business? No offense, but it's ignorant people and thieves. If you just bought a game for $60 and you complete it in less than a week.. you have 3 choices. 1. Keep the game. 2. Sell it to a Gamestop type place and get screwed. 3. Sell on Amazon or eBay and get the going rate, which is what the game is worth to the end consumer. Well, if the game has been completed.. you might not ever play that game again. So, why would you want to keep it? If you take it to Gamestop and they offer you $25 bucks for a game you just paid $60 bucks for.. why would you take it? And people sell their games online cause they get a much better price for them.. right? So, why doesn't SONY buy your used games back.. and resell them for a much smaller profit margin? After all, they would be making money, and be able to share that money with the dev's. And at the same time they would be choking Gamestop to death. So.. it would be a win-win, and you the consumer could be proud to know that you are helping the dev's get paid for all their hard work.
It's just not fair to screw the end consumer out of their hard earned money. Sony said that they would never charge for online play. Then they turn around and let other companies do just that. Now most companies are jumping on the "screw the consumer" bandwagon.
If they are so mad about losing revenue due to people buying used games.. then why the hell not just be the seller? You see it all the time with car makers..
Or have realistic prices on their games. Let's be serious.. that stupid Naughty Bear game should have been $19.95 at launch. And if you paid like $60 for that.. then you have more problems then saving money. If the dev's earned it, I have no problem what-so-ever paying $59.95 + tax for a brand new game. Games like Castlevania Lords of Shadow and Fallout New Vegas I have even pre-ordered and paid for in full already. Because I know that those games will be worth every cent. But if you make a football game that will only be replaced by a new version of the same football game every so many months, and then are shocked as to why people would rather pay $10-20 for it used, thats just greed.
It's all about greed really, when it comes down to it. Someone earlier even said about text in books disappearing. Well, thats true.. ever heard of Kindle? Yeah, screw paying for a pre-read copy of a paperback when I can pay more to read it on a mobile device. Riiight.
Anyway, my point being.. why should we, the end consumer, have to pay to a trashed business model? These people look at us like we are batteries, and they do not care how much they milk us for. They do not care at all about their customers.. only about money and numbers. There is a massive crash coming soon.. and I hope to hell your all wearing your helmets. If you don't know of what I speak of.. then ask your father.
History repeats itself. Learn that well.
7 up, 0 down
DeathOfChaos
Friday, August 27, 2010 @ 11:56:11 PM
You, my friend, are the wisest of this article's comments. Awesome. [applaud] No words can explain the pure awesomeness that is the essence of this explanation, you are king.
1 up, 0 down
Ryoko_Demon
Monday, September 06, 2010 @ 12:10:50 PM
Reply
After reading this article and the long long list of comments a number of things are glaringly obvious.
firstly this is nothing more than an obvious cash grab. Plain and simple. Trolls like "TheHighlander" can try to candycoat it all they want but there is no excuse. The thing is its not even a new story. Some in the industry has gone as far as calling used games "piracy" such is clearly not the case and in todays litigeous world such unwarranted accusations are unwise and thats as generous as it gets. Devs / publishers get paid from selling games & DLC and they get paid ONCE per copy sold same as the rest of us. If they dont like that then they can feel free to work elsewhere.
More importantly Sony has always made a big deal in their marketing about "free online play". Since this new "policy" of Sony and its devs is a direct contradiction this if enforced will lead to legal action being taken against sony. The phrase Bait & Switch comes to mind. The whole point is you cannot sell a product with "feature X" and later remove that feature with no legal basis. "we want money on used games" is not a legal argument and will not standup in court anywhere.
@TheHighlander, I am not done with you. neither is anyone else as evidenced by the massive number of downvotes you've received. Your "arguments" are illogical at best and written by a 1st year MBA wannabe. I'll give you a hint, real human beings in normal conversation do NOT constantly spout corporate marketing mantras. Nobody believes your bizarre excuses. BTW, another hint to the unwise. If Gamestops legal department should ever get hold of your real ID then be very afraid. Defamation lawsuits are a very unpleasant experience.
To come to the point it is glaringly obvious for all to see that you are a rep for either a dev or a console manufacturer. To claim otherwise is a bald faced lie. Now is the time to take a long hard look at yourself. Does it really make sense for you to textually assault your paying customers with abusive ad hom attacks? there can only be one answer to that which is a resounding NO! You really need to get a job elsewhere but with your lousy insolent attitude you'd be very hard pressed to find one.
Last edited by Ryoko_Demon on 9/6/2010 12:15:53 PM
firstly this is nothing more than an obvious cash grab. Plain and simple. Trolls like "TheHighlander" can try to candycoat it all they want but there is no excuse. The thing is its not even a new story. Some in the industry has gone as far as calling used games "piracy" such is clearly not the case and in todays litigeous world such unwarranted accusations are unwise and thats as generous as it gets. Devs / publishers get paid from selling games & DLC and they get paid ONCE per copy sold same as the rest of us. If they dont like that then they can feel free to work elsewhere.
More importantly Sony has always made a big deal in their marketing about "free online play". Since this new "policy" of Sony and its devs is a direct contradiction this if enforced will lead to legal action being taken against sony. The phrase Bait & Switch comes to mind. The whole point is you cannot sell a product with "feature X" and later remove that feature with no legal basis. "we want money on used games" is not a legal argument and will not standup in court anywhere.
@TheHighlander, I am not done with you. neither is anyone else as evidenced by the massive number of downvotes you've received. Your "arguments" are illogical at best and written by a 1st year MBA wannabe. I'll give you a hint, real human beings in normal conversation do NOT constantly spout corporate marketing mantras. Nobody believes your bizarre excuses. BTW, another hint to the unwise. If Gamestops legal department should ever get hold of your real ID then be very afraid. Defamation lawsuits are a very unpleasant experience.
To come to the point it is glaringly obvious for all to see that you are a rep for either a dev or a console manufacturer. To claim otherwise is a bald faced lie. Now is the time to take a long hard look at yourself. Does it really make sense for you to textually assault your paying customers with abusive ad hom attacks? there can only be one answer to that which is a resounding NO! You really need to get a job elsewhere but with your lousy insolent attitude you'd be very hard pressed to find one.
Last edited by Ryoko_Demon on 9/6/2010 12:15:53 PM
0 up, 0 down
Alienange
Reply
Tuesday, August 24, 2010 @ 10:00:51 PM
You know how many people buy used and rent games just so they can platinum the thing and move on? If you had to OWN the game in order to get Platinum, then you'd REALLY see new game sales increase.