|AnimeGalleries [dot] Net||AnimeWallpapers [dot] Com||AnimeLyrics [dot] Com||AnimePedia [dot] Com||AnimeGlobe [dot] Com|
If it was, let's say Rockstar now that's a different story.
See, it will hurt THQ and EA no matter what, they still publish good games such as Red Faction or Dead Space, which they also implemented the pass system. Now those games are games people will buy new and probably not sell most likely, or at least compared to the sport games.
You're not a criminal at all for buying used games or selling games because you probably have your own reasons. Maybe you're new to a franchise but refuse to spend 60 bucks on the game...but I don't mean recent games, imagine it's 2013 now and someone buys a game from this year, that situation.
Or, look at it in a different way. Imagine you wanted to play the original Legend of Zelda on the NES (or maybe the N64 ones) and you lucked across finding a suitable console from a friend, and got the related cart from a game-store, online, or otherwise. Now, imagine that the same issue the OP posted about was implemented in those games. Basically, you wouldn't be able to play the game.
Quite simply, you have to look at this some years down the line when these games are considered 'old' and maybe even when the consoles have stopped receiving support and companies have stopped developing for them - like the PS2. With this sort of 'technology' implemented, being able to find a 'classic' console and game and play it yourself will be impossible, save for someone dedicating themselves to hacking the code to get round it.
I'm not a fan of piracy at all (cough <_>) but sometimes it's really impossible to find games without them being used - such as me searching 6 months for Ridge Racer 6, which is now 5 years old. I'm not bothered about the games requiring an 'online pass' or a purchased key to play them to their full extent, but what I am bothered about is the entire game being completely locked out and pointless to play even to the person who bought it and completed it.
Seriously, what is the point? Do they expect us to simply go out and fork over our money to purchase an -entirely new- copy of the game just so we can play through it again? Um ... no.
Just my opinion. CRAPcom indeed. >_>
: The Game. You just lost it. :
Quote Of The Moment:
why?? your friend didn't give any money to the people that made the game?? what makes him so entitled??What happens if you decided to give over ownership of a game you don't want anymore to a friend. That friend should have full access to the game.
i MAY be, but its no more petty than trying to get something that you didn't pay for.These tactics are nothing more then petty maneuvers by companies.
no, if you were to buy the copy new rather than get it used, then that would be one more copy in circulation. it is NOT the same number.Well I personally don't think used games are cheating publishers as there's still the same number of copies in circulation.
look, its basic math.
if 100 people buy a new game, then sell that game used to 100 other people. then that means there is only 100 in circulation.
but if all 200 of those people bought it new, then you would have 200 in circulation.
see how it hurts/cheats publishers now??
but you are missing the point that the people who made the game, could care less if you are more likely to try a used game.I'm more likely to try a game on a whim if I buy it used instead of new.
why? because they make $0 on used games.
why would they care if someone is more likely to buy their game, if they get no money for it???
i also just wanted to say that i don't think there is anything wrong with buying something uesd. no laws broken, its all good.
i just think it's hypocritical for someone to say "hey i'm gonna buy this game used so i can keep some extra cash in my pocket", but then get mad because the developers say "hey we are gonna come out with DLC and pass codes so we can keep some extra cash in our pocket too"
lets face it, both of you are just interested in keeping as much of your money as possible. why should the developers be held to a higher moral standard than you??
Last edited by Gauntlgrym; 06-29-2011 at 01:31 AM.
I really like this thread; it's bringing up some very interesting and informative discussion that gamers should consider.
I really don't like some of the heated rhetoric that this thread generated.
So, I've deleted the offending posts, and gave out the necessary warnings.
I don't have any problem with debating, it's a great way to examine an issue in new ways that may not have been seen, but it can be done in a civil and respectful manner. I understand that sometimes emotions can run high, everyone's human, but I will not tolerate blatant attacks being hurled around that don't even have anything to do with the discussion.
The Brighter the Light the Darker the Shadow
1. That makes no sense all the data is on the disc. It's just circulating. And you could apply that logic when a game drops from say $60 to $50. Used shouldn't matter. I'd like someone to point to evidence that used games hurt the company outside of the company saying so.
2. He's entitled because he owns the disc. All the only pass does is show that a company is petty and greedy.
3. Except you did pay for it. Only difference is it had a previous owner. Company isn't losing money since the game is simply being passed around. If this online pass continues what stopping a company from blocking single player on a used game.
4. Again the friend analogy works here. No money trading hands at all. It's your game you should have full access to do what you want with what YOU paid for. If you want to sell it to someone then they should have the same access that you had.
5. Same as 4. A product paid for should entitle full ownership and as such the freedom to do as you wish with it. The pass undermines it. The company crying over loss wages just shows it's either greedy or desperate or both.
6. (Edit) No because then I should have a right to send the used disc in for a new one. Used means a chance for a malfunctioning product. There's some risks to doing it. There's no risk to what the developers are doing and as such it comes off as petty and greedy.
if you don't understand after my basic math example.......then i give up with trying to show you.I'd like someone to point to evidence that used games hurt the company outside of the company saying so.
having the disc in his hands does not entitle him to ALL of its content. especially online content that takes up server bandwidth that he didn't pay the company for.2. He's entitled because he owns the disc. All the only pass does is show that a company is petty and greedy.
ok i will give you that TECHNICALLY the company isn't losing money, but it defiantly not making any money either.3. Except you did pay for it. Only difference is it had a previous owner. Company isn't losing money since the game is simply being passed around. If this online pass continues what stopping a company from blocking single player on a used game.
and whats stopping a company from saying "all our games will now be $10,000 each"......... just because something can't be stopped, doesn't mean that it WILL happen.
why?? you have been asking others for evidence during this thread, yet provide none yourself.4. Again the friend analogy works here. No money trading hands at all. It's your game you should have full access to do what you want with what YOU paid for. If you want to sell it to someone then they should have the same access that you had.
show me legal evidence that proves that your friend with the used disc, is entitled to 100% of the same content you were as the original owner.
"should" or "does" entitle FULL ownership??? your opinion on Way should or shouldn't be is kinda irrelevant.5. Same as 4. A product paid for should entitle full ownership
theres not really any risk. most places you get used games from come with a 30-90 day guarantee, and what are the chances that a disc will suddenly stop working after it has been working fine for 30 days.6. (Edit) No because then I should have a right to send the used disc in for a new one. Used means a chance for a malfunctioning product. There's some risks to doing it.
unless it was mistreated of course.
complaining about people trying to keep there hard earned money come off the same way too.There's no risk to what the developers are doing and as such it comes off as petty and greedy.
1. It's not all the companies decision. Stores get the final say in pricing since they already paid the developer for the game and are free to charge what they want. It's how they make a profit.
2. No I do, I just find it silly. Since what of the people who'd, like me, wouldn't try an iffy game at full retail price. They'd just pass on it altogether. The company still wouldn't make any money. I.e., the same number of copies would still be in circulation.
3. Yes it does as the data on the disc is THEIR property. Free to do as they please within the bounds of the law. That's like saying you just paid off a car and decided to sell it to a friend only to have the company come and claim the engine saying they didn't receive any money from this transaction. Same principle. As for the bandwidth argument. Many games are peer to peer which doesn't cost them anything as you're connecting directly to other players as companies tend to forgo dedicated servers. There are exceptions but it's just as likely to go either way.
4. How do you get pass a technically? You're either losing money or you aren't. There's no gray area here. And you're analogy makes no sense as it could still be bought used for say $6,700. The value of something isn't the issue here.
5. I'll be the first to tell you there is no law, just common sense. I again point you to the car analogy.
6. As far as I'm concerned, does.
7. Again, you need to look at warranties individually here. GameStop only has a week long warranty for used games. Anything past that and you have to pay. Though @Shinichi would know more about this then I do.
8. Except there it's justified as the companies are using every tactic to milk money out of you. Things like the online pass or on the disc DLC are fair complaints.
I'm bored, so I am posting from my iphone from work and wanted to see this thread cause I was worried if it was closed or not.
Number 1 of @GameGeeks is right. GameStop was selling Portal 2 for 40 bucks for a while when Best Buy or Super Target was selling it for the default 60 bucks.
And as for number 7. Basically within the 7 days you have, you can return it and we will have to refund you a what you payed for. Anything past that, we can't accept it as a refund but we can buy it from you for the price that the computer states.
With that said, I am out.
the original point i was trying to make, is that if you buy a game brand new at a store, then the developers got paid what they should have been paid. regardless of the price the store chooses to sell it to you for.
well, not everyone is like you.2. No I do, I just find it silly. Since what of the people who'd, like me, wouldn't try an iffy game at full retail price. They'd just pass on it altogether. The company still wouldn't make any money. I.e., the same number of copies would still be in circulation.
what about the people that say "well, i guess i will have to pay full price then. cause i DO want to at least try the game"...... not everyone is poor.
it's more like this.......3. Yes it does as the data on the disc is THEIR property. Free to do as they please within the bounds of the law. That's like saying you just paid off a car and decided to sell it to a friend only to have the company come and claim the engine saying they didn't receive any money from this transaction.
you have a used car with no warranty left on it. you sell it to a friend used, and then that friend thinks that he should get the original factory warranty. obviously because he is entitled to EVERYTHING you got when you bought it at full price.
well, this is incorrect. he DOESN"T get everything you got when you bought the car new.
what if (when you bought it) you got manufacturer rebates??? is your friend entitled to those too??? of course not!
so are you saying that if a game IS on a dedicated server, THEN an online pass is ok??As for the bandwidth argument. Many games are peer to peer which doesn't cost them anything as you're connecting directly to other players as companies tend to forgo dedicated servers. There are exceptions but it's just as likely to go either way.
i'm not getting a"pass" on anything. i'm just acknowledging that "losing" money is not the 100% exact same as " not making" money. both ways lead to the company having less money in the end. it just happens in a different way.4. How do you get pass a technically? You're either losing money or you aren't. There's no gray area here.
so basically it's just your opinion, not common sense.5. I'll be the first to tell you there is no law, just common sense. I again point you to the car analogy.
cause imo, common sense says "don't expect to get 100% out of something you didn't pay full price for."
also, i point to my car analogy.
do you really think that a used car with 100,000miles on it, is gonna be "100% just as good" as when it was first bought???
your ARE entitled to your opinion.6. As far as I'm concerned, does.
discs do not just stop working for no reason, they have no moving parts. if it works for a week, then you should be golden. unless YOU were to damage it, or you have a problem with the player.7. Again, you need to look at warranties individually here. GameStop only has a week long warranty for used games. Anything past that and you have to pay. Though @Shinichi would know more about this then I do.
i WILL admit there may be some exceptions to this rule, but 99% of the time.....this is how it is.
As far as I'm concerned, it's not a fair complaint. its a hypocritical complaint as i pointed out earlier.8. Except there it's justified as the companies are using every tactic to milk money out of you. Things like the online pass or on the disc DLC are fair complaints.
you have the right to keep as much of your money as possible, but the companies do not???
Last edited by Gauntlgrym; 06-29-2011 at 01:36 PM.
1. Then lets put it this way. GameStop buys and sells both new and used games. So someone buys a game new doesn't like it and trades it back to GameStop. How does that change anything? They still paid the developers for that same game already.
2. No, but chances are many of those people might have Gamefly or some such and would just rent it to try it. Saving them money and the developers still get nothing.
3. Actually if the warranty isn't up by the time it's sold to the friend if it's still in effect and he would get it. So yes he does get everything. The warranty is attached to the car not the seller in that case. Why I said look at individual warranties.
4. Yes, but if it applies to every one like a subscription. Take Phantasy Star Universe for example. But if it's free for new buyers it should be free for used.
5. No both ways don't. That's like saying where loosing money because we're not making twenty million in sales on this game. That's just ridiculous. If they're not making money it's money they'll never have in the first place and as such its they can't claim they're loosing money.
6. Common sense referring to you owning everything bit of data on that disc. It's yours and they shouldn't be able to charge you for it. And 100,000 mile car can be just as good as a new car if it's taken care of properly. There's risks sure but so is buying a used disc. Any number of things can go wrong with a disc.
7. Skipping to your reply of my seven. Uh, no. People can make a game look usable and temporarily work fine. Small risk of that but it's still a risk. I've had discs that looked fine with no scratches but after two weeks wouldn't run while every other disc I owned still worked fine. Guess what, past the seven days for GameSpot so I was stuck with it. So you should account for that 1% of the time.
8. No it is since used entails more risk then buying new. And as such the price reflects that. The companies take no risk and already charge for things that are contained on the disc claiming them as DLC when you don't download anything and just unlock it. Tell me how that's fair to the consumer?
just thought I'd throw this out there:
Eventually, all games stop getting made new, and the only way to buy them is used.
The Brighter the Light the Darker the Shadow
The car analogy is not completely accurate in this situation, to be honest. Basically let's say my brother and I have two Xboxs in our household, one mine and one his. If I bought and redeem an EA/THQ game and I redeemed the pass with my account, basically because the pass is account-locked, it would not even work even if he uses his account on the Xbox where the code was redeemed, only the account where it was redeemed. Basically the person would have to recover your account and play with your account in both consoles if they wish to play online.
(@)Everyone; I do believe the argument belongs more where a game is recent and you can buy it new yet people are so cheap and decide to buy it used to save 8 bucks. If the game is not acquirable new then that's a different story.
Let's see if I can use this example of how used game sales hurt the industry, because a few people seem to have trouble understanding why it does (and is admittedly a tricky subject at first). My family owns and runs a tattoo shop. We buy all of the necessary equipment, inks, and pay the workers with our own money; as a result, the employees give us a percentage of what they are making on each tattoo done.
Now, let's say one of our workers takes one of our tattoo machines and decides to lend it to a friend (which is probably illegal and very unsanitary, wouldn't ever happen, and is only being used for the purpose of this explanation) to use. That friend uses our machine as if it was his own for however long the employee let his friend borrow it, and when the period is over, the machine is returned to the employee and the employee receives money from his friend for a rental; money that will never reach my family (the owners of the machine and buyers of inks and supplies).
Someone would be taking our machine and making a personal profit off of it while we receive nothing and, if anything, lose profit. This is exactly the process for Gamestop; they sell games that were already purchased and redistribute them to countless people. Thus, no money is gained by the publishers and developers, and only for Gamestop themselves. Do you understand a little more clearly now?
@UmJammerEri Except the person who buys it the second time should have full access to the game since the original sell is reselling it. And your example doesn't work as that arrangement is temporary where as a used game purchase isn't. It's your disc and you have every right to it. There's a difference between purchasing and loaning. So there can't be made a correlation between the too.
As many times as I have said this, it's a complicated issue that has more than one side to it. You're free to your opinion (I'm free to mine, and so is the industry), but the simple fact is that it does hurt the industry. It's okay if you don't see how, if you think that it's silly, and if you don't think it's that big of a deal. But let me use a much more true-to-the-situation example:
I buy a game new, play it for a week, beat it, and trade it in. Person #2 goes to Gamestop, sees my copy of the game, and buys it (with his money going directly and only to Gamestop). Person #2 plays the game for a week, beats it, and then trades it in. Person #3 then goes to Gamestop, buys that same copy (with the money going only to Gamestop), and the cycle repeats potentially forever. If you can't see the potential harm to come from that, there isn't really any hope to continue explaining it to you. Really though, and I'll say it again: you have as much of a right to an opinion as both I and the industry do, but you really can't deny the potential harm that can come from the aforementioned cycle.
It's not like they buy it for how much the game is worth. You may have purchased Black Ops for $50 and trade it in with a maximum $30 worth in points at most. They are not gaining the full profit. Then they have to hope they sell the copy soon.
But you're never going to stop the used sale thing. I mean what's wrong with someone who has already finished something trying to get a bit of extra money back from it. I mean seriously it's never going to stop. The resale of things continues FOREVER. Chairs... Beds... Movies.. Games.. Appliances... No matter what it is you can always find it used. The game companies are not hurting too much as of yet. They are still raking in money for right now. Sure it's not as much as they'd like to be taking to the bank but that's partially the economy's fault. Better economy = more people buying things new. Crappy economy = more people being aware in their spendings and going for a good deal [which is used]. Sure there is harm in this cycle but it's never going to go away. By stopping it by creating these new games [which isn't what sources say it was created. But lets just hypothetically say it was..] Then we the people are more likely to avoid buying that product that has that feature.
I'm jus' sayin'
I would really prefer not to see a repeat of last night.. -___-
The Brighter the Light the Darker the Shadow
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)