No more used games?

  • #21
    Quote from Tempest07

    Okay, that's like someone buying one album from a band, and then that person putting it on his playlist/collection, then trading it to a friend, and that person does the same, and over and over and over... the band gets profit from 1 sold album, yet 100 people are listening to it... how is that fair? Those 100 people should just go buy the album.


    Your analogy is wrong, what you are saying is that you make a copy of the music and keep listening to it, while you sell the album used to someone else.
    This would be in the used game example, as if you would keep the game installed and kept playing it and sell your used game. That's not what the concern actually was.
    The subjeect is, that you delete the game from your harddisk and then sell your used game. There is nothing wrong with that, look at the car/books/furniture examples.

    Personally I haven't sold any games I bought, what I did tho was trading games with friends back in the days when there was no online gaming yet. Tho I don't mind, that you can't sell your copy of Diablo III again.
    Quote from Tempest07

    They have no right profiting off a second copy? Are you kidding me? It's ALL their right to make money off the game they spent years to develop... why wouldn't they have rights to that?

    They already got their money for that one copy and I don't see any reason for them to be able to get more out of it and that comes from someone who develops software for a living (not games tho)
  • #22
    Stop being cheap and support the people that make the things you love. Sure, I can admitt that I once in a while try a game without buying it just to see if I like it, but I always buy it if I like it, and not at a 75% discount.
  • #23
    Quote from Siaynoq

    Simply put: used games or borrowed games are simply an alternative way for someone to experience a game for the first time that they easily might not have otherwise at the standard full price.
    i thought games were going on "the cloud" and you could rent directly from say, XBL or PSN and whatever Nintendo has. If this is the direction gaming is going, then I am still fine with it. of course, that brings the whole internet requirement discussion....blah.
    Remember the String of Ears

    "to the worm in horseradish, the world is horseradish."
  • #24
    Quote from Mccormick
    Now, the situation with Blizzard for example charging more for a digital copy than what you'd pay in a shop (where you even skip one part of the chain, and thus don't need to pay a cut to the shop) is something totally different i, too, cannot get my head around. I'd LOVE to see a logical explanation on that one, because without a good explanation it's very baffling indeed.


    This one is easy... Blizzard doesn't set store prices... If they could, all stores would have the same price, and sales would be the same across the board...

    MSRP... Manufacturer's SUGGESTED Retail Price...

    Blizzard definitely makes a lot more off the digital sales, both because it's the MSRP, and because they don't have to sell it for much less to a retailer... Makes you wonder why they are even bothering with physical goods (for an online only game).

    -Alamar
  • #25
    Quote from Nimerah

    Stop being cheap and support the people that make the things you love. Sure, I can admitt that I once in a while try a game without buying it just to see if I like it, but I always buy it if I like it, and not at a 75% discount.


    You have to remember that some people can't afford it. I know it sounds weird to you, but not every country in the world has the same salaries. Diablo 3 for example may seem cheap to some of you, it's okish for me, but for someone else with a monthly salary of 100 euros (which is not the salary in china or other poor countries) it costs like half their month. Of course buying used games doesn't solve that, but still you should have the option.

    Companies these days take away more and more from gamers, and ask for more and more money for a single game (for example Alan Wake or Mass Effect or Street Fighter x Tekken with their infamous DLCs). I disagree with what they're doing. If you want to sell your game more, go ahead if you got the balls. But sell it complete and finished. Tricking people into buying it to find out that you want more of their money to let them have it whole, is despicable. (For example SWTOR, it was a nice game, but it was NOT BY ANY MEANS finished when released, still I paid the full price, and have to wait for months paying subscriptions for them to implement things it should have at launch. SURE THING)


    The problem with used games, is that stores screw over the Devs. They "force" you to buy used, just because they make ridiculusly more money. You go with the mindset of buying a new game, and they make their employees tell you "come on, it's the same just cheaper" and the dev loses a GUARANTEED sale. If they forced retailers out of used games sales, maybe it wouldn't be a problem. Used products were on sale for millenias, but they weren't exploited like that. FUCK YOU MARKETING, FUCK YOU. :)
  • #26
    Quote from Tempest07

    Quote from maka

    Quote from Tempest07


    **cutting annoying red text **


    Are you kidding me? The developers already made money off that one copy, they have no business profiting from it a second (and more) time. That's like taxing you multiple times on the same thing, for the same reason. What did they do to 'earn' that second sale? Nothing. And you're assuming that everyone that buys used would buy new, which is so not the case. Should we also bind films to specific DVD/BR players, then?
    This kind of crap is starting to run rampant, and attitudes like "well, I don't like it, but I guess it's how things are, now" really don't help at all.
    And regarding your last sentence, let me just say this: D3 physical copy: €40; D3 digital copy (from Blizz!): €60. I rest my case.
    The giant videogame companies are run by greedy bastards who'll do anything to get an extra buck. We don't need to help them do that by agreeing with increasingly draconian measures like this.

    @Drol: I am angry at Blizzard for doing the same thing. An online-only SP game is ridiculous, and has no sound reasoning behind it except for the usual fear-mongering "oh the pirates!!".

    Okay, that's like someone buying one album from a band, and then that person putting it on his playlist/collection, then trading it to a friend, and that person does the same, and over and over and over... the band gets profit from 1 sold album, yet 100 people are listening to it... how is that fair? Those 100 people should just go buy the album.

    They have no right profiting off a second copy? Are you kidding me? It's ALL their right to make money off the game they spent years to develop... why wouldn't they have rights to that?
    Developers don't make any money with used games being bought/sold... I'm not saying they should make money off used copies... I'm saying that they should stop used copies from being distributed, and instead, if people want the game, they have to buy it...

    Lastly, I don't have a "I don't like it, but that's how things are" attitude... I have a "give money to the people who made the product" attitude.

    Piracy of software cost software companies over 50 billion dollars within 2 years. (That's $50,000,000,000.00) And you call them greedy? It is estimated out of all the software in every computer in the world, 45% of all that software is pirated. So those companies are automatically profiting 45% less than they should, because of these dumb people. It's these "customers" that are greedy, wanting something, but not willing to pay for it. "oh the pirates"? Grow up. These people try to make a living doing this. They depend on sells.... and GameStop, places that trade/sell used games, and piracy are ruining that...
    But who cares right? Just keep buying games... eventually it will impact the gaming industry enough that software companies will stop producing games at a high rate, and there will be just a few games on the shelf... then we'll see who's bitching.

    -Temp


    What a load of bull Temp. If you resale your disc, you no longer have the disc, so you can't play it anymore, so it is not at all like copying. It is the same with CDs, cars, houses, and books, basically anything that has a use past its first use. Second hand sale of items should imo be allowed for games. The developers do not miss out on a lot of money anyway, by the time someone resells his game, the game will be in the budget bins anyway. I think that my right to use online only software should be transferable as well. My wow accounts represent a significant value and I think it should be possible to transfer them, same goes for my Steam games. I see games as consumer goods, not as a service.

    Pirating is something completely different and something I am against. The problem is a bit exaggerated I think though. A large fraction of that number is composed of software that would never be bought by ppl if they had to pay the full price (600E for the full version of office, 3000E for Adobe CS). I used pirated software when I was studying and although I am not proud of it, I don't feel too bad about it either, I just didn't have the money to buy software.
  • #27
    Quote from Drkclone

    While I am excited for the next-gen consoles to come around, I will be skipping over this generation if they implement these changes.


    They earn money on you buying games. They usually loose if you just buy console. So you will do them a favor if you don't buy their consoles if you are not going to buy new games.
    And if they implement these changes and they work for them you will have to skip all the feature generations.
  • #28
    sounds like the steambox might have a chance after all :D
  • #29
    Register D3 on a standalone bnet account. Sell that account used. You can play D3 used.
  • #30
    Quote from Tsukishima

    Register D3 on a standalone bnet account. Sell that account used. You can play D3 used.


    technically that's against the terms of use / eula and they could ban the account when they see you logging in with a different ip. (if they really wanted to)
  • #31
    People change ISPs and/or IPs all the time. The password is the only real key to your account. WOW accounts are traded despite the potential for the seller backing out and claiming hax. Trading in account locked games is limited to the trust found in trading standalone accounts. I would be most surprised if there was no trade in D3 standalone Bnet accounts.

    If you want to reserve your ability to sell D3 without selling your other account locked games (eg. WOW/SC2) register D3 to a standalone Bnet account.
  • #32
    maybe they'll make it harder by forcing an authenticator on all d3 accounts (with the rmah i was thinking of getting one anyway xD) - and all those who have downloaded the app onto their smartphones will have it a lot harder to sell the game.

    (is it possible to remove authenticators on phones from accounts, never tried this, really xD)
  • #33
    Quote from dense111

    maybe they'll make it harder by forcing an authenticator on all d3 accounts (with the rmah i was thinking of getting one anyway xD) - and all those who have downloaded the app onto their smartphones will have it a lot harder to sell the game.

    (is it possible to remove authenticators on phones from accounts, never tried this, really xD)

    yeah you can easily remove those
  • #34
    I really don't see VG as different from music or books. It's all just intellectual property. You're OK with selling used CD's/DVD's/books, but not games?
    And just because some stores are making undue money off used VGs, doesn't mean they should take away such a basic 'right' as selling your used stuff. But this is not surprising, societies, especially the US society, where most of the VG companies are located, have been changing into a 'use once and chuck away' mentality; things are no longer fixed or repaired, they're just binned and new ones bought. This is just one step forward: used things can't be sold; throw them away or keep them forever. Hell, with the system outlined by the OP, you can't even GIVE a game to someone.
  • #35
    Quote from rozmata

    Quote from Drkclone

    While I am excited for the next-gen consoles to come around, I will be skipping over this generation if they implement these changes.


    They earn money on you buying games. They usually loose if you just buy console. So you will do them a favor if you don't buy their consoles if you are not going to buy new games.
    And if they implement these changes and they work for them you will have to skip all the feature generations.
    You do realize that Sony and Microsoft loose money if I don't buy their consoles? As is I don't even have a PS3 so Sony hasn't gotten my money yet. And Microsoft will probably keep the subscription for Xbox Live. So they are, in fact, loosing money.

    And I agree with Maka on most of this. Video games aren't a subscription service. Nor are DVDs and CDs. So there should be no rules to abide by. Yet it is the video game companies that should earn money off of used games while film companies earn nothing off of used DVD sales? Most of this is that you got businesses earning a big chunk of change just from used games and the publishers want in on that money even though they are earning record profits as is.
    I don't always burn. But when I do, I use hellfire.
  • #36
    Quote from Siaynoq


    But all this new found interest in the AC games would never have happened for me if I hadn't had that chance to eventually borrow the first two games from a friend. It was this far down the road for me that I didn't see myself willing to buy AC 1 and 2 brand new. And I don't think my case is exceptional either. I think a lot of people get into games this way: by having it loaned to them or buying it used, deciding then they really like it, and choose to get more into that series of games. And yes, some games are stand alone games that don't have sequels or reboots, but the logic is still the same.

    Simply put: used games or borrowed games are simply an alternative way for someone to experience a game for the first time that they easily might not have otherwise at the standard full price.


    ​That is a good point and might be the only collateral in this new system... however I already heard that with this new system there will be a lot more playable demos of a lot more games... so everyone will get to sample the game (such as you did with AC 1 &2) in order to make a decision if they want to play it or not... playable demos are great, and really bring people into the door...

    The security for the producer with this new method is just way better than having CD's floating around everywhere... it's obvious this is their main reason for doing this change. More security less freedom. It's usually one or the other in any example...

    If software companies sell 100 games, but over 500 people play those 100 copies (borrowing from a friend, trading to a friend, selling to a store, etc, etc) I'm sure those software companies see that as a casualty of profit... and as a loss in potential. They ask themselves "how can we get more of those 400 people that didn't buy, a reason to buy the games?" Answer? Not allow trading/borrowing, and make them permanently link the game to their account, where it is only playable on that account... maybe then instead of someone saying "Hey, I have this fairly new game called BLAH that's been out for a week now, it's awesome, I love it, check it out" Then their friend gets the demo, likes it, and buys the digital copy, done! That is a more successful business model than their previous "hey can I borrow it when you're done?" scenario...

    I have software on my computer that I bought a license for... and the license is only good on one computer (similar to any OS system) I can't let anyone borrow it, and I can't spread it around in any other way... it's on my computer, and that's all it's every going to be on, because of how they setup their licensing... doesn't make me mad... I still have the software, still use it for it's purposes...

    Just like games... I have tons of games linked on my Steam account... and I play them all, and I have fun with it, and so do all my friends... if I ever wanted to trade in my games for any reason I guess I can't... if my friend wants to try my games he can log into my Steam and play it while I'm at work or not playing if he wants to... to get a feel for the game.

    I guess this is getting dragged out... but overall I understand both sides of the discussion... gamers don't like the restriction, producers don't like the diminishing results of sales... how can both be happy? Maybe "un-link" the game from your account, and you earn some virtual Playstation money to be able to purchase other games in the future? (Basically get a new game slightly cheaper?)

    Which scenario are you most concerned with? Are you wanting a a new game, and you have all these old games laying around... you sell the old games, which will give you enough money to basically get the new game for free (via Trade-in.)

    Or are you most concerned that you can't afford new games easily, and as a gamer on a budget you only have the option to buy a few used games (since they are reduced in price) in order to have an opportunity to game and enjoy gaming?

    Good discussion either way. :)

    -Temp
  • #37
    I think my overall concern simply is the precedent it sets. I understand the gaming industry is changing very rapidly and hence the developers and publishers are finding ways to protect their investments and maximize their profits. And I don't even have some big concern for people who can't afford games that are new.

    All I'm saying is, when you want something new and right away, you're usually gonna find a way to get it. People that buy used stuff later down the road were unlikely to ever buy it new anyway. So the measure just seems to target more of a niche group of consumers and it hardly endears fans to the publishers any further.

    I don't know. The analogy I can sort of think of is drug users and drug dealers. Some say we shouldn't go after drug users, but dealers. But even dealers are easily replaceable and it's often a waste of law enforcement's time to go after them. Ultimately the suppliers is where the efforts should be placed on. What this has to do with selling used games is it's just hard to imagine used games have really hurt anyone's profits that much. They may lose some money from used games being sold, but all anyone is really going to remember out of all this is the controversy of exerting that much control over the disc you put in your console. PC gamers obviously have more options in how they get their games. Consoles not as much, and this further limits console users' choices and I simply think that's a bad thing. And I don't really think having demos for a game really makes up for it.

    Quote from apples

    if it gets rid of God-aweful companies like Gamestop then i'm all for it.
    Your attitude is petulant. You're saying even if it is a bad policy, then it's okay as long as it hurts another company that you don't like. So the basis for your stance is spite.
  • #38
    Yes you're right, if you want something new and want it right away, you'll find a way to get it... much like Diablo 3... I bet everyone on this forum pre-ordered Diablo, or will be playing it on it's release one way or another...

    Let's say Diablo 3 does come out on console, and it's been released for 6 months already... and just now (6 months after release) more people are looking into it for some reason... (maybe influenced by a video game magazine, a friend, or a new update/expansion prospect). Blizzard still wants to profit on those people too, not just the people who wanted the game right away... that's why games slowly become cheaper for the most part... they usually aren't still $60 dollars like they were when they were released...

    ​Let me give you another example... Skyrim was released and sold 7 million copies the first week of it's release... since then, they have sold roughly an additional 4 million. If users could just trade-in Skyrim (if it was not linked to Steam), then that is millions of copies that could have been returned after playing it for a few months... they would not have sold an additional 4 million, they might have only sold 1 million or 2 million... that would be a big difference for Bethesda...

    The difference between a new copy and a used copy is about $5-$10 dollars for the consumer... the difference between the new copy and the used copy for the producer is $50, or 100% of the principal cost of the game. That's unfortunate. Personally, I would rather just pay the extra $5 to better support the gaming industry, the gaming community, the developers, the producers, and everyone that helped create one of my favorite hobbies into an enjoyable experience.

    Maybe Playstation needs to re-evaluate their approach on their level of security measures... or maybe we just need to get used to it... anytime there is extra security, people complain. (Which is what I'm seeing here). When everyone started getting x-rayed at airports, people complained, when SOPA or the PATRIOT act popped out of nowhere, people complained.. it's almost natural that when something that was once there, and now being taken away, you have the instinct to complain or lash out one way or another... not saying that's a bad thing or unnecessary, just examining the situation...

    If nothing was ever pirated, stolen, or traded in, I could see the potential for games to go down in price... especially if there was no need for boxes, instruction booklets, shipping, manufacturing, CD-ROM distribution, shelving, etc... if it was all done digitally (minus maybe certain titles or CE editions), the price for games might go down even more... who knows... just trying to look at it from all angles here. :)

    -Temp
  • #39
    Self interest is the main driving force for most parties. The producers want a share of the 2nd hand market, frequent resellers want to be able to sell off their older games to make back some of their cost. Some traders even expect to profit by reselling obscure or limited edition titles. On a more basic level, some people want to actually have ownership of something they purchase and the right to transfer this ownership in the future. An EULA is not recognised legally if it infringes on a country's consumer rights, something Sony found out in their PS3 woes last year.

    No one owes the producers their revenue. Suggesting a course of action is commendable because it helps producers earn more is not going to cut it with anyone that doesn't have a direct stake in the producer's work. The concept that producers will reduce prices because they can afford to do so is unlikely at best. The fallacy that every downloaded copy or 2nd hand sale would have been a direct first hand sale if there were no other options to acquire the product is one of the favourite and flawed arguments of the RIAA and other licensing conglomerates.
  • #40
    Didn't read too much into this. Basically Temp is right on his points. I am a musician and can tell ya its pretty much a volunteer job now because of what Maka is trying to defend. Like everyone likes Metallica ya? So they tried to stop the DL of their music and everyone is pissed about it "WE LOVE NAPSTER F U METALLICA BUT THANKS FOR GREAT MUSIC!" Ok..

    Stop being greedy with your money and reward those who make something you want?
    Pay Blizz for D3 or grow up
  • To post a comment, please or register a new account.
Posts Quoted:
Reply
Clear All Quotes