dandragonrage
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Jun 5, 2004
- Messages
- 8,298
To Wit: EA's recent charges to "Re-Activate" online play for $20.
I hate these frickin' greedy bastards.
Fortunately, EA's games almost all suck.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
To Wit: EA's recent charges to "Re-Activate" online play for $20.
I hate these frickin' greedy bastards.
Couldn't get rid of Black Ops quick enough. Payed full price because NewEgg screwed up preorders. Sold yesterday on Craigslist for $40, no one was interested at $50.
Steam should be illegal in its current form for violating our first sale doctrine which allows us to sell the property that we buy, including software that claims to only give us a license. It doesn't solve anything for the consumer. It only solves this "problem" for the developer. We should be supporting Steam as little as possible.
As a game developer, I found it amusing and ironic that as I clicked through to comment on this article, I got blasted for having adblock software running.
There's a parallel there, Steve, a remarkably close one.
Please stop using used cars as a comparison to used video games. They are completely different industries.
Auto companies DO make money on used cars. When you buy a used car and it breaks down where to you think the part to fix it comes from?
They also make money when you trade them in. See when you take your old car to trade in, they offer you enough on the trade in to cover the down payment you need to finance the new (or newer used car) you are purchasing. Guess who is lending you the money?
Hmm let me look at my Mazda 3 loan... "Ford Motors Financing"
What about "certified" used cars? who do you think certifies them and takes a cut?
I could keep going on, but I think you get the point
Auto companies DO make money on used cars. When you buy a used car and it breaks down where to you think the part to fix it comes from?
I'd like to see a forward thinking developer work out something with Valve that allows their Steam games to be resold, with a percentage of the sale going to Valve and the developer.
Please stop using used cars as a comparison to used video games. They are completely different industries.
Auto companies DO make money on used cars. When you buy a used car and it breaks down where to you think the part to fix it comes from?
They also make money when you trade them in. See when you take your old car to trade in, they offer you enough on the trade in to cover the down payment you need to finance the new (or newer used car) you are purchasing. Guess who is lending you the money?
Hmm let me look at my Mazda 3 loan... "Ford Motors Financing"
What about "certified" used cars? who do you think certifies them and takes a cut?
I could keep going on, but I think you get the point
Rarely do you actually purchase a software title, you usually only rent it through the license.
I cant see how buying used games is any more destructive to the industry than developers putting out broken-ass $60 games that have no replay value and need a patch on day one. Just sayin.
I was unable to read the original gamesindustry.biz article that CNET based their article on, but I'm hoping developers are not eyeballing whether or not we can buy/sell used games, but the huge profits Gamestop and other retail outlets are making on the sales of the used games. I think the smart thing for them to do is to pursue some sort of revenue sharing of used game sales profits with Gamestop instead of trying to restrict our ability to trade-in or buy used games.
And yeah, 10 years from now when we download everything, this will probably all be moot.
The game publishers are all dicks. They want to stop the sale of used games any way they can.
To Wit: EA's recent charges to "Re-Activate" online play for $20.
I hate these frickin' greedy bastards.
Its $10 hence the name Project Ten Dollar and tell me how its a bad thing? Someone buys a game used and EA can still get some money off of it. Or if they're not big multiplayer fans, they can completely ignore it. Alternatively they can pay the extra $5 to Gamestop and buy it for MSRP.
Its not a bad idea, at least its better then bitching about used sales destroying the industry while still supporting the very company they're bitching about.
I cant see how buying used games is any more destructive to the industry than developers putting out broken-ass $60 games that have no replay value and need a patch on day one. Just sayin.
I don't understand the people who are up in arms over game makers and game publishers getting money instead of middlemen like Gamestop.
Why do they want Gamestop to gobble up the money? So they can save $5-$15?
The game publishers are not blameless, however. If they'd sell their games cheaper to start with or if we could count on price drops in 2-3 months, none of this would be an issue.
It IS a bad idea. The game has already been paid for and it is none of EA's business if the game gets sold to someone else. They are not going to make any additional money if someone doesn't sell the game. And this is just going to turn people off from buying their crap and people will hopefully spend their money on games from publishers that don't try to screw them over.
By the way, to the moron who hated the car analogy earlier, I should have pointed out that car warranties are, by law, transferable. Your whole argument now = trash.
Seriously? Are there really people this dumb around? If you don't like the (perfectly fine and valid) car example, then how about computer parts?
I got blasted for having adblock software running.
.