I guess we'll have to agree to disagree, because I don't see any way that restricting resale is going to lower prices - normally when a seller has you over a barrel, he doesn't give you a break. But for my wallet's sake, I hope you are right.
![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
Licensed software cannot be resold accord to courts
- Thread starter Dr. Righteous
- Start date
I guess we'll have to agree to disagree, because I don't see any way that restricting resale is going to lower prices - normally when a seller has you over a barrel, he doesn't give you a break. But for my wallet's sake, I hope you are right.
Keep a keen eye out for Steam sales if you are a PC gamer. Rumor is they are saving a massive amount of sales for the upcoming Christmas sale.
No, like regular retail, Steam sales happen months after release. Prices for new titles are generally identical to the off the shelf price, except for special edition releases. As a gamer you get to pick your poison, both methods have their downsides. But prices are not lower, they just have more, and more visible sales. Which is what digital distribution gets you, because they can have lots of products without paying for shelf space and sacrificing space that could be filled with new $60 titles for $10 bargain bin titles. Shelf space costs money, as does keeping an inventory of older titles around to put on sale, not to mention the cost of distribution and logistics for this kind of high-volume one-time thing. As the price goes down, the cost of this overhead becomes a more significant factor in the retail price, and given limited shelf space, it might not even be worth it for the retailer to stock the cheaper titles. Digital distribution makes all of this effectively free, driving overhead down and making these sales possible. It has nothing whatsoever to do with resale.
What you, and the game companies don't seem to understand is that the secondary sales market is part of the economy that drives game sales to begin with. Take that away and you screw up the value equation for buyers. It sounds nice in theory, but if there were any way to isolate that change and come up with real data, my bet would be that it would hurt overall sales. I suspect very few people that buy used games regularly will actually turn around and take that same amount of money and funnel it into new games. Those gamers buying new that can't sell their games anymore now have less to spend, so they buy less games too. If instead the game companies actually got into this market themselves, with trade-in credits or some other scheme, they could actually stand to profit from it.
You are probably right, but it has nothing to do with resale rights. It has to do with low prices and a wide selection of excellent older titles that are hard to get and/or hard to discover in a retail shop. If I'm paying $20 on Steam on a classic game that everyone knows is good, I'm really not so worried about resale. It's a low price and a very good chance of a high return. A $60 brand new game that looks cool, but from a small studio I don't know about and with no demo? Not so much. It's too much money to just piss it away on an unknown with no chance of a return if I don't like it.
The ruling has little to do with games IMO. In fact I think it's pretty off-topic. It's far more relevant to things like Microsoft's OEM licensing agreement for Windows and other more traditional software. I don't think games usually have these kind of agreements.
Well that's what they did last year and took in a huge bundle of cash. Lower prices = more sales = people buying games they wouldn't normally buy. However I dont see anyone dropping the prices of new games to compensate for the lack of a 2nd hand market. PC games drop like a rock in value as it is. If you are patient enough to wait a couple of months (or sometimes even days/weeks) after release you're always bound to pick up games much cheaper.
Last post Im going to make in this thread probably since it's not really going anywhere, but Im curious.
If the game companies want to stop second hand sales, or at least limit them. Why are they not giving preference to digital services that effectively prevent it? Usually Steam's price is 10 bucks more than going down to Best Buy to buy the same fairly new game, sale or no sale. Retail chains prices seem to drop 10 bucks months ahead of Steam barring Steam having % discounts.
In that same line of questioning....why do they continue to provide games to Gamestop to sell? If that company is doing something you don't like with your product, you can at least deny them the supply of new games that may draw people in. It's a big chain, and it'd hurt them both but if the second hand market is so disastrous to make public statements about it.........what's stopping them?
And Zachstar, how long have you been gaming? I know you said 600+USD game collection, at new retail prices 50 bucks each, that's 12 games. If you just started last year that's probably a fairly avid collection given taste, but if you've been at it awhile that's a pretty small collection assuming you're not selling them. I ask because there are people out there who probably spend 100-200 a month on games that get pretty offended by how they are treated as customers now versus 5 years ago. They are paying 1200-2400 or more a year and get half finished, half-assed patches, broken out of the box games due to DRM, and the companies games they are buying are still effectively saying they are pirates if they download a crack to make the game work. It's just plain insulting, and if the really vocal handful of companies keep it up they might find people can do without the hoops they insist on making you jump through. It kinda happened to the music industry, and they still haven't pulled their head out of their asses completely.
If the game companies want to stop second hand sales, or at least limit them. Why are they not giving preference to digital services that effectively prevent it? Usually Steam's price is 10 bucks more than going down to Best Buy to buy the same fairly new game, sale or no sale. Retail chains prices seem to drop 10 bucks months ahead of Steam barring Steam having % discounts.
In that same line of questioning....why do they continue to provide games to Gamestop to sell? If that company is doing something you don't like with your product, you can at least deny them the supply of new games that may draw people in. It's a big chain, and it'd hurt them both but if the second hand market is so disastrous to make public statements about it.........what's stopping them?
And Zachstar, how long have you been gaming? I know you said 600+USD game collection, at new retail prices 50 bucks each, that's 12 games. If you just started last year that's probably a fairly avid collection given taste, but if you've been at it awhile that's a pretty small collection assuming you're not selling them. I ask because there are people out there who probably spend 100-200 a month on games that get pretty offended by how they are treated as customers now versus 5 years ago. They are paying 1200-2400 or more a year and get half finished, half-assed patches, broken out of the box games due to DRM, and the companies games they are buying are still effectively saying they are pirates if they download a crack to make the game work. It's just plain insulting, and if the really vocal handful of companies keep it up they might find people can do without the hoops they insist on making you jump through. It kinda happened to the music industry, and they still haven't pulled their head out of their asses completely.
Again companies are not yet prepared to take the full plunge into Steam yet. And it does not address consoles which need their own anti-resell systems such as "Project 10 dollar" which is gutting resales.
And what you dont understand is that there is no need for that 2nd market driving value. If game companies had the ability to name their own sales they can use it to compete. Also it would help them establish themselves into digital distribution alot easier. But you do make a good point with Trade in credit. It would work to the advantage of such as EA Games which want to push good numbers of online competitors for their CO ops and campaigns. Something they ought to consider when they crush Gamestop.
Now when it comes to Autodesk tho which I agree this ruling has far more effect. Such expensive and hard to develop systems need these court rulings as this bozo was trying to Ebay such software he got at a sale which seriously undermines their business model. It had to be stopped before these companies started implementing worse DRM measures to protect their property.
And what you dont understand is that there is no need for that 2nd market driving value. If game companies had the ability to name their own sales they can use it to compete. Also it would help them establish themselves into digital distribution alot easier. But you do make a good point with Trade in credit. It would work to the advantage of such as EA Games which want to push good numbers of online competitors for their CO ops and campaigns. Something they ought to consider when they crush Gamestop.
Now when it comes to Autodesk tho which I agree this ruling has far more effect. Such expensive and hard to develop systems need these court rulings as this bozo was trying to Ebay such software he got at a sale which seriously undermines their business model. It had to be stopped before these companies started implementing worse DRM measures to protect their property.
I will say it yet again. They arent prepared to take the full plunge into Steam yet. If Best Buy is beating steam it is because they are promoting the sale as a loss leader or have an agreement with the publisher. That will change as more and more use Steam Exclusively. And will change for good if the next Consoles are download based.
Because that wont hurt Gamestop nearly as much as efforts like "Ten Dollar" All gamestop has to do is wait a bit until the suckers start coming in desperate for the next Halo or whatever and boom product to sell at huge markup.
I said I have 600+ on steam. About that much spent on consoles as well. 1k for computer setup over time.
If someone is spending more than 60USD a month they ought to be more patient with their games in my opinion. And yes games are more and more half assed as companies are forced to rely more on DLC and other measures to counter reselling or outright abandoning the game to focus on the hype of the next. There is no excuse for using a Crack. If packaged does not work simply use Steam.
Music Industry is all over the place right now. Cant use it for effective comparison.
Overall I see you name a bunch of issues that can be reduced by a full move to digital distribution or keys/activations for console.
Plague_Injected
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Oct 6, 2008
- Messages
- 6,621
The focus needs to be on Gamestop who are both ripping off developers with their second-hand sales (my local EB has more second-hand console games on the shelf than new copies) and stopping them from fully embracing Steam because they threaten to stop stocking their games if they don't have Steam games at the same price (despite coming with no packaging and frieght costs which is supposed to lower the price of digitally distributed products).
Stopping people selling their old games on eBay or in flea markets for a fraction of the original price is, however, overkill.
Stopping people selling their old games on eBay or in flea markets for a fraction of the original price is, however, overkill.
well in the game developers eyes F everyone and steal all you can...ITS THE AMERICAN WAY
You want to sell our property?
WE OWN YOU...look we bough off some politicians and judges and we can do ANYTHING
Really look at the new activision you PAY to run their servers for them then they feel they have the right to tell you exactly what you can and can't do on YOUR////oh sorry their server.
Now they are going to make money off each of them by only allowing servers on one provider who is paying them to sell it.
WTF
It all goes back to the console morons. They pay to get online....live is one of the biggest joke money rip offs in the world.
THEN they pay and pay for crap games with flash ads knowing they won't play it a week before MOM buys them something new.
Basically the game industry is a J O K E and getting worse
You want to sell our property?
WE OWN YOU...look we bough off some politicians and judges and we can do ANYTHING
Really look at the new activision you PAY to run their servers for them then they feel they have the right to tell you exactly what you can and can't do on YOUR////oh sorry their server.
Now they are going to make money off each of them by only allowing servers on one provider who is paying them to sell it.
WTF
It all goes back to the console morons. They pay to get online....live is one of the biggest joke money rip offs in the world.
THEN they pay and pay for crap games with flash ads knowing they won't play it a week before MOM buys them something new.
Basically the game industry is a J O K E and getting worse
Then dont buy. Go back to quake and whine somewhere else.
When I "Pay to get online" I pay for gameplay that is currect for my location and net settings. Paying to play with people without ending up in a server with massive lag. Pay for updates for for them to maintain proper servers.
And I can accept that.
When I "Pay to get online" I pay for gameplay that is currect for my location and net settings. Paying to play with people without ending up in a server with massive lag. Pay for updates for for them to maintain proper servers.
And I can accept that.
The only measures they will face is the usual "Ten Dollar Project" type restrictions. If they hide this they will get angry people demanding their money back.
However that was not the issue the issue was the bozo selling multi hundred or thousand dollar products on ebay denying serious sales to autodesk. It is just that people are going nuts thinking this will somehow cause a rash of new legal attacks (which ought to happen but wont) on Reselling. The best buisness weapon to use against Gamestop is more Steam focus and anti-reselling features such as the 10 dollar multiplayer token fee for used game buyers. Hell even if gamestop pays for it themselves it will atleast give the devs SOME money.
Decepticon
Gawd
- Joined
- Nov 26, 2006
- Messages
- 554
This whole thing has gotten way out of hand. It's bad enough I can't sell individual games I BOUGHT on Steam to others but to even have the audacity to say that a physical copy of something I bought cannot be sold...that is simply laughable. There is no difference in me selling my old games I don't want anymore and me selling my old couch I don't want anymore. I can't believe any judge would even rule on something that seems so cut and dry from a logical point of view.
Also, in regards to "Project Ten Dollar" if they do plan on charging people buying a used copy and extra fee to pay online (which I understand, I am not in favor of Gamestop's bullshit) then they better DAMN well make sure that I can find a NEW copy of a game using this system even 1, 2 or 3 years after it's release. The ONLY reason I buy a used game now a days is because I simply CANNOT find a new copy. If it comes down to having to buy a used copy, plus paying a $10 premium because they won't make any new copies, fuck that and I'll pass on their game. I do think "Project Ten Dollar" if done right though could actually be a good (or at least bearable) thing.
Also, in regards to "Project Ten Dollar" if they do plan on charging people buying a used copy and extra fee to pay online (which I understand, I am not in favor of Gamestop's bullshit) then they better DAMN well make sure that I can find a NEW copy of a game using this system even 1, 2 or 3 years after it's release. The ONLY reason I buy a used game now a days is because I simply CANNOT find a new copy. If it comes down to having to buy a used copy, plus paying a $10 premium because they won't make any new copies, fuck that and I'll pass on their game. I do think "Project Ten Dollar" if done right though could actually be a good (or at least bearable) thing.
How is Gamestop ripping off developers? Are used car shops ripping off GM? Are used bookstores (and libraries) ripping off book publishers? Just because the developers don't want people to buy secondhand games, doesn't mean that someone who provides that service is ripping them off. Since when is selling a used product compared to stealing something from the person who originally produced it? The sense of entitlement you get from the game companies is breathtaking - worse than even the music or movie industry, who are no angels themselves.
I agree 100%. A Legal original copy is an original legal copy. Why should they make truckloads of cash on shitty games that aren't being used? IMO they shouldn't.
I laugh when people try to compare games to Cars. Or anything for that matter.
Cars devalue right off the lot because it is easy for someone to do something to it before returning it. And devalue over time so that when you buy the car years later it is NOT the same experience as the new.
Books cost almost nothing to develop than games in comparason and the simple act of reading them damages it.
Games as long as they are in good shape give you the EXACT same experience same with movies or music. Music however again costs nowhere near as much and movies their issue is far more to do with pirating.
With gamestop they pay so little to buy games off of suckers that they can match and beat almost any sale the publishers can put forward. So where are people going to go? Gamestop... And gamestop is not giving a cut of that back to the companies.
Now with Anti-Resale tactics such as "Project Ten Dollar" Companies like Gamestop will be forced to buy "Tokens" or whatever from EA or whomever in order to sale the game. Result? EA gets 10 bucks from the used game sale and Gamestop has to compete.
Edit: To point about Steam sales. As of this post they have Empire at War for 5 Bucks. Sure Valve will likely take a quarter of that for hosting costs but it means Lucasarts gets money from the sale instead of a used game bargain bin. You know what this means? With proper Steam coverage and gradual sales and DLC companies can keep patching a developing a game for MUCH longer.
Last edited:
I wouldn't say reading a book damages it anymore than regularly listening to a CD. I have known tons of people who scratched their cds on accident during use. And people who read books usually rotate them out and not just read the same one over and over.
My point has nothing to do with the reasons why things devalue over time, it is that every industry has to deal with resale, and the software industry should be no different just because they want it to be - all manufacturers/producers have to deal with it. Seriously, are you a game developer plant, because you keep parroting the same comments over and over again, with seemingly no actual critical thinking about the subject.
No they don't have to "deal with it" Their products naturally devalue You cant buy a Honda Civic and then expect it to have the same quality after being driven for even 6 months. Also nobody is desperately trying to get rid of them like people do at gamestop.
A game is the same 6 months 1 year 5 10 years later if the disc is intact the experience is EXACTLY the same (Or better with updates)
And I am not a plant. And I have thought about it a great deal Kthanks. And thank geez you do not make the decisions for the game industry.
A game is the same 6 months 1 year 5 10 years later if the disc is intact the experience is EXACTLY the same (Or better with updates)
And I am not a plant. And I have thought about it a great deal Kthanks. And thank geez you do not make the decisions for the game industry.
Regardless of damage of use (Which I have read enough books to tell you that any reading causes wear and tear but a good binding and paper will give you many reads) Your examples take NOTHING to make compared to games. Games are costing as much as movies to make now.
No you didn't.
And you didn't answer how long you've been collecting games either.
I am not sure how that could be construed as being purchase solely on Steam, and I can't help but think you specified in the response so you could inflate your purchase numbers. It doesn't make sense that you would take just your Steam purchases as a figure to use in a point made showing that pirates scoff at buying anything, especially without specifying it was Steam only unless they were against the weaknesses of Steam as well. I could see console only purchases or PC platform only purchases, but specifying Steam as a figure in this discussion at that point without using it to point out something else doesn't make sense.
And since I went ahead and reposted even though I said I wouldn't. I 'd like to make a few other points.
Books content is the same experience whether it's worn or not, music, movies, etc. Maybe the books cover is torn off, maybe the CDs silkscreening is messed up, maybe the box the game came in is trashed.
Medium shifts affect music and movies, digital books as well I will venture to say. OS shifts affect games. So while the experience might be the same for games, you aren't guaranteed to be able to play them in the future. A guarantee that is also not extended to used products in most cases. New and Used car dealers are separated in my state, a dealer can have both lots but their stock can't be mixed I'm guessing to cut down on consumer confusion and maybe some varying specifics each must adhere to. Used cars by law in most states do not come with warranties once they are past a certain mileage or year range unless otherwise specified. Used car dealerships add value to the used cars with their X number of points inspections and guarantees they make when people purchase those cars. Refurbs operate in the same manner, fix used stuff and offer a short warranty period. This is how those companies have dealt with profit loss on used merchandise, enter the market and add value.
Now you'll counter with patches being the value added. And I'll say that patches are there to address issues with the original product. Broken DRM, poor play experience, broken content, etc that should have been working when it went to the shelves for sale. And this is where they don't realize how pretty they sit compared to other manufacturers. There are laws restricting how many times a dealership/manufacturer can attempt to repair a new car before they have to take it back called lemon laws, manufacturers of other products can be sued when their product doesn't do what it claims. Software does not have to deal with this stuff, so they release unfinished products to be fixed later. They have the luxury of releasing products for profit before they are actually finished, unlike physical products.
Content additions are arguably value additions, but only when they were not promised or not needed to finish the game. And most devs are charging for this type of content already in the various forms, expansions, DLC, boosters, whatever term applies.
I guess we can change the argument on used games sales vs. cars/books/music/movies to used games sales vs. used diamonds and jewelry. What value do jeweler's add to used jewelry versus what value does Gamestop add versus what value do game devs plan to add? Never purchased from Gamestop, but I'll assume they'll let you return a used game purchase if you buy it for the wrong platform or it doesn't work for whatever reason. And they seem to offer a decent selection and someone there to help you find what you might like to buy (Value of employees will obviously not be a bonus in some cases). They probably resurface the game and offer some buyer's protection if it's a blank CD with a silkscreen on it. Cash for something you're finished with......etc.
Are the game devs planning on adding value to purchasing through them, or are they just restricting access to the content included in the original purchase and selling it back to you?
And games as they age, are competing against new games of the same genre, maybe even sequels. The game experience might be the same as it was 5 years ago + patches, but that was 5 years ago and now games have all that plus <insert list to particular genre>. What game companies are doing now is taking features out of games versus it's predecessor in the series. Dedicated servers, ability to prone, community made mods, mod toolkits, probably more.... and adding in DRM, install limits, etc. So they are creating an inferior product with better graphics and asking the full retail price if not increasing the price....and then putting out DLC that may or may not include what the old game had feature wise.
Last edited:
You are trying to twist it again. The game experience is the same period. Pick up any SNES or Genesis cart and the experience is the same regardless. It does not need oil changes or a new transmission after a few hundred thousand miles. If the code is intact the experience is the same.
When the pirates saw my list of steam games (I had been trying to boast my "epic" steam collection) That is when they laughed at me. Clear enough for you? I could care less what you think how long I have been collecting games but it was enough to rack up a serious talley. I am not going to defend my choice not to pirate to the likes of you anyway.
If you want to play with peoples posts I guess I will try to analyze yours.
You say you would not post again. But you did anyway. Lets go into that in detail. I think I ought to pull a Glen Beck here and try to tear that apart.
#1 You saw someone daring to defend the industry.
#2 Is there a possibility that you are a pirate? Perhaps so.. We dont know and its time someone asked the questions.
#3 Perhaps you work at gamestop... Hmm perhaps so and the questions need to be asked. You did praise them even tho you claim to have NEVER been in their stores.
#4 Perhaps you are part of a group of pirates attempting to disparage the game publishers in attempt to build support for the pirate party and piracy in general. Perhaps you even buy into the excuse that because its mainstream companies just ought to except their product being stolen... I dont know and again that is the questions that ought to be asked.
#5 Perhaps you make your business reselling games. Perhaps you would not even care that you cost the developers funds... The questions NEED to be asked ya know?
I can keep this up all day. If you want to use such a silly refute I can question your motives all day long as well. Now back to your points.
Patches are added because that is what people want. And to do that they need development funds. Reselling drains such funds and it is time for that to come to an end.
--------------------
Overall this thread has gone on long enough anyway. NONE of you or I have any control over this. Companies like EA games are making the choices instead. And things like "Project 10 dollar" are taking your idiotic Gamestop defence and ruining the point. Thank geez for that. Matter of fact it needs to be 20 dollars in my opinion. But EA gets my buy regardless. 10 years from now everything is likely to be internet delivered anyway which will finally put an end to companies like Gamestop. And I hope more court rulings happen to accelerate that.
Edit: I forgot to add. My shift to Pro-DRM Anti-Resell Anti-Piracy mainly happened because I saw the arrogance of pirates and resale advocates. When I see someone claiming that piracy is ok because the companies supposedly can never stop it and when they do they whine and scream about having to use Steam or another program that TRIES to give you some kind of benefit for enduring DRM. When I see someone yelling at Valve for not allow people to sell their steam games even tho doing so would cause a black market to develop I see the arrogance in the mind of parts of the community. There is no room for negotiation because in many peoples minds Game Companies = EVIL and must be stolen from, Denied market, Boycotted, Sued at all costs which is as dumb as it gets. Do they go and make a game themselves instead? NOPE. They wont face the horror of having their sales stolen from them but attack those who try to defend theirs. Well thank Geez the companies are fighting back now. Such as Project Ten Dollar and using steam exclusively to thwart pirates. Maybe when people are FORCED to negotiate or are completely locked out of a product a solution can be found overall. However, I see many people on this very forum would not come to the table regardless. Sad
When the pirates saw my list of steam games (I had been trying to boast my "epic" steam collection) That is when they laughed at me. Clear enough for you? I could care less what you think how long I have been collecting games but it was enough to rack up a serious talley. I am not going to defend my choice not to pirate to the likes of you anyway.
If you want to play with peoples posts I guess I will try to analyze yours.
You say you would not post again. But you did anyway. Lets go into that in detail. I think I ought to pull a Glen Beck here and try to tear that apart.
#1 You saw someone daring to defend the industry.
#2 Is there a possibility that you are a pirate? Perhaps so.. We dont know and its time someone asked the questions.
#3 Perhaps you work at gamestop... Hmm perhaps so and the questions need to be asked. You did praise them even tho you claim to have NEVER been in their stores.
#4 Perhaps you are part of a group of pirates attempting to disparage the game publishers in attempt to build support for the pirate party and piracy in general. Perhaps you even buy into the excuse that because its mainstream companies just ought to except their product being stolen... I dont know and again that is the questions that ought to be asked.
#5 Perhaps you make your business reselling games. Perhaps you would not even care that you cost the developers funds... The questions NEED to be asked ya know?
I can keep this up all day. If you want to use such a silly refute I can question your motives all day long as well. Now back to your points.
Patches are added because that is what people want. And to do that they need development funds. Reselling drains such funds and it is time for that to come to an end.
--------------------
Overall this thread has gone on long enough anyway. NONE of you or I have any control over this. Companies like EA games are making the choices instead. And things like "Project 10 dollar" are taking your idiotic Gamestop defence and ruining the point. Thank geez for that. Matter of fact it needs to be 20 dollars in my opinion. But EA gets my buy regardless. 10 years from now everything is likely to be internet delivered anyway which will finally put an end to companies like Gamestop. And I hope more court rulings happen to accelerate that.
Edit: I forgot to add. My shift to Pro-DRM Anti-Resell Anti-Piracy mainly happened because I saw the arrogance of pirates and resale advocates. When I see someone claiming that piracy is ok because the companies supposedly can never stop it and when they do they whine and scream about having to use Steam or another program that TRIES to give you some kind of benefit for enduring DRM. When I see someone yelling at Valve for not allow people to sell their steam games even tho doing so would cause a black market to develop I see the arrogance in the mind of parts of the community. There is no room for negotiation because in many peoples minds Game Companies = EVIL and must be stolen from, Denied market, Boycotted, Sued at all costs which is as dumb as it gets. Do they go and make a game themselves instead? NOPE. They wont face the horror of having their sales stolen from them but attack those who try to defend theirs. Well thank Geez the companies are fighting back now. Such as Project Ten Dollar and using steam exclusively to thwart pirates. Maybe when people are FORCED to negotiate or are completely locked out of a product a solution can be found overall. However, I see many people on this very forum would not come to the table regardless. Sad
Last edited:
LstBrunnenG
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Jun 3, 2003
- Messages
- 6,676
There is so much wrong with this post I don't know where to start.
Or maybe that's, you know, the publisher, since it's the dev's job to make a game, and a publisher's job to make money. And you and I would probably disagree over whether or not a publisher wanting to make money is inherently evil, but I digress.
You call console users morons, while some of them might call PC gamers morons for paying for a single video card what they paid for their whole console. We're the ones paying for hardware upgrades every year or so, and they're the morons? Maybe you should really direct your angst at the likes of nVidia or Intel. Let's see how far you get tilting at that windmill.
I'm absolutely certain that every day a game dev fires up Visual Studio, his first thought while he's waiting for it to load is "How can I screw over my customer today?"
Or maybe that's, you know, the publisher, since it's the dev's job to make a game, and a publisher's job to make money. And you and I would probably disagree over whether or not a publisher wanting to make money is inherently evil, but I digress.
I must have missed the part where the company that makes Autodesk started making games.
Nobody seemed to mind BC2's very similar policy when people were hailing it as the savior of PC gaming. When's the last time you actually enjoyed a game played on some server behind some crappy residental connection? For years, people have been renting their servers from datacenters (or at least co-locating) to get the best network performance. You'd know this if you were even remotely involved in the administration of a game server at any point in the last ten years. But you're not, so eeeeeeeeevil Activision puts something in a press release and you find some reason to tear it apart.
Here is a feature comparison between Xbox Live and PSN. As you can see, people get a lot more for their money with Live. And sure, most of those things are freely available if you want to take time to hunt them down for PC, but what you're paying for on the console is the convenience of having them all in one place and behind a ten-foot UI.
You call console users morons, while some of them might call PC gamers morons for paying for a single video card what they paid for their whole console. We're the ones paying for hardware upgrades every year or so, and they're the morons? Maybe you should really direct your angst at the likes of nVidia or Intel. Let's see how far you get tilting at that windmill.
No, but you're post is a joke. If you're so fed up with the thought of publishers and game developers getting your hard-earned cash then...I don't know, don't give it to them? And don't steal it either. Meanwhile, there are plenty of people who still see value in these products and will be happy to pay for them.
So you're paying $60 a year for a user interface.
Got mine for 30 And its alot more than UI
It's not twisting, it's a perfectly valid argument. PC games are based on specific directx versions and OS versions. A lot of the games that run on the newer OSes are not updated by the original developer but by fans of the games. Console games usually only work on a specific generation of a console line, sometimes there's some overlap but it's generally something that's infrequently supported once the new generation console has got it's foothold. They take a dim view on console emulations of old games, and the mentioned consoles aren't sold anymore, games for them aren't sold anymore unless there's leftover stock. The consoles and games are sold used and what you want to happen will stop that from happening in the future. SNES was released in 1991, discontinued 2003. Used game sales are the only way to get games for it now, minus extra stock that might be left over.
Didn't say anything about your choice not to pirate, but you too can go back and see that you didn't mention the 600usd+ applied only to Steam purchases. Not sure how I was supposed to divine that from the original words, sure seemed questionable to me.
I have no problem answering these questions, I wish you would do the same.
1. I see someone who replied in error and who does not appear to be even considering the other side of the topic. And that other side of the topic is not specifically piracy, it is what makes software so damned special? In the future will there be less restrictions on buying a house than on how you handle a 60 dollar game? Blind trust and actively seeking laws to be passed for an entertainment medium is insanity.
2. I've downloaded cracks before, does that make me a pirate? What about game trainers, does that put me into pirate territory since it modifies the game client? Or is it just downloading full versions of the game? What do the game companies use as litmus test for how much profit they've lost?
3. Never worked for gamestop. You'll have to point out the praise to me, and I never claimed I have never been in their stores, I said I have never purchased anything from there. This might be the problem we're having here in this discussion, you know what they say about assuming after all.
4. Hmm, I don't think pirate party supports what you think it supports. Although no Im not a member of a pirate party or scene group. Mainstream companies have to accept that they can't control every aspect of everyone's life. Some people are driven just to figure stuff out, others are driven to collect everything often times they never even play the copies of shit they have, etc. If they do this and don't make money in the process, I think companies have to come to terms with it because it's going to happen. And yet they continue to punish people who legitimately purchase their games and still aren't satisfied because someone somewhere might have played their game without purchasing it. Best Buy puts games in their display consoles, why aren't they stopping this?
5. Nope, it's a PITA dealing with it. Which is why I understand why Gamestop is successful. I don't really believe it costs the developers funds, just as I don't believe piracy is a 1:1 relationship in terms of losses. The numbers are unbelievable, so the argument is invalid until they specify more clearly how they get those numbers, what countries they include and the hocus pocus they use to determine who would have bought the game if they couldn't have gotten it from Gamestop or download it from somewhere.
Yes people want a working game and the box price would be the funds, and the biggest problems within a month of release. So......there wouldn't have much of any resale taking place during this most critical time of patch desires. Long term patches are very slow, see battlefield 2. It has MP, so most people playing purchased it and it's unlikely it was resold. Tons of cheating in it that's only mitigated by admins, and the patch took over a year or something. I stopped caring enough to follow the news on it at some point. Why didn't they patch this? Is it because it was an older game and they were putting their efforts into future games instead? 2142 support stopped before BF2 and it was a newer release. I realize game patches have to stop at some point, but there's a lot of evidence of games stopping prematurely and it has everything to do with them wanting to get the huge initial sales on another release. There's just simply more money in not supporting games or halfassing it after a year or so.
Why not make it 100 dollars? And laws that mandate everyone must purchase games at MSRP or not at all? Or require special IRS forms where you have to specify the number of games you purchased that year, and if it's not enough you have to pay extra in taxes to be sent to the game devs? And if you own a console and don't purchase games you're marked as a pirate and subject to a thorough search of all your properties to find the offending materials?
The poor poor companies in a terrible recession that could very well become a depression, they make a substantial profit and feel that it wasn't enough. Even though they are ignoring the economic issues most of the planet is facing and make unbelievable claims of profits they are missing out on due to statistics they aren't willing to specify the origins or methods of. Just because someone claims something doesn't make it true. Tobacco companies used to tell folks that cigarettes were good for em, even found doctors to back up those claims. Doesn't matter if you hacked up stuff every morning when you woke up or couldn't smell much of anything anymore, it was good for you and you loved smoking so win win. Now the game companies are telling you that second hand sales and piracy are killing them (ignore the economy ignore the economy ignore the economy) and they need to hurt their customers with DRM. And they really need some laws specifically for them tacked on too. And if they get what they want, what they NEED, it will be rainbows and unicorns for everyone with lower prices, better games, more support, and more options. Just those damned second hand sales and pirates were stopping them from lowering prices, making better games, providing more support, and allowing you to purchase their games via alternative ways (and even passing on savings when you do it digitally!......................or not).
You're right, it is sad. It's clearly propaganda. Next they'll be telling you all those piracy groups are funding terrorists with all those millions of lost profits they took.
I'm struggling to see what more you get than a UI. That list posted doesn't seem like its giving you anything special, just taking things you should be getting for free and putting a nice UI on them. Many of the features of Live are P2P or you pay extra on top of the Live subscription which would probably be paying for any servers.
I'm not saying Live is bad, I just dont see why people think its all that great. If you're simply comparing it to PSN then ok, but to me it seems like you are paying money for really not much at all.
Yeah, this must hurt sales
I personally have decided to not buy games after playing them in a display console. Infact I dont think a display console has ever prompted me to consider buying a game, its only ever pushed me away from games I might have otherwise bought.Most recently its stopped me buying a PS3 because I read about them online and build up hype to buy one but every time I see a game on display in a store the crappy graphics change my mind, lol.
Yeah, this must hurt sales
Most recently its stopped me buying a PS3 because I read about them online and build up hype to buy one but every time I see a game on display in a store the crappy graphics change my mind, lol.
Yeah, it's why they don't like releasing demos, keep reviewers off the game as long as possible if it's potentially unfavorable, hold back on game info before release, and only release footage with heavy cinematics instead of actual gameplay. The duds don't get the initial sales boost the good games get if people know what they are buying.
YeuEmMaiMai
Extremely [H]
- Joined
- Jun 11, 2004
- Messages
- 34,179
you agree to EULA when you first aquire the console and every time it is updated......
YeuEmMaiMai
Extremely [H]
- Joined
- Jun 11, 2004
- Messages
- 34,179
BS man cause people have been selling games ever since the original pong game out
someone said
"A car does not automatically devalue itself but does through parts getting damaged and needing replacement. Games automatically devalue because when you sell a used game normally the disc is in good enough shape that the gameplay experience is EXACTLY the same."
yes a car does automatically devalue it'self as soon as you sign the paper they car is instantly worth less than what you JUST paid for it......doubt me? go buy a car and then try to sell it for what you just paid for it.........(collectible or rare cars are the exception here)
Another thing to consider is a lot of older games are out of print and not available on steam. In these cases there's no way the developer are going to get a cut of profit on additional sales so being able to tap into the used gaming market is sometimes the only way to legally obtain out of print games.