IKWerewolf said:
OK I'm trying something out here, be patient and understanding.
I understand you're "trying this out," but this point of controversy has been done a few dozen times. I doubt anything has been added here since the last one, so recent it's still got some quotes in my inbox.
Should we blame the used games market stores? Well yes and no really. Yes for not giving some of that used game revenue back to publishers but not for the idea of providing customers what they want, games at cheaper prices.
Why should be blame them for not just giving money to the pubs? They got money off the original sale. Why should anyone feel entitled to get a second piece of the action?
OK so the game would break the used game market as it would reduce the price making it not worth the shelf space but customers would not buy the game at all as a show of anger as they would feel ripped off (and I ask why because this is the way PC players have to play anyway?).
Game stores likely wouldn't accept it in trade, or offer very little and charge a reduced price.
Now consider what Rage is doing... and its the lesser of two evils as it doesn't turn the game into a frisbee. However its the easy way out not the best. There is one thing as gamers that we can do to stop it and I'll fill you in when the time is right but feel free to guess on here.
However, you also summed it up. The lesser of two EVILS. It's still wrong to deliberately cut content, which is what they're admittedly doing. Not to the same level as people interpreted it to be, but maybe a little hissyfit based on ovverraction is what the gaming community needs.
DLC has offered a lot of more flexible methods for distribution, and unfortunately a good chunk of the gaming world has used it to punish us rather than to benefit both sides. Locking content just shows disdain for the customer base. The argument that they don't see money from used sales being problematic, since the used sales they hate often fund the new sales they love so much. In short: Deprive the gamer, deprive yourself.
If I have to spend ten or fifteen dollars to unlock content, that's not going to be spent on new content. If I spend it at all. If I do, the publisher doesn't really care. They get their money one way or the other. If I don't, they cry and scream because I'm not buying their games.
Devalue the used game, the gaming community does have less to throw around. It's two-fold, both for the seller and the buyer. And the people who trade in their games are more prone to do so for cash towards games. There's a reason Gamestop's model has been so successful, though part of it is dark magic I suspect.
Other elements that separate used sales from piracy:
-Finite copies versus infinite. The used market can only exist as long as there are new copies being purchased.
-finite usage. While one disc could technically be sold around a million times, it means nobody previous has access to it at the time. You can play a game while someone else torrents your installer. You can't do this with a used disc. Unless you're also pirating, but that falls under...Piracy.
-Used games are great marketing for new content. Going into Gamestop, you have to go past like ten million ads just to trade your stuff in. They actively and aggressively push new games. Some complain too aggressively. This helps push that all-important pre-order.
-Used games can still mean money without depriving the user of original content. We're living in the era of DLC, people. Seriously. If pubs can't figure out how to make this one work, they deserve to crumble like the bloated dinosaurs they are.
-Though EC meant it in different context, Players. Are. Content. Locking out multiplayer especially is just dumb, as you're depriving the paid owners from more content just as you're depriving the unpaid owners.
Aaaand...My tendinitis is acting up again, so I guess that's all I got. I don't get why anyone should feel guilty here, though.
