Buying Used isn't Piracy

[seraphy]

I don't think you are reading me correctly. The publishers have every right to make their companies profitable, as long as they don't break the law of course. Project Ten Dollar is one way of doing this. I'l edit my original post for clarity.
EDIT: There I think it reads as I intended now.

Alright, makes much more sense now.

Sorry about that.

 

[Kopikatsu]

I've read through the posts in this topic and many others, and I'd just like to say...

Stop using analogies. Both sides. I have yet to see a single analogy that hasn't been butchered. Just...don't do it. Think of the analogies. They're innocent. Don't let them see their families suffer any more than they already have.

 

[Headdrivehardscrew]

I kept all my games ever since the C=64.

But I don't feel much love for the online passes. In fact, the only thing they did for me was allow me to sell my used games at a premium. Buyers of used games really love unused online passes. And I don't feel like holding on to things that try to impose themselves on me, telling me what to do and how to do it. It just doesn't work for me.

SO, yeah, I don't like the concept of online passes very much.

A couple of years back, I bought into the Battleforge trip. It was fun and promising. But I wonder - did we fools who threw our money at EA make them believe Origin would be a smart idea?

 

[Kopikatsu]

I kept all my games ever since the C=64.

But I don't feel much love for the online passes. In fact, the only thing they did for me was allow me to sell my used games at a premium. Buyers of used games really love unused online passes. And I don't feel like holding on to things that try to impose themselves on me, telling me what to do and how to do it. It just doesn't work for me.

SO, yeah, I don't like the concept of online passes very much.

A couple of years back, I bought into the Battleforge trip. It was fun and promising. But I wonder - did we fools who threw our money at EA make them believe Origin would be a smart idea?

C64? That...that wouldn't happen to be the Commodore 64, would it?

If so...Praise the maker. I'm not the only old fart here. (Not that you are)

I can finally ask someone this. Compared to video game prices 'back in the day' and video game prices now, they were more expensive back then, right? (Adjusted for inflation)

And had much smaller dev teams, and took less time to produce, and cost significantly less to produce, and had much less content...

 

[Akeroh]

My stance on this is that my right to do what I want with a product I bought is mine alone. Used game sales do not hurt the industry as much as the publisher would like you to believe..However, that is not the issue.
The fact of the matter is that no matter how much money is lost to used game sales, (in this case, it'd be taking a bucketful...out of the ocean) it is NOT an issue of money. This is the same issue that SOPA was created for - large corporations trying to protect an ancient business model. The solution is not to ban used game sales or punish the consumer for it, it is to create a model that makes it so buying new is more beneficial than buying used. We're seeing this with the surge of the digital distribution marketplaces and things like EA's project 10 dollar.

These companies have the ability to wipe used game sales off the board *right now* and that's what they're trying damn hard to do.

However, the issue at core of this to me is that of consumer rights. I understand that companies make more money if everyone buys the game new and they lose some money if it's used. But...

Just because a game is digital and does not devalue as quickly as physical products (such as cars, books and chairs) does not mean that I should not be allowed to do whatever I want with my product. I put 60 dollars down on the table to get handed a product. The moment that product enters my possession, there should be absolutely nothing that the company should be able to say that I can't do to it (outside of criminal acts, such as duplication, and those things that damage the experience of other peoples products.)

I have bought my one spot on that multiplayer server/single player experience and it is mine to do whatever I want with. If I want to give it to a friend to play with, it's entirely my right to do so because it is my unit of product.

My argument for this is simple. Why do we allow *this* industry to get away with this? What would we do it this happened to say, the furniture industry? My friend needs a chair and I have one that I am not using. Should I not be allowed to give that used chair to my friend, free of charge, because the furniture company would lose money? Should I be unable to because my friend would experience the full immersion that that seat had to offer and that's the same as stealing a chair from the company? It is an utterly ridiculous idea!

Now, why are we, as gamers, letting the big companies stomp all over our right simply because it is actually enforceable to do so? I'm sure that the used furniture market hurts that industry and they'd be happy to shut down every pawn shop in the country. Why are we getting pulled in by the "It hurts the industry! I only have a small hill of cash to sleep on instead of a mountain! There won't be any more video games because of used sales!"

It's fucking fear mongering to get sheep to give up their property rights so that corporations can get more money. And the sad thing is, it's working.

 

[artanis_neravar]

The used game market has recently become a pariah for developers and publishers alike to blame for reduced gains or increased losses to their sales. Many equate used games to piracy, and find no value in its existence.

And they're full of shit.

Used games are nothing like piracy: a used game is only one game. It can only be given or sold to one person and played by one (or two if there's split-screen) person at a time. The person who owns the copy of the game can do what they want with it. It is THEIRS. Piracy, is very different. It is the unauthorized use or REPRODUCTION of copyrighted material, meaning that this copy was stolen online, then the pirate made copies of it and distributed it to thousands. How are these concepts similar? They're not.

Why are developers and publishers pissing and moaning about used games? Simple. They want more money/ If I buy a used game, then the publisher sees none of that money. But, if I want to sell a game to a friend for cheaper than retail, then why can't I? It's my game, I'll do with it what I wish. Killing the used game market also kills some of our rights as consumers to do with our games what we wish. It's asinine.

Publishers have taken EA's "Project Ten Dollars" and applied it to their games, meaning you buy a game new, and you get a code to access a part of the game that would otherwise be locked if you bought new. This isn't perfect, but it does encourage people to buy new. The annoyance is the constant menus. I can't just start a fucking game anymore; I have to go through mountains of menus to get to it. Or I have to download a damn patch. Game consoles are becoming more like PCs.

In fact all the anti-used games tactics increase piracy. Why would someone pay for a new game, than all the expansions when they can get it all for free? Why should they have to deal with DRM when they can get a free copy with no DRM? Here's a tip dev's anything you can program, someone else can unprogram.

 

[Altanese]

EA is spearheading a movement to do jerkwad things that maximize profits and lower consumer satisfaction, knowing full well that everyone will ***** and moan about it but still buy their games.

Which part of this is new information?

 

[SwishiestB0g]

I agree with the crowd of used games don't hurt the industry that much.

I also agree with the people who say Project 10 dollar isn't all that evil.

However, I ran into a problem with Project 10 dollar. I had no internet connection. For the most part it's online multiplayer that is affected, but what about Rage?
I lost part of my game because I couldn't type in a code, which I had bought, new.

Yeah almost everyone has a net connection now but still.
It's ludicrous for a company to take anything away from a product because you didn't buy it new.

What if CD's wouldn't let you play 1 of your favorite songs because you bought it used?
What if a movie, be it on Blu-Ray, or DVD, cut out right before the ending because you bought it used.

It's ridiculous when it comes to that. I think that day 1 DLC or project 10 dollar should be for bonus stuff. Not anything you need but a nice, "thank you for buying new".

Yeah used games can hurt the industry a bit, but when I see MW3 sell as well as it did, or Skyrim or what have you, you can tell the industry isn't hurting. I've bought new games solely because I was able to trade some in. Otherwise, they wouldn't have gotten that sale.

Used games should exist, Project 10 dollar can exist and both can work together, I just think Publishers need to change what 10 dollar is. It shouldn't be a punishment, but a reward for the folks who buy new.

 

[Headdrivehardscrew]

C64? That...that wouldn't happen to be the Commodore 64, would it?

If so...Praise the maker. I'm not the only old fart here. (Not that you are)

I can finally ask someone this. Compared to video game prices 'back in the day' and video game prices now, they were more expensive back then, right? (Adjusted for inflation)

And had much smaller dev teams, and took less time to produce, and cost significantly less to produce, and had much less content...

Aye, that would be the one.

Hey there, fellow old fart.

I think you are right that games were comparably more expensive back then (25 years or so in the past), and I think it's a fact that teams were much smaller...

I think on one hand there was a novelty premium to be paid, yet still a large number of games felt like a bargain, since the competition - say, Nintendo-made hand-held Game&Watch - was usually just a dose of something completely different, and a single, portable game cost up to twice as much with much less 'content'. Piracy was rampant, but there were a huge number of smaller publishers that brought us memorable and unique gaming experiences (Palace Software) or pulled early Hong Kong-style unofficial ports of console-exclusive titles (Time Warp Productions, Factor 5, Rainbow Arts,...).

What bothers me is this: Ever since the PSX (or Saturn) a lot of emphasis was suddenly on 3D (as in polyons, not funny eyewear and everyone wanting to sit in the sweet spot on the couch), and the actual game experience was flushed down the drain like baby girls in China.

Over here, we still play Wizball, Rana Rama, Sensible Soccer, Super Sidekicks 2 and whatnot - these games are not only simple and old, they're ancient and, by today's standards, ugly. But so much fun. I don't see myself playing 99% of today's games twenty years from now. They're million-dollar quick fixes, and the few games I take part in online will probably not be online twenty years from now.

Take Battleforge, as one random example of what's going sideways with the games industry right now: EA turned it into a money magnet, you can even get your daily dose of junk by means of SMS. But early adopters who bought an actual boxed copy were - mildly put - farmed over. It went free-to-play, the in-game economy had at least a dozen artificially created Black Fridays and the game has become little more than a social experiment, where you can meet really, really strange and bitter people from around the world.

On the other hand, there's Warcraft III - 9 years and still going strong. It just works, low polygon count, plenty of handcrafted pixels, humour, fun, solid game mechanics - it's become a staple in our household, with at least half a dozen licenses of both ROC and TFT having been bought over the course of easily half a decade. That's a solid title, and it just plain doesn't need DirectX11 hardware tesselation to be solid and proper good fun.

 

[SeaTimeless]

"Not for Resale" to your friends.
I actually enjoyed the Jimquisition piece on this. Check it out.

 

[Kopikatsu]

What bothers me is this: Ever since the PSX (or Saturn) a lot of emphasis was suddenly on 3D (as in polyons, not funny eyewear and everyone wanting to sit in the sweet spot on the couch), and the actual game experience was flushed down the drain like baby girls in China.

I agree. My favorite games have always been 2D sprite games, because sprites are easy enough to make, look good, and it leaves so much more time and resources to be devoted on the story/gameplay/whathaveyou.

It's why Nippon Ichi Software is my favorite gaming company. Almost all of their games are sprite-based, and have such an insane amount of content that it would probably take multiple lifetimes just to play through all their games completely.

 

[Bedewyr]

Edit: I forgot to mention something. Video game consoles are EXTREMELY cheap nowadays. Adjusted for inflation, early video game consoles were many times more expensive than the consoles we have today. (Like the Halcyon would cost $5,000 today)

More examples. Super Mario Bros for the SNES cost $49.99 on release. Skyrim cost $59.99. Super Mario Bros was released in 1985. In over twenty years, the price went up $10. Adjusted for inflation, VIDEO GAMES HAVE NEVER BEEN CHEAPER. EVER. EVEREVER. And modern AAA games take hundreds of staff and take millions to produce. AND THEY'RE CHEAPER THAN GAMES MADE BY TEAMS OF 10 PEOPLE FOR A FEW THOUSAND. GET OVER IT PEOPLE. JESUS CHRIST. FMEWCIV3EPFM,3Q

Adjusted for inflation, no they aren't.

Super Nintendo came out in 1991 for $200 dollars.

In todays dollars that's only $332. AND it came with Super Mario World and 2 Controllers!

Wii launched costing houshold $249 Dollars.It only came with a Nunchuck and Remote and needed another Remote and Nunchuck to be the same as a SNES Release Box. another USD 39.99 and 19.99.

250 + 40 + 20 = $310 Dollars.

Wii Launched in 2006. Adjusted for inflation to equal a Super Nintendo it would be $347.87

$348 > $332. Not by much but still.

This is also disigenous anyways due to the fact that technology gets cheaper and cheaper to produce as it gets better and better. The actual cost of producing a Wii would be far greater than that of producing a Super Nintendo nowadays meaning the Super Nintendo would cost far less.

You're also being disingenuous with your Video Game analogy as well.

$50 dollars = roughly $83 dollars in todays market for Sper Mario World. I can tell you I wouldn't pay $83 dollars for a Super Nintendo Game now but, just look at how many people are paying 60+ for a game then just a month or 2 after paying 15-20 for DLC that CAME ON THE DISC DAY 1 and was simply unlocked. It's Bullcrap.

Anothr point to be made is that distribution of games has never been cheaper for developers. Digital Distribution and DVD/Blue Rays being pennies on the dollar for these companies to produce whereas Catridges are insanely expensive to produce in comparison. In fact the main reason companies switched was the fact that CD's offered an incredible decline in the cost of production with the ability to produce far more far more easily to meet demands as well as reducing the cost further for each copy made.

Digital distribution reduces the cost even more by an even larger factor as the IP only need sit on a server that can hold literally thousands of IP's which can be accessed to meet an infinite demands, infinite copies, and shifts even more of the cost onto the consumer through need of a bandwidth and internet connection while simultaneously demolishing shipping and production costs to the publisher.

There's a reason they've made record profits during a recession you know; they haven't shifted any savings onto us. They've only continued to line their pockets while reducing the costs to them.

 

[theultimateend]

How about you do what Skyrim did and make a game you don't want to give away?

I'm just sayin.

This is just a nutty enough strategy that it might work!

Second Hand sales wasn't a problem till companies started releasing games that are boring by the end of day 1 . Then suddenly it is an issue because nobody is willing to pay 60 bucks for a few hours of entertainment.

Steam is my salvation for moderately ok games. I wait till it is 85% off and buy it.

So second hand sales and piracy == SUPER bad.

Buying a game for 3 dollars? Best person ever.

 

[BreakfastMan]

B-But, aren't you supposed to prop up companies that fail when they can't compete with alternative markets or provide a product that people want to buy? Are you saying that companies are meant to serve the customer, not the customer serve the company? Are you somehow implying that companies who can't turn a profit without trying to shut down another market should *gasp* fail?!?! You are crazy. Everyone knows that when a company fails to turn a profit, it should be the goal, nay the DUTY, of a customer to make sure the company can get in the black next quarter!

And then those who wanted said company to burn get unhappy when suddenly digital distribution (the alternate market) becomes the only option.

'Twas actually referring to the used games market with that "alternative markets" thing...

 

[Kopikatsu]

Adjusted for inflation, no they aren't.

Super Nintendo came out in 1991 for $200 dollars.

In todays dollars that's only $332. AND it came with Super Mario World and 2 Controllers!

Wii launched costing houshold $249 Dollars.It only came with a Nunchuck and Remote and needed another Remote and Nunchuck to be the same as a SNES Release Box. another USD 39.99 and 19.99.

250 + 40 + 20 = $310 Dollars.

Wii Launched in 2006. Adjusted for inflation to equal a Super Nintendo it would be $347.87

$348 > $332. Not by much but still.

If you had the choice between an SNES for $332 and a Wii for $348...

I mean, the Wii could probably beat out twenty SNES' hooked together to form a Super Super Nintendo in processing power. The Wii is, by leaps and bounds, the better system. It's on an entire different plane of existence...and it's $12 more.

This is also disigenous anyways due to the fact that technology gets cheaper and cheaper to produce as it gets better and better. The actual cost of producing a Wii would be far greater than that of producing a Super Nintendo nowadays meaning the Super Nintendo would cost far less

.

Which is...irrelevant. I'm talking about price tags then and now. The fact that old stuff can be made with pocket change now doesn't change what the price was back then.

Re-reading that hurt my head...

You're also being disingenuous with your Video Game analogy as well.

$50 dollars = roughly $83 dollars in todays market for Sper Mario World. I can tell you I wouldn't pay $83 dollars for a Super Nintendo Game now but, just look at how many people are paying 60+ for a game then just a month or 2 after paying 15-20 for DLC that CAME ON THE DISC DAY 1 and was simply unlocked. It's Bullcrap.

You really like the word disingenuous, don't you? This is kind of a personal tangent you went off on, though. DLC is a recent invention, so it's 'eh' as far as comparing prices go, but let's just look at base prices, shall we? $83 for Super Mario World, or $60 for Skyrim. You see where the 'If only they didn't charge so much/They need to reduce the price' argument falls apart, right? They did reduce the price. Significantly so.

Anothr point to be made is that distribution of games has never been cheaper for developers. Digital Distribution and DVD/Blue Rays being pennies on the dollar for these companies to produce whereas Catridges are insanely expensive to produce in comparison. In fact the main reason companies switched was the fact that CD's offered an incredible decline in the cost of production with the ability to produce far more far more easily to meet demands as well as reducing the cost further for each copy made.

Again, irrelevant. Games ARE cheaper now than they were back then. They charge you less. They could probably charge you less than they do, but we should be thanking the Lords of whatever that they actually did get cheaper. They could charge more. In any other industry, they would have charged more. The video game industry is pretty much the only industry where price fixing exists, and we should be damn thankful for it.

Digital distribution reduces the cost even more by an even larger factor as the IP only need sit on a server that can hold literally thousands of IP's which can be accessed to meet an infinite demands, infinite copies, and shifts even more of the cost onto the consumer through need of a bandwidth and internet connection while simultaneously demolishing shipping and production costs to the publisher.

Once again, irrelevant. Could games be sold cheaper than they are now? Probably. Steam proves that. But the point I was making was that the price of video games has only gone down, and people still complain about 'how much it is' and how companies are ripping us off with $60 price tags.

There's a reason they've made record profits during a recession you know; they haven't shifted any savings onto us. They've only continued to line their pockets while reducing the costs to them.

I would argue that they make record profits because of the lowered prices and increased saturation of advertisement. Why do you think Steam makes funny money?

 

[lacktheknack]

B-But, aren't you supposed to prop up companies that fail when they can't compete with alternative markets or provide a product that people want to buy? Are you saying that companies are meant to serve the customer, not the customer serve the company? Are you somehow implying that companies who can't turn a profit without trying to shut down another market should *gasp* fail?!?! You are crazy. Everyone knows that when a company fails to turn a profit, it should be the goal, nay the DUTY, of a customer to make sure the company can get in the black next quarter!

And then those who wanted said company to burn get unhappy when suddenly digital distribution (the alternate market) becomes the only option.

'Twas actually referring to the used games market with that "alternative markets" thing...

Well, you're in a catch-22 here. If these companies can't survive as long as the used market exists, then you're going to have to live with A. crippled used games from these companies, or B. no games from these companies.

If you're dead-set against the crippled used games, then you shouldn't give a damn, as you're not playing their games either way.

 

[ecoho]

I just wish game stores would buy those of my PC games that don't require unlocking. I want to get rid of my old Crysis, Mass Effect, Fallout 3 etc discs.

As for buying used games, I don't know, it's pretty established - game stores often have shelves of traded in games and such.

If you've got an independent record shop near your house, see if they'll let you trade them in. Most independent record shops, at least the ones that focus mostly on used stuff, sell used PC games. Barring that, there's always Amazon and Ebay.

OT: All I have to say, OP, is you're right, but gamers are terrible consumers who don't like to listen to that particular truth. The only thing I'd disagree with in your OP is that Project $10 helps with any actual problem, rather than creating a problem of its own; it's a direct attempt to destroy the used market, the profits from which the publishers are not legally entitled to[footnote]Funny thing about people who use "entitlement" as an insult; they don't seem to understand what the word means. If you're entitled to something, you have a legal right to it, so I guess pirates should be thankful that they're "entitled" to free games...[/footnote]. It warms my heart to see that, so far at least, none of the posters have been industry apologists.

Edit: And, while I was typing, a pair of industry cheerleaders showed up. It is not my job as a consumer to support the people who made the game; it's my job to legally acquire it for the cheapest possible price. What's more, once they've sold a product once, they are no longer legally entitled to any profits on that individual product. They're confusing the courts by making this a contract issue[footnote]Which, ironically, is still not a good excuse, since the specific right I'm talking about was first described in US law because the recording industry was putting EULAs on their records[/footnote], but frankly, the law is pretty darned clear on the matter: the publishers are breaking it.

ok so i kinda dont mind project $10 when its like the mass effect and DA:O kind. you know not really takeing anything out but a little something extra for those who paid full price.(im talking of shale and the cerberus network btw) i do not however suport takeing out stuff from a game that is clearly suposed to be part of the plot(see dragon age 2)

 

[BreakfastMan]

Well, you're in a catch-22 here. If these companies can't survive as long as the used market exists, then you're going to have to live with A. crippled used games from these companies, or B. no games from these companies.

If you're dead-set against the crippled used games, then you shouldn't give a damn, as you're not playing their games either way.

Not sure how I have a catch-22. I am proposing that if a company cannot make a profit without attempting to shutdown alternate markets (what a number of publishers are trying to do the used games market) or inconveniencing it's customers, it should be allowed to fail. This does not necessarily lead me back to the place I am currently.

Of course, I might be misinterpreting you. If I am, feel free to correct me.

 

[Bedewyr]

Adjusted for inflation, no they aren't.

Super Nintendo came out in 1991 for $200 dollars.

In todays dollars that's only $332. AND it came with Super Mario World and 2 Controllers!

Wii launched costing houshold $249 Dollars.It only came with a Nunchuck and Remote and needed another Remote and Nunchuck to be the same as a SNES Release Box. another USD 39.99 and 19.99.

250 + 40 + 20 = $310 Dollars.

Wii Launched in 2006. Adjusted for inflation to equal a Super Nintendo it would be $347.87

$348 > $332. Not by much but still.

If you had the choice between an SNES for $332 and a Wii for $348...

I mean, the Wii could probably beat out twenty SNES' hooked together to form a Super Super Nintendo in processing power. The Wii is, by leaps and bounds, the better system. It's on an entire different plane of existence...and it's $12 more.

This is also disigenous anyways due to the fact that technology gets cheaper and cheaper to produce as it gets better and better. The actual cost of producing a Wii would be far greater than that of producing a Super Nintendo nowadays meaning the Super Nintendo would cost far less

.

Which is...irrelevant. I'm talking about price tags then and now. The fact that old stuff can be made with pocket change now doesn't change what the price was back then.

Re-reading that hurt my head...

You're also being disingenuous with your Video Game analogy as well.

$50 dollars = roughly $83 dollars in todays market for Sper Mario World. I can tell you I wouldn't pay $83 dollars for a Super Nintendo Game now but, just look at how many people are paying 60+ for a game then just a month or 2 after paying 15-20 for DLC that CAME ON THE DISC DAY 1 and was simply unlocked. It's Bullcrap.

You really like the word disingenuous, don't you? This is kind of a personal tangent you went off on, though. DLC is a recent invention, so it's 'eh' as far as comparing prices go, but let's just look at base prices, shall we? $83 for Super Mario World, or $60 for Skyrim. You see where the 'If only they didn't charge so much/They need to reduce the price' argument falls apart, right? They did reduce the price. Significantly so.

Anothr point to be made is that distribution of games has never been cheaper for developers. Digital Distribution and DVD/Blue Rays being pennies on the dollar for these companies to produce whereas Catridges are insanely expensive to produce in comparison. In fact the main reason companies switched was the fact that CD's offered an incredible decline in the cost of production with the ability to produce far more far more easily to meet demands as well as reducing the cost further for each copy made.

Again, irrelevant. Games ARE cheaper now than they were back then. They charge you less. They could probably charge you less than they do, but we should be thanking the Lords of whatever that they actually did get cheaper. They could charge more. In any other industry, they would have charged more. The video game industry is pretty much the only industry where price fixing exists, and we should be damn thankful for it.

Digital distribution reduces the cost even more by an even larger factor as the IP only need sit on a server that can hold literally thousands of IP's which can be accessed to meet an infinite demands, infinite copies, and shifts even more of the cost onto the consumer through need of a bandwidth and internet connection while simultaneously demolishing shipping and production costs to the publisher.

Once again, irrelevant. Could games be sold cheaper than they are now? Probably. Steam proves that. But the point I was making was that the price of video games has only gone down, and people still complain about 'how much it is' and how companies are ripping us off with $60 price tags.

There's a reason they've made record profits during a recession you know; they haven't shifted any savings onto us. They've only continued to line their pockets while reducing the costs to them.

I would argue that they make record profits because of the lowered prices and increased saturation of advertisement. Why do you think Steam makes so much goddamn money?

So you're only comparing prices but then say you'd buy a Wii over a Super Nintendo in today's market which is, to use one of your favorite words, irrelevant. In a vaccuum, you've been proven wrong. The SNES cost LESS back then adjusted for inflation than the Wii does now and cost more to produce which meant the companies were making less off of them. However you want to slice it you came out wrong.

The cost of the technology going down isn't irrelevant at all. It's why I bought my Wii for only $119. It is old tecnology that is ridiculously cheap and easy to make now so the price has rock bottomed out. The fact that the Super Nintendo is STILL cheaper even adjusted for inflation and came with arguably more in the box (an actual game and 2 controllers with the hookups for both Mono and Stereo TV's as opposed to Component only with Wii Sports which isn't even a full fledged game) is actually telling.

If you want to get super technical Sega had the Sega Channel for downloading games right to your Sega Genesis, Dreamcast had DLC, and Xbox and the like have been around for a decade with DLC. It's not a new concept by any stretch of the imagination.

No offense but companies need to stop parroting that they need to have DLC on the disc ready to go as well.

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=134598
http://64digits.com/users/index.php?userid=S3xySeele&cmd=comments&id=271767
http://www.1up.com/news/bioshock-2-dlc-disc

It's basically a cash grab and a "hidden cost" of the game to get the acual full experience.

In any other industry they would have charged more? Funny I seem to recall CD's beings 20 Dollars a pop back in the day but because production costs of CD's have dropped so dramatically due to new technologies reducing the costs of production I can now g out and buy brand new CD's for anywhere from 13-15 Dollars. With the advent of Digital Distribution that market has actually seen price drops due to competition! Weird!?

You cannot in one breath say tha DLC is "eh" when companies are spear heading project ten dollar. If Super Mario World was released today I'd probably have to pay 10-15 Dollars on top of my original 60 Dollars just get the Star World and Yoshi. Not to mention that t unlock Luigi and 2 Player mode I'd have to enter my activation code to prove the game is brand new or fork out another 10 Dollars, or you know my friend would have to also buy a copy so we could ply over Xbox Live and each pay our 60 a year for the privilege of enjoying our multi player experience.

I cannot possibly stress this enough but, cost of production and distribution is not irrelevant IN THE LEAST. It is THE main driving factor of a game companies profit and loss through production. If the cost is lower to produce more risks can be taken and more savings can be passed onto consumers which is the best scenario for everyone. More money made, more games made, more risks taken, less cost for everyone.

 

[Joby Baumann]

I like how used games only recently became evil. Seriously,places like Gamestop have been around for a long time but they've only been bad since 2010.


I think publishers are just using piracy and used games how far they can get consumers to bend over for their product, some of the measures such as online passes, constant online connections, and other DRM types just seem inane.

Especially considering the pirates will still get around those issues ten days before the game even gets released.