GameStop CEO Says Next Xbox Won't Block Used Games

[Gnoekeos]

And yes, a used game buyer is exactly the same as a pirate.

By that logic, half price books and every pawn shop in existence are guilty of banditry

Also used cart lots, perhaps they are the worst of all!

 

[Gnoekeos]

double post because the new anti-spam device is balls, and whoever put it in place is a chucklefucking moron

Why would you intentionally make your site LESS appealing?

I concur! What the hell kind of marketing nonsense it that? That makes me very much not want to buy what ever product is advertised in such a way.

 

[Treblaine]

Well there is still the problem when the actual people who MAKE the game only get $27 out of every $60 you spend even when buying new.

"why would I buy a used game for $55 at Gamestop if I can buy the same game for $40 at Best Buy?"

Why would you buy used when you could buy new - via digital download - for $40? That's the deal with Witcher 2 on PC and so many other games. Or even 50-75% off on sales as seen frequently on Steam GoG.com and iOS.

When I buy a game I COMMIT. I don't plan on getting rid of it as soon as possible before it devalues in price. And if I want to try then Xbox Live Arcade has set the precedent that every game must have a demo.

It seem many console-only gamers are paranoid that games can only be affordable if they have the option to sell their games and buy others cheaper as used. But this is unsustainable as a widespread practice. What IS sustainable is what is seen in practice with established digital download services with:
-start with a lower price
-Higher return to the publisher/developer from that price
-frequent and significant sales
-soft funding with premium non-essential DLC like Hats in Hat Fortress.

Glad to see you aren't wrong on only ONE topic.
"Why would you buy used when you could buy new - via digital download"
Because some people don't have access to online purchasing, and even among those that do, many prefer to have a physical object they can store, not a nebulous file that they can lose access to
"...on PC..." Well, here we have the problem that was mentioned on the other thread... Not everyone plays games on the pc. If you don't remember why that is, check my posts again, along with many, many others in said thread.
"Xbox Live Arcade has set the precedent that every game must have a demo"
XBLA titles do. But not the games you buy in the store, which is what you are discussing. Remember to focus, or else you lose credibility and cause others to question your faculties. And again, demo's are DLC, and not everyone has access to the internet.
"...sell their games and buy others cheaper as used. But this is unsustainable as a widespread practice"
Ok, I can't even be nice about this. This statement is ridiculous, and makes you appear so for having said it. If it isn't sustainable, then why is it a longstanding, profitable industry? Did you mean to say that it can't be sustained FOREVER? Because it's a pretty wide-spread practice already. Don't confuse supposition with a contradiction of blatant fact. It makes you appear delusional

No big deal. Its easy to set up a bank account to pay electronically.

Are we seriously going to be so tied to 15th century idea of hard currency purchasing power. This is 2012, it is easy to pay online. If you are a child then ask your parents give you money in credits, I'm quite sure they'd prefer that as they won't have to worry about their kids asking for money on games but spending it on booze or smoking or whatever.

"Not everyone plays games on the pc."

Well the idea here is that the Next Xbox would emulate the PC model of digital downloads. But it seems to many people are afraid of this progress and will resist it. And anyway, plenty of people play on PC and many more could play if PC had the marketing departments that Sony, Nintendo and Microsoft had dedicated to PC gaming (Microsoft actually markets AGAINST PC gaming, favouring Xbox).

" Remember to focus, or else you lose credibility and cause others to question your faculties."

At least I'm not calling everyone who disagrees with me an idiot. Don't shoot the messenger. My arguments stand on their own, I am NOT making an "argument from authority" with the authority being smartness.

"If it isn't sustainable, then why is it a longstanding, profitable industry?"

Game Inc going into administration? All the developers going under complaining of how this system is NOT profitable for them? How few developers actually are profitable? How this makes everyone so risk averse we get an ENDLESS stream of sequels with a slow pace of innovation.

 

[The Lunatic]

It's highly unlikely that the Xbox will go full-on "NO USED GAMES".

Chances are, at the very least, they'll have some sort of system that binds games to a console, and in order for the retailers to resell the games, they'll have to pay Microsoft and the developers a portion of the profit they make from selling the used game.

 

[Adam Jensen_v1legacy]

GAMESTOP PREDICTS...

Look out people, we've got a prophet in our midst!

 

[ablac]

Piracy is illegal for one thing. Generally worth obeying the law considering the laws on piracy (not to stop it like SOPA but against copyright infringement) are pretty legit. Also a used sale represents a game already bought once new whilst a pirated game represents one copy being bought then being copied an infinite number of times. When someone buys something physical they have a right to what happens next. If they choose to sell it further down the road then that is their right. Whther it is harmful to the industry or not it is not aquaitable to piracy and to do so is absurd. Pirates dont pay for jack. They are scum. Parasites. You attack used gamers, who are legit consumers engaging in legal and rightful trade, yet defend pirates. Pirates are entitled, whiny douchebags who have no right to anything in gaming. To defend them is moronic. If I buy a car and then choose to sell it later then that money does not go to the person who made the car. However they have no right to that money because they sold the car. It is now mine and they have no right to it or any money made form it. The same is with games.

sorry for jumping in here. I think what the problem is here is not the pirates but used sales.

you say that used sales represent a resale (with no money going to devs, granted) but a pirated copy always represents a lost sale, this is completely wrong, well, the second half. A pirated copy can (and often does) represent something completely different.

1) leaked copies get counted as pirated copies, if you look at the top most pirated games, many were leaked before the release date. There are a sizable chunk of people who would love to get a start on the campaign or even just have the game installed on the computer before the release date hits. This can mean that they are still buying their copy and just got a pirated version
2) there are cases where games can't be bought legit/easily (example, I cant get the new syndicate or mortal kombat here without shipping).
3) multiplayer, a game with this will definitely not be accessible in a pirated copy, unless the dev is a major screw up.

the used sale also represents a loss of a/some possible DLC purchases as those who sell their game will have no use for them. Dont get me wrong, Pirates are the lowest of the low, but both are issues, the one that should be elevated is the one that has a huge (and legal) impact on devs while only profiting brick and mortar stores.

One last point, your car analogy is wrong, the dealer will often try to push you to get the more expensive car, they wont take you inside, tell you all the details of your new car and then, just before you sign say "Oh, did I mention that there's one of these cars, identical in every way except someone owned it for 6 days and decided he didn't want it so we can sell it to you for 5% less". That is what used game sales are, identical in every way to the consumer and they will often ask you at the register if you "accidentally" pick up a new copy.

Well the guy I was quoting was equating those who buy or sell used games to pirates in a negative sense. Therefore he didint mean all pirates just those who actually do something wrong. Piracy is bull and pirates are scum but when piracy isnt bad, as in you either pay for the game (at the price it is when you get it form piracy) but pirate it for some reason or cant get the game legally in your country for whatever reason, then I dont view it really as piracy. I wont go any further cause this isnt a piracy thread but pirates are scum. I simply dont want to be thrown in with pirates when one is fine and the other is not. Also the way used sellers (as in gamestop not people selling back to gamestop) behave does not matter to my analogy. While games and cars are different the concept that when you buy it you own it, and therefore have a right to re-sell it with no one coming in between unless you desire them to, still stands and I cant see a proper argument against it.

 

[ablac]

Pretty much all people who buy used games made within the last, say, year are the same as pirates anyway.

So I say bravo new Xbox, get rid of used games, good riddance, especially if it helps to kill gamestop.

Sarcastic applause for this most ignorant statement.

When you buy a used car that was built within the last year, is this the same as someone who just commited grand theft auto? Of course not, and buying used games =/= pirating.

Hope you didn't like renting and borrowing a friend's game either.

I dont rent or borrow games, I am not a cheapskate, I can buy a game that interests me.

And yes, a used game buyer is exactly the same as a pirate.

Used game buyer pays gamestop for their game

Pirate pays their ISP for the bandwidth to download their game.

In both cases the people who made the game dont see a penny for their work, the used game buyer just happens to get to be a little more smug while trying to defend being cheap.

Piracy is illegal for one thing. Generally worth obeying the law considering the laws on piracy (not to stop it like SOPA but against copyright infringement) are pretty legit. Also a used sale represents a game already bought once new whilst a pirated game represents one copy being bought then being copied an infinite number of times. When someone buys something physical they have a right to what happens next. If they choose to sell it further down the road then that is their right. Whther it is harmful to the industry or not it is not aquaitable to piracy and to do so is absurd. Pirates dont pay for jack. They are scum. Parasites. You attack used gamers, who are legit consumers engaging in legal and rightful trade, yet defend pirates. Pirates are entitled, whiny douchebags who have no right to anything in gaming. To defend them is moronic. If I buy a car and then choose to sell it later then that money does not go to the person who made the car. However they have no right to that money because they sold the car. It is now mine and they have no right to it or any money made form it. The same is with games.

Critical thinking isnt exactly a strong suite is it?

A; Legality does not equal morality. Otherwise you would be supporting stupid shit like slavery, honor killings, and killing of outspoken LGBT folk right? (For those mentally challenged among the escapist; I am not saying these things are in the same magnitude, just that they were/are legal in parts of the world)

B; I never said I support piracy, that is your mind running away with you and jumping to asinine conclusions. I think both used gamers and pirates are scum because they are exactly the same.

Though you make a lulz worthy point. "I bought it so I should be able to do what I want with it!" That includes copying it and giving those copies to your friends. Bravo pirate!

Hmm well ill try to respond with civility but I doubt ill receive any back from the likes of you. To point A (though can it be a point when it is argued in such an infantile, hyperbolic manner?). I never, ever equated legality with morality. That is you jumping to conclusions. I said that, as a starting point, one was legal and the other wasnt. Maybe I should have been more explicit but I said that it was generally a good idea to follow the law. What I mean by that was that, while not all laws every where are right and should be followed, in civilised countries with a respectable legal system and laws which are on the whole sensible and within reason even to those who disagree with them they should be followed. Deciding 'I dont agree with this particular law therefore it does not apply to me' is arrogant. The law on copyright infringement is fairly legit as far as I can see therefore it is a law I follow and you should too. While you claimed that you were not comparing piracy to slavery, and I dont believe you were trying to, using them rather than bad laws on a similar level would have been better because to use them is to, intentionally or not even when explicitly stated not, is to automatically have the magnitude of these laws equated. I cant disagree with point B as its actually correct. I shouldnt have claimed you were defending pirates, though to put used sellers and buyers in line with pirates is to defend pirates. I believe that when I buy something physical I own it. Logic seems to agree with me. Unless I specifically buy something which is a licence or in any other way means it is not in fact mine then I own it. Thats indisputable. I also believe that means that when I own something, it is not infact in the possession of the person who sold it to me. Therefore if I choose to sell that physical copy again then that is my decision and my right and that no one should be able to come between that in any way. That is a sensible statement. I do not see flaw with it. If you really wish to come to this conclusion when I say this I am in fact saying that it is also fine to place the information on the internet available to others. Thats true I suppose. However that does not make it al right for someone to download it. They are at fault for all the reasons pirates are almost always at fault morally and/or legally (please note I said almost always and the exceptions that the game cannot be obtained in the pirates country or they have already bought it and wish to pirate it for whatever reason are exempt as far as im concerned). I wuold raise the concern that too put it out is irresponsible because you know what the consequences will be but the act of putting it out there, if you have bought it, is technically fine. Although to any logical person it would be clear that I never meant this and what I meant by it if you were to draw up such a ridiculous interpretation. I cannot see a proper argument against this. Try proving me wrong in a mature fashion.

 

[CapitalistPig]

AS B.S.-ish as this sounds, coming from, I guess, my superior, it's kinda obvious that the next gen. consoles are not gonna have that anti-used game feature.

First of all, this would mean your game would only play on one console. So what if you wanna let someone borrow it? What if your game sucks? You can't force people to possess an item forever. Come on, it's not like they're our kids.

Second, I have nothing against used games, especially PS3 used games because they're, for the most part, in pristine condition. But if they really wanted to alienate the used market, digital copies of games are the way to go.
The corollary of this would be that digital games don't sell that well. No, no, wait! Before you all point your fingers at Steam and stuff, I'm talking about how it doesn't sell well with the average customer. I've talked to tons of customers, families for the most part, who don't play online or don't even have an internet connection at home. This technology is still pretty foreign to them. They prefer to go to the store, buy the pretty game for their kids and be done with it. They don't wanna go online, buy some credits/pull out their credit card, choose a non-refundable game that their kid might like, buy it and then figure out how to play it. It's pretty simple, the process, but some people just don't wanna go through that. They just wanna pop in the disk and boom. Done. Myself included. I buy some digital games, but for the most part, I rather have the hard copy of the game with me.
For better or worse, we're still not there yet.

Third, they do get a profit of the used sales. Come on, you'd think that if they were milking Microsoft or Sony or whatever for all they're worth, they would just sit idly by and reply with a pout and a shrug? Hell, no! These are big corporations that could do without GameStop! If Microsoft sold their games at the top of Mt. Doom, people would still go buy a CoD Hardened Edition there. They just don't get all the profit, which is why some developers are complaining, which is understandable, of course. But it's also inevitable, the used games' sale. The way I see it, if they can get someone to buy that one crappy game they released years ago used for 5 bucks, whatever profit you get is always welcomed.

Finally, it's marketing. GameStop's job is to go all "Oooooh! Look at this pretty game that you know you're gonna get!". Again, not a bad thing, for the most part. Otherwise, I would have never found out they're bringing Xenoblade Chronicles over here. Without GameStop, those companies don't have a direct way to reach all customers. Parents would never know Mario Party 9 is already out. Mothers would wander Wal-Mart aimlessly looking for that one game their kid mentioned once and he wants for his birthday. I'm not saying GameStop is a lifesaver and our lord and savior. No, no. It's just a way to reach all kinds of customers. It's like the game's central due to lack or proper competitors out there (Best Buy could get there, but they don't specialize in games the way GameStop does).

tl;dr. I just don't think that's possible. It would affect more people that those who would benefit from it...somehow.

As far as the anti used game software, yea I agree that's a total BS rumor coming from a guy that has no business talking about it.....CEO of Gamestop.

I don't know where you live, but in my area (a town with 27,000 college students) Gamestop is a sad little store that has around 3 cars in the parking lot on average. I think the whole argument that the average buyer is a family without internet or doesn't do online shopping may have been true a few years ago but its quickly becoming irrelevant. My best friend's parents live at least 20 miles of the beaten track and have cable internet at their farmhouse as well as cell reception for 3G, yea that's not everyone but my point is its coming. My parents use online shopping and they're into their 50's my relatives and friends in there 20's-30's are even more involved with finding the best deals for the best price on the internet because yeah people are lazy, but what were learning is they are cheap first. And if they can't find it cheap on the internet its because its cheap at Walmart. The last place I would look to buy a game is my local Gamestop where I know it will be $60. Hell you can buy a 360 right now off amazon for dirt and have it shipped to your front door, probably for free. What is the store there for again? Oh right, to collect retail mark up so they can justify selling the damn digital copy for $60 because that's what the store price is. Except the physical copy is backed by a 60% mark up from physical copy develop, production, and retail mark up. but hey, you got the disc right? Just don't bring it near hair, dust, magnets, heat, cold, UV light, anything that could smudge, or your own fingernails.

There is absolutely No shortage of advertisement for games. And not a damn one of them is paid for by Gamestop. Most advertisements don't even say, "available at your nearest Gamestop." What does it say you ask? "Go to www.insertIP.com for more info" So that would be a pretty smooth transition. Besides most companies now straight up sell from the developer website. Blizzard being the most obvious. but, its not just big studios start typing in the studios you like for games and you'll find most of their websites offer digital copies. I think the whole idea of physical copies is outdated. I have about 5 left and they gather dust on my desk while I have one neat little harddrive devoted to games that will retain their license without needing to be taken "pristine care of."

I agree it's not gonna happen tomorrow or anything, but unless Gamestop works some voodoo magic they're going to have a hard time justifying physical store locations.

 

[CapitalistPig]

Hmm well ill try to respond with civility but I doubt ill receive any back from the likes of you. To point A (though can it be a point when it is argued in such an infantile, hyperbolic manner?). I never, ever equated legality with morality. That is you jumping to conclusions. I said that, as a starting point, one was legal and the other wasnt. Maybe I should have been more explicit but I said that it was generally a good idea to follow the law. What I mean by that was that, while not all laws every where are right and should be followed, in civilised countries with a respectable legal system and laws which are on the whole sensible and within reason even to those who disagree with them they should be followed. Deciding 'I dont agree with this particular law therefore it does not apply to me' is arrogant. The law on copyright infringement is fairly legit as far as I can see therefore it is a law I follow and you should too. While you claimed that you were not comparing piracy to slavery, and I dont believe you were trying to, using them rather than bad laws on a similar level would have been better because to use them is to, intentionally or not even when explicitly stated not, is to automatically have the magnitude of these laws equated. I cant disagree with point B as its actually correct. I shouldnt have claimed you were defending pirates, though to put used sellers and buyers in line with pirates is to defend pirates. I believe that when I buy something physical I own it. Logic seems to agree with me. Unless I specifically buy something which is a licence or in any other way means it is not in fact mine then I own it. Thats indisputable. I also believe that means that when I own something, it is not infact in the possession of the person who sold it to me. Therefore if I choose to sell that physical copy again then that is my decision and my right and that no one should be able to come between that in any way. That is a sensible statement. I do not see flaw with it. If you really wish to come to this conclusion when I say this I am in fact saying that it is also fine to place the information on the internet available to others. Thats true I suppose. However that does not make it al right for someone to download it. They are at fault for all the reasons pirates are almost always at fault morally and/or legally (please note I said almost always and the exceptions that the game cannot be obtained in the pirates country or they have already bought it and wish to pirate it for whatever reason are exempt as far as im concerned). I wuold raise the concern that too put it out is irresponsible because you know what the consequences will be but the act of putting it out there, if you have bought it, is technically fine. Although to any logical person it would be clear that I never meant this and what I meant by it if you were to draw up such a ridiculous interpretation. I cannot see a proper argument against this. Try proving me wrong in a mature fashion.

I was on your side until the end where your argument kinda falls apart. Uploaders are generally the people sought after in illegal pirate activity. The downloaders are generally thought of as products of their environment. That is relative to the magnitude of the pirating in which sometimes a specific pirate is targeted but uploader websites are the real problem with pirating. Hence recent moves toward internet legislation and the shutting down of multiple pirating websites (the uploaders.) So, I don't see how you made the leap from its okay to put someone elses copyrighted material on the internet to be downloaded for free but then its their fault that they downloaded it. I understand the moral argument you are making that "they participated and therefore responsible for their actions" but the same argument applies to the initial uploader as well.

If you break your car, are you entitled to another? No. Then how come you can pirate copyrighted material just because at some point you owned it? Did you buy the copyright? or did you just buy that one physical disc?

And wouldn't allowing pirates to download just because their country censors be, equating morality with legality. I mean shouldn't the people of a country respect the native culture and laws? After all not every culture thinks GTA is an acceptable form of entertainment. I declare your argument ambiguous, granted the other person's argument is BS.

 

[ablac]

Hmm well ill try to respond with civility but I doubt ill receive any back from the likes of you. To point A (though can it be a point when it is argued in such an infantile, hyperbolic manner?). I never, ever equated legality with morality. That is you jumping to conclusions. I said that, as a starting point, one was legal and the other wasnt. Maybe I should have been more explicit but I said that it was generally a good idea to follow the law. What I mean by that was that, while not all laws every where are right and should be followed, in civilised countries with a respectable legal system and laws which are on the whole sensible and within reason even to those who disagree with them they should be followed. Deciding 'I dont agree with this particular law therefore it does not apply to me' is arrogant. The law on copyright infringement is fairly legit as far as I can see therefore it is a law I follow and you should too. While you claimed that you were not comparing piracy to slavery, and I dont believe you were trying to, using them rather than bad laws on a similar level would have been better because to use them is to, intentionally or not even when explicitly stated not, is to automatically have the magnitude of these laws equated. I cant disagree with point B as its actually correct. I shouldnt have claimed you were defending pirates, though to put used sellers and buyers in line with pirates is to defend pirates. I believe that when I buy something physical I own it. Logic seems to agree with me. Unless I specifically buy something which is a licence or in any other way means it is not in fact mine then I own it. Thats indisputable. I also believe that means that when I own something, it is not infact in the possession of the person who sold it to me. Therefore if I choose to sell that physical copy again then that is my decision and my right and that no one should be able to come between that in any way. That is a sensible statement. I do not see flaw with it. If you really wish to come to this conclusion when I say this I am in fact saying that it is also fine to place the information on the internet available to others. Thats true I suppose. However that does not make it al right for someone to download it. They are at fault for all the reasons pirates are almost always at fault morally and/or legally (please note I said almost always and the exceptions that the game cannot be obtained in the pirates country or they have already bought it and wish to pirate it for whatever reason are exempt as far as im concerned). I wuold raise the concern that too put it out is irresponsible because you know what the consequences will be but the act of putting it out there, if you have bought it, is technically fine. Although to any logical person it would be clear that I never meant this and what I meant by it if you were to draw up such a ridiculous interpretation. I cannot see a proper argument against this. Try proving me wrong in a mature fashion.

I was on your side until the end where your argument kinda falls apart. Uploaders are generally the people sought after in illegal pirate activity. The downloaders are generally thought of as products of their environment. That is relative to the magnitude of the pirating in which sometimes a specific pirate is targeted but uploader websites are the real problem with pirating. Hence recent moves toward internet legislation and the shutting down of multiple pirating websites (the uploaders.) So, I don't see how you made the leap from its okay to put someone elses copyrighted material on the internet to be downloaded for free but then its their fault that they downloaded it. I understand the moral argument you are making that "they participated and therefore responsible for their actions" but the same argument applies to the initial uploader as well.

If you break your car, are you entitled to another? No. Then how come you can pirate copyrighted material just because at some point you owned it? Did you buy the copyright? or did you just buy that one physical disc?

And wouldn't allowing pirates to download just because their country censors be, equating morality with legality. I mean shouldn't the people of a country respect the native culture and laws? After all not every culture thinks GTA is an acceptable form of entertainment. I declare your argument ambiguous, granted the other person's argument is BS.

Should clarify this. He claimed that to say you can do what you like with it was to allow piracy by some logical falacy. So that he couldnt argue that point to make my points seem ridiculous i explained why you can technically do that but those who download it are the ones at fault. Technicallly thats true however I understand and believe that those put it out in the first place are the worst because they help it happen. I was trying to show him why his point was stupid. Its wrong and I agree with you but to say that wiht this guy wouldnt have achieved anything but rather have him repeat his point saying I didnt get him if i did respond with my actual thoughts or that of any logical person or not respond and have him think hes right. On your second paragraoh I think its an interesting idea of whther or not you buy just the disc or the game itself with the disc being a vessel. I would say that if you want to or need to because you broke/lost yuor game or the pirated version has DRM removed and you paid for it then thats fine because youve paid and so you arent doing anyone harm and your a legit consumer. I said that not all laws were worth following but most were. I feel that no matter where you are you shouldnt have stuff that isnt universally objectionable censored from you or have things banned because of religous law or the morality of some. I dont feel that is fair to inflict on others, though censorship can be a good thing, and so inst worth following. ALthough I was thinking for countries where you simply cant get the game because it sint distributed and you cant order it in. If you cant buy it legally and theres no good reason why you shouldnt have it then take it away. Because it is in the minority of cases and there is no way of you to buy it I have no problem with it. I dont like people taking when they can pay but if you cant get it anyway then pirating is fine. Though most laws should still be respected and the laws on piracy where (im assuming)where from, UK, US ect. are pretty sound and therefore should be respected.

 

[userwhoquitthesite]

you can't be a motorboat enthusiast without spending a shit ton

Well that's not true, there are plenty of large-breasted women who don't demand expensive treatment

 

[CapitalistPig]

snip

Cross my fingers hope I'm quoting this right. It was long so I tried to shorten the whole thing.

I'm with you, and I even pulled that you meant in countries that don't have it available logistically. I was broadening the idea to all reasons a game could not be available. I still feel that cultural reasons effect a country. In the western countries we have a luxury of having so many cultures mixed in one with great reason taken to caring for each of them. Some situations are better then others but we're not here to argue individual cases. However, many countries would find our entertainment incredibly insensitive and downright vulgar. These are not people that will be persuaded to change their views. It is a part of their culture. To go against that is to essentially blaspheme to their faces which is rude. Its a respect thing.

Secondly, once again I contend the right to own copyrighted material once it has been destroyed in the physical form. This argument would have been invalid not even 10 years ago due simply to the fact cloud information was not available. So now we come to the crux of things. Are we fully to rights of information simply due to the fact we can get it anywhere after we paid for it once or is this just an ugly manifestation of the generations that grew up in the cloud info boom. I contend this, I've bought Starcraft three times. Once I lost it in a move, the other got ruined from an incident and now I have my third. And it sits on my desk where it has for four years. I feel no malice toward my publisher for this. Its not his fault its mine. So why should he/she be forced to provide me with new key codes for my mishaps. No other business runs this way it will be interesting how it is contended with in the future.

I still maintain that you must rebuy because to admit anything else is to give land to the pirates. Who I would never support in any endeavor. That my correspondent, is the difference between you and me. By allowing one you essentially allow all. I understand that is not your intention but nonetheless showing any form of weakness is still weakness. and trolls like the one who called on you will forever capitalize on such paradoxes as you have stated. You can't have your cake and eat it too as they say.

****EDIT

Crap I quoted wrong. lol. sorry but its right next to the real quote anyone reading please check for it.

 

[grigjd3]

While commentary from the CEO of gamestop is obviously suspect, this is something developers and publishers need to understand. The used game market supports the new game market. If we eliminate used games, there will be less money spent on new games. Of course, it seems many developers and publishers are desperately ignorant of this...

 

[RandV80]

I'm not going to try and say that the used game market is a black and white issue, there's a lot of factors at play here making it hard to get a clear picture of what the actual effect does. But one thing he implies that I have to disagree with, from the article:

"We believe a digital-only next-gen Xbox is unlikely given risks to both Microsoft's market share and the gaming ecosystem as a whole from any attempt to kill used games,"

While it certainly has a strong impact on it I don't believe going digital really has nothing to do with combating used games like he's implying, you do it because it's a more effective method of distribution. Further more, the primary reason for the gamer deal in used games is either to stretch their gaming budget or to acquire older games. While you will no longer be able to sell back your digital games, with more flexible pricing and targeted sales drives you can stretch a smart gamer can stretch his money a lot further than they can buy getting into the used market... at least assuming a digital Sony/Microsoft console works something like Steam and doesn't completely **** it up. And of course there's no contest when it comes to being able to acquire old games.

The Gamestop CEO is right to point out that used games still generate cash flow for the game industry, but that doesn't change the fact that the only thing preventing them from going out of business (or at the very least drastically shrinking their business) is a hopefully temporary shortcoming of high speed internet infrastructure. Won't feel sorry for them either, 15-20 years ago there were numerous small individual used game stores that they pushed out of business to get to where they are today. That's just business.

 

[ThunderCavalier]

While I'm whole-heartedly on the side that supports Used Games, as this is a capitalist society and we thrive on living in a free market where we can do whatever the fuck we want to do with our property, having to list the GameStop CEO, the guys who are ruthlessly using Used Games to abuse the system and have, in the past, abused games and their relationship with developers to sell more munnies, as one of my allies makes this position far more bittersweet.

 

[Owyn_Merrilin]

Only used games have minimal deprecation over the first 6 months ie the used game is worth 95% of its retail price. So the other retail models have been around longer but have much higher deprecation than the games and thus cannot be used as model.

Where are you getting this data from?

Maybe some of the AAA titles aren't depreciating all that much but the rest are. Fallout: New Vegas was 50% less than launch at 6 months, and that was arguably one of the better titles. Mass Effect 2 dropped like a rock in a similar time frame. And I've seen games that lose 70% in two weeks because no one buys it. And this is the new game's price.

We're talking about the amount you get for a game when you trade it in used because that is where the depreciation lies. Yes, a car loses thousands in value when you drive it off the lot but games lose a lot too. I have seen at most $40 dollars being paid (as trade-in never as cash) for a $60 game. Most of the time I see a new-release game within a week only getting $30 to $35 in trade-in because the early adopters got bored and decided not to keep the game around. Nowhere do I see $57 dollars being paid for a game that is $60 brand new.

http://www.amazon.com/Fouls-Chronicles-Thomas-Covenant-Unbeliever/dp/0345348656/ref=sr_1_4?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1332537466&sr=1-4


Look at the price change 7.99 to 1 cent used, is the deprecation on games as extreme as that? Obviously not. So in the real world, guess what, used book are worth less than used games. How many books at 1 cent would you have to sell to make the same amount of money that they make at 7.99 price? 1000s at least. It costs more to have the book delivered than it does to buy.

Wait, what? I have a copy of that book on my shelf. It was originally released in the 70's, so that's not exactly a quick drop off in value. What's more, I'd be suspicious of the ones selling for a penny; the more reasonable ones are sitting around $3.99, which is almost exactly 50% off of the new price, and well within the range that videogames drop off in value. Seriously, anyone who thinks used books are an insignificant portion of the market, or that $0.01 is anything near the average price, clearly doesn't read much, because if they did, they'd be in and out of their local used book store often enough to know how crazy that is. Sure, most book stores are either all new or all used, but that's not always the case. One of my favorite bookstores carries both new and used; it's effectively Gamestop for books, but locally owned and operated, and definitely not as shady on things like trade in value.

OT: I think the Gamestop CEO is exactly right here, but I don't think it's because of any insider information. He's just speaking the truth about the way the market works, something the publishers haven't been doing lately.

 

[Cecilthedarkknight_234]

Eh, I don't think MS really cares all that too much to be fairly honest. What's next? piracy related programs block on the next windows OS?

It's already there for versions of windows and certain games. I am huge player of visual novels and now companies are going out of their way to say "this game is japan only and can only be played on japan version of windows". Oh it's coming bro they will find a way look a windows 8 which is just a tablet PC os....

 

[Owyn_Merrilin]

Eh, I don't think MS really cares all that too much to be fairly honest. What's next? piracy related programs block on the next windows OS?

It's already there for versions of windows and certain games. I am huge player of visual novels and now companies are going out of their way to say "this game is japan only and can only be played on japan version of windows". Oh it's coming bro they will find a way look a windows 8 which is just a tablet PC os....

They've also got a form of DRM for TV tuners built into Windows 7. Basically, the TV station can set a flag in the ATSC feed to make it impossible for complying recorders to record. Compliance is not at all required -- in fact, the FCC fought to keep it out of the requirements, but Microsoft built compliant DRM into the OS anyway.

 

[Grunt_Man11]

Snip

Ah, the ramblings of a mouth-frothing fanboy. There's nothing so pointless and meaningless.

You have zero concept of reality, and every word you've posted is proof of that.

Here's a little something that you should watch, and watch it fully. Don't even think of watching one minute of it, then replying with more raged filled fanboy ramblings.