GameStop Warns Against Anti-Used Game Technology

[MrBenSampson]

Once games go out of print, factory sealed copies can become rare, so used games become the only available option. If used games do not work, then paying a fortune for a sealed copy on Ebay will be the only option, and the prices are steep enough already. Factory sealed games from previous console generations sell for hundreds of dollars(Final Fantasy on the NES sells for thousands). Imagine how expensive they would be if used copies didn't work.

The anti used games policy is enough for me to not join the next generation, but the always-online requirement sounds outrageous. I've already mentioned this on an earlier forum, but Microsoft won't support this console forever, so what will happen when that day comes? Xbox Live will be shut down, and an entire generation of consoles will be bricked. After people have possibly invested thousands of dollars into the hardware and software, Microsoft pulling the plug will be a disaster. If previous generations were like this, then I would have hundreds of games in my collection that I would no longer be able to play, just because the servers would be gone by now.

If either of these features are in the PS4 and Xbox, I'll just stick with the consoles I currently own. My PS2 has been getting the most use, anyway.

 

[Magicman10893]

As biased as Gamestop can be in this situation, they are absolutely right. If the next Xbox has this always on DRM I will not buy it. Ever. If the next Xbox has this DRM and the next Playstation doesn't, you can bet your ass that I'll be ditching Xbox for Playstation (and vice-versa). Hell, I might buy the console that doesn't have DRM on release night just to prove a point (and yes, I know one random guy on the internet isn't going to show Microsoft/Sony anything).

If they both have this stupid DRM set up, I'm just going to save up for a good PC. Sure, the lack of reselling games and the DRM is pretty rampant, but at least Steam sales means I won't get (as) fucked over.

 

[MagunBFP]

My point is, a console manufacturer does something stupid in order to fix a problem with other, very real solutions, I'm not going to support it with my business. It's not a tantrum, Its called voting with your wallet.
"If these new features don't impact you, then how exactly are they bad?"
I find that statement utterly ridicules! (and slightly hilarious) I care about video games, and I care about others being able to play and enjoy theme. And there are many people who can only afford to game through the used game market, and there are many people who don't have a stable internet connection!
It's not a tantrum, it's merely a statement as an example that I will not support bad business decision that I believe will ultimately hurt the game industry and will certainly hurt the consumer base.
And I can't be outraged about something because it doesn't effect me? Well I care about things and people other than my own convenience. I'm sorry if that's an odd concept to you.

I'm glad you were amused by my comment... I just wasn't able to actually get any of your reasoning from your original post which was basically "if a manufacturer makes these changes I'll go to their competitor, I won't notice the changes but thats not the point" and then you failed to make any point.

Here though you make a point. I actually agree with you on the DRM part, until the console manufacturer can promise 100% up time, and everyone has a stable connection its stupid to even discuss making it a part of the next-gen release. Used games though, it might just be my exposure but there's no giant difference in price, and to me it seems that alot of the disagreement is I could get games cheaper and now I have to pay abit more. Gamestop being upset is exactly the same issue, they're not championing the right of gamers to get second hand games, they just don't want to lose more then half of their profits.

You may at this point say you didn't need to explicitly make your point because "anyone" would just know what you meant. I personnally believe though that allowing Gamestop and EB and other retailers to make such a massive profit on second hand games (in Australia its something like re-buy at $10-$15 and sell at $70-$75, so upto $55 approximately). That being said the finances of the used game market is a problem for the developers/publishers and if a console manufacturer wants to do something about it then thats their choice. If the publishers aren't getting their ROI becuase people are buying their game but they're not getting their cut, then they will stop making them, or they'll fail. This will ultimately hurt the game industry and will certainly hurt the consumer base.

 

[Dogstile]

Why does everyone latch onto the "Used Games" part of these stories while ignoring the absolutely atrocious part. You must always be online to use the console.

Maybe I'm the only one that lives in the dark ages, but the internet is a very expensive thing (especially at the speeds they'll require)and until recently I didn't even have access to high-speed at all. If any console requires that I be online to play my games - whether or not they allow used game sales - I simply won't be able to justify purchasing the console nor the games. I don't know when I'll be forced to cancel my internet subscription and I don't know when I'll have to move down the street where there isn't cable access...

Contrary to popular belief, gaming doesn't need really high speed internet, nor does it take up all that much. First googled search, I couldn't be arsed to search further, you can if you like.

http://uk.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20100605013720AAkDE0A

I actually agree on the always online thing though, that's bullshit, my internet fails quite often and I live in a rather dense urban area.

 

[FoolKiller]

And there is still the fact that the terms of service we agree to allows them to change functionality after the fact. One day they could just go *click* and turn off used game playability. Sony already pulled this bullshit with PS2 games, and for what, to be able to sell them online.

What are you talking about? There are still PS3s out there that can play PS2 games, its just the new ones that can't do it anymore since they took out that functionality to make them cheaper. The only reason the PS3 could play them in the first place was because they pretty much had another additional PS2 chip in them.

What was REAL bullshit was that XBOX 360s were compatible with only a select few XBOX games.

Actually some of them have had it nerfed with firmware updates. I don't know why or how but I've had friends who lost that ability. It could just be a flaw with the update but I've actually seen the PS2 ability stop working after updates.

The truth is that all three companies were liars when they were yammering about backwards compatibility. Xbox stopped supporting it as of Nov 2007, Sony stopped making consoles with the ability in it and conveniently created a downloadable game store which means even the new consoles are capable of both running the game and reading the disc, and Nintendo just removed the ability to read the game and plug in the GC controllers.

 

[CrystalShadow]

They are biased, but they are also correct. People will simply wait for price drops or switch to PC. Less hassle, and Steam deals are awesome. No one wants to buy a game for $60 and not be able to sell it later when they get bored with it. Not to mention that Microsoft also charges people for online play. Video game market is largely unregulated. This kind of business practice should be illegal.

And in every other industry it is illegal.

The laws relating to it are called 'first sale doctrine'.

But, somehow copyright has become such a mess of a set of laws that they defy all common sense, basically declaring something a product one moment, and a service the next, based solely on the whims of the people selling it.

 

[MagunBFP]

Agreed, but I think there are much better ways to beat Gamestop/EB at their own game. We all remember the ridiculous EA Origin flame out. A business should always try to retake the consumer by offering a better service rather than by cornering them and holding them down until they comply. And I see better options than anti used game tech.

Totally right, the heavy handed tactic is never a popular one, and rarely the right one.

However, as long as you can physically trade and play used games Gamestop/EB and anyone else is going to keep raking in the profits. There are games out there where you can play them second hand offline but you need to purchase an online pass to go online and you get this pass with the original purchase, people hate that as much as the idea of not being able to play second hand games. Given that the product is literally unchanged between the original and second hand game (the only actual difference is where the money goes) so providing a better service to try and get people to actually pay the publishers/developers for their work (and not the retailer for... storing it for a bit longer?) is impossible. If a game comes out cheaper then the trade-in value is reduced and the used price is reduced in line with that, but if all games were available digitally from release day and everyone was online and able to take advantage of this (which an Always on Console DRM would ensure) then game costs could come down, which you could say would be a better service... I still think Always On DRM is a bad idea, but it would have its uses.

 

[MagunBFP]

To me, whether not DRM requirement would achieve its desired goal is irrelevant, because there are people who will just plain be unable to play their games anymore.

True, it'd be better if they just implemented the digital availabitily and factored out the middle man price increase... but then the physical retailers might just stop stocking anything for/by "insert console here" because the online market place is cheaper and they can't compete. Which would come back to hurting those who can't afford/get a stable internet connection/download limit.

 

[zidine100]

oh look a load of fuss over a rumor.

Microsoft arent idiots, they wouldn't do this until someone else does it first, and no one wants to be the first one to do this, it would cripple any consoles chance for success.

 

[infohippie]

Wouldn't it be great if all next-gen consoles sucked?

I would love it. It would push a hell of a lot of gamers back to PC and we might get a nice boost to the PC games industry.

There's quite a few problems with that though with a few being:

People who already have consoles and are happy still using them.

People who don't know how to build a PC let alone know how to fix certain games (I wouldn't pull the whole "look up forums excuse).

People who don't want to keep shelling out money for new parts time and time again (especially if one part were to fuck up or break down).

People who loved the exclusives that aren't on PC.

People who can't play PC games with a gamepad and aren't great at using K+M (Yes there are still games out there than can be K+M only).

People that can't afford say a new GPU to keep up with the latest in gaming because of irl situations such as bills and the like.

People with really shitty internet connections and other people who don't like digitally downloading their games (I for one don't like waiting half a day if not more for my digital game downloads and my connection is the highest there is on the Isle of Man).

And finally people who just flat out don't like PC gaming.

That and I know most of the time people want others to ditch consoles and join the "master race" for that nice ego stroke otherwise they'd leave others to their own complete choice of platform without telling them their's is shit to prove a point.

As for myself I'm most likely going to stick with the 360,Wii U and a little of the PC seeing as how I can't afford new parts as much as I am not equipped with the greatest of common knowledge of building a godlike one either and dislike mostly using K+M for my games unless it's Sim or RTS.

Captcha; Wild West, it sure feels like it when I'm here.

As a last note with all those points up there I know will get the usual excuses, but that does not mean they aren't any less real of a situation for many already.

*sigh* More repetition of groundless incorrect claims.

If people are happy still using their current consoles, good for them. Not everybody has to shift to give the PC game market a boost.

People who don't know how to build them/don't want to keep shelling out money/can't afford a new GPU - Are you nuts? Modern PC gaming is cheaper and simpler than it has ever been. You can buy a system off-the-shelf for relatively low cost that will play modern games at the same quality or better than you are presently used to with the current generation of consoles. The cost and complexity argument is no longer valid and has not been so for years, I wish people would stop repeating it. In fact, with all the updates and changes Sony and Microsoft have been making you could make a reasonable argument that it is now quite a bit more complex to game on console than it is to game on PC.

Digital download - So what? You can still buy physical copies in game stores you know. And consoles have plenty of stuff to download these days. I don't know what point you are trying to make here.

As for not liking keyboard and mouse, most PC games will work happily with a gamepad. As for the few that won't well, at least it is only a few. I have trouble with every console game because I don't like controllers and virtually no games on console support keyboard and mouse.

It seems you have taken my thought that many people might return to the PC as an attack of some sort and have immediately become defensive. I assure you it is in no way meant as an attack, I would just like to see my preferred gaming system returned to equal treatment with the consoles, which might just happen if Sony and Microsoft keep shooting themselves in the foot like this.

Microsoft arent idiots

[cough]Vista, Zune, Kin, Windows 8[/cough]

 

[infohippie]

Wonderful, more baseless PC Claims. See how this works?

My PS3 cost $260. My PC cost $600 (Would have been $800, but Fry's was nice enough to throw in the OS because I bought all the parts from them). I bought my PS3 3 years ago. I bought my previous computer 3 years ago. I still have my PS3. Guess which one lasted longer?

I always laugh when people say PC gaming is cheaper. Because it isn't. The only time you could ever make that claim is in the first six months of a new console. But I digress...

OT: GameStop's CEO already promised any maker that has anti-used technology will not get their product stocked at GameStop. Which is the exact right play. What Microsoft or Sony would be doing would be a massive violation of consumer rights.

And you buy a cheap crappy PC anyway so you can get on the internet. Add maybe $250 to what you are already paying anyway and you have a decent gaming PC. So no, it is not more expensive to game on PC. Why do console gamers seem to display a compulsive need to "prove" there is something wrong with PC gaming? Sounds like insecurity to me.

As for how long it lasts, what on earth have you been doing with your computer? 'Cause I built mine four years ago and it's still going strong. My previous one, which I built eight years ago, has been retired to light duties as my home server.

 

[infohippie]

Anti-malware service protected my computer re-did some registry files to keep the system safer. When I un-installed it because it and Vista were arguing with each other (Even after UAC was disabled), the registry files stayed messed up, and it caused a memory leak that eventually killed my system. When I say "Killed" I mean you go into My Documents and the memory instantly hit 100% use and crashed Windows Explorer. Plus the system was on the low end of the scale when I bought it, so it couldn't play more recent than New Vegas.

Ah, I see. Sounds like you were unfortunately hit by a combination of bad luck and Microsoft's pile of fail that was Vista. Sorry to hear that. Though if you decide to get a computer again at some point I suggest you go to a specialist computer store or order online from somewhere like newegg.com, rather than go to a generic electrical goods store like Fry's. You will pay considerably less and get considerably more for your dollar. For comparison, my PC which was built in early 2009 can play The Witcher 2 at moderately high settings - and that is a very demanding game. The settings I played it on are still rather higher than the Xbox version offers, though. I just spent about $150 dollars on a new video card - because I wanted to, no because I had to - and can now run it at maximum settings at ridiculous framerates - and it is jaw-droppingly gorgeous. My old video card could also play Crysis 2 at near-max settings. So you do not need to spend that much on a video card to get reasonable performance. Ignore the pretentious twats spouting about how they have a water-cooled, triple SLI rig. That's all bullshit, there is no need for all that nonsense just to play games. They are playing a different game called "How much can I brag I spent?".