Hey, how about instead of buying used games, you give money to the people who actually created the game. All you have to do is *gasp* buy fewer games! It boggles the mind, doesn't it?
Seriously, though, online passes are a huge waste of time (and indeed insulting), but being cheap because you simply have to have two games at once is retarded.
Why are the online passes even there to begin with? To get the companies more money. Because instead of buying one (1) new game, which puts money ($60) in the hands of the publisher, the developer, the retailer, and everyone else who had anything to do with the game, dumbasses go out and buy two (2) used games (both for $30), both with online passes (so $80 altogether), which puts all of $20 into the pockets of the people who worked on the game. This lower income results in less money being put into games by publishers, which means developers have to do more with less, because the consumers want more, yet the money the receive to do that "more" is a lot less.
hitheremynameisbob said:
Mouse_Crouse said:
The publishers not seeing any money dosen't hold up either, because EVERY used game anywhere ever, was once a new game that was purchased.
That's just wrong. The point people make when they say that is that the publisher could have sold TWO games, not just one, because two different people bought it. If you couldn't sell used games, some of the people who bought it used WOULD buy it new. Meanwhile, that person who first bought the game which was later sold as used is fairly likely to still buy it - hence two new sales instead of just the one.
Jim is right on the money, though - it's entirely possible that used games are actually making developers money, but it's not because someone already bought the game once - that's a sale they probably would have had anyway. Instead, they make money through more indirect means like bringing people into the franchise so that they'll buy a SEQUEL new. However, unless someone actually does the research on that it's hard to say that with any measure of certainty, which makes Jim's argument a bit flimsy. The point he's trying to make is "it's good for both developer and consumer," but half of that is relying on an assumption that these means through which developers make money off used games are making them more than they're losing. It's undeniable that consumers experience some great benefits by having the option to buy used, but unless you can show conclusively that the developers also stand to gain, it's hard to say that they should just accept it.
Also, this. If there was no used games business, then most people who buy used would have to suck it up and buy new, which would put more money into the hands of the people who work on the games. But because there is a used games business, that money never sees the hands of the people who worked hard on it. Sure, used games might prompt someone to buy a sequel used, and maybe the pre-order bonus' help that decision a bit, but if you don't care about the bonus, then there is zero incentive to buy new, meaning that the publisher, developer, etc, all lose money they could have had. I doubt that the money made by online passes or helping someone into a franchise and them buying new makes up for the original loss of $60 to begin with.
In my opinion, online passes should go away. So should stores like Gamestop and EB games. I think publishers should have their own used games stores. Think about it: it would negate the need for online passes, people could still trade in their games for 1/4 their actual worth, the publisher could still mark it up 150%, and the money would go right back in again.
