Uh, a game in a box is not like a movie ticket, since a game can (technically) be enjoyed FOREVER, but a movie ends, and you must pay again to watch it. You, however, own both the system that plays the game, and the game itself, making it yours, thus you don't have to pay to play it again.Draech said:Cable TVRealitycrash said:I'm sorry, but you didn't answer my question, you just referenced that there ARE places where you pay from time to time (such as movies), but they never sell you any property, so your argument (if it even was one?) is invalid.Draech said:Yeah because this is all new. No1 has ever made a pay as you go system for entertainment before.... cept since the invention of entertainment.Realitycrash said:I'm sorry, I just find it amusing that you find this mans "arguments" to be "Fantastic" (even though he just uses rethorics and call Jim a baby) yet to condone Jim for his "flawed arguments", Jim pretty much using nothing but rethorics himself.Draech said:Fantastic. Could not have said it better myselfbringer of illumination said:So in essence your argument is:
Waaaaah!!! Piracy is worse than trade-ins therefore trade-ins aren't hurting the industry at all!
Waaaaah!!! EA is a worse company than Gamestop (which they aren't, not by a long shot, at least EA actually funds games and many great games at that.), therefore all of Gamestop's bullshit nickle-and-dimeing and intentional working around the companies that actually makes the games are perfectly acceptable!
Waaaaah!!! I don't want the corporate fat cats at EA making money! I'd much rather give my money to the corporate fat cats at Gamestop!
Waaaaah!!! Murder is a worse crime than assault! Therefore punching random people on the street in the face isn't a problem at all!
Class act there Jim.
But alas, you're wrong.
You know who is really hurt by used games? All those smaller titles you talked about two weeks ago. They're the ones that can't afford great marketing, and thus can't push many unit at launch, but because of used sales, slow sales over time quickly regress to no new sales at all, because the games are being traded in is very high compared to the rate at which the game is being bought.
I still cant believe he wants to whine for 3 full episodes with these flawed arguments.
My amusement put aside, I have to ask you; Do you believe it's right to lose your right to sell something you own? Because all the other "arguments" put aside, this is a rather solid one.
Answer the question, please.
But putting that aside Movie tickets still count. A game in a box is just a movie ticket. It has a playtime and it has an end. Thoes that dont have an extra service, usually one that they pay for.
But putting that aside you are changing the question. There is no proberty involved in games. Do you pay for the disk or the entertainment on the disk? You ne to categorise it as entertainment rather than proberty. and all of a sudden its not a big issue that they try to change it as a pay as you go system.
And you pay for both the disk, and the entertainment on it. Though it doesn't matter, you still own a physical copy, which is agreed upon when they sell you it (although implicitly). When you watch a movie, it's also agreed upon that you DON'T own the movie, and can only watch it once (that's why you can't bring a videocamera to a theater to tape the movie for yourself).
Change the question? I did no such thing, I asked you a direct one. One you haven't answered. Is it okey for them to take away our right as consumer to sell something we own?