Draech said:
Still missing facts. That he says that it hasn't impacted the game sales of new games is a downright lie.
Missing facts, indeed! Where is the evidence showing that used game sales has affected the sale of new games? All I've seen is this from Richard Browne:
"The Real Cost of Used Games"
http://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/2012-04-12-the-real-cost-of-used-games
Where are the numbers? Where is the proof that the "variety of games" is shrinking? The destruction of mid-tier publishers? Like L1, I am not convinced that this is true.
If sale is changed from new to used then that is a lost sale. It is a fact that Gamestop does repackage used games and sell them as new. It is a fact they try to push used sales on customers who is there to buy new. It is a fact that they purposely order low numbers of units in order to get used games into rotation.
Again, where are the numbers? Is it high enough such that the variety of titles has decreased, that sales have been undermined, and that publishers have closed? Where's the proof?
If you ignore all these facts, then he isn't lieing. But I dont like to ignore facts.
Where are the numbers and other data?
And you are still missing the point.
If you are denying a game on the principal the service can shut down, then you should deny yourself other service. All services can shut down. ALL!
As I told you earlier, that makes no sense whatsoever. In fact, what makes matters worse is that the continued availability of that service is assumed because, ironically, one good reason why used games should not be sold is because, according to Browne, they are not supposed to be "disposable entertainment." But how can you continue enjoying them if the service needed to play them no longer operates?
It is not a slippery slope argument. You are just going around and talking risk. The risk of your water going out is tiny, because something will replace it. Yeah but it can still go out without getting replaced. Yeah the chances of the game service disappear in bigger than water, but the chance of your physical game disappearing/breaking is a lot bigger than the services if you want to talk chance.
It is a slippery slope argument. See for yourself:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope
The rest of your paragraph doesn't help you any way because, as I explained earlier, it assumes that another company will provide services that will allow you to continue playing the game. This point is ridiculous and not worth pursuing.
It is a double standard not to apply it equally.
No, it is NOT a double standard because when you bought a game in the past you owned it, could play it, and could sell it. You didn't have to activate it online or hope that the company that is supposed to provide that service will operate indefinitely. The irony is that for Browne this is supposed to be the MAIN reason why used games should not be sold. They are not supposed to be seen as "disposable entertainment." But this point may render that one irrelevant. More on that in my last paragraph.
The same, by the way, applied to books, movies on tape or disk, etc. You bought it, you have the right to sell it or keep it. In contrast, you don't own a phone service or electricity. That is an idiotic analogy.
If there is a double standard that should be followed and that's likely not a slippery slope, it's that the same argument should now cut across different media. In which case, you don't own not just video games but all movies, music, reading materials, graphics, and any type of information you bought in any format and that is copyrighted. With that, there should be no used goods market. And if it unfortunate that the good requires activation from a company that no longer exists, tough luck.
Thus, it appears that the solution that publishers are moving to is the removal of game ownership. When you "buy" a game, you don't own it unless the publisher states otherwise. If activation and similar requirements are in place, then you can only continue playing it as long as the publisher wants you to do so. If it removes the service or goes out of business, then you won't be able to play it at all. Since you can't own games, then there will be no used market.
With that, it will not surprise me if gamers start complaining, if not move to publishers that won't follow such restrictions, which from what I remember, is one of the conclusions given in the video.
So much for non-points.
