Poll: Boycott Rage

[Dastardly]

I've actually had many conversations with developers on that very subject, so actually, I do know which is which. Also, I see the tactic as rewarding someone for buying new, you see it as punishing someone for buying used. Both are equally valid perspectives.

Even if they were pulling content for this purpose, how is that wrong? As mentioned in some of my replies above, games don't depreciate. Cars do, so when you buy a used car, you're paying less because you're essentially getting less.

Games don't work that way. An old copy of Arkham Asylum doesn't feature an older, slower Batman with transmission problems and a broken A/C. So we're essentially forcing the publisher to compete with its own product. Not an imitation or depreciated version, but the exact product. And they'll always lose, because they're competing with an entity that doesn't have to pay production costs.

Why shouldn't publishers of these digital goods, which don't natural depreciate, be allowed to create a bit of "artificial depreciation" to ensure that the new product is, in fact, more valuable than the used? And while it's a good PR move to frame it as "bonus content for new purchases," why should they be seen as evil if they say otherwise?

 

[Epona]

It's this concept that "it would've been included otherwise" that I find baffling. According to whom? Obviously, it varies from game to game, but some content is only being developed because the developer/publisher believes extra money can be made from it via DLC - even if it's ready to go on Day One, that doesn't mean it "would've been included otherwise" were it not for its intended purpose. It's not like companies are making games, then when they're done saying "Hmm...now what could we cut out of this to sell as DLC?" That may have been the way decisions were made when DLC was in its infancy, but that's certainly no longer the case.

And as many others have already pointed out, I fail to see the issue with encouraging consumers to buy a game new. It's in the company's best interests for you to do so, but no-one is twisting your arm forcing you to. You wanting to save money by buying used is perfectly reasonable - but so is the game company wanting to make as much profit from their efforts as possible.

Some content is being pulled from the game, some content is developed specifically to be used as DLC and/or DRM. You don't which is which and neither do we so we guess. Your guess is as good or bad as anyone else's. Still baffled?

I've actually had many conversations with developers on that very subject, so actually, I do know which is which. Also, I see the tactic as rewarding someone for buying new, you see it as punishing someone for buying used. Both are equally valid perspectives.

LOL, yeah right.

I used to work in a car factory in 1990 so I know all about cars made in 2011.

 

[Moonlight Butterfly]

The only time it's annoying is if my game shop doesn't have a non pre owned copy of the game but then Ill just go online anyways.

I appreiciate not everyone can afford new games but I myself don't have a problem with paying full price for something that i have been looking forward too.

 

[Throwitawaynow]

I know! I bought my PS3 new, and now all the prices have gone down. I DEMAND a refund, how come other people get it cheaper than me?

How foolish can you be? Buying the game earlier, and supporting the game before it comes out gets you a reward.

 

[Keava]

1) Do you read every EULA, every word?

2) If you don't agree to the terms, what are you options? Remember, there is no returning an opened game.

The EULA is one-sided and powerless. You waste your time reading it, I won't because in the end the words don't matter, the DRM does.

1) I usualy read them every few years, they don't change that much between companies. If you rea donce you know what the others will inlucde.

2) Again, from SC2 EULA, because that's the only EULA i actually have on PC right now

4. Service and Terms of Use. As mentioned above, you must accept the Terms of Use in order to access the Service to play the Game.
The Terms of Use agreement governs all aspects of game play. If you do not agree with the Terms of Use, then (a) you may not register for
an Account to play the Game; and (b) you may arrange to return the Game to the place where you purchased it within thirty (30) days of
the original purchase. Once you accept the License Agreement and the Terms of Use, you will no longer be eligible for a refund.

So it's a crappy shop and you should speak with the manager if they don't want to take your game back.

 

[blizzaradragon]

So then selling a used car to a friend should also be illegal. I mean poor Ford, they don't get a cut when when I sell my old Contour SVT.

But your friend also isn't getting a brand new car. He's not getting the exact same product you got, at the exact same quality. Cars, clothes, and other material goods depreciate. The right to sell them used is meant to allow the owner to recuperate some of the remaining value.

Games don't depreciate. If I buy an old copy of some Mario game, Mario isn't older and slower. So someone selling a used game is able to offer the exact same product, but always at a lower price because they don't have to pay to manufacture or ship it. This forces game companies to compete with their own product, which simply can't be done.

This isn't like cars. When Ford tries to sell a new Contour SVT, they can say, "It's new." They may even be able to say, "It's new and it has a warranty for X miles or years." But if the used market for cars was like the one for games, this would be like CarStop saying, "We can sell you the exact same car, in the exact same condition, with all the exact same features, but at half the price."

All that game publishers are trying to do is ensure that their new product is more valuable than their used product. It has nothing to do with the quality of the product, so simply asking them to make "better games" accomplishes nothing--the quality of new and used games are effectively identical.

The game industry isn't special. There's this notion that just because the products are intangible they you can some how hold supreme control over them and give them special privileges.

Special? No. "Supreme control?" Of course not. But it is different. And that does mean they should be allowed to try different ways to encourage new sales, by ensuring that a new product is more valuable than a used product. Just like with every tangible good ever sold.

You know what? If want people to stop buying used games make the games you sell so good people keep them.

You assume the only possible reason people sell games is that they were "bad." I've finished some really great games. And while they were great, I figured I probably wouldn't play through them again. So I sold/traded them. It says nothing about the quality of the game. In fact, if the game were such poor quality, I doubt people would be buying it used, either, so it wouldn't be an issue.

ves towards selling the game back to the publisher or developer rather than a 3rd party. There are all sorts of ways to go about this that don't screw the consumer over it's just more profitable to screw the consumer and treat them as a lesser party than it is to have a mutual respect for each other.

How is the customer being "screwed," exactly? And I'm not asking rhetorically. I really want to know, from your perspective, how this "screws over" the customer.

You say they're treated like a "lesser party." They are. If you buy a game used, you're not a customer of the publisher. You're a customer of the guy you bought the used game from. The publisher has no reason to treat you like a customer, because they have earned no money from you... so what do they have to lose? Your "business?"

Why should you get 100% of a new product, when you're not paying 100% of the new price? That's not asking to be treated as an equal party. That's asking for new customers to be treated like a "lesser party." You want them to pay full price for a game, so that you can then pay less for the exact same game. No depreciation whatsoever.

More on cars: If you go to a used car lot, and they're charging almost new prices, would you buy from them? Or would you go somewhere charging used prices for used cars? Gamestop buys up these used copies, and then sells them for just five dollars less than new. If anyone is "cheating" you, it's them--they could sell you that copy at half price and still be making out like bandits.

Yes, this in every sense of the word! People who complain about stuff like this are people who want to be treated equally without paying to be equal. This is kind of a lame example, but it's like going to a restaurant and ordering a cheaper steak than your buddy and complaining that your steak isn't the same quality as his.

If you buy used, you should get what you paid for. Same goes if you buy it new. You SHOULDN'T pay the used price and expect the quality of something new.

In short, you're cool bro and you understand what is actually going on here.

 

[Susan Arendt]

I've actually had many conversations with developers on that very subject, so actually, I do know which is which. Also, I see the tactic as rewarding someone for buying new, you see it as punishing someone for buying used. Both are equally valid perspectives.

Even if they were pulling content for this purpose, how is that wrong? As mentioned in some of my replies above, games don't depreciate. Cars do, so when you buy a used car, you're paying less because you're essentially getting less.

Games don't work that way. An old copy of Arkham Asylum doesn't feature an older, slower Batman with transmission problems and a broken A/C.

I would totally play that game.

 

[teisjm]

Or the factor of them being developers meens that they set the standards for what you must do. I know some buisness practices are wrong, thats very obvious. Not including stuff to prevent people from torrenting it or getting second hand sales a few days after seems pretty reasonable to me because it isnt effecting those that purchases the game. And thats just it, they are requireing you to merely, "BUY" the game. Explain to me what is wrong with this. I may be overlooking some huge factor but currently I don't see it with this complaint.

The question

The answer:

Or the factor of them being developers meens that they set the standards for what you must do. I know some buisness practices are wrong, thats very obvious. Not including stuff to prevent people from torrenting it or getting second hand sales a few days after seems pretty reasonable to me because it isnt effecting those that purchases the game. And thats just it, they are requireing you to merely, "BUY" the game. Explain to me what is wrong with this. I may be overlooking some huge factor but currently I don't see it with this complaint.

I would like to know how this is wrong too.

What is wrong is this, Imagine if you buy a CD, then after a while you borrow it to a friend of yours, this is not piracy, this is not illegal, but suddenly, all the tracks stop 30 seconds too early, would you be pissed?
Imaine the same for a film, you borrow a blu-ray movie from a friend, a real piece of eye candy, and it won't show in HD, because your fingerprints doesn't match the prints registered at release.
Or if the book you rad after your spouse had finished reading it suddenly lacked the last 10 pages.
You get my point

If you BUY the game, you'd think you you could do with it what you wanted, save pirate it, even pass it along to someone, which is nowhere the same as pirating, cause you're giving it up in the process, but the anti-resale initiatives made by game companies, more or less turns you BUYING it into buying permission to use it with limitations that shouldn't be there.
It would be like a car salesman forbidding you to drive your wife to work in the car you bought from him, cause if you didn't she might be forced to buy one herself, and hence you'd theoreticly cost him money by removing her need to buy one

 

[Dastardly]

You see sometimes you DON'T want to support a publisher but you might still want play the game and not go to federal prison. You might enjoy the game but you want to send a message to the developer that you hate their DRM. What this kinda of stunt does is make impossible to give that sort of feedback. Now people need to not buy the game at all to send in that capitalist vote that says "your product sucks you don't get me money".

Why do you buy games that you think suck? That's not rational human behavior. If you want to send the message that a game sucks, try behaving as though you believe the game sucks. If you want to play it, you must not think it sucks... or you're a crazy person, perhaps? Can't be sure.

Even still, buying a used game should be seen as an opportunity to gain valuable data.

To what end? Using this data to make the game better won't improve sales if you can get that same "now more awesome" game at used prices. The only way used sales data is useful to a publisher is to answer the question, "How much money are we losing by not ensuring that the new product is more valuable than a used product?"

The consumer isn't the enemy and we need to stop being treated like we are.

You aren't being treated like "an enemy." You're just not being treated like a friend. There's a difference. If my friend comes to the door, I let him in. If my enemy comes to the door, I swear at him and send him away with a call to the cops. If a stranger, neither friend nor enemy comes to the door, I behave in a more neutral fashion until I tell if he's one or the other.

If you're buying used, you aren't a customer. Not to the publisher. You and the publisher have entered no transaction whatsoever, so you're not even on their radar. Why should they let you in, when you haven't shown them you're a friend?

 

[Epona]

1) Do you read every EULA, every word?

2) If you don't agree to the terms, what are you options? Remember, there is no returning an opened game.

The EULA is one-sided and powerless. You waste your time reading it, I won't because in the end the words don't matter, the DRM does.

1) I usualy read them every few years, they don't change that much between companies. If you rea donce you know what the others will inlucde.

2) Again, from SC2 EULA, because that's the only EULA i actually have on PC right now

4. Service and Terms of Use. As mentioned above, you must accept the Terms of Use in order to access the Service to play the Game.
The Terms of Use agreement governs all aspects of game play. If you do not agree with the Terms of Use, then (a) you may not register for
an Account to play the Game; and (b) you may arrange to return the Game to the place where you purchased it within thirty (30) days of
the original purchase. Once you accept the License Agreement and the Terms of Use, you will no longer be eligible for a refund.

So it's a crappy shop and you should speak with the manager if they don't want to take your game back.

I don't know of any place that will take an opened PC game back for a refund. Do you?

 

[Dastardly]

I've actually had many conversations with developers on that very subject, so actually, I do know which is which. Also, I see the tactic as rewarding someone for buying new, you see it as punishing someone for buying used. Both are equally valid perspectives.

Even if they were pulling content for this purpose, how is that wrong? As mentioned in some of my replies above, games don't depreciate. Cars do, so when you buy a used car, you're paying less because you're essentially getting less.

Games don't work that way. An old copy of Arkham Asylum doesn't feature an older, slower Batman with transmission problems and a broken A/C.

I would totally play that game.

Only if the batmobile has a Carfax.

 

[Mxrz]

I hate people who think like this, even if most of them are too young to understand. You aren't a customer of the developers when you buy used, so fuck off. They don't care what you think. ***** to gamestop or where ever you buy used at instead.

 

[Epona]

Or the factor of them being developers meens that they set the standards for what you must do. I know some buisness practices are wrong, thats very obvious. Not including stuff to prevent people from torrenting it or getting second hand sales a few days after seems pretty reasonable to me because it isnt effecting those that purchases the game. And thats just it, they are requireing you to merely, "BUY" the game. Explain to me what is wrong with this. I may be overlooking some huge factor but currently I don't see it with this complaint.

The question

The answer:

Or the factor of them being developers meens that they set the standards for what you must do. I know some buisness practices are wrong, thats very obvious. Not including stuff to prevent people from torrenting it or getting second hand sales a few days after seems pretty reasonable to me because it isnt effecting those that purchases the game. And thats just it, they are requireing you to merely, "BUY" the game. Explain to me what is wrong with this. I may be overlooking some huge factor but currently I don't see it with this complaint.

I would like to know how this is wrong too.

What is wrong is this, Imagine if you buy a CD, then after a while you borrow it to a friend of yours, this is not piracy, this is not illegal, but suddenly, all the tracks stop 30 seconds too early, would you be pissed?
Imaine the same for a film, you borrow a blu-ray movie from a friend, a real piece of eye candy, and it won't show in HD, because your fingerprints doesn't match the prints registered at release.
Or if the book you rad after your spouse had finished reading it suddenly lacked the last 10 pages.
You get my point

If you BUY the game, you'd think you you could do with it what you wanted, save pirate it, even pass it along to someone, which is nowhere the same as pirating, cause you're giving it up in the process, but the anti-resale initiatives made by game companies, more or less turns you BUYING it into buying permission to use it with limitations that shouldn't be there.
It would be like a car salesman forbidding you to drive your wife to work in the car you bought from him, cause if you didn't she might be forced to buy one herself, and hence you'd theoreticly cost him money by removing her need to buy one

Excellent! This is put very well and I completely agree.

To avoid a low content warning though let me add something. Shouldn't it be against the law to tamper with consumer ownership rights?

 

[WaruTaru]

Me wanting to save money by buying used is reasonable. On the other hand, me wanting to save money by pirating the game would not be legal. My example is designed to show that me wanting to save money doesn't condone "by any means possible". Likewise, it is reasonable that publishers want to increase sales and make money but it is not reasonable to punish customers to do it as it will only lead to some people resorting to piracy to get the full game. No one would need to do that without this restriction.

Your reason to do something is based on the legality of said action, yet when the law says that action is now illegal, you choose to ignore it for your own convenience?

Also, do you know what is protecting software from piracy? The EULA. By saying that it is not enforceable unless it went to court, that means pirates could pirate away all those software until they are caught and brought to court. If the EULA is not there, all the other Intellectual Property law can easily be bypassed with some modification on the software itself.

 

[Epona]

I hate people who think like this, even if most of them are too young to understand. You aren't a customer of the developers when you buy used, so fuck off. They don't care what you think. ***** to gamestop or where ever you buy used at instead.

...and yet they are trying to screw over people who aren't even their customers.

 

[MLionheart]

I actually agree with there way of handling Rage.
Unlike things like DRM and the like, this only affects those that actually buy the game used.
I don't blame them for wanting to stop places that sell second hand games from getting the profits.
In all fairness, I'd rather give my money to the developers, who spent money and years of there time into making the game, and not some shop who put no effort into earning that sale other than appeal to cheapskates.

 

[Keava]

I don't know of any place that will take an opened PC game back for a refund. Do you?

I never had to do it, because i never had issues with that. I never even consider buying a game used. If i can't afford it i just don't buy it and wait for a it to be discounted half year later if i still am interested in it.

But if that would happen i'd request seeing the shop manager and argue with them that their deal with a publisher who supplied them with that game is pretty much forced to respect their own EULA and should refund them the "lost sale" upon returning the game. Simple as that.

 

[GonzoGamer]

Or the factor of them being developers meens that they set the standards for what you must do. I know some buisness practices are wrong, thats very obvious. Not including stuff to prevent people from torrenting it or getting second hand sales a few days after seems pretty reasonable to me because it isnt effecting those that purchases the game. And thats just it, they are requireing you to merely, "BUY" the game. Explain to me what is wrong with this. I may be overlooking some huge factor but currently I don't see it with this complaint.

I would like to know how this is wrong too.

I'd like to know that as well.

If you don't like it then why don't you go after the retailers for this, why do you have to hurt and go after the developers for this?

The problem is that consumers who buy used are still considered (legally) to be legitimate consumers but they aren't being treated as such. At this point, those who pirate get more content.

It's the developers (publishers really) who should be "going after" the retailers. They are the morons who aren't stealing back their customers with better trade ins and used prices. Have you ever seen the used prices/trade-in values at gamestop? It isn't exactly competitive. And with online connectivity to all the consoles, they can get the word out directly to the right consumers.

I think the only reason developers haven't gone after retailers for this is probably because the publishers are in the way, and have probably told the developers to back off. I've done trade-ins at Gamestop and it's down right criminal, and I've only bought one used game ever and after doing some reading on that and I felt ripped off.

Maybe I'm just a little cynical on the whole deal, but I just don't really see publishers going after retailers for this. Not when the bottom line and money is involved anyways.

Of course not. Why would they go after retailers when it's so much easier to make the legitimate consumers (who are usually so willing to get ripped off by a company that makes games they like) pay.
That's why I think all these publishers that complain about used game sales are overreacting and using it as an excuse to pull schemes like Day 1 DLC and Online Pass things. If they were really concerned and the situation was that dire, they would try and set up something that would intercept trade ins and used sales which would make money for them in the process.
It's like with oil prices: if they can come up with an excuse, they will use it. At this point it's just really transparent to the point of being insulting.

 

[blizzaradragon]

1) Do you read every EULA, every word?

2) If you don't agree to the terms, what are you options? Remember, there is no returning an opened game.

The EULA is one-sided and powerless. You waste your time reading it, I won't because in the end the words don't matter, the DRM does.

1) I usualy read them every few years, they don't change that much between companies. If you rea donce you know what the others will inlucde.

2) Again, from SC2 EULA, because that's the only EULA i actually have on PC right now

4. Service and Terms of Use. As mentioned above, you must accept the Terms of Use in order to access the Service to play the Game.
The Terms of Use agreement governs all aspects of game play. If you do not agree with the Terms of Use, then (a) you may not register for
an Account to play the Game; and (b) you may arrange to return the Game to the place where you purchased it within thirty (30) days of
the original purchase. Once you accept the License Agreement and the Terms of Use, you will no longer be eligible for a refund.

So it's a crappy shop and you should speak with the manager if they don't want to take your game back.

I don't know of any place that will take an opened PC game back for a refund. Do you?

Actually Toys 'R Us took back both my opened copy of Starcraft 2 and World of Warcraft: Cataclysm with no fuss. Albeit because their policy states that they don't give cash refunds it had to be in store credit, but I essentially got my money back.

 

[Mxrz]

Yes, they're totally screwing them over by. . . giving their paying customers something extra for their support. Goddamn, that is some true evil there.