Poll: Boycott Rage

[Epona]

I'm surprised at how many people here are such apologists to publishers.
You know the story about how all devs are stared dogs living from paycheck to paycheck? It's a bunch of bullshit. The video game industry is raking in record profits irregardless of used sales.

...or because of used sale. How many people bought XXX 2 new because they took a chance on a cheap used copy of XXX 1 and liked it? How many people trade in their games and turn around and put that money back into new games?

Publishers are shooting themselves in the foot by making it harder to buy used, resell a game or by making it hard to let your little brother play Starcraft 2 without it messing with your profile?

 

[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.

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.

They aren't going after them because they would lose and they know it. This is why they are using underhanded techniques to discourage used game sales.

 

[Exile714]

Snip 1

This morning, GameStop reported its earnings for the three months ending April 30, 2011. The quarter--the first of the specialty retailer's fiscal year--was a profitable one, with the company earning $80.4 million in net income on a record $2.28 billion of revenue. That was a 6.9 percent increase from $75.2 million in profits and a 9.5 percent boost from the $2.08 billion in revenues GameStop took in during the same period in 2010.

Yes, its a big company and its revenues are large, but those are rather paltry profits compared to the billions you accuse them of raking in (through used game sales). Might as well just say "GAJILLIONZ." If they were truly being the bloodsucking middlemen, in the way that chinese middlemen link up western companies with cheap labor and pocket the difference, they'd be raking in a lot more money than they are.

If someone is making billions, it means that they make more than one billion, 2 billion is more than 1 billion, that it is billions. Thus gamestop's profit is in the billions. You say that is a paltry sum, but considering they aren't producing or making any product, they are providing a fairly simple service it is actually quite a large sum of money.

You're not thinking about this clearly. Gamestop made $80 million, not $2 billion. That means they took in $2000 million and paid out $1920 million in costs. What are costs? The cost of purchasing the game wholesale, the cost of electricity to the store, the cost of employees, taxes etc. A large portion of the $1920 million went to the game developers.

Also, some people claimed that Gamestop doesn't make any money on selling new games. That's just silly, and anyone who thinks that really doesn't get basic retail economics. (Question for those people: why, then, would Gamestop sell new games if they don't make money from doing so?)

 

[Epona]

This 'buy it new to play things that would have been included otherwise!' crap needs to end. im sick of game companies thinking that they can do this to us, as consumers. we dont have to put up with this bull anymore. WE decide whether or not their game gets bought. WE decide to put money down for a title they release. they dont get to decide that for us. im tired of the companies thinking that they can get away with this, just because they assume we will always buy their games no matter what.

If we allow this to continue, what will happen to games like Skyrim? do you want to only be able to access 15 quests if you buy it new? or to a new extreme: you can only dual wield if you buy it new?

Technically you are "boycotting" them by buying used anyway, no money flows to them and it doesn't show up as a sale, only the "PreOwned-Games Retailer" profits off of it.

You say "Developers don't get a CENT from someone buying the game used" as if we should be shocked. In fact, developers aren't entitled to that any more than Dell is entitled to some of the money from the monitor I sold at my garage sale. It's like being shocked because a 2 year old can't get a drivers license.

Fair enough, you aren't "entitled" (god... how I hate that word) to any part of the game they deem you are not as long as you don't actually buy the game from them, as much as you aren't "entitled" to have Dell repair the monitor you bought from a garage sale if it breaks down 2 days after because you aren't their customer.

So you are going to cease arguing that developers should get money from used sales?

 

[TheRamMan]

Bein a PC gamer we really dont have to worry about "Buy it New". Ther arn't any major PC resale shops so its not a big issue, but I would support ID for there desicion anyway.
The more money to the DEV = Higher chance of Game quality, Studio Staying open, more game releases but an overall bigger bugget to ply with for the future for whatever they may do.
Also I feel Game comapnys RIP me(US) off! Sell a game to them cheap and they turn around and make a huge profit on it.

Im netral on the extra content for PRE-Orders
But for Buying New I like it!

 

[TheRamMan]

Bein a PC gamer we really dont have to worry about "Buy it New". Ther arn't any major PC resale shops so its not a big issue, but I would support ID for there desicion anyway.
The more money to the DEV = Higher chance of Game quality, Studio Staying open, more game releases but an overall bigger bugget to ply with for the future for whatever they may do.
Also I feel Game comapnys RIP me(US) off! Sell a game to them cheap and they turn around and make a huge profit on it. Now if they gave a good percent to the DEV then I would agree with that(also that means they could make less disc and reduce a little bit of waste)

Im netral on the extra content for PRE-Orders
But for Buying New I like it!

 

[Inkidu]

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.

See, I treat trade in as a long term thing. I pay into the cards. I only go for store credit (which they are willing to give oodles of over straight up cash). I get rewards and contests, and it works for me. Sure there are clasics I'll probably never trade in, but there are plenty of games I beat completely and just collect dust. It's an investment. You're not gong to turn a quick profit. Plus some of that store credit goes to me buying brand new games, which I wouldn't be able to get at all otherwise.

I know I can't afford to buy new every time. It's just not practical. Do I think I'm ripping off a developer or publisher. Hell no. Console games are owned property (it's not like PC) if I want to sell it to my friend down the street it's perfectly legal.

 

[Fiz_The_Toaster]

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.

They aren't going after them because they would lose and they know it. This is why they are using underhanded techniques to discourage used game sales.

That's what I mean. It would hurt them financially and that's really the last thing publishers want to do. Retailers have way too much power and they can get away with this crap because they know they can. I don't like those underhanded techniques, but it has to be done I suppose. Not that I like it, but not a whole lot I can do about it.

 

[WaruTaru]

Technically you are "boycotting" them by buying used anyway, no money flows to them and it doesn't show up as a sale, only the "PreOwned-Games Retailer" profits off of it.

No you aren't. If the game sold a lot of used copies, its profit for the game shop, and they like profit. If a sequel comes out, the game shop is more likely to order more of that game, thus reducing the copies of other games that they might order if those other games are released at the same time as the sequel. If you plan to boycott, don't touch the game at all, new or used.

 

[inFAMOUSCowZ]

I am boycotting Rage, devs shouldn't need to do this. It is no different then letting a friend borrow a game. Person gets to play a game pay no money. Devs get not a single cent. How is that any different. Someone bought the game, so why does it matter if I play it used or borrow, or even rent. Cutting content is honestly a terrible idea, I never buy a game used unless thats the only way for me to get it.

But ever since project $10 and other similar moves I have been buying used, or not buying at all. The publishers or developers (who ever makes these calls) are shooting them selves in the foot. Since I debate this move has done nothing or even infact made sales worse. Only because they take content out, and that pisses people off. I've been dong this for about a year, and I have no plans on stopping, if only there were more people out there boycotting.

What about gamers who have little income, or gamers who only have the option of getting used and they dont have any online. You are saying fuck you to them. People who enjoy your games, you are saying get the fuck out, you can't afford these games? Then i dont want you. This will make damn well sure they wont ever buy from you again, or only get it used, or even pirate.

TLDR; I am boycotting, and devs/publishers need to stop screwing over their fans, just for a few more sales.

EDIT: Its the same as the Battle Field 3 boycott because of the dlc, I was apart of that too. You can do better online if you reserve the game, ands thats it. Also only way to get these maps. Pre-order bonuses need to end as well. They are cutting content out of a game, give me a map, poster, sound track, toy, gift card. Not some shit they cut from the game to give to a select few.

 

[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.

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.

See, I treat trade in as a long term thing. I pay into the cards. I only go for store credit (which they are willing to give oodles of over straight up cash). I get rewards and contests, and it works for me. Sure there are clasics I'll probably never trade in, but there are plenty of games I beat completely and just collect dust. It's an investment. You're not gong to turn a quick profit. Plus some of that store credit goes to me buying brand new games, which I wouldn't be able to get at all otherwise.

I know I can't afford to buy new every time. It's just not practical. Do I think I'm ripping off a developer or publisher. Hell no. Console games are owned property (it's not like PC) if I want to sell it to my friend down the street it's perfectly legal.

It's perfectly legal to sell PC games to your friend too, it's just that publishers have made it impractical and if we put up with it, they will do the same with console games.

I can't stress enough that our example of what it is to come for console games is to look at PC games.

 

[Vakz]

If players still doesn't buy games new then they're obviously going to have wise up and make games better and actually WORTH buying new.

OR they just each come up with some damn "community"-service that ties all your games from that developer to an account, so you can't resell it.

Make games better, or lock your games so they can't be resold.. which one sounds more likely? I think you'll find a ton of examples on the latter.

 

[lord.jeff]

You say "Developers don't get a CENT from someone buying the game used" as if we should be shocked. In fact, developers aren't entitled to that any more than Dell is entitled to some of the money from the monitor I sold at my garage sale. It's like being shocked because a 2 year old can't get a drivers license.

Dell would charge you for that if they could, almost any company would, I don't think game companies are evil just because they are the only ones that can get away with it.

I don't mind extra content for buying new, you paid more you deserve more and most this games sell the extra as DLC, it may not be the best way to do it but I don't see anything wrong with a company asking for money from it's product. A better way may be to just include 10 dollars worth of DLC with the purchase.

 

[Inkidu]

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.

See, I treat trade in as a long term thing. I pay into the cards. I only go for store credit (which they are willing to give oodles of over straight up cash). I get rewards and contests, and it works for me. Sure there are clasics I'll probably never trade in, but there are plenty of games I beat completely and just collect dust. It's an investment. You're not gong to turn a quick profit. Plus some of that store credit goes to me buying brand new games, which I wouldn't be able to get at all otherwise.

I know I can't afford to buy new every time. It's just not practical. Do I think I'm ripping off a developer or publisher. Hell no. Console games are owned property (it's not like PC) if I want to sell it to my friend down the street it's perfectly legal.

It's perfectly legal to sell PC games to your friend too, it's just that publishers have made it impractical and if we put up with it, they will do the same with console games.

I can't stress enough that our example of what it is to come for console games is to look at PC games.

Actually no it's not. Selling PC software in the States is like selling a leased car. You can't do it legally because you're paying for the use of it. It's draconian and stupid but I don't think that EULA has changed since I read it so long ago. They spell out quite specifically that you are leasing the software from the company and they basically could come into your hose and take it back if you break the EULA.

They could go to whoever you sold it too and just take it from them without offering any compensation either. That's part of the reason I don't do PC much anymore.

 

[Crimsom Storm]

You wish to know what's wrong? Very well. Do you remember when you'd go to your local Blockbuster as a kid, and your parent would rent you a game? The game you took home then was the COMPLETE PACKAGE. When you sold a game at your garage sale, it had value. Why? It was the COMPLETE PACKAGE.

In the name of "Oh, but it hurts us sooooo badly!", they create Day 1 DLC, and strip out features of the game to be sold to you as "pre-order incentives" or "buy it new" incentives. Then DA2 released Day 1 DLC in the form of a new character, and you didn't get it for buying new. You bought it for pre-ordering 2 months ahead. See the slippery slope yet?

I have no problem pre-ordering a game when it comes out if the pre-order bonuses are just early unlocks (Battlefield: Bad Company 2 Limited Edition), however, I cannot agree with all these new practices trying to rip out half the game just because someone buys used. Eventually, these games WILL NOT BE SOLD NEW. AT ALL. They will discontinue the games. What then eh? Oh, that's right. That $5 bargain bin game you got will be $15 instead.

Anyone who supports this practice are the same yokels who bought into DLC being anything like expansion packs. In the end we got milked $5 for a handful of maps, modding supported ripped out, and all customization lost, just so they could have absolute control over our experience, and shovel junk to us that we could have created ourselves. I miss being able to buy a game, and no matter where I got it from, I actually had the COMPLETE PACKAGE.

 

[Fiz_The_Toaster]

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.

See, I treat trade in as a long term thing. I pay into the cards. I only go for store credit (which they are willing to give oodles of over straight up cash). I get rewards and contests, and it works for me. Sure there are clasics I'll probably never trade in, but there are plenty of games I beat completely and just collect dust. It's an investment. You're not gong to turn a quick profit. Plus some of that store credit goes to me buying brand new games, which I wouldn't be able to get at all otherwise.

I know I can't afford to buy new every time. It's just not practical. Do I think I'm ripping off a developer or publisher. Hell no. Console games are owned property (it's not like PC) if I want to sell it to my friend down the street it's perfectly legal.

I don't sell my games and I've only traded two games ever and they both went towards a game that I'm pre-ordering. I know I'm not going to get a ton of money out of the deal, but I do think it's a little ridiculous.

The only reason I buy new is because I don't know the condition of the used games there, and I've been burned many times for buying used. If I can't buy it right away I just wait, or I go to ebay and look for it there new and much cheaper.

 

[Raso719]

I'm not a huge FPS fan so I wasn't going to buy this anyway. Even so, I'm sure the game will have more than enough sales to support the idea in further games and the industry will be one step further down the dark path.

I have no faith in the ability for die hard FPS fans to not buy a FPS game and there are waaay to many of you guys running around out there to not be organized and stick to your guns. I'm not saying all the woes of the industry are to be blamed on FPS fans but, I mean, games like Dynasty Warriors and Tales of Vespera never have evil DRM or other gimmicks like that so people like me who love JRPGs and hack/slash games don't really have much pull into the American gaming industry. Well and they are probably, like 10 of us in the whole country that still play Dynasty Warriors and JRPGs so we really don't carry much weight when we speak.

So, yeah, it kinda is all to blame on the FPS crowd. But hey! If people hated DRM so much they wouldn't buy games with it, right? I mean you all have free will. Clearly when ever you buy a game it's be your own free will not part of some evil brainwashing program..... and that's the part that really sickens me, that you do it of your own free will. That people will moan and complain and then cave in.

And don't be all like "oh, I'm still boycotting L4D2 and CoD:MW2" because you're the minority. Like me. There are less of you than there are die hard JRPG fans who only play JRPGs and hack/slash games. Good for you if you stick to your principles and all but don't brag to me. Convince your friends to stick to their guns.

By simply not preordering a game you can send a huge message to these guys. If half of the people who were going to preorder the game didn't the publishers would freak out and think something was wrong. This could lead them to make the changes people ask for but because the FPs market is so massive you need to get a lot of people on board for them to give a damn. And that's the biggest problem, right there, the market for FPS is so huge and inflated that you can't dent it. For ever game braking, rage quitting issue that a game has that make 10 million gamers refuse to buy it there are 10 million other gamers who don't care and will buy it any way. And because they are so popular eventually peer pressure will make a sizable chunk of the "rage quit" crowd cave in and get the game anyway. Thus no change comes to the industry and supreme control over the market is maintained.

I don't mean to be pessimistic, but that's where it's at from my perspective. I don't see the industry changing because the largest consumer base in the industry almost takes up 95% of the market and has become so numb to real issues and so comfortable and habitual with buying the same slop year after year that the only 2 things I can count on changing in the industry is that the level of standards will continue to drop lower and lower while DRM becomes more and more invasive and restrictive. And we have no one to blame but ourselves.

 

[TehGingaNinja]

I can see where the Devs are coming from, but the way it is implemented is annoying for me. It's all well and good to give bonus content, but cutting back is not the way to go. For years, I didn't have an internet connection, it just wasn't available in my area. So if I were buy this game new, I could be treated as a used purchaser and have a section of the game hacked off, just because of not being able to verify/ download single player content.

The rage against Gamestop is also understandable, but I sometimes prefer supporting business in a small town, if they can't make ends meet and close that outlet, I have to travel 30 miles to get to another seller, not something I want to do. Also, if companies such as gamestop fail, where are we going to get gaming consoles and replacements? This is not an issue for PC gamers, but the console market is very dependent on these stores. The complaint about the mark up is kind of excessive, Gamestop are only trying to make a profit, like, you know, every other business in existence? Like the Publishers?

 

[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.

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.

They aren't going after them because they would lose and they know it. This is why they are using underhanded techniques to discourage used game sales.

That's what I mean. It would hurt them financially and that's really the last thing publishers want to do. Retailers have way too much power and they can get away with this crap because they know they can. I don't like those underhanded techniques, but it has to be done I suppose. Not that I like it, but not a whole lot I can do about it.

No it doesn't have to be done. These underhanded techniques are publishers trying to get money they are not entitled to. If you tried it, it would be theft or fraud or something but corporations have different rules.

They would lose because it is legal (and shall remain legal) for consumers to resell what they buy. Imagine the economy if you could not resell things. Purchasing anything would become a much bigger risk and would result in less money being spent all around. Not sure about that stereo? Better not risk it because if it sucks, you're stuck with it. No more garage sales, flea markets, etc...

Oh btw, no matter how many people say it, the game industry is not special. You can sell Legend of Dragoon at a garage sale just like the TV made by the same manufacturer (Sony if you didn't know).

 

[Ghengis John]

This is a truly simple concept that gamers have been brainwashed to not understand. Long before any of us were born the First Sale Doctrine was established and the game industry can't legally stand against it.

Usually when you bought something used you accepted that it wasn't going to be 100%. If you bought a used car you accepted you'd be taking it to a mechanic on a regular basis, if you bought a used appliance you accepted that it wouldn't be top of the line, and if you bought a used garment a little wear was par for the course. There was, generally speaking a trade-off between price paid and condition. If anything, actions such as these are only bringing that very basic paradigm to purchasing video games. I think it sucks yeah, I like a free ride as much as the next guy, but I'm an adult and I'm already used to having to weight consequences and at least here, they're known. You can still buy the game used, you can still buy it nice and cheap. You simply accept that it's going to have a few parts missing. If that bothers you, don't buy it at all. Or better yet, wait till it's a couple years old and you can buy a new copy on your computer for 10 bucks. If you really wanted to play this and paying full price bothers you, you can wait. Do you think the publisher honestly cares that somebody who had no plans to purchase this game in a way that would see any profits for them is throwing a fit?