Poll: Boycott Rage

[Clive Howlitzer]

Well, I don't buy games used sooo, I have a hard time getting quite as worked up as you. Although I do think its BS. I had no intention of buying Rage anyway.

 

[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.

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.

No you're wrong, you can still sell PC games as the EULA has no legal power until someone takes you to court for it.

I have a used copy of Diablo 2 around here somewhere, saw it the other day. Guess what, I bought it legally at a garage sale. I have a used copy of alot of PC games actually but most were made for Windows 9x and too obsolete for me to even take out of storage.

Can you show me one person who has been arrested and charged with a crime for selling a used PC game? PC games are not special, you buy them and you own them and you can resell them.

 

[Inkidu]

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.

Do you buy from Game Stop? Like I said I paid into the loyalty program. (20 bucks and I probably got about 200 bucks of cred and savings out of it) It helps you buy used (which I said I got no problem with). I remember trading in 10 games most I got cheap or used. I got over a 100 bucks in cred. I bought two new games and a used. Sure it's not Steam but Game Stop does have sales too. I remember getting Saints Row 2 used and it didn't play. I just brought it back within whatever number of days with the receipt and they gave me my money back no questions asked. It's an investment, but I've come out way ahead.

 

[ManOwaRrior]

Tell me again, how exactly is it wrong for a developer to reward a customer for buying a game new?

 

[Blue_vision]

Well, I had no plans of buying Rage anyways so I can't really boycott it, but it is kind of bullshit, so I'll join in the spirit of it.

 

[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.

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).

Oh I know it's perfectly legal and should be legal, but what I'm saying is that if they even tried they would take a hit due to court costs and everything that deals with that.

I know very well that publishers use underhanded techniques to get money that they are not entitled to, it's very similar to the music industry, and the game industry is certainly not special, I don't know why people say that. Funny you should mention Legend of Dragoon, I owned a copy at one point and sold it to a friend of mine.

 

[William Ossiss]

look, id rather have them make a good game. if it is good enough like, lets say for example, halo to halo 2, people will line up and buy that sequel on the spot brand new. but for games that have no reputation, or any kind of truly awesome hype (or, vice versa, coming from a game studio that was behind doom, quake, and wolfenstein) to say "hey, you know what? we like what EA is doing. lets all do that, too! fuck our fans, we just want money!" type of business practice. i find this an absolutely deplorable business practice. and why do we let EA do it to us? i, for one, say "no more!". im not just merely throwing the word 'boycott' around, i mean it. i will not touch this game at all. Be it rented, preowned, a gift, or bought new. we just cannot allow such a practice to co-exist with us. im not so much boycotting the game, but the practice. what will we do if Skyrim comes with 'in order to dual wield, you must buy this game new!'?

 

[Epona]

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?

The condition of the game is not an issue. As an example, sometimes you'll buy a used game and it will be in perfect condition, complete with the box, manual and other inserts. Other times you will get a disc only with a generic box and the disc may be a little worn. In both cases, the price is the same. For example, I recently bought a used copy of GOW: COO for $12.99 at Gamestop. The box on the shelf was one of those generic one but the one they gave me was the original box with a manual. It could have gone either way and they price would not have changed. Nor does the condition change consumer rights or the publishers not being entitled to be paid multiple times.

Likewise, I could buy a car used that is in perfect condition with very few miles on it because it was owned by a grandmother who only drove it once it in a while or I could buy one that is falling apart. Both are still used and GM gets no money either way.

Why is this so hard to comprehend?

 

[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.

No you're wrong, you can still sell PC games as the EULA has no legal power until someone takes you to court for it.

I have a used copy of Diablo 2 around here somewhere, saw it the other day. Guess what, I bought it legally at a garage sale. I have a used copy of alot of PC games actually but most were made for Windows 9x and too obsolete for me to even take out of storage.

Can you show me one person who has been arrested and charged with a crime for selling a used PC game? PC games are not special, you buy them and you own them and you can resell them.

It has power, it's just not enforced until a court gets involved. I'm no wrong. Just because no one gets sued doesn't make it not legal. I'm sure there have been cases of people being sued for EULA violations and second-hand sales. I don't know if it's games specifically.

Still, most come with one time codes or if you register they block whoever you sell it to from playing. So illegality aside I couldn't do it in good moral health because I'm basically selling someone a hamstrung product they might not be able to use. Diablo 2 doesn't have that, but Civ 5 would. It's one steam account only. I'm sure corps only want to go after bigger fish but that doesn't make it right for me to take the money that flies out the bags when the bank robbers flee the scene.

 

[lacktheknack]

Well, I'm sorry, but I have no issues with "Buy it new, get all the content".

Why should I care? I'm sympathetic to their problem of how they don't get any money from people buying it used, and I buy all my games new/digitally anyways.

 

[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).

Oh I know it's perfectly legal and should be legal, but what I'm saying is that if they even tried they would take a hit due to court costs and everything that deals with that.

I know very well that publishers use underhanded techniques to get money that they are not entitled to, it's very similar to the music industry, and the game industry is certainly not special, I don't know why people say that. Funny you should mention Legend of Dragoon, I owned a copy at one point and sold it to a friend of mine.

That game has been on my mind recently, I have been playing FF7 on the PSP and thought it would be nice if they brought LOD to the PS Store. Tomorrow though, Breath of Fire IV comes out and I am looking forward to that. Never had a chance to play it on the PS1 and the used prices for that game are outrageous.

 

[William Ossiss]

With Jim Sterling's new video about boycotting on the front page the timing of this thread couldn't have been worse.

Or was planned. It isn't uncommon to see topics crop up after a featured entry discusses them. Let's just hope he wanted honest discussion and not to just ride the wave of the bigger boy for badges or somesuch.

for badges? really... you get badges for posting things. huh, ive never been concerned with badges before... but maybe ill start now (sarcasm)

no, i want an honest discussion. valid points from all.

 

[StBishop]

I choose to buy my games new.

I feel that as far as second hand sales go, it's no different from Piracy. Especially so in the eyes of a Developer/Publisher.

Why is me buying Command and Conquer at like age 7 and burning it for my friend any different to me selling it to him, or selling it to a store who then sell it on to him?

I don't see why you're against paying 5 dollars (or $10) more for a game that's new and comes with free DLC. It's a matter of perspective.

If you want to boycott something, make it intrusive DRM. Not project $10

 

[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.

Do you buy from Game Stop? Like I said I paid into the loyalty program. (20 bucks and I probably got about 200 bucks of cred and savings out of it) It helps you buy used (which I said I got no problem with). I remember trading in 10 games most I got cheap or used. I got over a 100 bucks in cred. I bought two new games and a used. Sure it's not Steam but Game Stop does have sales too. I remember getting Saints Row 2 used and it didn't play. I just brought it back within whatever number of days with the receipt and they gave me my money back no questions asked. It's an investment, but I've come out way ahead.

Most of the time I do, and the other times it's either ebay or Amazon. I have the loyalty program as well and since I don't trade in games, I'm weird since when I buy something it's mine, or hardly ever buy used, so I don't really use the perks, but I do agree it's an awesome program that has helped me out when I did use it.

 

[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.

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.

No you're wrong, you can still sell PC games as the EULA has no legal power until someone takes you to court for it.

I have a used copy of Diablo 2 around here somewhere, saw it the other day. Guess what, I bought it legally at a garage sale. I have a used copy of alot of PC games actually but most were made for Windows 9x and too obsolete for me to even take out of storage.

Can you show me one person who has been arrested and charged with a crime for selling a used PC game? PC games are not special, you buy them and you own them and you can resell them.

It has power, it's just not enforced until a court gets involved. I'm no wrong. Just because no one gets sued doesn't make it not legal. I'm sure there have been cases of people being sued for EULA violations and second-hand sales. I don't know if it's games specifically.

Still, most come with one time codes or if you register they block whoever you sell it to from playing. So illegality aside I couldn't do it in good moral health because I'm basically selling someone a hamstrung product they might not be able to use. Diablo 2 doesn't have that, but Civ 5 would. It's one steam account only. I'm sure corps only want to go after bigger fish but that doesn't make it right for me to take the money that flies out the bags when the bank robbers flee the scene.

Ok, show me the law that says EULA's are legally binding.

 

[theultimateend]

I'm sick of people bitching about not getting a full game when they don't pay full price.

I think the RAGE game messed up tho... they should have removed much more than they allegedly have.

EDIT: I'm going to go preorder RAGE now. It looks like an awesome game.

I imagine the hate lies in this being the only industry that does this.

Video games are not prioritizing properly if they can't survive used game sales and trading. This is a feature in basically all other mediums, gaming is the only one apparently imploding from it.

 

[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.

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).

Oh I know it's perfectly legal and should be legal, but what I'm saying is that if they even tried they would take a hit due to court costs and everything that deals with that.

I know very well that publishers use underhanded techniques to get money that they are not entitled to, it's very similar to the music industry, and the game industry is certainly not special, I don't know why people say that. Funny you should mention Legend of Dragoon, I owned a copy at one point and sold it to a friend of mine.

That game has been on my mind recently, I have been playing FF7 on the PSP and thought it would be nice if they brought LOD to the PS Store. Tomorrow though, Breath of Fire IV comes out and I am looking forward to that. Never had a chance to play it on the PS1 and the used prices for that game are outrageous.

That would be nice, wouldn't it? I've kicked myself for selling LOD off, I must have been brain damaged that day or something. Is it really? I kinda forgot about that game, and I just looked at the prices for it used, and good God you weren't kidding. Hooray for that then.

 

[RagTagBand]

I am all for this kind of business practice, it essentially boils down to

"If you pay full price, you get the full game. Doing this supports us, the makers of the game."

"If you buy the game second hand, at a reduced cost, you still get 99% of the game, but buying used doesn't support us, the makers of the game, so we're going to withold some of that content until you throw a lil money our way. After all, WE MADE THE FUCKING GAME."

I think that system is MORE than fair.

 

[Keava]

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.

that they can do this to us, as consumers

The moment you don't buy a game from retail (as in new), you stop being their consumer. Sorry. They have no obligations towards you, they can freely ban you from any service they provide, and it just happens, that playing a game, even single-player, offline game, is a service a developer provides. In the end you end up owning a plastic disc with data on it, nothing else.

 

[GraveeKing]

You know, I see this thread and thought the 4th or 5th comment would already have an image of amusing value claiming 'oh this thread again.' or 'here we go again'.
Looks like we're taking this one seriously so hell why not!

To be honest I do -KIND OF- agree. I see where develops are coming from, we're all used to TF2 free updates and certain other games but, you have to remember, they do need to make money and we need to respect that. Even if it does towards Gabe's ever large donuts collection, games are pretty damn cheap, we really shouldn't pretend they are. I think l4d2 was... a bit much but that's the only game that in my eyes has ever really done it terribly.

I also think sometimes a new engine or vastly improved one, graphically or AI-wise will require something more than a simple update.

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?

What you are mentioning here is downloadable content. It's even cheaper, and gives develops spark to add to their games, while still making money. With no offense sir. I do think you can agree with me if I were to say 'The shivering isles was worth every penny and more'. They wouldn't have been able to afford to develop that properly if it hadn't been a downloadable content.
A recommendation I always say - if you're really that poor to not be able to afford a new game DLC or whatever, there's always a err you know.... 'alternative' option of downloading them... from other places... so you can see what it's like, and if you enjoy it pay for it later. You know - so the developers stay in business? You think notch would still work on mine-craft if he didn't get funding? Hell no it'd have been a pet project he'd have quit years ago!
I doubt it'd have even reached beta (or if it had it wouldn't have gone further)

Being fair though, if it's the same engine, graphics etc, it should be a cheap DLC and no more. L4D2 - I still bought it don't get me wrong but things like that shouldn't happen.