Poll: Boycott Rage

[Stall]

What makes the video game industry so special that consumers should not be able to buy used media? If I buy used books and used movies, why should I have to buy all of my games new?

Nothing. The same goes for any industry as well really. You aren't the customer of the publisher of that book or movie... you are the customer of the person or company you bought that movie or book from. If you buy a used book and find missing pages, you can't call up Pearson or Penguin or whatever and complain because you aren't their customer. It just so happens that the used industry for video games is much larger than say books or movies, and thus in turn, much more harmful.

If you don't want to buy your games new, then more power to you. Just know that you aren't supporting the industry, nor do publishers or developers have ANY obligation to do ANYTHING for you, as you aren't their customer.

 

[BlumiereBleck]

They make the games, what are we the common folk going to make games????? The age of quality would end right then and there.

 

[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

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.

While we're at it we should also make it illegal to sell used cloths. Stores like Goodwill and the Salvation Army should be taken apart for the malicious act of selling second had products with out giving Abercrombie and Fitch, Levi or Fruit of the Loom a piece of the action (not to mention other companies like Sony, Toshiba and IBM for all the used electronics they have.)

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.

And in the likely chance you reply with a "you're right, selling used cars should be illegal and Goodwill is destroying the revenue of clothing companies" I shall say this, unto you. What does is mean to own something? what is ownership? We we can only ever own that which me make from scratch than none of us actually own anything, we're all just surfs and slaves renting everything we have from those above us. I refuse to live in a world where nothing I own is actually my own. I wouldn't even be totally against discussing the idea that I had to give a VERY modest percentage of my sales to the product's original manufacture except that I know that would be taken way to far and, frankly, I think these companies are already well enough to do can can suck it.

You know what? If want people to stop buying used games make the games you sell so good people keep them. Maybe we should examine why people sell their games in the first place and reexamine who we make our games and what kind of games we make. Maybe we could get incentives 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.

Major difference being that cars are much cheaper and inferior when bought second hand.

Regardless, I don't sell my games, I don't buy second hand. I think it's just better to support a company that you appreciate even if you're just a number to them.

I would buy a brand new R32 GTR from Nissan if a) they still made them, and b) I could afford it.
Thing is, buying a second hand GTR is about 10% the cost of a new GTR.

Buying a second hand game is about 95% of the cost of a new game.

 

[Hal10k]

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?

This is honestly the first reasonable post that I've seen so far. Why is it so unreasonable for developers to want to cut down on a practice that costs them sales? They aren't entitled to the profits from used sales, yes. That's exactly why they want to encourage people to buy the game new. Why are people getting so worked up over this when dozens of other games have done even worse than this with Day-one DLC? At least with this you can get the additional content at any time if you buy the full game.

 

[esperandote]

You must have missed this part:

No court has ruled on the validity of EULAs generally; decisions are limited to particular provisions and terms.

So, in general EULA's have no legal binding until challenged in a court of law and found to be legally binding and this is on a PER basis.

I win.

Very mature

and no you dont, it doesn't says that a court has ruled that EULAS aren't valid, it says that it hasn't been ruled if they are or not. Besides i wasn't debating against you I was providing information.

 

[blizzaradragon]

Alright, here's my two cents into this. When you buy new, you are allowed to have everything available to you. You have the support of the developer, similar to how a TV manufacturer would support you if you were to buy a new TV. Now if you buy it used, you aren't the developer's customer anymore. You are the customer of the store you bought it from and nothing more. People complaining about not getting something when they buy used is like if someone bought a used TV and complained that the manufacturer isn't gonna repair the TV if it breaks.

Lately gamers have been acting like entitled little shits, and it is beyond annoying. Seriously people, how about you grow up and stop complaining when your used product feels like a used product instead of a brand new one. That is the trade off: you save money, but the used item is inferior to a new item. Just like how a used car isn't going to be as good as a new car of the same year and brand, a used game shouldn't have to be as good as a new copy of the same game.

 

[Death Wolf113]

ok it takes a lot of money to make games sometimes millions to make them that means when a game ships from the devolpers to the stores that game is in the red we only buy them at a max of about 60 to 70 dollors us that means that a lot of games have to be sold new in order for the compeys to make there money back they dont get that money back till the game sales would you want to be out all that money only to make back a fraction of it

 

[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

They made a sale on the physical copy of the game. The second part only differs in that now what your doing is illegal because there are two people playing the game from one physical copy if you burn it. If you sold it it's still one player per copy.

I know that now. In 97 it wasn't common knowledge.

Well at least not in my primary school.

Obviously I see the difference but from a dev's/pub's perspective they're pretty much the exact same thing.

And their view isn't the view that should be all-encompassing in a market system. If they honestly think that me buying a game then re-selling it is worse than me and the other person hitting up the public tracker and getting two copies of the game minus their annoying DRM, there is something wrong with that person/publisher/industry.

I was more thinking about 2 kids sharing a game that one of them bought. Not 5,000,000 nerd rage 20 somethings who're "row row fite teh powa!" sticking it to the man.

If you don't like the DRM either buy it and then find a mod/drm free version after paying for the product or go without.

You don't pay, you shouldn't play.

That sort of view hurts the industry more than used games. There are no DRM free versions, unless I just blatantly steal from them. They made a sale. They sold one copy. Im not turning one into two by selling it to another person, there is still one copy.

Sigh, I'll just come out and say it.

but first: I am against Piracy. I do not advocate it in any way. I think it is wrong.

What I'm saying is. Theoretically. Buy a copy, keep that copy, forever. Then download a pirated, DRM free copy.

In THEORY you've still paid for a copy, they have their sale. It's not theft. Then you play the game you want to. You own it, you play it how you like.

[sub]I got a warning for "Advocating Piracy" which I don't think I did, but what ever. I'm disgruntled and don't feel like having it happen again, which is why I'm being OTT.[/sub]

 

[Epona]

You are not paying for the box or the manual. You paying for the game. So far (with some exceptions) you have been getting the exact same experience buying a game used as someone who buys a game new. All good things must come to an end.

I am buying a game, not an experience. Trying to sell an experience = trying to control how you use your game.

Oh and BTW, some people only buy new because the box, manual and the condition of the disc matter so much. So yes, when you buy a game new you are buying the box, manual and game. When you buy used you may or may not get those things.

What consumer rights are being violated? How are they being paid multiple times? You want one copy of the game, you pay them for one copy of the game. If you want to buy it used, you can, you simply accept the consequences. What's so hard to understand?

You buy used you don't get parts of the game, you then have to buy them. That's getting paid multiple times for the same copy of the game. That's exactly what Project $10 is.

They are trying to destroy the used games market which would take away the ability to resell your games. That would be the consumer right they are trying to violate.

Nothing they are doing is illegal but just like PC games, they will make the used market impractical and completely destroy it without breaking any laws. Are you ok with that?

What the fuck is this? You're telling me "But I could buy a really nice used car." Ridiculous. Good for you I guess? The only thing I can say is one will cost more and one will cost less. I wouldn't be surprised if this dropped the price of used copies of Rage faster than other games.

Nice how you cut the next sentence that explained what I was saying. I am done with you.

 

[dillinger88]

Nope. If I released a game, I'd probably give those who gave me the money for it more than those who didn't.

I would reward those that bought it new AT THE VITAL TIME WHERE SALES DECIDE WHETHER MY STUDIO GETS SHUT DOWN. Additionally, I'd give the people who got it by other means the opportunity to actually give me some money and receive more content too.

You think your fighting for a cause but (if you're talking about Rage) boycotting a new IP for rewarding people who buy it new, you're damning the the industry to recycling the same old game so that they can make money.

Granted, if publishers start taking the piss then I'll boycott a game (I'm not buying MW3), but seriously, stop being an arse.

To the guy that said Gamestop doesn't make money from new sales - that's bullshit. They don't buy games from a publisher for sale cost. They're just trying to make more money buy selling used copies.

I don't have a problem with new games, in the same way I'd buy a used car. However, I don't expect the same as someone who bought it new, like a manufacturers warranty.

You're just the sort of person that Jim was talking about... And now I've just realised this is probably a troll thread.

EDIT:

You buy used you don't get parts of the game, you then have to buy them. That's getting paid multiple times for the same copy of the game. That's exactly what Project $10 is.

They are trying to destroy the used games market which would take away the ability to resell your games. That would be the consumer right they are trying to violate.

HOLY SHIT. Really? No they don't get twice for the whole game. They're saying you can have the stuff that's reserved for people who supported the developer/publisher if they support the developer/publisher.

If you're pissed that you're having to "pay more for a used game", blame the game stores for overpricing used games. They're not trying to destroy the used game market, they're just trying to get a bit of money out it.

They industry is still fledgling, we need to support it where we can and if they want to rewards when we do so. I've all for it.

 

[Dolos]

No, it doesn't need to stop. Developers don't get a CENT from someone buying the game used. Gamestop and other used game companies keep all the profits from used games; they don't politely give the developers or publishers some money for that game. THAT is why they are doing these day 1 DLC things... so they can try to still earn profits from used sales.

If you care about video games and want to support the industry, then buy new. If you don't give a shit and just want to save yourself money, then feel free to buy used, but don't ***** when game developers are trying to recuperate the loses of someone playing their game without giving them money because you don't want to support the industry.

Go boycott something fucking meaningful... not this.

this is exactly the same why i feel about buying new or used, I buy new to support the developers and let them now that I enjoy their games. The only time I buy used is if its a game I have never seen or I cant find a new version because it is older.

 

[Imperioratorex Caprae]

Another post by Generation ME. Gods be damned, what kind of economics are they teaching in high school these days?
Dev's do NOT repeat do NOT make money on used games. Nor do they make money on DLC packs that are included for "free" in new copies of games. That money is a recoup of the LOSS they get on every game title that is bought used. It does not actually cover the full cost of a used title taking up a new title's purchase.
Please inform yourselves on how business works before you rage about how companies do business please. If you buy it used, you're not entitled to shit because in actuality you didn't pay the person who produced the item you paid for. Take up your rage with the used games merchants because its their business practices that is allowing for these situations to arise in the first place. Or buy PC titles, because you always have to pay full price for them as there is NO used market for those games.

 

[Epona]

You must have missed this part:

No court has ruled on the validity of EULAs generally; decisions are limited to particular provisions and terms.

So, in general EULA's have no legal binding until challenged in a court of law and found to be legally binding and this is on a PER basis.

I win.

Very mature

and no you dont, it doesn't says that a court has ruled that EULAS aren't valid, it says that it hasn't been ruled if they are or not. Besides i wasn't debating against you I was providing information.

There's no difference because by default, EULA's aren't valid until a court rules that they are and that hasn't happened yet.

 

[Susan Arendt]

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.

 

[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.

God, you've got to be a teenager. It's called contract law. They have an arrangement. By clicking yes you are agreeing to (Legalese for signing) a contract to abide by the terms and service of the EULA. There are three ways to void the contract. You have to be a minor (under 18 in the US), you have to be impaired by nature or by substance, or your have to be forced to do it.

So unless you can prove you were a minor, or drunk; mentally incapable of understanding the terms, or held at gunpoint you've signed a contract.

http://www.cpearson.com/excel/EULAFAQ.htm Example.

The EULA is not a two way contract and an EULA can have anything in it. An EULA cannot take away consumer rights and the right to resell is a consumer rights.

Reselling is impractical thanks to DRM but it is not illegal.

BTW, I am probably older than you and I know that just repeating something alot of times, does not make it true. Show me a precedent where a person was charged with a crime for selling a used PC game.

Yawn, really is that all you've got? Dude, there are two groups of contracts. Bilateral (I do something for something) and unilateral (you do something) actually the EULA is a bilateral contract. You agree to their terms and you get to use the software.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_license_agreement

It's entirely possible to sue someone for selling a leased product. I can't very well sell the leased car I own to my friend. If you're leasing the software the same inference can be made. Do I know of any legal precedent? No, but it's a big world, and I'm sure they let small fish go, but does that still make it legal then? No.

You need to read your own link better. I have already pointed it out above if you are too lazy to read though.

Here's something you can try though. Call Wal Mart and ask them if they sell games or lease games. You don't lease games no matter what you are told by publishers, your own epxerience should tell you that you buy and when you buy, you own.

 

[Mark Flanagan]

No, If YOU dislike something in the games industry or something it a particular game (as is this case) then YOU don't buy it.

What they've done with Rage is create a game where consumers that purchase the game new; therefore supporting the developer get something extra (and non critical to boot). Rather save £5 and support your national game chain store? go ahead, It's your right as a consumer. Personally I feel its a massive middle finger to the developer as your effectively saying "Fuck you I'm going to enjoy this game you put millions of pounds and thousands of man hours into making but your not going to see a single penny from it". But again that is your right as a consumer.

 

[Dastardly]

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

Vote with your wallet. End of story.

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.

But even then, that wouldn't work. Think about it -- if they make the game better, that just means people buying used are getting a better used game. It's not going to entice them to buy it new.

The benefit to used games is that they are cheaper. That's it. Now, there are different reasons for why people like "cheaper," but it all comes back to price. The only way publishers can try to draw those sales is to make sure that "new product" and "used product" are no longer identical.

That's what makes games different from other goods. You buy a car new, you pay more, but you get a brand new car. You buy it used, you pay less, but it's got some miles on it. You aren't getting the exact same car.

With games, that's not the case. If you buy Arkham City brand new, or you buy it used, it's the exact same game. But the guy selling it used can offer it for far less because he has precisely zero overhead. In a way, because of this difference, the used game market borders on "unfair competition." (NOTE: Borders. Didn't say it is.)

So the only way publishers can hope to compete with their own product is to assure some kind of "artificial depreciation." Something has to be there when you buy new that isn't when you buy used.

 

[00slash00]

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?

i think you're blowing this out of proportion. a game like mercenaries where you can play it once and then it's useless...yeah, thats flat out stupid and evil. but whats wrong with developers giving extra content to those who are willing to actually pay them. if you dont like the game enough to buy it new, then you probably didnt want it that much to begin with. if you cant afford to buy it new then either save your money or ask if getting some of that extra content (for the sake of this example, i am referring to Rage) is really that important to you. if you will never be able to afford to buy it new, then video games really shouldnt be a very high priority for you right now.

id say about 90% (not counting pc games) of my games are used. that being said, however, i have no problem with developers doing this

 

[hermes]

Ok for everyone who is saying boycotting this game is wrong I have to ask aquestion.

Why is it that the games industry gets the ability to circumvent and work around the law based on their interactivity?

There is absolutely nothing wrong with the used market. By supporting this "Lets make sure we support the developers" tripe, your also supporting putting both people and whole industries out of work. All the while making the PUBLISHER... not the developers even more profitable than they already are. This sort of action has zero impact on piracy and as such should not be even considered a part of it. What this is for is to destroy the used and rental markets. So because you think the people slaving away for their art should be compensated for their work, your ensuring that that its actually those who are above them are the only ones seeing the excess profit, all the while throwing vast scores of other people under a bus.

If it takes 100 people to develop and distribute a physical game, then it takes another 1000 to sell it and all this does is perpetuates the dangerous precedent that has been building for the last decade that is designed to do nothing but hurt vastly more people than it could ever hope to help.

Honestly its this sort of short sighted thinking that explains just exactly why were in the sort of economy we are in today, but I expect little else from the MEs. I fully support boycotting this game to combat a dangerous precedent that needs to be stopped immediately before even more damage can be done.

In the end, its a question of what you choose to support. Do you support the developer or the store? Note that by buying new, you support both; by buying used, you only support the store. Make no mistake, the publishers are not the only one that get money from new games. Developers and Hardware companies DO get a share too. For used games, the only one that gets a share is the store vault (since commissions for clerk doesn't change if its used or new).

The problem most people don't seem to realize is that the profit gamestop gets from used games is incredibly high for the investment. What they pay people for used games is nowhere near what they charge for it. In most other industries, the used market prices are less than half of the price of the new product. In the case of video games, its as high as 90%. In fact, every content provider company has issues with big distribution used markets (for them, they are no different than pirates), but in most cases its not big enough to be worth fighting for. The fact this company has a pretty big distribution network makes this case more damaging than the flea markets for books, for example...

If anything, people should be boycotting gamestop. I don't know why should I support a company that pays 15 $ for a game and then sale it for more than 3 times that.

 

[Keava]

Selling a used good is a ownership change (I just read that) the second buyer should be transfered the first buyer rights.

Yes. To the disk, box, manual, pamphlet, data on the disk but no the licence. Read EULA, for eg. From StarCraft2 EULA:

1. Grant of a Limited Use License. Subject to your agreement to and continuing compliance with this License Agreement, Blizzard
hereby grants, and you hereby accept, a limited, revocable, non-transferable, non-sublicensable, non-exclusive license

Key words, revocable and non-transferable. The moment you fire up the game on your console/PC you agree to that licence.