Poll: Boycott Rage

[Epona]

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

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

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

LOL. I needed a laugh.

Oh, you were serious?

I don't understand your first sentence (other than as a joke). Where did I say I ignore legality for my own convenience? Anyway, reasoning and legality are not the same thing. For example, it is legal (as far as I know) for publishers to mess with ownership rights by reducing the value of a product after you buy it but I don't think it is reasonable.

No, what makes software piracy illegal are copyright laws. Do you know what those do? They prevent people from making illegal copies and selling or giving them away. In other words, the outline who can make legal copies and who can't (save a backup). The EULA is powerless unless YOU give it power.

 

[Epona]

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

They are devaluing the product once it is purchased.

 

[Drizzitdude]

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.

and what about int he future huh? When a game is by no means new anymore but there are stiil people who haven't gotten a chance to play it? developers cutting content to make people buy it new isn't helping the situation. And honestly, the poeple who DO buy it new were pretty much already going to anyway, not because they were responding to getting bullied into it by the devloper. It's not like the game developers are going to lose money in the first month or so of sales when the big money comes in because there will be so little used copies available that it won't matter.

Also, don't places such as gamestop buy games IN BULK? I always thought they are the ones who pay the developer not us. We pay gamestop for games, gamestop pays the company for the game, company makes money regardless as long as their product is on the shelves. IF we buy a game new or used gamestop (or whatever you medium of buying games) will most likely have to restock if its a newer title which gives them even more money.

 

[DeltaWolfson]

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.

Thank you! just what I was about too say.

 

[Epona]

1) Do you read every EULA, every word?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You got a credit, not a refund.

 

[Cenequus]

I rather buy the game new rather than pay for day 1 DLC. So no especially when we're talking about a new IP which if doesn't sell well in the first month(new copies) will have no follow up no matter how good the game is.

 

[Keava]

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

Because if they would go after retailers, said retailers would simply say "Fine, we just don't stock your games any more, have fun", and even with how growing the digital distribution is, retail still makes nearly 50% of sales, probably more when it comes to consoles.

In the end, if you buy in retail rather than used you are getting full deal. I can't really see how Online Pass or Day 1 DLC hurts the gamer that buys games "as intended" rather than trying to get it marginally cheaper through the used sale offered at the retailer.

 

[AlexLoxate]

Perhaps making more people buy new games could see more sales, thus a possibility of lower prices. I never buy used anyway. Better wait for the price to go down.

 

[Epona]

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

Because if they would go after retailers, said retailers would simply say "Fine, we just don't stock your games any more, have fun", and even with how growing the digital distribution is, retail still makes nearly 50% of sales, probably more when it comes to consoles.

In the end, if you buy in retail rather than used you are getting full deal. I can't really see how Online Pass or Day 1 DLC hurts the gamer that buys games "as intended" rather than trying to get it marginally cheaper through the used sale offered at the retailer.

Also retailers won't stock the game consoles and they don't sell those digitally. In fact, the retailer makes next to nothing on the consoles and make up for it by selling games (as they believe you will buy games where you buy the console) so there would be no incentive to continue carrying consoles without the games.

 

[Epona]

Perhaps making more people buy new games could see more sales, thus a possibility of lower prices. I never buy used anyway. Better wait for the price to go down.

It works the opposite. As long as a game is still selling well, you will not see a price drop. It's when it stops selling well that the price goes down. Search your feelings, you know this to be true.

So MODS, if the purpose of Captcha is to stop spammers and bots. Why do established posters have to put up with it?

 

[Mxrz]

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

They are devaluing the product once it is purchased.

You're reaching awfully hard with that one, but whatever makes you feel better about your crying.

 

[Stall]

-snip-

When you buy new from Gamestop, it's just like buying new from Wal-Mart, or Target, or anyone. A cut goes to the retailer, another cut goes to Nintendo/Sony/Microsoft (since the game is on their console), but most goes to the publisher and developer. So when you give Gamestop that 60 dollars for a new game, you are supporting the developers and publishers, as they are getting a certain cut of that 60 bucks. It's pointless to argue about that, since Gamestop are nothing but another retailer if you buy the game new. The problem is when you buy used: when that happens, the developers and publishers get nothing: that 20-55 dollars goes to Gamestop, and Gamestop alone. They might restock their NEW games, but they won't buy new copies to replace sold used units. They sell what games they get sold themselves for massive profit margins.

Listen, if you care about the industry, then buy new. You don't HAVE to buy new, but just remember that you aren't giving a CENT to the guys who worked their asses off for years to make that game, nor are you giving a cent to the guys who actually made it possible for that first guy to buy the game at retail. Why should developers and publishers cater and meet the demands of people who aren't giving them a cent? You aren't their customer... you weren't going to give them any money... why the heck should they give a damn about what you think if you buy used?

 

[blizzaradragon]

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

They are devaluing the product once it is purchased.

So they are doing what is essentially basic economics? Seems legit to me.

In any other used market, once something is purchased and used the value depreciates. If you buy a new car, the second you drive it off of the lot the value goes down. The same should be said about games once the game is put into your console and started up. What developers are doing is essentially giving you the extra oomph for buying it new, just like a new car will have that extra oomph over a used car of the same type.

Essentially, when you buy a new product it should feel like a new product. If you buy a used product it should feel like a used product. Used markets exist for every other industry because of depreciation, so when you buy used you know you are getting a product inferior to a new version of said product. Now that games are doing the same thing, people feel they have the right to complain when in reality they don't. Gamers aren't entitled to shit when they buy used, just like people who buy used in any other market aren't entitled to anything.

 

[Epona]

-snip-

When you buy new from Gamestop, it's just like buying new from Wal-Mart, or Target, or anyone. A cut goes to the retailer, another cut goes to Nintendo/Sony/Microsoft (since the game is on their console), but most goes to the publisher and developer. So when you give Gamestop that 60 dollars for a new game, you are supporting the developers and publishers. It's pointless to argue about that, since they are nothing but another retailer if you buy the game new. The problem is when you buy used: when that happens, the developers and publishers get nothing: that 20-55 dollars goes to Gamestop, and Gamestop alone. They might restock their NEW games, but they won't buy new copies to replace sold used units. They sell what games they get sold themselves for massive profit margins.

Listen, if you don't care about supporting the industry, then don't. You don't HAVE to buy new, but just remember that you aren't giving a CENT to the guys who worked their asses off for years to make that game, nor are you giving a cent to the guys who actually made it possible for that first guy to buy the game at retail. Why should developers and publishers cater and meet the demands of people who aren't giving them a cent?

You said it yourself. Someone bought the game new and then sold it to Gamestop. Did the publishers give Gamestop the money to buy the game from the guy who bought it new? No, then the publishers have no investment in that copy and deserve none of the return on that copy.

Hey, maybe the publishers could start buying back used games and reselling them?

 

[AlexLoxate]

Perhaps making more people buy new games could see more sales, thus a possibility of lower prices. I never buy used anyway. Better wait for the price to go down.

It works the opposite. As long as a game is still selling well, you will not see a price drop. It's when it stops selling well that the price goes down. Search your feelings, you know this to be true.

So MODS, if the purpose of Captcha is to stop spammers and bots. Why do established posters have to put up with it?

*sigh* You do have a point there. It's just... hmmm... oh well, who knows what the future brings.

 

[Epona]

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

They are devaluing the product once it is purchased.

So they are doing what is essentially basic economics? Seems legit to me.

In any other used market, once something is purchased and used the value depreciates. If you buy a new car, the second you drive it off of the lot the value goes down. The same should be said about games once the game is put into your console and started up. What developers are doing is essentially giving you the extra oomph for buying it new, just like a new car will have that extra oomph over a used car of the same type.

Essentially, when you buy a new product it should feel like a new product. If you buy a used product it should feel like a used product. Used markets exist for every other industry because of depreciation, so when you buy used you know you are getting a product inferior to a new version of said product. Now that games are doing the same thing, people feel they have the right to complain when in reality they don't. Gamers aren't entitled to shit when they buy used, just like people who buy used in any other market aren't entitled to anything.

If Ford slashed the seats when you resold the car, then it would be the same and it would be unacceptable.

The difference is that a car getting NORMAL wear and tear is acceptable. A game getting ARTIFICIAL wear and tear by the publisher in the interest of making more money is not acceptable, nor should it be.

 

[bootz]

Why don't devs just say to Gamestop if you dont give us a cut we won't let you sell our games.
Its such an easy fix and it doesnt have to hurt the consumers (we will just buy it somewhere else)
Its so simple even I could think of it.

Instead of hurting your comsumers hurt gamestop thats why I'm not buying it.

 

[Epona]

Why don't devs just say to Gamestop if you dont give us a cut we won't let you sell our games.
Its such an easy fix and it doesnt have to hurt the consumers (we will just buy it somewhere else)
Its so simple even I could think of it.

Instead of hurting your comsumers hurt gamestop thats why I'm not buying it.

That would hurt publishers, not Gamestop. In fact, Gamestop would probably be just fine with not stocking new games and being able to blame it on the publishers.

 

[Stall]

ou said it yourself. Someone bought the game new and then sold it to Gamestop. Did the publishers give Gamestop the money to buy the game from the guy who bought it new? No, then the publishers have no investment in that copy and deserve none of the return on that copy.

Hey, maybe the publishers could start buying back used games and reselling them?

So the publishers should have no investment in a copy of their game up on a torrent site, since someone could have possibility bought that original copy that turned up on torrent sites? You said it yourself: if publishers have no investment in that copy that was sold to Gamestop, then why should they have any investment in a pirated copy? Both have the same result: someone getting to play their game without paying them for it.

Listen. Any way you try to spin it, used games create a situation where someone can play the game without giving anything to the publisher. No matter how you argue it, things ultimately come out to the simple fact that the publisher has no investment in you as a consumer when you buy used, so they couldn't give two shits about your rights or what you deserve. If you weren't going to give them money for their game anyways by buying used, then why should they care what you think of day-1 DLC? If you decide against buying the game used because of the DLC, then its not like the publisher has lost any money.

 

[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.

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

If it was that dire, then they would, but it isn't, so they won't, agreed.

However, the other thought I've had is retailers can always tell publishers that do that-complain or go after them- to go away if they don't like it. They both need each other whether us gamers like it or not, and unfortunately we're stuck in the middle in all this. The only reason I'm ok with how retailers are operating is because they have to make money too, and they do that from selling games, mainly used games, and very little from everything else. This whole business is a double edged sword, neither side is better than the other, and publishers really don't have much room to say otherwise who have to answer to shareholders.

Also, I don't see how Day One DLC and Online Pass hurts gamers, so you lost me there.