Dastardly said:
Ok, where to start.....
Well first off you assume I want these companies to succeed and give a damn about their well being. For many American companies, I actual couldn't care less. They've abandoned me, you see. They no longer offer games that are tailored to my interests and in the off chance that they do make a game that catches my eye 9 times out of 10 they suckered me in to buying a game I actually did not like so, at least from where I'm standing, I'm doing exactly what I intend to do which is deny them my money because I'm highly skeptical of the games that some publishers and developers produce.
As for depreciating values. If you look at how the music and movie industry has been lately I'm pretty sure media has that too. All to many people confuse "new" with "better" when it comes to music, movies and, yes, games. People want to play "the latest titles" and game companies want to sell the "latest titles" not the "best games" (cuz that still subjective, thank god) so there is this notion that "new" some how translates to better and that older games are the sucks (especially when you consider many of these games will have dead multiplayer modes with ghost towns for servers). So, yeah, I'd say there is a depreciating value. The physical product doesn't decay but value of the experience and it's worth as a "good game" might as technology and trends continue to advance (or sometimes further stagnate).
Uh.... Selling game because they suck..... yeah. You don't like the game enough to keep it. What's not to understand here? The developers didn't put enough effort into replayability or what ever. People sell cars when they get old, people will sell games when they get bored of them or when something shinier comes along. There are lots of older games I'll never sell but many newer ones have a short turn over rate. Maybe companies are making games crappier to encourage people to keep their older one's longer? So what if you really want to keep the game but you still sell it? Well you obviously were willing to part with it so it must of not of been that hard. I mean if you're selling your game to pay for the heating bill that's one thing but, still, you sold your Xbox not your coffee table, not your dog, you xbox 360 and it's games. Obviously they're not that important or you felt they were more marketable or easier to sell or something but still you sold the games. *shurgs* Deal. I don't know how else to put it. You said yourself you get rid of some of your own game quickly. If they were better maybe you would of kept them. Maybe you should get Gamefly or is renting also evil?
And last up consumers being a lesser party and getting screwed. You know, this is where it gets into some deep political crap. In a capitalist society do consumers serve to supplier or the other way around? Who leads who? Are we nothing more than commodities to supply revenue to entities vastly more powerful than we will ever be? How far is too far when a company tries to convince you to buy a product you don't want? Because you buy a product can you still not support 100% of it's features? You know the problem is that, too often, the average consumer must bare the weight of the misdoings of his peers and the greed of the companies he's dependent on for products and there isn't always something he can do to change things.We're now in an age where more and more companies are charging more for services but providing less and less and no one really gives a rat's ass. It baffles me, it really does. So how are we screwed? Well basically the name of the game is no longer keeping costumers happy it's forcing them to stay after they are already here, it's about punishing them for being thrifty consumers and cutting back on the value of a product while charging the same price as it was before you slashed it. I mean what happens when, 10 years down the line, I want to play the game but the game is no longer in print? Don't dodge this one, what happens? Can you say that future generations should be screwed out of the full experience because these companies wanted to make some extra cash? Yeah it's their right (which is a weak ass excuse, IMHO) but is it the right thing to do? Is it the right way to go abut this? Maybe after so many years the entire game will be opened up but since it's ALL ABOUT THE MONEY and not about providing a quality entertainment experience do you really think they are gonna waste money on a patch? We both know they won't. And since it's the single player they're gonna cut you know that 10 years down the pipe no one will be playing the game online and it's servers will be ghost towns. At least when you cut the MP you can still play by yourself.
So, yeah, there you have it. Those are my opinions on the matter. I feel what they are doing is wrong and undercuts the consumers ability enjoy the game with out actually solving any problems. This won't stop piracy and it won't stop used games being sold it just rams a bigger boot up our collective butts and will likely hurt the sales of new games while encouraging more piracy.
Companies need to look to the root of the problem to solve things and if there is no solution then they need to just accept this as part of how the free market works and deal with it. The industry isn't special (at least not until they lobby for new laws to be passed because that's how our government works now).
