Poll: Boycott Rage

[No_Remainders]

I mean, you have a valid reason

But he doesn't have a valid reason, at all.

At all, at all, at all, at all.

He claims that they shouldn't be allowed to do this because we're the ones putting money forward for the game. But the only time in which it happens is when you buy it second hand, and in that case, you're not paying the developers for the game. You're just paying the game store.

So no, horrible reason.

 

[Kieran Chakravorty]

The other thing worth remembering is that crap games get discounted used quickly. Good games do not, Modern Warfare 2 to is still on for about £20 used in some places. Not sure how it fits, worth noting though.

 

[the_green_dragon]

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 completely agree with you. Where does it end? They've been doing this shit to PC games and now they want to muscle in on consoles games too. Screw them! It never should have happened to PC games and I hate watching it happen to the consoles.

I remember when 2nd hand game dealers sold PC games. If they get away with killing trade ins then my game retailers will go out of business. Where am I supposed to get my games then? XBOB Live? Ps3 Network? Bugger off.

 

[y1fella]

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?

Now I don't think that's fair. I personally think that game developers/publisher are perfectly justified in discouraging people from buying the game second hand. You are kinda screwing them over when you buy secondhand.
SO chalk me up as disagreeing with you even, though I never planned on buying Rage anyway.

 

[EvilMaggot]

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.

what he said... pretty much sums it well up for me x)

 

[SomeBoredGuy]

I wasn't going to buy Rage, but I think now I'm going to pre-order it just to spite the OP.

 

[WaruTaru]

Surely you'd buy a second hand copy if the game, film or book was out of print right? Because then the creators aren't intending to make more money out of it one way or the other.
And you completely dodged CM156's point that you seem to very clearly insinuate that you'd just love to see an end to libraries since it lets people use films and books without paying the original authors.

And for that matter, what about used cars? Should those go too since you're buying a product without handing a penny to the original creators? Or is that buying a transportation device service rather than a product? =p

You know what? My country has a very high piracy rate. If the game doesn't deserve first-hand purchase, it will NEVER get purchased. There is 0 second hand market for games here.

Textbooks? Stationery shops will gladly photostat a full copy for you at one-third of the book's original cover price. (Or if a novel is popular enough, the bookshops will pirate them and sell them for a cheaper price. Thats how I got my first book.)

Novels? You will rarely see a bookshop sell used books. The market just isn't there. Its either you buy new or don't buy at all.

Movies and Music? "Hey, is that song good/movie you're watching good?" "Hang on a sec, I'll send it to you via msn". Ding. Music and movie in my hard drive. Without paying a single cent. IF the movie is actually good, we'll go to the cinema.

I'd love to answer your car question, but I don't own a car. I get around with public transportation just fine. That is a service, no?

So no, I am not trying to dodge the question. Piracy is really that rampant in my country. Second hand market for these entertainment media does not exist. If they are out of print? Doesn't affect use one bit. There is always something else around the corner.

And actually, I wonder how you feel about lending people games, or heck, passing a person a game, book or film after you're done with it? Do you also feel like some overzealous copyright guardians that borrowing, sharing, lending or passing on a product shouldn't be done as well, that people should just buy their own copy if they want to experience that title?

Lend? No, we send 'em through MSN or burn a copy for them. They can keep it forever, really. We're not fussed about it.

And I really wonder when films and games stopped being products and started being "services". I liked the days when a person was free to do what he wanted with a product he purchased.

I really wonder when films and music stop being performance. The last time I checked, performance is still a service. Somehow something changed when it is recorded on a piece of flimsy plastic disc.

And I am not over-exaggerating about the piracy rate, and the examples I have mentioned in my post. Feel free to PM me and ask me where I am from.

 

[wurschtl]

Looking at the pro an cons of used to new: (just consumer point of view)

used:
pros:
- cheap
- often patches available to enhance the game

cons:
- disk might be in mediocre state
- often parts of the game are missing (no DLC key)
- not day 1 available

New:
pros:
- all day one DLCs with key included
- disks and box in good/top condition

cons:
- expansive
- slight possibly to be bugged (first day/week patches are no news theese days)

At the end looking from that it is every ones own choice.


There were some issues raised regarding ethics about buying new games or used games.
First and foremost the positive aspects I can gather out of the discussion is that people discuss were to BUY. This is a better option than downloading (at least in my mind).

Second: supporting the gaming industry:
It is true that developers will get money from new sales as the system in the industries (normally) is advances VS royalties. So the money you spent on a new game (includes games with a lowered price later) will be divided between; Reseller, Shipping company, Publisher, Tax, and the guys who produce the disk/box/booklets. (At least this is the way with PC games, Console games have the console owner [Sony, Nintendo and Microsoft] as well in that share.

Third: DLCs are part of the game: the answer is simple they are not. They are small add-ons. Some of them are included in a new game some are not. Charging money for them seems right in my books.

The reason is simple:
With buying a new game you ALSO buy one/two/more (depending on package) DLC(s). And well the system for DLCs is simple. Put in a code and connect it with your publisher/developer game account and you can play it. But the code will no longer work with any other account.

One thing I was missing in the whole discussion as a PC gamer:

If I buy today a new game that has a DLC included I still have the option to sell it. But many of the PC games need to be activated using steam. And right now I cannot sell games I got on my steam account.
So what is the buzz about DLCs?
The point that I can sell it but it will not include the DLCs? Comparing the sales options (if I would sell my games): "Sell it without DLC" is much more charming than "Sry but that game is on steam and you will not be able to sell it at all".

My conclusion here is simple. If you want to buy ?pre loved? games expect that they have their downsides. If you don?t want that buy it new (either at release date or later for a lower price)
If a used game is being resold the seller should mark clearly if the game includes DLCs or not. So the buyer knows if he is buying the ?basic? version or the one including DLCs and here it seems that sellers tend to ?forget? to mention this. Taking the anger on the developer (or even publisher) seems for me unfair as they did not mislabel what you bought.

Those were my 2 Cent.
Cheers

 

[kerlc123]

i live in a country where used games are not sold at every store, but at some stores, that you have to find. BUT i still see what all the fuss about the used games sales is. yes, the guys who made the game don't get a cent. yeah, but when i buy the bloddy thing i want the whole product. i don't want to sit around, twiddling my thumbs, waiting for the goddamn thing to download. hell, i can download a torrent, and be done with it.

no "pay, so that you can have what belongs to you, as a customer, although of a used version" if you buy it used. if i buy a used version, it means that i don't have enough money for the real deal. but i payed for it. if i pay for something, that means that i want the whole experience, not a cut-out, because a publisher did not have enough money for a new cocaine bathtub.

lemme say this: if they would say something like: "give us additional 5 bucks for the game that you bought used" for an indy game, that they barely had enough money to finish and publish it, i'd give it to them ,hell if it were a good game i'd give them additional 20 bucks upon buying the used version. but here we talk about RAGE. it is going to be sold in A LOT OF COPIES, and the publishers and developers (Bethesda and Id, respectively) shall have (probably) a return on their investment. so i don't see any other reasons than pure greed behind this scheme. hell, piracy is better for the person who can't afford to pay for a new game. they at least give you the game, and are done with it, no cut out content, no always-be-connected-to-internet crap, just the game and their thanks for supporting them.

(a little off topic, but still)
someone has mentioned libraries several posts ago, and i believe that a library for used games is a great idea. you pay dunno, lets say 15 bucks for an account and you can borrow any game for a week via digital distribution. after a week the game automatically uninstalls, or is unrunnable. then you can return the game, or extend the borrow for a week, wich will cost you, let's say 5 dollars. then you have it for a week. you can borrow max of 2 (or 3,4,5.. depends on what the library decides) games, you have enough time to play through them, or eđxtend the loan. the library gives a share of extension money and register fees (not to mention the buying of new games) to the developers. also important: if you have a used game that you'd like to donate, it would not be needed for you to have an account, just either mail it or deliver it yourself to a person responsible for putting games up. TA-DAH! you got rid of the game, and the publisher gets his money. (note: all the prices that i named here can be changed, so don't give me crap about them)
(end of off topic content)

 

[Don Reba]

I don't think there is a good reason to boycott Rage. However, I still won't be buying it, because it does not look like it would be worth my time.

 

[Anti-Robot Man]

It is perfectly reasonable for game developers to try and maximize their sales. They accomplish this by selling as many new copies (and dlc) as they can.
It is perfectly reasonable for a retailer to try to make as much profit as they can. They accomplish this by selling as many used copies as they can.

This is blindingly obvious but a lot of opinion in this thread is rediculously polarised. There are good reasons for supporting retailers and developers - a balance of the two keeps the system healthy. Good profits for the developers keep content being produced (which obviously we all want), a strong retail sector keeps the publishers in check preventing them from totally screwing the consumer (if it was just direct from the publisher they could set any crazy rules they like).

Now personally I buy almost all games new (and retailers still make profit on that, just nowhere near as much as the used market). There aren't any legal restrictions that keep me from selling those games or buying others second-hand, nor should there be. However, it's immeadiately clear from visting anywhere that sells games, that used sales are pushed much more heavily than ever before - in my experience 50-80% of a shop is now dedicated to selling used (lower end for those only getting in on this more recently like Tesco or HMV, highend for GAME and Gamestation). It is very understandable that makes developers and publishers uncomfortable.

I personally favour designing the games so that they inherently resist resale, i.e. through a good long/replayable campaign (like the Elder Scrolls or Mass Effect), or a multiplayer experience you want to stick with (Gears of War, Street Fighter). But extra content for new buyers is a viable tactic, not one I like as it can be a hassle - but obviously since the removal of that content upsets some used buyers, as can be seen in this thread, it can be a swaying factor towards a sale.

There are other factors in this such as the relationship between the developer/publisher and the consumer. But ultimately what I have to say is this, you are entitled to nothing, we live in a capitalist system - if you want something you have to pay for it (unless you want to go outside the system and steal it). Developers/publishers and retailers are not greedy entities, they are composed of lots of people like ourselves who want to get paid for what they do so they can spend that money on stuff they want/need. They aren't entitled to that money either unless we choose to give it to them, but they have every right to persuade you to buy their product.

Finally to the OP, if you buy used games anyway boycotting buying the game new or used will have zero effect on the developer as its money they won't see anyway. The only really visable sign to publishers/developers is from positives: they can measure sales, they can't read the minds of people who would've bought their game but had some reason not to.

Sorry this is a long post, with obvious thoughts/observations - but so many people only seem to be able to see their own colon in this debate I thought these things were worth (re)stating.

 

[funguy2121]

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?

Methinks OP is far too entitled for his own good. Content that you may never see anyway won't be included in a game that you're planning on waiting a year and a half so you can buy $12 cheaper at Gamestop? OP hasn't heard of Amazon.com, Best Buy and "player's choice" (discounted) collections?

You are not entitled to steal. Anything. Ever. Many of us do it, knowing that it is wrong, but the majority of us have the good sense not to complain when someone comes up with a clever way of encouraging us not to take what's not ours for free. And I fail to see how we're entitled to purchasing a used electronic product from another consumer. If you love the games so much, don't you want your money to go toward R&D for the next one and not Joe's Cocaine Weekend (funguy sincerely hopes that no cokeheads were offended by the content of that comment)? I wonder how you'll react when the pornographers start doing this

Relax, man.

 

[Doclector]

I'm okay with it for multiplayer, but single player? Not only is that inevitably going to impact on the experience, but people without Internet connections won't be able to play the full damn game and that's just ridiculous. I wouldn't boycott rage, but I won't be buying it simply because when it comes out, there's a decent chance I will be one of these people with no access to xbox live, who won't be able to access the content that as new buyers they should be entitled to, and therefore if I bought it, I'd feel ripped off.

I ain't gonna ask anyone else not to buy it though. Partially because no one ever sticks to boycotts, Partially because I don't want to scupper ID's doom 4 progress, and partially because I believe they will see a significant loss of sales anyway because of people like me who simply wouldn't be able to access the content.

 

[Buzz Killington_v1legacy]

In any event, the point is that Vernor in no way represents the complete final word on the subject. It's not law--it's barely precedent until and unless the Supreme Court rules on it--and there are many, many conflicting legal opinions on it.

Yet no case has went to the Supreme Court yet. Why? You would think that those who got shafted in the ruling would want to appeal to get the case overturned, yet no cases are making their way there.

Oh, hey--brief [https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2011/06/eff-asks-supreme-court-protect-first-sale-rights] last June asking the Supreme Court to look at the case after Vernor petitioned the court for a writ of certiorari.

The question is nowhere near settled yet, and barring complete and utter disregard for a century of precedent regarding the first-sale doctrine, I'd be willing to bet that the Supreme Court would overturn the Ninth Circuit's decision.

 

[Shydrow]

Its so that you buy the game new and not used from Gamestop. Even if you buy it from Gamestop new it doesn't support Gamestop. Gamestop doesn't make money off of new games, they only make money off the games that you buy used. So if a company is giving the middle finger to Gamestop I say more power to them.

Hey you must be new to the retail markey but gamestop does earn money off of selling new games. They buy the game and sell for a % higher than the cost to make them. This is how all retail works. They buys used games at a much lower cost and sell for a much higher and that is where they make all their money.

 

[The Aimless One]

I buy all my games new.
I like to think it helps support the industry, and thus helps more games to be released.
And if I would boycot any game it sure wouldn't be RAGE.

 

[Sebenko]

sure, I'll boycott it.

I wasn't planning on buying it anyway.

It'll probably be shit anyway. Most games that have these systems are only ever remembered for having them, and if that's the most memorable thing about it...

 

[WaruTaru]

In any event, the point is that Vernor in no way represents the complete final word on the subject. It's not law--it's barely precedent until and unless the Supreme Court rules on it--and there are many, many conflicting legal opinions on it.

Yet no case has went to the Supreme Court yet. Why? You would think that those who got shafted in the ruling would want to appeal to get the case overturned, yet no cases are making their way there.

Oh, hey--brief [https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2011/06/eff-asks-supreme-court-protect-first-sale-rights] last June asking the Supreme Court to look at the case after Vernor petitioned the court for a writ of certiorari.

The question is nowhere near settled yet.

I do hope the Supreme Courts actually hears this case and not try to side step it. I eagerly await the decision. If they overturn it, hey, I'm wrong, my apologies and all that. If they uphold it? Goodbye used market. For all entertainment media. And I'm all for that happening.

On another note, I'm also interested in the legality of DLCs. Those stuff that locks content away when you buy used? Is it the same thing as intentionally damaging the goods? Some of these claiming boycott should go buy the game second hand and file a class lawsuit against the developers for missing content and see how it turns out.

 

[Something Amyss]

Imagine if you created something, and you expected to make so much money off it. Then some other dude is like, "Oh hey man, just drop them off at my place, I'll sell them." Then you come back and you realize he's been running a program to get used games back and sell them again to make a big profit for himself and not give any to you.

Now imagine the second-hand market has been a thriving part of every major medium and pretty much every industry for ages.

I would hope you would be adult enough to cope with the fact.

I don't get the point of making excuses for the game industry. They seem to believe they are special snowflakes, more entitled to money than other entertainment media, and are trying to recoup artificial "losses" from used media. In the long run, it's only going to get worse and hurt the new consumer as well. As other media are becoming more progressive due to the follies of various anti-piracy schemes, the games industry is becoming more regressive.

And the problem is on the used market? A long-term staple of all entertainment media?

 

[Hartmansgrad]

As much as I'm in favour of giving developers their due I honestly think that the consumer is overlooked when ever this Gamestop vs Developers argument is raised. Games are, for the most part, very expensive and I'd question whether when placed against other entertainment media anyone can claim that triple A games are unquestionably value for money.

Hell, I'm all in favour of Developers using DLC and content locks to promote first hand sales...if the cost of games drops to parity with the current state of the second hand market. The resultant knock on effect on the second hand market would mean that places like gamestop make next to nothing from sales whilst people that pick up second hand titles and then buy DLC would net the developers the main proportion of money spent on the title over all. If protection from second hand sales will harm consumers, there has to be carrot as well as stick, especially as mobile gaming is eclipsing the console market and becoming a possible substitute.
Then again, I've been playing the hell out of Mount and Blade, a game from a decidedly small fry studio, a game that I purchased for less than a quarter of the cost of a triple A title and directly from the developer...so perhaps it's time to start looking for value for money elsewhere?