PC player here. Can't buy it used no matter what. Still think 10$ passes are bullshit though. Even worse when it's that plus day 1 DLC. (Dragon Age 2)
Then why don't library books have a couple of chapters missing?Seventh Actuality said:This is the reason that buying a used game is not the same as buying a physical product used.GonzoGamer said:Yea. I know how investments work. I?ve invested directly into several businesses. And never have I ever had to insist that a product is sandbagged or a service hamstringed so I can get a bigger payout/higher dividends/bonuses.
When you buy a car, a computer or a piece of furniture, the materials used to make that product represent the majority of the cost of creating it. With a game, the physical disc it's stored on and the box it comes in are a negligible fraction of its production cost. The real investment is all in the software.
With something purely physical, buying used is a clear tradeoff between the lower price and the additional wear and tear. There is no wear and tear on software; buying a used game is functionally the same here is buying it new, but with absolutely none of the money going towards offsetting the investment in making it. So, you get the company's product, exactly like new, but they don't get any money for it.
And so, project ten dollar. The games company are forced to "hamstring" their product so that the people who financed and worked on the game get some actual money from a transaction in which their product is sold, the same as new, without any money going to them.
Touche.ElektroNeko said:When my SNES is still working fine and everyone's Xbox RROD'd?GonzoGamer said:Well. I think you're going to wish you were a little more vocal about this issue several years from now.
Library books DO have reduced functionality compared to buying your own copy. You only have it for a limited time, which brings in a whole bunch of other drawbacks (can't start it in your own time, can't put it down and pick it up later).GonzoGamer said:Then why don't library books have a couple of chapters missing?
And I understand the need to make money back on the investment but why do they go after people who obviously don't have any money rather than the huge retail chain that is actually causing all the problems with the used market.
Isn't that pretty much the same difference though?CM156 said:Bah, it's an un-original way to make money off of used sales.
As I've said before, what they need to do is give a bonus to people who buy new. Not take away from those who buy second hand.
Not really, no.AlternatePFG said:Isn't that pretty much the same difference though?CM156 said:Bah, it's an un-original way to make money off of used sales.
As I've said before, what they need to do is give a bonus to people who buy new. Not take away from those who buy second hand.
I mean, if you buy used, you're missing out on that bonus content.
That's reasonable I guess. Stuff like weapon skins and other cosmetic awards that don't really effect the gameplay.CM156 said:Not really, no.
Imagine that if you bought a shooter game used, you didn't get to use shotguns or pistols. That's cutting out a feture that most people would expect.
But imagine if you got it new, you could change the sound the guns made when they were shot. It's extra content that is a reward.
Use the carrot, not the stick.
This is and will always be my opinion on the issue. People need to remember who they're buying what from. If you buy a used car made by Ford from a used dealership, if that car has a problem you don't go to Ford, you go to the dealership. Same thing with games, if you buy a used game that has content cut, you shouldn't be blaming the developer, you should be blaming Gamestop for selling you an inferior product for $5 off.Seventh Actuality said:Penny Arcade said it best: when you buy a game used, you are not their customer, you are GameStop's customer. You expect consideration from games companies and offer nothing as a potential customer. If you can't afford a triple A release on launch day, you don't get it. That's how the world should work. You don't have a right to buy a functionally identical product for less money, none of which goes to the makers. Games are a luxury good, and if you can't afford them, there are cheaper games, free games and games with tiered pricing. Watch the Extra Credits episode on this issue. Not getting the best products as soon as they come out is just a part of being poor.
They might not be gangsters but they aren't some poor battered mom & pop shops either. These are big businesses that (no matter what you believe they say) make a hell of a lot of money and they do take advantage of their consumers and their employees. You can deny it all you want but board members are the same ruthless pricks across all industries. Trust me on that.Seventh Actuality said:Library books DO have reduced functionality compared to buying your own copy. You only have it for a limited time, which brings in a whole bunch of other drawbacks (can't start it in your own time, can't put it down and pick it up later).
Why go after the people who buy used games? Well...what makes you think they have a choice? The law is on the side of GameStop, and any attempt to come to an agreement as you suggested earlier would require retailers like GameStop to meet them halfway.
Your victim complex is seriously misplaced here. Penny Arcade said it best: when you buy a game used, you are not their customer, you are GameStop's customer. You expect consideration from games companies and offer nothing as a potential customer. If you can't afford a triple A release on launch day, you don't get it. That's how the world should work. You don't have a right to buy a functionally identical product for less money, none of which goes to the makers. Games are a luxury good, and if you can't afford them, there are cheaper games, free games and games with tiered pricing. Watch the Extra Credits episode on this issue. Not getting the best products as soon as they come out is just a part of being poor.
Trying to characterize every publisher as the bastard offspring of Gordon Gecko and one of the Ferengi might help salve your conscience, but it's not in any way an argument in favour of used games.
Yea.CM156 said:Not really, no.AlternatePFG said:Isn't that pretty much the same difference though?CM156 said:Bah, it's an un-original way to make money off of used sales.
As I've said before, what they need to do is give a bonus to people who buy new. Not take away from those who buy second hand.
I mean, if you buy used, you're missing out on that bonus content.
Imagine that if you bought a shooter game used, you didn't get to use shotguns or pistols. That's cutting out a feture that most people would expect.
But imagine if you got it new, you could change the sound the guns made when they were shot. It's extra content that is a reward.
Use the carrot, not the stick.
And why should they?They've already been paid for that product.What make the games industry so special that they feel they should be paid more than once for the same product?Because that's all that project $10/online passes are...a way for companies to make more money from something they've already been paid forSeventh Actuality said:So, you get the company's product, exactly like new, but they don't get any money for it.