Fair enough, but the attention-grabbing headline didn't exactly help when reading the actual story. Spun my views in the wrong direction.qwerty19411 said:
Poll: Since when did developers stop caring about the players?
- Thread starter northeast rower
- Start date
Recommended Videos
I am so f'ing tired from little whiners like you OP, who think that the game developers owe them something, even though you buy the games used.northeast rower said:
You're not giving them ANYTHING AT ALL,I repeat, ANYTHING AT ALL, so why should they give you something? They are in their full right to sell a game that only works 100% if you actually give them some of the money for it. After the first sale of the game, they don't owe any one else anything in the future of that game / disc.
The ones that they have to care about, are the people who actually give them money, and not those that don't want to pay them for their work.
They aren't responsible for the game missing bits after some one else sells it to you used.
If some one sold you their used car, would you complain to the manufacture if there were parts missing? No, you would go and complain to the guy who sold it to you.
If you should have an issue with any one, it should be GameStop or who ever you buy used from, for not selling you a full game.
Jesus, call the WAAAAmbulance.Ralphfromdk said:
Try playing Duke Nukem Forever. Then you'll see why I want the devs/pubs to put some effort into loving their audience. Yeah, they're in the right, but it's a bad business practice that will lose them money and interest in future games in the series/ by the dev.
As for that used car analogy: I'm making the point that this is similar to having to pay an extra $100 for the keys to start the car after you purchase it.
As for having an issue with Gamestop: I will most certainly not have an issue with the retailer. It's my choice to by a used game because it saves me money. Last month I got Oblivion, COD4, and Red Faction: Guerrilla for $20 by buying them used. Did the devs get anything? No, but it piqued my interest in future titles by them.
If you're rich or irresponsible enough to pay the full price for every game that comes out, that's your choice. I like to conserve.
The kind of dev/pub you just described is one interested only in making money, like Treyarch/Activision. They don't care about the fanbase. The opposite would be Bungie/Rockstar/Bioware, who put effort into their audience. There's a reason for that difference between the two sides in terms of customer support: one side doesn't care, the other side does.
Back to the car / game thing.northeast rower said:
Paying customers (that being NEW sales, NOT used) don't have to pay anything more than we have for many many years now. You buy the whole package from the maker, and it will all work for the price they asked from you.
And it's not like they leave the game unplayable if you buy it used, sure there will be something you might wish was still there, there might be a seat or window missing,a couple of levels or the multiplayer is not there, but it's not going to stop you from using it. The engine is still there, along with the keys, so they are not stopping you from playing.
And all of that, is totally in the hands of the secondhand salesman. It's his fault if he doesn't inform you that there might be some stuff missing.
Any where in the world where people make a product, they will tell you that they don't give a flying Sh't about the guy who's going to buy their product used. He didn't pay them anything.
It's just good old fashioned common sense.
Okay so people have consoles break a lot right? So if you buy rage and then your console breaks, you need to pay them for the game again? Now granted its only like ten dollars but if you have ten games that do this its an added hundred to the price of rebuying the console. Or how about you have a group of people over and one of them agrees to bring a game but you can't play it because you don't have a code for your console. Or what about the people who don't have internet access? They can't play a part of their single player game because of this. Granted depending on how they check for it (IE with your gamertag or on your console) some problems are fixed and some are created. I don't think anyone seems to notice how this hurts more than just used game buyers.
Don't give me that, it's the exact same logic. The author and his publishing company don't get any profit from used books circling in a secondary market so they should do everything in their power to stop anyone but the buyer from reading it, including burning libraries and calling the sale of second-hand books the stealing of intellectual property.OutrageousEmu said:
You're daft if you can't see the similarity.
I find it funny how 90% of these threads on un/justified drm/publisher shenanigans about protecting their sales completely ignore the fact that brick and mortar stores have to go through some channel, weather it be through the publisher, amazon, or whatever distributing company and PAY for said games. If it's through the publisher the only two ways they could go about getting the product is either through a contract deal or through a direct sale.
For example if GameStop had to make a deal with the publisher in order to even carry the game, this may entail making a deal where for each new game sold the publisher gets a cut along with paying them, then I can see the publisher being dickish about the used game sales. However I imagine any publisher would have had a clause in whatever contract they made with whomever to cockblock any used game sales so that clearly isn't the case. About the only thing that makes sense is that GameStop pays upfront whatever value the publisher set per unit.
This means GameStop could then up the price to make a profit but the chances are with so many other companies willing to sell for a base price they wont do that because it would mean loss of customers so they keep it there for stated reason. This also means the only real way GameStop makes any real profit on anything they have is from the used games.
In fact I would say this is primarily the case as for an example Blockbuster, I know I know, made the most money off of their previously viewed product sales as the movies they got in store were off of a contract with the studio where the rental sales were split between them and the studio, and in the end were usually only allowed to keep a certain amount of high budget titles like say Zombieland in stock at any given time because the studios only wanted a certain amount of any given title in circulation at any given time. This was done usually by having the stores destroy a certain amount(knife or paper shredder) and sending them back to corporate who then sent them back to the studio.
tl;dr version: Most companies probably already pay for every unit of whatever game they get in their stores already. Meaning publishers make little profit on new games from retailers to begin with so retailers also try to recoup their losses by selling used games which is pure profit for them.
For example if GameStop had to make a deal with the publisher in order to even carry the game, this may entail making a deal where for each new game sold the publisher gets a cut along with paying them, then I can see the publisher being dickish about the used game sales. However I imagine any publisher would have had a clause in whatever contract they made with whomever to cockblock any used game sales so that clearly isn't the case. About the only thing that makes sense is that GameStop pays upfront whatever value the publisher set per unit.
This means GameStop could then up the price to make a profit but the chances are with so many other companies willing to sell for a base price they wont do that because it would mean loss of customers so they keep it there for stated reason. This also means the only real way GameStop makes any real profit on anything they have is from the used games.
In fact I would say this is primarily the case as for an example Blockbuster, I know I know, made the most money off of their previously viewed product sales as the movies they got in store were off of a contract with the studio where the rental sales were split between them and the studio, and in the end were usually only allowed to keep a certain amount of high budget titles like say Zombieland in stock at any given time because the studios only wanted a certain amount of any given title in circulation at any given time. This was done usually by having the stores destroy a certain amount(knife or paper shredder) and sending them back to corporate who then sent them back to the studio.
tl;dr version: Most companies probably already pay for every unit of whatever game they get in their stores already. Meaning publishers make little profit on new games from retailers to begin with so retailers also try to recoup their losses by selling used games which is pure profit for them.
DEVs have shifted interest from the player, to the players wallet from the get-go. The very nature of corporations is to maximize profits, and non-corporate funded games don't have much of a budget. Of course companies are generalizing their games to reach a larger audience, if they do so, they get more money to further generalize their games to make even more money. People have only picked up on this recently due to the amount of generalization being excessive, but if you took any notice at all, it was happening all along.
...Wow. Thank you for making yourself the poster-boy for why I hate the people on these forums.OutrageousEmu said:
I may have used a straw-man which I could understand being broken with some sort of reasonable argument, but you have completely managed to misconstrue everything and anything I was trying to argue, jumped to a wild tangent with no relation to the topic at hand, and then passed it all off as me being a "troll."
Don't bother replying. I know I won't.
My general rule of thumb is just dont buy the game if people just stoped rather than saying I am only one person then we would actually get somwhere.northeast rower said:
So when it comes to games that let the dev or publishers decide what I can and cannot do in the game I just dont buy them. I dont want to have a game 20 years down the road I cannot play because xbox live is no longer running.
1. I agree.Stall said:
2. Bullshit. I've played Diablo and Diablo II since they were first released and have only played them as single player games. There is, in fact, a single player storyline (as in a story you can play by yourself) in Diablo 3, therefore I shouldn't be forced to be connected to the internet to play a game I wish to play by myself. As I've said lots of times regarding this issue, my internet connection isn't that stable. I can go days where it doesn't go out or only 15 minutes and when it goes out, it goes out for a few minutes at a time.
As a consumer, I shouldn't be punished for having a connection that isn't randomly up to some game developers standard to play a single player game.
3. Meh. Not in the mood to discuss. xD
I agree.MianusIzBleeding said:
+ you have to consider that there are taxes, that get lost in the process of buying used games. Where I come from, our recession could have been much more easy on us, had the private consumer spent close to 3% extra on items, for example in the luxury category, like games. These taxes aren't covered (rarely anyway) on secondhand items. These taxes would've gone to distributors, developers, importers, and more.
Money makes the world spin... literally.
No it isn't justified but the publishers think it is because they think that everyone who pirates or buys used really has money but just doesn't want to spend it on them.
When I was poor I bought used and even pirated because it was all I could afford. Now that I have money, I buy new. I however do not buy any new game that pulls this kind of shit.
The stupid thing is that it probably wont even affect the pirates, just the legitimate (yes even though the publisher doesn't make the profit they are legitimate consumers who are doing nothing illegal) used customers.
What the publishers should do is set up their own used trade-in/sales program. It certainly wont be too hard to offer more competitive prices/values than gamestop and that's the entity getting their money...not the used consumer. But as they haven't done this, I think they just use used sales and pirating as an excuse to execute these sorts of schemes. They have obviously fooled people into feeling sorry for them so I guess that's working for them...for now.
When I was poor I bought used and even pirated because it was all I could afford. Now that I have money, I buy new. I however do not buy any new game that pulls this kind of shit.
The stupid thing is that it probably wont even affect the pirates, just the legitimate (yes even though the publisher doesn't make the profit they are legitimate consumers who are doing nothing illegal) used customers.
What the publishers should do is set up their own used trade-in/sales program. It certainly wont be too hard to offer more competitive prices/values than gamestop and that's the entity getting their money...not the used consumer. But as they haven't done this, I think they just use used sales and pirating as an excuse to execute these sorts of schemes. They have obviously fooled people into feeling sorry for them so I guess that's working for them...for now.