Rage Cuts Single-Player When You Buy It Used
- Thread starter Mike Kayatta
- Start date
I gotta say if I were a company like Gamestop or another used game seller that also deals in new games I would simply stop carrying new games from companies that pulled this shit. That's mean no more big midnight releases, no more preorder promotions, all those things these stores do to promote new titles would be unavailable to companies that tried to pull these stunts. And that's for ALL their titles not just the ones that try to bugger sales of preowned games. It's not like the massive majority of their money doesn't come from used games sales as it is.
ok i always ignore these threads because mainly people complain about something that really doesn't affect them too much but i will bite this time.
this is probably the best form of DRM i have seen so far, i generally get about $50-100 a week spare to spend and i still manage to buy games i want new and coincidentally since i live in australia games go for anywhere from 100-120 brand new.
honestly i have never had a problem with DRM in general. some seem more dickish (ubisoft) but i put up with them because the developers have a right to try and make us buy from them instead of someone else or stealing their games both of which get them no profit whatsoever which when you have a company dropping millions of dollars into a game you expect them to try and make their money back and using cheap tricks is sadly just how things have come about in an effort to stop making money off them
this is probably the best form of DRM i have seen so far, i generally get about $50-100 a week spare to spend and i still manage to buy games i want new and coincidentally since i live in australia games go for anywhere from 100-120 brand new.
honestly i have never had a problem with DRM in general. some seem more dickish (ubisoft) but i put up with them because the developers have a right to try and make us buy from them instead of someone else or stealing their games both of which get them no profit whatsoever which when you have a company dropping millions of dollars into a game you expect them to try and make their money back and using cheap tricks is sadly just how things have come about in an effort to stop making money off them
The thing that irritates me the most about this war on the second hand market is the way that so many people have fallen for the "If you don't buy it new, it's the same as piracy because you're not supporting the developers" argument.
Let's examine that for a minute, shall we. As I understand it, developers do not receive a commission on copy of the game sold. The employees at a development studio are paid their nominal salary for working on a title, and if the game sells well enough, the expectation is that they are given a bonus for their success. No, the people who receive the commissions on first hand sales are the publishers. The connection with developers here is that publishers are responsible for funding development, providing marketing and providing said bonuses on success. So the only argument that can realistically be made to state that developers are hurt by secondhand sales rests on the notion that if publishers don't make enough money, they can't fund development.
But here's the thing. No matter how many copies of the game get shifted, publishers are STILL cutting studios. Take Homefront for example: average game that surprisingly enough sold a million copies. Not a critical success, but surely a financial one. What happens to the studio? They're closed by the publisher. Or take the Modern Warfare 2 drama, where one of the biggest selling games in history should have seen its developers rewarded with bonuses, but according to documents filed in court they withheld those bonuses until they could guarantee speedy completion of Modern Warfare 3. Used game sales are not screwing over developers: PUBLISHERS are screwing over developers, and in cases where used game sales clearly cannot even be considered a causal link.
So what we have is a situation where the publishers, with no small amount of input from certain loyal developer heads and a subsection of the gaming press (particularly Penny Arcade), have created a scapegoat for the cuts that they are forcing upon studios, and have cleverly marketed it in the gaming media by exploiting the idea of the struggling developers, something they are responsible for. The Bobby Koticks of the world get to milk their brands dry, throw the corpse of the developer aside and go home with a pat on the back and a commendation from Forbes magazine for a shrewd eye for business, and yet they've engineered it so that enough people actually blame the consumer for the fate of developers. The fact that more people don't see through this just yet astonishes me.
Let's examine that for a minute, shall we. As I understand it, developers do not receive a commission on copy of the game sold. The employees at a development studio are paid their nominal salary for working on a title, and if the game sells well enough, the expectation is that they are given a bonus for their success. No, the people who receive the commissions on first hand sales are the publishers. The connection with developers here is that publishers are responsible for funding development, providing marketing and providing said bonuses on success. So the only argument that can realistically be made to state that developers are hurt by secondhand sales rests on the notion that if publishers don't make enough money, they can't fund development.
But here's the thing. No matter how many copies of the game get shifted, publishers are STILL cutting studios. Take Homefront for example: average game that surprisingly enough sold a million copies. Not a critical success, but surely a financial one. What happens to the studio? They're closed by the publisher. Or take the Modern Warfare 2 drama, where one of the biggest selling games in history should have seen its developers rewarded with bonuses, but according to documents filed in court they withheld those bonuses until they could guarantee speedy completion of Modern Warfare 3. Used game sales are not screwing over developers: PUBLISHERS are screwing over developers, and in cases where used game sales clearly cannot even be considered a causal link.
So what we have is a situation where the publishers, with no small amount of input from certain loyal developer heads and a subsection of the gaming press (particularly Penny Arcade), have created a scapegoat for the cuts that they are forcing upon studios, and have cleverly marketed it in the gaming media by exploiting the idea of the struggling developers, something they are responsible for. The Bobby Koticks of the world get to milk their brands dry, throw the corpse of the developer aside and go home with a pat on the back and a commendation from Forbes magazine for a shrewd eye for business, and yet they've engineered it so that enough people actually blame the consumer for the fate of developers. The fact that more people don't see through this just yet astonishes me.
When the vast majority of your profits comes on the back of someone else's work while you do very little yourself, and the way in which you "earn" those profits actually hurts the people who are making the items in the first place, there tends to be a bit of a problem. I'm not saying that the retailers are evil incarnate or any garbage like that, I'm simply saying that it's pretty obvious they're little more than parasites in this equation.orangeban said:
What about the people on Amazon who sell new copies at used prices? It's a battle they can't win.
Okay, so where does that leave people like me? People who can't get online to redeem the code (which comes with an expiration date) but still buy the game new. Yes, there is a flipping lot of us in America and in other parts of the world.Dexter111 said:
So, basically they're punishing us. "You bought the game new? Well forget you." So now I'm stuck buying games at used-level content for new-level prices. Well, I'll tell you what. It's not fair, and I'm God-damned sick of it. I tried to buy new, I tried to be supportive. All I tried to do was enjoy the damn game.
Used is the only way to go as long as companies keep up with this DRM. It makes no logical sense, there is no incentive for me, and despite what you erroneously think buying used is not piracy. So guess what give me me eye-patch and me wooden leg because I'm going to jump on the S.S GameStop and I'm not buying a new game ever again.
I see no problem with this. Buying used is metaphorically the worst thing you can do to a company.
Used copies give zero funds to the developers.
Used copies give zero funds to the developers.
Just... Just no. What is this? It's still an authentic copy of the game, hell,Developers need to accept the used market as legitimate yet annoying/profit deteriorating for them. It should not work this way, just because the gamer cannot afford it day 1 brand new doesn't mean they should be punished by having content excluded. Don't even get me started on "Always online"...
I'll agree with this. I mean they say its a small part that "most" players won't ever see. So I don't see the big deal. Plus they're saying the online pass only costs like another $10, so if you buy the game used and then pay up the $10 for the pass you're still not anywhere near the brand new price if I did my simple math thinking correctly.ToastiestZombie said:
As for me I'll probably still just rent the game first and if I really like it just buy a new copy anyway.
Isn't that a description of all retailers ever (except maybe the farmer who sells his own stuff or something like that).StriderShinryu said:
Why do videogames treat the retailers differently to other forms of media, or hell, than any other thing, period.
Also, it's not that hard to make something seem diabolical, so your description of game retailers isn't too eye-opening. Watch this description of videogame makers.
When the vast majority of your profits comes from exploiting peoples emotions and desires in order to make them spend money to satisfy these primal longings, and the you frequently screw over the distributors of your work and your customers, there tends to be a bit of a problem. I'm not saying that game developers are evil incarnate or any garbage like that, I'm simply saying it's pretty obvious they're little more than manipulator's in this equation.
I (well used to) buy new and I still do if my favorite or desired games give me all the content, but as long as they withhold I'm buying used. I can't get online to get the extra content I paid for so why pay for it in the first place.MrA said:
Companies have got to realize this hurts them in the long run.
I'm with you, man. Buying used is equivalent to piracy? You don't see furniture manufacturers shutting down garage sales do you? Where the fuck do they get the idea....MrA said:
Buying used already has its downsides, they're just fleecing the idiots for cash
Yeah! Fuck you, poor people! How dare you take a cheap and legal option that allows you to experience the work of the developer regardless of your income!
As a long time id fan, I'd like to believe this is the work of Bethesda, but I have a sinking feeling it's much more sinister. I wasn't going to buy it before, now it's not even a possibility.
As a long time id fan, I'd like to believe this is the work of Bethesda, but I have a sinking feeling it's much more sinister. I wasn't going to buy it before, now it's not even a possibility.
The way I see it, most of these discussions will be irrelevant by the next (true) console generation anyways. Direct Download is already becoming the norm on PC, and Microsoft and Sony have been testing these waters for a while with their ever increasing XBL marketplace and Playstation Network, respectively. I fully expect the next console generation to downplay, if not all together cut out, physical discs. So the problem with competing with the used market won't be anywhere near what it is now, but I expect always-on DRM will become the standard since you have to be online to download the titles in the first place.