just wait until developers have you wait for an e-mail to get access to your just purchased DLC. It seems crazy, but we are headed in that direction.
Actually, he may have been locked out of part of the content. Assuming you purchased it before they stopped giving them out, DA:O launched with a code to download the Shale character as well as it's associated storyline quests and the areas those quests took part in. When your friend bought the game used from you, they didn't get that code. The only difference here is that Shale was marketed as a bonus set of content instead of already in the game content that was locked.GonzoGamer said:I actually place the blame squarely back on the Publisher for being idiotic. Has anyone actually looked at the prices for used games there or the trade in values?newfoundsky said:Then they should fucking punish GameStop, yeah? And the attitude is "I can't afford 60 dollars, but 40 or 20 won't break my bank." Selfish? Consumer rights. We don't have to buy the game, they're lucky we're buying them at all.Scizophrenic Llama said:Or you could, you know, buy the game new and actually support the developer? Rather than the, "Fuck you, I want to buy your game at a cheaper price, and not let any of the money go back to you, and you're a piece of shit for wanting to make a profit off of the sale of one of your games." attitude you've got going now.ImprovizoR said:Next time I want to buy a used Mercedes, I'll call official Mercedes dealership to ask them if they're gonna cut my brakes if I don't give them a piece of that action.
This is fuckin' stupid. Stop punishing gamers already. This kind of behavior can only increase piracy.
I don't get why people are all up in arms about this. RAGE is going to be a massive game by the way all of the news stories seem to say about it, if it's a good game it'll be worth the money to buy it new. If you really want to save money and buy it used, then you're paying for a lesser experience. I see no issue in this.
You really want to blame somebody: Blame GameStop for not giving a portion of their 100% gain on a used game being sold back to the developers.
Why don't the publishers just beat those prices themselves? It wouldn't be too hard.
If the consumer wants to trade in Oblivion, Bethesda could offer a better trade in value; especially if the consumer wants to put said trade in towards their Skyrim preorder. Then they could sell those used copies of Oblivion (again, cheaper than gamestop) and make the profit off of it.
Either way this practice of punishing the legitimate consumers who (probably have to for financial reasons; that's why I used to) buy used has to stop. It's just going to end up hurting the industry overall when those gamers find something more cost effective (and less insulting) to take part in.
i'm 29 and i remember those days to, good times back then, *sighs* now this crap, :/ kinda glad i only buy like 2 games a year anymore nowEaston Dark said:I'm only 17, and even I recall fondly the times that when you buy a game, you get that game, unimportant parts and all.
What is this?
That's because other industries have the luxury of having alternate venues to make money.Fangobra said:Why hello gaming industry. My friends All Other Commercial Products and I were just having a Capitalism. Do you care to join us or are you just going to sit in the corner and sulk about how you can't levy enormous taxes on every movement of every instance of your intellectual property?
Grow up. The original author makes no money off second-hand book sales, the original studio makes no money off second-hand dvd sales, the original manufacturer makes no money off second-hand car sales, the original dev makes no money off second-hand game sales. That is the way it works.
No, the game industry just doesn't care about people like you. There was a time when they wanted you to play their games but that time has passed and now you are a criminal to them and must be monitored or at the very least, have your game checked at the door to ensure you didn't buy it used.Suicidejim said:I'm obviously some kind of Neanderthal, but I don't have my 360 connected to any kind of internet connection. So even if I buy a lot of these games brand-new, I still lose out on stuff whenever they try the "use this code online to unlock your content" technique. I mean, i know connecting to the net will solve that issue, but I don't feel like I should be punished for not wanting to spend money on a function I have little interest or time for. Perhaps I'm just some Luddite who needs to be drop-kicked into the modern gaming era.
1) I don't think the law cares if they can make money in alternate ways. Th First Sale Doctrine doesn't allow for those exceptions.G-Force said:That's because other industries have the luxury of having alternate venues to make money.Fangobra said:Why hello gaming industry. My friends All Other Commercial Products and I were just having a Capitalism. Do you care to join us or are you just going to sit in the corner and sulk about how you can't levy enormous taxes on every movement of every instance of your intellectual property?
Grow up. The original author makes no money off second-hand book sales, the original studio makes no money off second-hand dvd sales, the original manufacturer makes no money off second-hand car sales, the original dev makes no money off second-hand game sales. That is the way it works.
Movies have theater tickets, DVDs and television syndication
Cars have official used car dealerships
Music has concerts, CD sales, radio and itunes
Meanwhile Games have game sales.
Oh really? And how do you think retailers get the products in the first place? Most likely, the developers make a profit just by selling it to the retailers, like EVERY OTHER PRODUCT. They don't need that extra 10% that they get for a new buy. Besides, it's not the consumers' job to support the developer. It's the developer's job to make a product that consumers WANT to support.Catalyst6 said:It's not id's fault that you can't buy their product. I side with the devs on this, as I always do. They're completely in their right to do whatever they can to make sure that they actually get paid for the products they produce.suitepee7 said:that sounds... pretty shitty. now i will probably miss this game entirely. meh
edit:
no, it is not the right way to do DRM, because it is punishing gamers who have still legitimately bought a copy of the game, but could not afford to do so first hand.ToastiestZombie said:I thought bad things when i read the title, but now I know that its only small parts of the SP taht are being cut for used palyers. In my opinion this is the right way to do DRM.
Bear in mind that every single time someone buys a game used the company that produced it loses money. There was a potential sale that was squandered on a used game. So they're not losing 10%, they're losing 100% of the potential sale money. I know this exact idea has been said at length, but it's worth repeating. There's no denying it that it takes money away from the company.Fidelias said:Oh really? And how do you think retailers get the products in the first place? Most likely, the developers make a profit just by selling it to the retailers, like EVERY OTHER PRODUCT. They don't need that extra 10% that they get for a new buy. Besides, it's not the consumers' job to support the developer. It's the developer's job to make a product that consumers WANT to support.Catalyst6 said:It's not id's fault that you can't buy their product. I side with the devs on this, as I always do. They're completely in their right to do whatever they can to make sure that they actually get paid for the products they produce.suitepee7 said:that sounds... pretty shitty. now i will probably miss this game entirely. meh
edit:
no, it is not the right way to do DRM, because it is punishing gamers who have still legitimately bought a copy of the game, but could not afford to do so first hand.ToastiestZombie said:I thought bad things when i read the title, but now I know that its only small parts of the SP taht are being cut for used palyers. In my opinion this is the right way to do DRM.
Do you expect bands to cut out cover songs in their albums for people who buy cd's used? Do you see movies cutting out entire scenes?
There is absolutely no argument that can justify this behavior.
Lies. Games have franchising, expansion packs and crosses into other media. And what does literature have?G-Force said:That's because other industries have the luxury of having alternate venues to make money.
Movies have theater tickets, DVDs and television syndication
Cars have official used car dealerships
Music has concerts, CD sales, radio and itunes
Meanwhile Games have game sales.
Literature? Oh, I don't know... Movies, Games, Music, Theatre, Comics... to name a few. Heh.Fangobra said:Lies. Games have franchising, expansion packs and crosses into other media. And what does literature have?
Wrong. If I can't buy a used game for $10 there is no guarantee I'd buy this game new for $60.Catalyst6 said:Bear in mind that every single time someone buys a game used the company that produced it loses money.
Yeah. Private ownership is so last century.it's still fully within the rights of the people producing those things to try and make sure everyone that consumes their work actually pays for it. It's something that we're moving towards with things like Netflix or the Kindle, people are tying all kinds of media to subscriptions so at least they get a *little* bit of money out of it.
You high on something? I've bought and sold a crapload of things on eBay.Aftermarket sellers are just parasites.