people wouldnt buy games pre owned if they werent so damn expensive!!! did u know that publishers???
yeah i though that too.kman123 said:
SOCOM 4 Holds Features Back from Pre-Owned Purchasers
- Thread starter Logan Westbrook
- Start date
....
Why is it so wrong to buy preowned (Flameshield: Yeah so COMPANY doesnt get the full $60)
some of this shit isnt worth the $60 you pay for it (Bulletstorm IMO).
So say you buy it used...(IE Gamestop) you would drop $55 used and then have to drop $15 to pay the "subscription" too?
Why is it so wrong to buy preowned (Flameshield: Yeah so COMPANY doesnt get the full $60)
some of this shit isnt worth the $60 you pay for it (Bulletstorm IMO).
So say you buy it used...(IE Gamestop) you would drop $55 used and then have to drop $15 to pay the "subscription" too?
The main problem would be of course, that if the price of new is reduced so will the price of used. Until the price is reduced to so low that it is equal to buying a DVD or Bluray that it's not worth trading in any more, people will still be able to get them used.Scrumpmonkey said:
Most people trade in games simply because they can't afford to buy the next one they want, so have to sacrifice the older one. Imagine having to do that with DVDs/Blurays? I can't believe the film industry would survive in such a market.
I personally think the games market is overdue for a new crash and things like this are small attempts to hold it off, don't really think it's going to work though.
I love the bit where it tells you the the membership won't be available till a week after release... If your game is showing up used in less than a week, then you have a real piece of shit on your hands.
OT: This was inevitable. And as soon as the Gamestop gets a used copy in, they will be selling it for $55, so it won't even be worth going pro from a used copy for a while. If Gamestop were smart though, they would sell it for cheap enough that it's only $55 with Pro membership, so we can get the game even cheaper if we don't give a crap about pro. Meh, it's been like this on the PC for a long long time, it's impossible to buy used games unless they are really old.
PS. This only enforces the $60 game model though, it forces you to stay within that model, and if games keep selling then it's like saying you're ok with them charging that much for them.
OT: This was inevitable. And as soon as the Gamestop gets a used copy in, they will be selling it for $55, so it won't even be worth going pro from a used copy for a while. If Gamestop were smart though, they would sell it for cheap enough that it's only $55 with Pro membership, so we can get the game even cheaper if we don't give a crap about pro. Meh, it's been like this on the PC for a long long time, it's impossible to buy used games unless they are really old.
PS. This only enforces the $60 game model though, it forces you to stay within that model, and if games keep selling then it's like saying you're ok with them charging that much for them.
Wow I wish I lived in America. New games cost around $100-110 new over here, and yet pre-owned can drop $30-50 off the price. Here the discount is worth it. It seems like a good idea as the person who sends back the game has already paid the full price for it and I fail to see why the game needs to be purchased twice. Am I missing something? No new product is being created and the user base is staying the same size...so why the added cost for pre-owned?StriderShinryu said:
Thats what I was thinking...teebeeohh said:
Not much to say here but whatever, probably wasnt going to buy SOCOM 4 anyways. Though I can never fully be against a practice like this, as it is aimed for making money off of used game sales.
I can understand the idea behind this. I mean, used game sales essentially hurt company profits, however little. Not long ago, there was little to no incentive to buying a game new, especially with used newer games where disc damage was unlikely and the price is 5-10 dollars cheaper. It can be interpreted as greed, but they have to get their profits back somehow.
However, the 15 dollar price tag is just far too steep, especially for lackluster DLC. For Dragon Age, as much as I loved her character, I sure as hell would not have paid 15 bucks just to get Shale on my party. This game's content at least seems to be worth the investment, though I wouldn't hold my breath until I know the game is actually decent.
However, the 15 dollar price tag is just far too steep, especially for lackluster DLC. For Dragon Age, as much as I loved her character, I sure as hell would not have paid 15 bucks just to get Shale on my party. This game's content at least seems to be worth the investment, though I wouldn't hold my breath until I know the game is actually decent.
this is bullshit because they've left it so late to tell us. I bet they'll make a lot more off of this game by doing this than they would if everyone bought new. this game isn't going to sell as it is so people will be picking up preowned copies left right and center.
"The pass also grants access to two new weapons: the M-16 for Navy SEALs players and the AK-47 for Insurgent..."
You know, I can't wait for Duke Nukem forever. A none-too-subtle return to games that let you use new and innovative ways to blast alien pigmen apart. It's so much better than military games, where standard weapons soldiers are outfitted with on their first day of training AREN'T CONSIDERED #%@&ING "UNLOCKABLES"! $&%#ing hell.
And "two new weapons"? Why do game developers feel any weapon made nearly half a century ago needs to be 'unlocked' and considered 'new' in order for its divine brilliance to illuminate the digital battlefield. Who in the world is their 'military information adviser' or whatever they call that position, AND WHY AREN'T THE DEVELOPERS LISTENING TO THEM.
Got to work an hour early, so I'm spending my time *%@#ing on the boards right now. Fun fun.
You know, I can't wait for Duke Nukem forever. A none-too-subtle return to games that let you use new and innovative ways to blast alien pigmen apart. It's so much better than military games, where standard weapons soldiers are outfitted with on their first day of training AREN'T CONSIDERED #%@&ING "UNLOCKABLES"! $&%#ing hell.
And "two new weapons"? Why do game developers feel any weapon made nearly half a century ago needs to be 'unlocked' and considered 'new' in order for its divine brilliance to illuminate the digital battlefield. Who in the world is their 'military information adviser' or whatever they call that position, AND WHY AREN'T THE DEVELOPERS LISTENING TO THEM.
Got to work an hour early, so I'm spending my time *%@#ing on the boards right now. Fun fun.
agreed, regardless of your views on the game black ops is king of the FPS market....followed closely by HaloBoyninja616 said:
Fantastic. Yet another company jumping onto the too-far-up-their-own-arses EA bandwagon and eliminating yet more pre-owned sales. Which is bad news when you work for a video game company that RELIES on pre-owned sales for a good chunk of their profit.
No they want some money for their troubles. Everyone knows developers and publishers get no money from pre-owned sales. It's only fair that they'd seek to make some money out of it.TwitchyGamer101 said:
OT: I've already stated in topics for different games that I don't mind this sort of stuff. I only ever buy new anyway.
Is it wrong my objection to this was actually.teebeeohh said:
'Would Navy SEAls want a large and unwieldy service rifle?'
WRONG! Developers get paid on salary, they get paid whether you buy the game or not. Their available royalties are minuscule just like in the recording industry. Buying preowned games only screws with the publishers and publisher can just go fuck off for all I care.ThisIsSnake said: