SOCOM 4 Holds Features Back from Pre-Owned Purchasers
- Thread starter Logan Westbrook
- Start date
Recommended Videos
But if they waited a month or two, people would realize that it's not a very good game and it would be harder to bilk them.Koroviev said:
MK is rumored to have the online pass scheme; not like I was planning on playing it online anyway, so if they do that, I'm buying it used. If they don't do that, I'll probably buy it new.
The really annoying thing I find about LA Noir is that even if you pre-order it from their preferred retailer and for the preferred platform, you will still not be getting 1 of the 25 cases. You will have to buy it a couple of weeks later... assuming you like the game.
I just said the exact same thing on another thread.Koroviev said:
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/jump/9.277280.10831266
"I couldn't imagine another industry with consumers patient enough to put up with stuff like this: a book publisher saying that chapter 19 will only go to people buying the book from B&N and chapter 22 will only go to people buying from Borders. Or how about a movie where you get some deleted scenes and a commentary if you buy from Target and that there are other deleted scenes you can only watch on a Panasonic dvd player. I didn't mind it when people were just getting simple in-game items or swag but when someone lays down $60 for a game they should get all of the gameplay content developed for that game just like someone buying a novel should get all of the narrative content written for the book."
Exactly. All this talk about saving money... You still spent $55 on this game. Don't talk about new games being too expensive when you're buying $55 used games. That is what's too expensive. Used games should be a lot less than that.StriderShinryu said:
And I say it's good for them to make the price of the pro thing $15. Do you want to pay $70 to play your "cheap" used game, or $60 to play an "expensive" new game? Think about it.
Yeah, never mind that the publisher is the one who gives the money to the developers so that the developers can get paid those salaries. Fuck you publishers! *eye roll*tehroc said:
A cookie for an excellent post. [http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b4/Choco_chip_cookie.png]OutrageousEmu said:
There's a cottage industry built on the practice of buying back software and cutting the actual content provider as much as it possibly can to maximize its own profits, and the publishers/developers are constantly called greedy every time they attempt to stem these losses. You children are remarkable.
PC games are pretty much impossible to return, they are trying to make buying pre owned console games a bad investment. As a pc gamer this doesn't affect me, but it's fucking bush league on their part.
Laughable title notwithstanding, I'm still perpetually confused by something.
What makes publishers think they're entitled to part of the money from the second-hand market? Could you imagine if Ford came around when you bought a used car asking for their slice? I know people buying used games can make it difficult for publishers to sell the amount of games they need to turn a big profit, but its already been proven time and again that if you make a good game, you will make good money. So whats with all the publishers grabbing at used game sales? What make them feel like they're owed the money from used titles? They aren't exactly paying for the shelf space these games take, or the employee's that are needed to make the sales, or stock the shelves, or run the store, so what in the world makes them think they can dip their hand into the second hand market?
If they want money from the second hand market, they have to get involved in it. That means make a deal with a big retailer (like Wal Mart or something) to buy and sell used games of yours. Maybe offer incentives to gamers to use said retail chain (Aside from the incentive that wal mart is typically open all the damn time).
It's hard to sympathize with publishers who are trying to turn a profit when they're using tactics like this to try to tear money out of people.
What makes publishers think they're entitled to part of the money from the second-hand market? Could you imagine if Ford came around when you bought a used car asking for their slice? I know people buying used games can make it difficult for publishers to sell the amount of games they need to turn a big profit, but its already been proven time and again that if you make a good game, you will make good money. So whats with all the publishers grabbing at used game sales? What make them feel like they're owed the money from used titles? They aren't exactly paying for the shelf space these games take, or the employee's that are needed to make the sales, or stock the shelves, or run the store, so what in the world makes them think they can dip their hand into the second hand market?
If they want money from the second hand market, they have to get involved in it. That means make a deal with a big retailer (like Wal Mart or something) to buy and sell used games of yours. Maybe offer incentives to gamers to use said retail chain (Aside from the incentive that wal mart is typically open all the damn time).
It's hard to sympathize with publishers who are trying to turn a profit when they're using tactics like this to try to tear money out of people.
Not really. Games like this don't exactly have a long campaign length, taking most people less than a week to complete. Not everyone is interested in replaying games or in multiplayer, and will just return it once they're done to get credit towards something new.Baresark said:
My mistake, developers indeed get paid from the magic money tree which is unlimited. U R ekonomiks pro.tehroc said:
But they got the first person who bought it to pay full price. Now I know servers are expensive but that's why they sell add space in the game so the larger number of eyeballs in the game the more add revenue they can get. A smarter way to recoup dollars is to force the players who bought used to watch ads while the match loads.ThisIsSnake said:
Better yet make a 30 dollar version that can only be downloaded so they don't have to pay for packaging or shipping but the servers are corporately sponsored. I think it would be so awesomely humiliating to be playing on the server that's being sponsored by Tampax.
The biggest issue in my mind is that, as you point out, games only have one point of sale, that being a new copy. They don't have alternate markets like pretty much every other form of entertainment media (concerts/merch for music, multiple releases for movies, etc.), and they don't have any hand in licensing the sale/care of their products (dealers, official repair shops, etc. for cars).Marudas said:
Game companies should definitely come up with other ways to create money from their products instead of relying so heavily on trying to curb used sales, and they are working on it (see today's news about THQ's new atv game). I can't say I blame them though for looking at the most obvious source of lost income. GameStop and companies like it exist almost entirely on the labour of the game industry and I would say the vast majority of their "used" game sales could easily be new game sales when the price difference is often so small.