I take it you aren't a fan of used sales and Gamestop as a whole then, eh?Crelda said:The problem I find with that argument is that if a used version of a game is £2 less than a new one, then there will be people who would have bought the game for the full price but were deterred from it due to a slightly cheaper alternative being available for no compromise. That is one less person who has effectively paid the developers for their game than should have. I know that isn't always the case with all people who buy second hand especially if there is a bigger price gap but I hope you see my point.CM156 said:I would argue this: Because they already sold a copy of the game you are using. By the vary nature of a used sale, the person who bought the product first is no longer playing the game. Despite my dislike for Angry Joe, he did make a good point on this with Homefront: One sale = one person on your servers. It isn't costing you any more than person A keeping it forever.Crelda said:Personally I am on the game devs side for this as long as they keep the removed content to multilayer access. If the companies who make the games aren't getting paid when you buy their game why should they let you use their servers and use up their bandwidth?
Game devs should be able to offer something extra to the people who who actually give them money.
I do want devs and publishers to make money, but for a used market to exist. Giving a reward to a new player is much better then locking out function for a second-hand player.
In terms of rewards over locking out functionality I do agree that is the better option. Though I am sceptical that it could have the same kind of sway.
I can see that point. But this reeks more of "We want more money out of used sales"
I had an idea for how they could make money better: Give people a reason to keep the game for the next few months rather than trading it back in.
Lets say game A is getting released, and they plan to have $35 worth of DLC out over the course of 5-7 months. When buying new, you have a chance to buy a "online pass" of sorts for, say $25, and get all the DLC when it comes out. That rewards people for buying new. If you got it used, you can get the same code for, say $30. Both ways give people a reason to hold onto their disks for the next few months. Thus, at launch, there will be fewer used games competing with the new games. And at the end, when people DO sell off their games, it gives people a chance to play them and buy the DLC at full price if they want. Kinda combine the "Rockstar Pass" with "Cerberus Network". I would be fully behind this plan. If you think ?Oh, but then they would lose money because they wouldn?t make as much money on DLC?, consider this: If I spend $25 on content that is yet to come, I am most likely going to keep the game. This reduces the number of games resold, which will make them more money, because there are fewer copies of the game to buy used. Gamestop can still make money on sales from the kind of people who play a game in 3 days and return it for resale in order to get a new game, and devs/publishers give people more of a reason to want to keep the game if they like it.