what if developers shut down used game sales completely?
- Thread starter Ralen-Sharr
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Here's my biggest problem with the industry trying to do that... you have two options, you are selling a product, or you are selling a license.
For as long as I can remember computer software companies (game and others) have said "You're not buying the actual program, you're just buying a license to use it." This means that they can restrict what you can do with it... No altering it for your own purposes, no transferring it to someone else, no using it on more than one system at a time, etc. And some of those I can be okay with.
But it also means that if I've paid for a license and something happens to the media I have, then the company should send me a free replacement. If I, years from now, want to play the game again, then they should send me a copy to use on my new computer, as long as I can prove it's not running on my old one. I still have a license to do so.
Basically if they want to say that they're selling you a "license" then they better be willing to do all those things, and support it for as long as I want to keep playing it... because if not, what they're really saying is "You bought the product, and now we're done with that."
If they want to argue that it is a "limited time license" then as far as I know, by law, that time limit needs to be explicitly stated. And knowing that your license for a game is only good for 1 year (2 years, whatever) may change how many people are going to pay the high prices we see.
No here's the funny part. I don't really have a problem with them saying I'm buying a license, not allowing me to alter or reverse-engineer their work, and only supporting their software for some reasonable amount of time. That's how it's been done for years. And it seems fair on both sides.
But if the money guys at these development houses think they can try to change the rules of the game to get more money from the people who AREN'T pirating their company's work... then I think we should all be a bit more demanding in what we receive for our "license purchase".
Oh, and I'm sure someone else has said this, but do they really think they're losing much (if any) money on used game sales. People who wait to buy a game used... probably aren't the people who will buy the more expensive new games if the used ones aren't available. Some just won't be playing games much, and others will become pirates. So you'll either be losing some of your potential market as they quit playing, or you'll be getting them used to the idea of not paying... and once they've done that a few times it gets easier and easier to justify to themselves. Neither is good for the industry.
Go after the people pirating your games, not the ones who paid for them, and want to introduce them to other people (even if they're making some money "back") from that.
For as long as I can remember computer software companies (game and others) have said "You're not buying the actual program, you're just buying a license to use it." This means that they can restrict what you can do with it... No altering it for your own purposes, no transferring it to someone else, no using it on more than one system at a time, etc. And some of those I can be okay with.
But it also means that if I've paid for a license and something happens to the media I have, then the company should send me a free replacement. If I, years from now, want to play the game again, then they should send me a copy to use on my new computer, as long as I can prove it's not running on my old one. I still have a license to do so.
Basically if they want to say that they're selling you a "license" then they better be willing to do all those things, and support it for as long as I want to keep playing it... because if not, what they're really saying is "You bought the product, and now we're done with that."
If they want to argue that it is a "limited time license" then as far as I know, by law, that time limit needs to be explicitly stated. And knowing that your license for a game is only good for 1 year (2 years, whatever) may change how many people are going to pay the high prices we see.
No here's the funny part. I don't really have a problem with them saying I'm buying a license, not allowing me to alter or reverse-engineer their work, and only supporting their software for some reasonable amount of time. That's how it's been done for years. And it seems fair on both sides.
But if the money guys at these development houses think they can try to change the rules of the game to get more money from the people who AREN'T pirating their company's work... then I think we should all be a bit more demanding in what we receive for our "license purchase".
Oh, and I'm sure someone else has said this, but do they really think they're losing much (if any) money on used game sales. People who wait to buy a game used... probably aren't the people who will buy the more expensive new games if the used ones aren't available. Some just won't be playing games much, and others will become pirates. So you'll either be losing some of your potential market as they quit playing, or you'll be getting them used to the idea of not paying... and once they've done that a few times it gets easier and easier to justify to themselves. Neither is good for the industry.
Go after the people pirating your games, not the ones who paid for them, and want to introduce them to other people (even if they're making some money "back") from that.
I've only traded in three games ever, and I only did so because I had to pay for something for school.
Because I have limited funds, I tend to be very careful with what I spend my money on, and so I make very careful choices about what I do and do not buy. Buying used is a great way to save money, but then again, so is buying fewer games.
Because I have limited funds, I tend to be very careful with what I spend my money on, and so I make very careful choices about what I do and do not buy. Buying used is a great way to save money, but then again, so is buying fewer games.
Then games become something akin to Pay-Per-View Programming.
And the customer continues to get fucked. Over and over again.
Barring a market crash or some other timely intervention, that is the future of video games.
And the customer continues to get fucked. Over and over again.
Barring a market crash or some other timely intervention, that is the future of video games.
I don't really see that it makes much of a difference. That game was bought brand new at some point in time, the developers got their cut from that particular copy. So the way I see it, who cares? If you want people to buy your games brand new, give them a reason to buy it brand new. If the difference between a used copy and a brand new copy is nothing more than a little wear and tear on the casing and a few scratches on the disc that can be buffed out with ease, then there's no reason to buy it brand new unless someone has to have a brand spankin' new copy.
Being primarily a PC gamer, it doesn't affect me. But I can see why console gamers might not be too receptive, seeing how rentals/second-hand are the cheapest way to play games since digital distribution on the XBox is a cheaper games.
Not to mention getting a new console because the older one went bust would be an absolute clusterfuck.krazykidd said:
Not the developer's or publisher's problem. They don't care.GiantRaven said:
OP: I am very opposed to that idea. The industry having me by the balls is not a prospect that I enjoy imagining.
I've been considering selling all my games/systems after the end of the year anyway. If companies started locking-down games or whatever, it would seal the deal entirely.
I never trade in games, anyway. On the other hand, I used to buy a LOT of used games, and I have an inborn distaste for being screwed over in the name of some corp's bottom line, so I would most likely decided that I'd have to content myself for the rest of my life with the massive collection I've accumulated over the past 20 years and let the 9+th generations go on without me.
I think the increased sales might not be as increased as they hope - especially on mediocre releases. There's definitely a contingent of buyers who buy games with the safety net that if it's crap they can just sell it on.
With PC games, people just tend to wait until the price hits rock-bottom and pick it up for cheaps.
With PC games, people just tend to wait until the price hits rock-bottom and pick it up for cheaps.
Because, according to a lot of users here, it would just be a way for the developers and publishers to stop used sales and make sure that they get paid. And that we should stop feeling so "entitled". Or you can view it as a horrible restriction of consumers' rights and something that can produce unnecessary complications like the example you gave. And publishers really don't care about you, particularly big ones. The introduction of "always on" DRM shows that.GiantRaven said:
Well all of my shit's and grins buys would go out the window, so instead of buying CoD/Rage/Bulletstorm/Random modern shooter and getting 40$ back I just wouldn't buy it at all, if that is their wish then so be it.