Et tu EA?

[oplinger]

Maybe if games were actually good I'd buy things new. Until then, I haven't bought a new game since Mass Effect 2, and I won't buy a new game until Skyrim. EA games tend to blend together also. I'd rather just play Combat Arms and actually keep playing with a large amount of people for longer than 6 months. I guarantee you can't say that for 95% of all multiplayer games on Xbox Live.

The 10 dollar project doesn't stop you from picking up a game six months from now a stream or online or a at a big box etc..etc...etc... only the asinine used games racket.

What are your feelings on used books?

Frankly I don't buy used books I purchase new or use public library facilities

Wait a second, you use libraries, and you're judging me for buying used games? Hypocrisy, thy name is Normandyfoxtrot.

I have no issue with games rental, and a library is simply a literary form of public rental.

That's even worse. You have no problem with rental, which let's you pay someone $5-$10 bucks to have the game out for a weekend, and potentially beat it in that time, but you don't want people to buy used? The dev isn't getting any money from you either way. And don't bring up that old story about how rental places have to pay more. Blockbuster did it back in the 80's, but that was just to appease the film companies, who were really leery of the whole home video thing. There was never any legal reason for them to do so; the right of first sale states that whoever first buys a product can do whatever the heck they like with it. This includes selling it on or renting it out. That's right, the used market is not simply legal because there's no law against it; there's actually a federal law on the books which expressly protects it.

As you probably know now ethic and law often have little if anything to actually do with eachother. As for my support of rental, ultimately it comes to how the system is limited in it's nature.

Ethics really doesn't play into this, and in what little way it does, the morality of it is different depending on which side of the fence you sit on. For the most part, it's economics; as producers, the publishers try to separate their customers from as much money as they can for as little product as they can. As consumers, we try to separate the producers from as much product as we can for as little money as we can. Why is it that so many people on this site immediately jump to the defense of their economic opponents?

Personally, it's ethics to me what is right and what is wrong, I don't care about money once I have enough that I can eat I really don't care about the rest and since i don't and likely never will have anyone relying on my fore their survival I'm allowed the luxury of worry about ethics.

That doesn't even make any sense, at least in context. Care to elaborate?

If I approach a product I have a duty to ensure that the creator of such product is fully and properly compensated, just as a company should have the same duty to their consumer and frankly this is all immaterial to rather or not one party or another refuses to complete their portion of the bargain.

No, you have a duty to see that the owner of that product is properly compensated. That whole license thing is the biggest lie a group of consumers have ever swallowed. To use an argument that directly involves intellectual property, let's say I have a book which I have legally acquired. If I decide to sell on the book, should the person I sell it to pay me, or should they send a money order to the author? Remember here that I'm the one who is losing a copy, and presumably an infinitely copyable digital version exists somewhere, from whence my copy was made.

Physical copies of books are not licensed. You really do own them. E-books are licensed however. So if you're selling a physical copy of a book, you get paid. It's yours. Can't do that with an E-book. ...Licensing is bullshit though. I can agree with that.

I'm glad to see you agree with the licensing bit -- there are too few people on the Escapist who do. Let's extend the book comparison for a bit. With that physical copy, you aren't given copyright. You have a hard copy, but you can't legally do anything with the contents of it except pass it on to another consumer, depriving yourself of that copy in the process. Is there any difference between that and the "licenses" that game companies supposedly sell us? Or are they really selling us a physical copy, and then claiming they sold us a license in order to damage the used market? I agree that E-books are sold as a license, but then so are games on Steam; there's no physical product sold in either case, and used sales are literally impossible.

It's a little different yes. ...If you don't accept the license on a game you can't play or install it. The company has more control with it. If they could do it to books i'm sure they would. They get us on the fact that "we agreed to the terms" which...really is true. We'd rather agree to the terms than not play games though, as most people don't seem to have a problem with the terms. Sadly a game is like an Ebook on a disk. Not a real book. It being digital media let's them kinda strong arm us into agreeing.

Keyword, strongarm. If any other industry tried to make you do that, the contract wouldn't hold up in court, because it would have been made under duress. There's such a thing as an invalid contract.

Well technically, movies are protected in a very similar way. You don't own the movie. You own the license to own the movie and watch it privately. You agree by watching. You don't even get to click yes.

 

[Owyn_Merrilin]

Maybe if games were actually good I'd buy things new. Until then, I haven't bought a new game since Mass Effect 2, and I won't buy a new game until Skyrim. EA games tend to blend together also. I'd rather just play Combat Arms and actually keep playing with a large amount of people for longer than 6 months. I guarantee you can't say that for 95% of all multiplayer games on Xbox Live.

The 10 dollar project doesn't stop you from picking up a game six months from now a stream or online or a at a big box etc..etc...etc... only the asinine used games racket.

What are your feelings on used books?

Frankly I don't buy used books I purchase new or use public library facilities

Wait a second, you use libraries, and you're judging me for buying used games? Hypocrisy, thy name is Normandyfoxtrot.

I have no issue with games rental, and a library is simply a literary form of public rental.

That's even worse. You have no problem with rental, which let's you pay someone $5-$10 bucks to have the game out for a weekend, and potentially beat it in that time, but you don't want people to buy used? The dev isn't getting any money from you either way. And don't bring up that old story about how rental places have to pay more. Blockbuster did it back in the 80's, but that was just to appease the film companies, who were really leery of the whole home video thing. There was never any legal reason for them to do so; the right of first sale states that whoever first buys a product can do whatever the heck they like with it. This includes selling it on or renting it out. That's right, the used market is not simply legal because there's no law against it; there's actually a federal law on the books which expressly protects it.

As you probably know now ethic and law often have little if anything to actually do with eachother. As for my support of rental, ultimately it comes to how the system is limited in it's nature.

Ethics really doesn't play into this, and in what little way it does, the morality of it is different depending on which side of the fence you sit on. For the most part, it's economics; as producers, the publishers try to separate their customers from as much money as they can for as little product as they can. As consumers, we try to separate the producers from as much product as we can for as little money as we can. Why is it that so many people on this site immediately jump to the defense of their economic opponents?

Personally, it's ethics to me what is right and what is wrong, I don't care about money once I have enough that I can eat I really don't care about the rest and since i don't and likely never will have anyone relying on my fore their survival I'm allowed the luxury of worry about ethics.

That doesn't even make any sense, at least in context. Care to elaborate?

If I approach a product I have a duty to ensure that the creator of such product is fully and properly compensated, just as a company should have the same duty to their consumer and frankly this is all immaterial to rather or not one party or another refuses to complete their portion of the bargain.

No, you have a duty to see that the owner of that product is properly compensated. That whole license thing is the biggest lie a group of consumers have ever swallowed. To use an argument that directly involves intellectual property, let's say I have a book which I have legally acquired. If I decide to sell on the book, should the person I sell it to pay me, or should they send a money order to the author? Remember here that I'm the one who is losing a copy, and presumably an infinitely copyable digital version exists somewhere, from whence my copy was made.

Physical copies of books are not licensed. You really do own them. E-books are licensed however. So if you're selling a physical copy of a book, you get paid. It's yours. Can't do that with an E-book. ...Licensing is bullshit though. I can agree with that.

I'm glad to see you agree with the licensing bit -- there are too few people on the Escapist who do. Let's extend the book comparison for a bit. With that physical copy, you aren't given copyright. You have a hard copy, but you can't legally do anything with the contents of it except pass it on to another consumer, depriving yourself of that copy in the process. Is there any difference between that and the "licenses" that game companies supposedly sell us? Or are they really selling us a physical copy, and then claiming they sold us a license in order to damage the used market? I agree that E-books are sold as a license, but then so are games on Steam; there's no physical product sold in either case, and used sales are literally impossible.

It's a little different yes. ...If you don't accept the license on a game you can't play or install it. The company has more control with it. If they could do it to books i'm sure they would. They get us on the fact that "we agreed to the terms" which...really is true. We'd rather agree to the terms than not play games though, as most people don't seem to have a problem with the terms. Sadly a game is like an Ebook on a disk. Not a real book. It being digital media let's them kinda strong arm us into agreeing.

Keyword, strongarm. If any other industry tried to make you do that, the contract wouldn't hold up in court, because it would have been made under duress. There's such a thing as an invalid contract.

Well technically, movies are protected in a very similar way. You don't own the movie. You own the license to own the movie and watch it privately. You agree by watching. You don't even get to click yes.

Are you psychic or something? You responded to my edit before I even posted it. However, the claims they have at the beginning of the DVD are largely false; the right of first sale, which I mentioned earlier in the thread, invalidates the vast majority of them, at least in the US.

 

[stefman]

this may also help people save money, as in "is it really worth the money? can i afford to skip it to play something i really want to play?"

 

[Projo]

Why should they? A used sale gives them the same amount of money that a pirated copy does. They have every right to withhold content in used copies to encourage people to buy it new so they can make a profit.

The flaw with this is that in the end, the same game will be bought twice. A used game is not a new copy. Someone already gave EA $60 for that game. When someone buys it used, EA has already made money off of it. Why should they get paid multiple times from the same individual product? It's not like used game story get their used games from some magical used game fairy. The producer already made a profit off of the game. Someone had to buy it in the first place. Why should they make another profit every time the same individual disc is sold?

 

[Snotnarok]

But they're still fucking a legitimate consumer out of extra money. He didn't steal the game, he bought it a few months after it came out after someone else played it.
Also, DLC may be made between when the game is finished and shipped. You're getting extra stuff, not being denied a complete product.

You're not being denied a complete product, you're getting extra optional material that you do not need to play the functioning game. You're simply being charged for buying used, a measely 10 dollars, the person who bought new probably ended up giving them more than 10 dollars in the long run, and they got all the optional features as a bonus.

But which will you play more?
Also, Call of Duty has a campaign, but it's lasting quality is clearly multiplayer.

Doesn't matter which I play more, the game is still functional even if they gave me multiplayer over single player. But it's be silly for them to charge me for single player I don't want, they have to make it interesting for me. So they do it to multiplayer, as it costs upkeep. Also if I bought it for the multiplayer, then I'd give them the 10 bucks, as I'm still getting it cheaper than buying it new if I played my cards right.

But isn't multiplayer part of a functioning game? And am I not being denied part of a functioning part of a game?

No you're not being denied anything, you bought it used, which means you paid the developer and publisher nothing but you're still able to play a large portion of the game. So whatever entitlement you think you have you don't.

The multilayer costs money to upkeep with severs and all that nonsense, you gave them nothing so you don't get access to that function there's no arguing here. It's called intensive, buy two get one free, did you buy two? Yes? You get one free! No? You get nothing.

It's a big company with lots of people and they all worked hard to make a game and they want you to pay for it. Buying used means you didn't pay them at all.

That doesn't mean they get to treat me like a criminal. I'm well aware that publishers and developers make no distinction between those who pirate and those who buy games used, but we're not the same. Am I really a bad person just because I want to save a few bucks?

No one is treating you like a criminal, let me explain this to you more simple.

You buy used game, money goes ONLY TO GAMESTOP and NOT EA.

You are saving a few bucks yes, but you are NOT paying EA for what they made, you are paying gamestop for the game. So the 10 dollars EA is asking you to pay, is to get something out of that used game sale because otherwise they get NOTHING. So if you want to save a few bucks, expect to get less content.

Think of it as buying a used gameboy, you saved a few bucks but you're missing the battery cover for it.

Not if you bought one in decent condition. It's more like you bought a used Gameboy, but Nintendo has a deal with the seller to withhold the speakers, the headphone jack, and the battery cover until you give them a cut of the profit. It's not like you need any of those to play games...

[sub]I told you I was willing to argue this.[/sub]

Okay, I have no idea how you and the OP are skipping over this point, buying used IS NOT PAYING THE DEVELOPER. You're basically paying for a pirated copy at this point because the developer makes no money so you are NOT entitled to things that you didn't pay THEM for.

I'm not yelling here, I'm just tired of typing the same thing and want these points to be well set. The developer is using the DLC to make SOMETHING out of the used game, because otherwise they don't make a cent. It's a choice that you gotta make, can you live with out the DLC? Yes? Then go ahead get it used, but if you want everything, buy it used.

 

[oplinger]

Maybe if games were actually good I'd buy things new. Until then, I haven't bought a new game since Mass Effect 2, and I won't buy a new game until Skyrim. EA games tend to blend together also. I'd rather just play Combat Arms and actually keep playing with a large amount of people for longer than 6 months. I guarantee you can't say that for 95% of all multiplayer games on Xbox Live.

The 10 dollar project doesn't stop you from picking up a game six months from now a stream or online or a at a big box etc..etc...etc... only the asinine used games racket.

What are your feelings on used books?

Frankly I don't buy used books I purchase new or use public library facilities

Wait a second, you use libraries, and you're judging me for buying used games? Hypocrisy, thy name is Normandyfoxtrot.

I have no issue with games rental, and a library is simply a literary form of public rental.

That's even worse. You have no problem with rental, which let's you pay someone $5-$10 bucks to have the game out for a weekend, and potentially beat it in that time, but you don't want people to buy used? The dev isn't getting any money from you either way. And don't bring up that old story about how rental places have to pay more. Blockbuster did it back in the 80's, but that was just to appease the film companies, who were really leery of the whole home video thing. There was never any legal reason for them to do so; the right of first sale states that whoever first buys a product can do whatever the heck they like with it. This includes selling it on or renting it out. That's right, the used market is not simply legal because there's no law against it; there's actually a federal law on the books which expressly protects it.

As you probably know now ethic and law often have little if anything to actually do with eachother. As for my support of rental, ultimately it comes to how the system is limited in it's nature.

Ethics really doesn't play into this, and in what little way it does, the morality of it is different depending on which side of the fence you sit on. For the most part, it's economics; as producers, the publishers try to separate their customers from as much money as they can for as little product as they can. As consumers, we try to separate the producers from as much product as we can for as little money as we can. Why is it that so many people on this site immediately jump to the defense of their economic opponents?

Personally, it's ethics to me what is right and what is wrong, I don't care about money once I have enough that I can eat I really don't care about the rest and since i don't and likely never will have anyone relying on my fore their survival I'm allowed the luxury of worry about ethics.

That doesn't even make any sense, at least in context. Care to elaborate?

If I approach a product I have a duty to ensure that the creator of such product is fully and properly compensated, just as a company should have the same duty to their consumer and frankly this is all immaterial to rather or not one party or another refuses to complete their portion of the bargain.

No, you have a duty to see that the owner of that product is properly compensated. That whole license thing is the biggest lie a group of consumers have ever swallowed. To use an argument that directly involves intellectual property, let's say I have a book which I have legally acquired. If I decide to sell on the book, should the person I sell it to pay me, or should they send a money order to the author? Remember here that I'm the one who is losing a copy, and presumably an infinitely copyable digital version exists somewhere, from whence my copy was made.

Physical copies of books are not licensed. You really do own them. E-books are licensed however. So if you're selling a physical copy of a book, you get paid. It's yours. Can't do that with an E-book. ...Licensing is bullshit though. I can agree with that.

I'm glad to see you agree with the licensing bit -- there are too few people on the Escapist who do. Let's extend the book comparison for a bit. With that physical copy, you aren't given copyright. You have a hard copy, but you can't legally do anything with the contents of it except pass it on to another consumer, depriving yourself of that copy in the process. Is there any difference between that and the "licenses" that game companies supposedly sell us? Or are they really selling us a physical copy, and then claiming they sold us a license in order to damage the used market? I agree that E-books are sold as a license, but then so are games on Steam; there's no physical product sold in either case, and used sales are literally impossible.

It's a little different yes. ...If you don't accept the license on a game you can't play or install it. The company has more control with it. If they could do it to books i'm sure they would. They get us on the fact that "we agreed to the terms" which...really is true. We'd rather agree to the terms than not play games though, as most people don't seem to have a problem with the terms. Sadly a game is like an Ebook on a disk. Not a real book. It being digital media let's them kinda strong arm us into agreeing.

Keyword, strongarm. If any other industry tried to make you do that, the contract wouldn't hold up in court, because it would have been made under duress. There's such a thing as an invalid contract.

Well technically, movies are protected in a very similar way. You don't own the movie. You own the license to own the movie and watch it privately. You agree by watching. You don't even get to click yes.

Are you psychic or something? You responded to my edit before I even posted it. However, the claims they have at the beginning of the DVD are largely false; the right of first sale, which I mentioned earlier in the thread, invalidates the vast majority of them, at least in the US.

Yeah, but also nothing is stopping you from selling the game. Obviously since the used game market is so huge. Gaming has to be thought about differently though. Music has concerts, movies have theaters. ..books..have...um...a vastly overpopulation problem to really be a problem..? I don't know. But there's something with books dammit. Games don't have anything like that, they'd be like a direct to DVD movie, which granted are usually crap, but it's the same concept in a way. That's their only revenue. The devs can't hit up a stage and have EXTREME GAME DESIGN and have a contest for your entertainment. It'd probably be really boring too...

So, they do have to think of other ways to make money, like having people who buy used games pay 10 dollars. ...Sadly i think it should go to the devs, not the publishers...

 

[Owyn_Merrilin]

But they're still fucking a legitimate consumer out of extra money. He didn't steal the game, he bought it a few months after it came out after someone else played it.
Also, DLC may be made between when the game is finished and shipped. You're getting extra stuff, not being denied a complete product.

You're not being denied a complete product, you're getting extra optional material that you do not need to play the functioning game. You're simply being charged for buying used, a measely 10 dollars, the person who bought new probably ended up giving them more than 10 dollars in the long run, and they got all the optional features as a bonus.

But which will you play more?
Also, Call of Duty has a campaign, but it's lasting quality is clearly multiplayer.

Doesn't matter which I play more, the game is still functional even if they gave me multiplayer over single player. But it's be silly for them to charge me for single player I don't want, they have to make it interesting for me. So they do it to multiplayer, as it costs upkeep. Also if I bought it for the multiplayer, then I'd give them the 10 bucks, as I'm still getting it cheaper than buying it new if I played my cards right.

But isn't multiplayer part of a functioning game? And am I not being denied part of a functioning part of a game?

No you're not being denied anything, you bought it used, which means you paid the developer and publisher nothing but you're still able to play a large portion of the game. So whatever entitlement you think you have you don't.

The multilayer costs money to upkeep with severs and all that nonsense, you gave them nothing so you don't get access to that function there's no arguing here. It's called intensive, buy two get one free, did you buy two? Yes? You get one free! No? You get nothing.

It's a big company with lots of people and they all worked hard to make a game and they want you to pay for it. Buying used means you didn't pay them at all.

That doesn't mean they get to treat me like a criminal. I'm well aware that publishers and developers make no distinction between those who pirate and those who buy games used, but we're not the same. Am I really a bad person just because I want to save a few bucks?

No one is treating you like a criminal, let me explain this to you more simple.

You buy used game, money goes ONLY TO GAMESTOP and NOT EA.

You are saving a few bucks yes, but you are NOT paying EA for what they made, you are paying gamestop for the game. So the 10 dollars EA is asking you to pay, is to get something out of that used game sale because otherwise they get NOTHING. So if you want to save a few bucks, expect to get less content.

Think of it as buying a used gameboy, you saved a few bucks but you're missing the battery cover for it.

Not if you bought one in decent condition. It's more like you bought a used Gameboy, but Nintendo has a deal with the seller to withhold the speakers, the headphone jack, and the battery cover until you give them a cut of the profit. It's not like you need any of those to play games...

[sub]I told you I was willing to argue this.[/sub]

Okay, I have no idea how you and the OP are skipping over this point, buying used IS NOT PAYING THE DEVELOPER. You're basically paying for a pirated copy at this point because the developer makes no money so you are NOT entitled to things that you didn't pay THEM for.

I'm not yelling here, I'm just tired of typing the same thing and want these points to be well set. The developer is using the DLC to make SOMETHING out of the used game, because otherwise they don't make a cent. It's a choice that you gotta make, can you live with out the DLC? Yes? Then go ahead get it used, but if you want everything, buy it used.

We aren't skipping over the point, you're failing to recognize that the developer has already been paid, by the original owner of that game. I really don't understand how you guys can do that. Also, we have bold, italic, and underlined tags. There's no need to go all caps if you aren't yelling.

 

[Normandyfoxtrot]

But they're still fucking a legitimate consumer out of extra money. He didn't steal the game, he bought it a few months after it came out after someone else played it.
Also, DLC may be made between when the game is finished and shipped. You're getting extra stuff, not being denied a complete product.

You're not being denied a complete product, you're getting extra optional material that you do not need to play the functioning game. You're simply being charged for buying used, a measely 10 dollars, the person who bought new probably ended up giving them more than 10 dollars in the long run, and they got all the optional features as a bonus.

But which will you play more?
Also, Call of Duty has a campaign, but it's lasting quality is clearly multiplayer.

Doesn't matter which I play more, the game is still functional even if they gave me multiplayer over single player. But it's be silly for them to charge me for single player I don't want, they have to make it interesting for me. So they do it to multiplayer, as it costs upkeep. Also if I bought it for the multiplayer, then I'd give them the 10 bucks, as I'm still getting it cheaper than buying it new if I played my cards right.

But isn't multiplayer part of a functioning game? And am I not being denied part of a functioning part of a game?

No you're not being denied anything, you bought it used, which means you paid the developer and publisher nothing but you're still able to play a large portion of the game. So whatever entitlement you think you have you don't.

The multilayer costs money to upkeep with severs and all that nonsense, you gave them nothing so you don't get access to that function there's no arguing here. It's called intensive, buy two get one free, did you buy two? Yes? You get one free! No? You get nothing.

It's a big company with lots of people and they all worked hard to make a game and they want you to pay for it. Buying used means you didn't pay them at all.

That doesn't mean they get to treat me like a criminal. I'm well aware that publishers and developers make no distinction between those who pirate and those who buy games used, but we're not the same. Am I really a bad person just because I want to save a few bucks?

No one is treating you like a criminal, let me explain this to you more simple.

You buy used game, money goes ONLY TO GAMESTOP and NOT EA.

You are saving a few bucks yes, but you are NOT paying EA for what they made, you are paying gamestop for the game. So the 10 dollars EA is asking you to pay, is to get something out of that used game sale because otherwise they get NOTHING. So if you want to save a few bucks, expect to get less content.

Think of it as buying a used gameboy, you saved a few bucks but you're missing the battery cover for it.

Not if you bought one in decent condition. It's more like you bought a used Gameboy, but Nintendo has a deal with the seller to withhold the speakers, the headphone jack, and the battery cover until you give them a cut of the profit. It's not like you need any of those to play games...

[sub]I told you I was willing to argue this.[/sub]

Okay, I have no idea how you and the OP are skipping over this point, buying used IS NOT PAYING THE DEVELOPER. You're basically paying for a pirated copy at this point because the developer makes no money so you are NOT entitled to things that you didn't pay THEM for.

I'm not yelling here, I'm just tired of typing the same thing and want these points to be well set. The developer is using the DLC to make SOMETHING out of the used game, because otherwise they don't make a cent. It's a choice that you gotta make, can you live with out the DLC? Yes? Then go ahead get it used, but if you want everything, buy it used.

Your reaching too far here piracy is illegal period it doesn't get to have messy ethical grounds, it's simply is unethical.

 

[Snotnarok]

But they're still fucking a legitimate consumer out of extra money. He didn't steal the game, he bought it a few months after it came out after someone else played it.
Also, DLC may be made between when the game is finished and shipped. You're getting extra stuff, not being denied a complete product.

You're not being denied a complete product, you're getting extra optional material that you do not need to play the functioning game. You're simply being charged for buying used, a measely 10 dollars, the person who bought new probably ended up giving them more than 10 dollars in the long run, and they got all the optional features as a bonus.

But which will you play more?
Also, Call of Duty has a campaign, but it's lasting quality is clearly multiplayer.

Doesn't matter which I play more, the game is still functional even if they gave me multiplayer over single player. But it's be silly for them to charge me for single player I don't want, they have to make it interesting for me. So they do it to multiplayer, as it costs upkeep. Also if I bought it for the multiplayer, then I'd give them the 10 bucks, as I'm still getting it cheaper than buying it new if I played my cards right.

But isn't multiplayer part of a functioning game? And am I not being denied part of a functioning part of a game?

No you're not being denied anything, you bought it used, which means you paid the developer and publisher nothing but you're still able to play a large portion of the game. So whatever entitlement you think you have you don't.

The multilayer costs money to upkeep with severs and all that nonsense, you gave them nothing so you don't get access to that function there's no arguing here. It's called intensive, buy two get one free, did you buy two? Yes? You get one free! No? You get nothing.

It's a big company with lots of people and they all worked hard to make a game and they want you to pay for it. Buying used means you didn't pay them at all.

That doesn't mean they get to treat me like a criminal. I'm well aware that publishers and developers make no distinction between those who pirate and those who buy games used, but we're not the same. Am I really a bad person just because I want to save a few bucks?

No one is treating you like a criminal, let me explain this to you more simple.

You buy used game, money goes ONLY TO GAMESTOP and NOT EA.

You are saving a few bucks yes, but you are NOT paying EA for what they made, you are paying gamestop for the game. So the 10 dollars EA is asking you to pay, is to get something out of that used game sale because otherwise they get NOTHING. So if you want to save a few bucks, expect to get less content.

Think of it as buying a used gameboy, you saved a few bucks but you're missing the battery cover for it.

Not if you bought one in decent condition. It's more like you bought a used Gameboy, but Nintendo has a deal with the seller to withhold the speakers, the headphone jack, and the battery cover until you give them a cut of the profit. It's not like you need any of those to play games...

[sub]I told you I was willing to argue this.[/sub]

Okay, I have no idea how you and the OP are skipping over this point, buying used IS NOT PAYING THE DEVELOPER. You're basically paying for a pirated copy at this point because the developer makes no money so you are NOT entitled to things that you didn't pay THEM for.

I'm not yelling here, I'm just tired of typing the same thing and want these points to be well set. The developer is using the DLC to make SOMETHING out of the used game, because otherwise they don't make a cent. It's a choice that you gotta make, can you live with out the DLC? Yes? Then go ahead get it used, but if you want everything, buy it used.

We aren't skipping over the point, you're failing to recognize that the developer has already been paid, by the original owner of that game. I really don't understand how you guys can do that. Also, we have bold, italic, and underlined tags. There's no need to go all caps if you aren't yelling.

Bold requires tags and my hands are occupied with frenchfries.

Yes, the previous owner paid for that, but you're not giving anything to the developer. And they want SOME money out of this. Is this right? ehhhh Honestly I don't care, it's a simple fact, do you want that extra content? Buy it new. Think of it as the special edition to a movie, you want those extra scenes then you gotta pay.

But the thing is, this is an OPTION. You can say "I want and I deserve" all you want but you get what you pay for, and no ones forcing you to pay the extra 10 bucks, you're making that choice.

Again, if you feel it's wrong, don't buy the game at all. I think DRM is absolute bullshit and I refuse to pay for that garbage, and I won't buy the game. There, I've avoided the DRM and the developer doesn't get shit from me. *shrug*

But they're still fucking a legitimate consumer out of extra money. He didn't steal the game, he bought it a few months after it came out after someone else played it.
Also, DLC may be made between when the game is finished and shipped. You're getting extra stuff, not being denied a complete product.

You're not being denied a complete product, you're getting extra optional material that you do not need to play the functioning game. You're simply being charged for buying used, a measely 10 dollars, the person who bought new probably ended up giving them more than 10 dollars in the long run, and they got all the optional features as a bonus.

But which will you play more?
Also, Call of Duty has a campaign, but it's lasting quality is clearly multiplayer.

Doesn't matter which I play more, the game is still functional even if they gave me multiplayer over single player. But it's be silly for them to charge me for single player I don't want, they have to make it interesting for me. So they do it to multiplayer, as it costs upkeep. Also if I bought it for the multiplayer, then I'd give them the 10 bucks, as I'm still getting it cheaper than buying it new if I played my cards right.

But isn't multiplayer part of a functioning game? And am I not being denied part of a functioning part of a game?

No you're not being denied anything, you bought it used, which means you paid the developer and publisher nothing but you're still able to play a large portion of the game. So whatever entitlement you think you have you don't.

The multilayer costs money to upkeep with severs and all that nonsense, you gave them nothing so you don't get access to that function there's no arguing here. It's called intensive, buy two get one free, did you buy two? Yes? You get one free! No? You get nothing.

It's a big company with lots of people and they all worked hard to make a game and they want you to pay for it. Buying used means you didn't pay them at all.

That doesn't mean they get to treat me like a criminal. I'm well aware that publishers and developers make no distinction between those who pirate and those who buy games used, but we're not the same. Am I really a bad person just because I want to save a few bucks?

No one is treating you like a criminal, let me explain this to you more simple.

You buy used game, money goes ONLY TO GAMESTOP and NOT EA.

You are saving a few bucks yes, but you are NOT paying EA for what they made, you are paying gamestop for the game. So the 10 dollars EA is asking you to pay, is to get something out of that used game sale because otherwise they get NOTHING. So if you want to save a few bucks, expect to get less content.

Think of it as buying a used gameboy, you saved a few bucks but you're missing the battery cover for it.

Not if you bought one in decent condition. It's more like you bought a used Gameboy, but Nintendo has a deal with the seller to withhold the speakers, the headphone jack, and the battery cover until you give them a cut of the profit. It's not like you need any of those to play games...

[sub]I told you I was willing to argue this.[/sub]

Okay, I have no idea how you and the OP are skipping over this point, buying used IS NOT PAYING THE DEVELOPER. You're basically paying for a pirated copy at this point because the developer makes no money so you are NOT entitled to things that you didn't pay THEM for.

I'm not yelling here, I'm just tired of typing the same thing and want these points to be well set. The developer is using the DLC to make SOMETHING out of the used game, because otherwise they don't make a cent. It's a choice that you gotta make, can you live with out the DLC? Yes? Then go ahead get it used, but if you want everything, buy it used.

Your reaching too far here piracy is illegal period it doesn't get to have messy ethical grounds, it's simply is unethical.

Hah, okay whatever, you get what you pay for. Pick new, or used and if you're upset it's the choice you made so be angry at your decision. Regardless if it's BS or not you're choosing to deal with it then you complain about it. It's nonsense, don't buy it if you know it's bullshit.

 

[Owyn_Merrilin]

But they're still fucking a legitimate consumer out of extra money. He didn't steal the game, he bought it a few months after it came out after someone else played it.
Also, DLC may be made between when the game is finished and shipped. You're getting extra stuff, not being denied a complete product.

You're not being denied a complete product, you're getting extra optional material that you do not need to play the functioning game. You're simply being charged for buying used, a measely 10 dollars, the person who bought new probably ended up giving them more than 10 dollars in the long run, and they got all the optional features as a bonus.

But which will you play more?
Also, Call of Duty has a campaign, but it's lasting quality is clearly multiplayer.

Doesn't matter which I play more, the game is still functional even if they gave me multiplayer over single player. But it's be silly for them to charge me for single player I don't want, they have to make it interesting for me. So they do it to multiplayer, as it costs upkeep. Also if I bought it for the multiplayer, then I'd give them the 10 bucks, as I'm still getting it cheaper than buying it new if I played my cards right.

But isn't multiplayer part of a functioning game? And am I not being denied part of a functioning part of a game?

No you're not being denied anything, you bought it used, which means you paid the developer and publisher nothing but you're still able to play a large portion of the game. So whatever entitlement you think you have you don't.

The multilayer costs money to upkeep with severs and all that nonsense, you gave them nothing so you don't get access to that function there's no arguing here. It's called intensive, buy two get one free, did you buy two? Yes? You get one free! No? You get nothing.

It's a big company with lots of people and they all worked hard to make a game and they want you to pay for it. Buying used means you didn't pay them at all.

That doesn't mean they get to treat me like a criminal. I'm well aware that publishers and developers make no distinction between those who pirate and those who buy games used, but we're not the same. Am I really a bad person just because I want to save a few bucks?

No one is treating you like a criminal, let me explain this to you more simple.

You buy used game, money goes ONLY TO GAMESTOP and NOT EA.

You are saving a few bucks yes, but you are NOT paying EA for what they made, you are paying gamestop for the game. So the 10 dollars EA is asking you to pay, is to get something out of that used game sale because otherwise they get NOTHING. So if you want to save a few bucks, expect to get less content.

Think of it as buying a used gameboy, you saved a few bucks but you're missing the battery cover for it.

Not if you bought one in decent condition. It's more like you bought a used Gameboy, but Nintendo has a deal with the seller to withhold the speakers, the headphone jack, and the battery cover until you give them a cut of the profit. It's not like you need any of those to play games...

[sub]I told you I was willing to argue this.[/sub]

Okay, I have no idea how you and the OP are skipping over this point, buying used IS NOT PAYING THE DEVELOPER. You're basically paying for a pirated copy at this point because the developer makes no money so you are NOT entitled to things that you didn't pay THEM for.

I'm not yelling here, I'm just tired of typing the same thing and want these points to be well set. The developer is using the DLC to make SOMETHING out of the used game, because otherwise they don't make a cent. It's a choice that you gotta make, can you live with out the DLC? Yes? Then go ahead get it used, but if you want everything, buy it used.

Your reaching too far here piracy is illegal period it doesn't get to have messy ethical grounds, it's simply unethical.

You know, I didn't even notice the fact that he equated used games to piracy. There is a huge freakin' difference between the two, and anyone who can't see it needs to stop listening to Bobby Kotick. In piracy, an infinite number of copies are created by someone who does not have the copyright, and distributed for free -- hence the actual legal term, "copyright infringement." In the case of used games, a copy is created by the game's publisher and sold to the original owner of the game. When that owner gets tired of the game, they sell it on to someone else, recouping a little bit of the cost in the process. No extra copies are made, no law is broken, and there are no more people able to play the game than the publishers have already been paid for. What is so hard to understand about this?

 

[RedEyesBlackGamer]

Why should they? A used sale gives them the same amount of money that a pirated copy does. They have every right to withhold content in used copies to encourage people to buy it new so they can make a profit.

The flaw with this is that in the end, the same game will be bought twice. A used game is not a new copy. Someone already gave EA $60 for that game. When someone buys it used, EA has already made money off of it. Why should they get paid multiple times from the same individual product? It's not like used game story get their used games from some magical used game fairy. The producer already made a profit off of the game. Someone had to buy it in the first place. Why should they make another profit every time the same individual disc is sold?

But said person is getting the same experience for a fraction of the initial cost with the dev getting nothing. So, in order to encourage buying new/making some type of profit off of it the company is saying "You can play the game, you just can't use this feature(s)." The dev just wants to get something out of your enjoyment of their game. The used copy isn't rendered unusable. The multiplayer is inaccessible without payment. I see nothing wrong with that.
EDIT: Let me just settle this now. I believe a developer deserves payment every time their creation is played/enjoyed by somebody. You think the dev has gotten its money for the copy and shouldn't make money off of it any farther. I see and understand your viewpoint, but respectfully disagree.

 

[Owyn_Merrilin]

But they're still fucking a legitimate consumer out of extra money. He didn't steal the game, he bought it a few months after it came out after someone else played it.
Also, DLC may be made between when the game is finished and shipped. You're getting extra stuff, not being denied a complete product.

You're not being denied a complete product, you're getting extra optional material that you do not need to play the functioning game. You're simply being charged for buying used, a measely 10 dollars, the person who bought new probably ended up giving them more than 10 dollars in the long run, and they got all the optional features as a bonus.

But which will you play more?
Also, Call of Duty has a campaign, but it's lasting quality is clearly multiplayer.

Doesn't matter which I play more, the game is still functional even if they gave me multiplayer over single player. But it's be silly for them to charge me for single player I don't want, they have to make it interesting for me. So they do it to multiplayer, as it costs upkeep. Also if I bought it for the multiplayer, then I'd give them the 10 bucks, as I'm still getting it cheaper than buying it new if I played my cards right.

But isn't multiplayer part of a functioning game? And am I not being denied part of a functioning part of a game?

No you're not being denied anything, you bought it used, which means you paid the developer and publisher nothing but you're still able to play a large portion of the game. So whatever entitlement you think you have you don't.

The multilayer costs money to upkeep with severs and all that nonsense, you gave them nothing so you don't get access to that function there's no arguing here. It's called intensive, buy two get one free, did you buy two? Yes? You get one free! No? You get nothing.

It's a big company with lots of people and they all worked hard to make a game and they want you to pay for it. Buying used means you didn't pay them at all.

That doesn't mean they get to treat me like a criminal. I'm well aware that publishers and developers make no distinction between those who pirate and those who buy games used, but we're not the same. Am I really a bad person just because I want to save a few bucks?

No one is treating you like a criminal, let me explain this to you more simple.

You buy used game, money goes ONLY TO GAMESTOP and NOT EA.

You are saving a few bucks yes, but you are NOT paying EA for what they made, you are paying gamestop for the game. So the 10 dollars EA is asking you to pay, is to get something out of that used game sale because otherwise they get NOTHING. So if you want to save a few bucks, expect to get less content.

Think of it as buying a used gameboy, you saved a few bucks but you're missing the battery cover for it.

Not if you bought one in decent condition. It's more like you bought a used Gameboy, but Nintendo has a deal with the seller to withhold the speakers, the headphone jack, and the battery cover until you give them a cut of the profit. It's not like you need any of those to play games...

[sub]I told you I was willing to argue this.[/sub]

Okay, I have no idea how you and the OP are skipping over this point, buying used IS NOT PAYING THE DEVELOPER. You're basically paying for a pirated copy at this point because the developer makes no money so you are NOT entitled to things that you didn't pay THEM for.

I'm not yelling here, I'm just tired of typing the same thing and want these points to be well set. The developer is using the DLC to make SOMETHING out of the used game, because otherwise they don't make a cent. It's a choice that you gotta make, can you live with out the DLC? Yes? Then go ahead get it used, but if you want everything, buy it used.

We aren't skipping over the point, you're failing to recognize that the developer has already been paid, by the original owner of that game. I really don't understand how you guys can do that. Also, we have bold, italic, and underlined tags. There's no need to go all caps if you aren't yelling.

Bold requires tags and my hands are occupied with frenchfries.

Yes, the previous owner paid for that, but you're not giving anything to the developer. And they want SOME money out of this. Is this right? ehhhh Honestly I don't care, it's a simple fact, do you want that extra content? Buy it new. Think of it as the special edition to a movie, you want those extra scenes then you gotta pay.

But the thing is, this is an OPTION. You can say "I want and I deserve" all you want but you get what you pay for, and no ones forcing you to pay the extra 10 bucks, you're making that choice.

Again, if you feel it's wrong, don't buy the game at all. I think DRM is absolute bullshit and I refuse to pay for that garbage, and I won't buy the game. There, I've avoided the DRM and the developer doesn't get shit from me. *shrug*

But they're still fucking a legitimate consumer out of extra money. He didn't steal the game, he bought it a few months after it came out after someone else played it.
Also, DLC may be made between when the game is finished and shipped. You're getting extra stuff, not being denied a complete product.

You're not being denied a complete product, you're getting extra optional material that you do not need to play the functioning game. You're simply being charged for buying used, a measely 10 dollars, the person who bought new probably ended up giving them more than 10 dollars in the long run, and they got all the optional features as a bonus.

But which will you play more?
Also, Call of Duty has a campaign, but it's lasting quality is clearly multiplayer.

Doesn't matter which I play more, the game is still functional even if they gave me multiplayer over single player. But it's be silly for them to charge me for single player I don't want, they have to make it interesting for me. So they do it to multiplayer, as it costs upkeep. Also if I bought it for the multiplayer, then I'd give them the 10 bucks, as I'm still getting it cheaper than buying it new if I played my cards right.

But isn't multiplayer part of a functioning game? And am I not being denied part of a functioning part of a game?

No you're not being denied anything, you bought it used, which means you paid the developer and publisher nothing but you're still able to play a large portion of the game. So whatever entitlement you think you have you don't.

The multilayer costs money to upkeep with severs and all that nonsense, you gave them nothing so you don't get access to that function there's no arguing here. It's called intensive, buy two get one free, did you buy two? Yes? You get one free! No? You get nothing.

It's a big company with lots of people and they all worked hard to make a game and they want you to pay for it. Buying used means you didn't pay them at all.

That doesn't mean they get to treat me like a criminal. I'm well aware that publishers and developers make no distinction between those who pirate and those who buy games used, but we're not the same. Am I really a bad person just because I want to save a few bucks?

No one is treating you like a criminal, let me explain this to you more simple.

You buy used game, money goes ONLY TO GAMESTOP and NOT EA.

You are saving a few bucks yes, but you are NOT paying EA for what they made, you are paying gamestop for the game. So the 10 dollars EA is asking you to pay, is to get something out of that used game sale because otherwise they get NOTHING. So if you want to save a few bucks, expect to get less content.

Think of it as buying a used gameboy, you saved a few bucks but you're missing the battery cover for it.

Not if you bought one in decent condition. It's more like you bought a used Gameboy, but Nintendo has a deal with the seller to withhold the speakers, the headphone jack, and the battery cover until you give them a cut of the profit. It's not like you need any of those to play games...

[sub]I told you I was willing to argue this.[/sub]

Okay, I have no idea how you and the OP are skipping over this point, buying used IS NOT PAYING THE DEVELOPER. You're basically paying for a pirated copy at this point because the developer makes no money so you are NOT entitled to things that you didn't pay THEM for.

I'm not yelling here, I'm just tired of typing the same thing and want these points to be well set. The developer is using the DLC to make SOMETHING out of the used game, because otherwise they don't make a cent. It's a choice that you gotta make, can you live with out the DLC? Yes? Then go ahead get it used, but if you want everything, buy it used.

Your reaching too far here piracy is illegal period it doesn't get to have messy ethical grounds, it's simply is unethical.

Hah, okay whatever, you get what you pay for. Pick new, or used and if you're upset it's the choice you made so be angry at your decision. Regardless if it's BS or not you're choosing to deal with it then you complain about it. It's nonsense, don't buy it if you know it's bullshit.

The problem with this is that it's becoming the norm, rather than the exception. When Activision released CoD4 for $60 on PC, it was outrageous, because the going rate was $50, and that was already $10 over what the going rate had been for the previous ten or fifteen years -- basically until the launch of the current console gen. Today, it seems like every new release is $60, because Activision proved that people would be willing to pay the ridiculous fee. Project $10 is looking to go the same way, and I can't condone that.

Besides, DLC that comes for free with a given edition of the game isn't DLC in my book; it's a part of that edition of the game. It would be like buying a used copy of the Game of the Year edition of something, paying a reduced price based off of the price of that edition, and then being told upon installation that the disc, which was advertised as having those feature, no longer had them because someone else had used them. That is, in a word, bull.

 

[jakefongloo]

First off, no I would not.

Secondly, wow. It's been so long since I've bought a new game I'm completely out of the loop when it comes to how they are trying to nickle and dime us out of money.

Wow, someone else on this forum who doesn't blindly cheer on the game companies as they try to separate us from our money. You are a minority on this site my friend. Be proud.


OT: Yep, that's what EA does. Game companies are unique in the way they rip off their customers, and then use their PR arm to somehow make them think they're getting a good deal. I mean, there's plenty of scams that work on that principle, but the difference is with most scams, the victims don't suffer from Stockholm syndrome.

Don't use "Blindly" your point gets along alot better when you're not needlessly insulting people. This is a bit nit picky but the Dead Space 2 multiplayer sucks massive cock...like as in the worst I have EVER Seen moreso then Butcher Bay/ Dark Athena but in general: If the multiplayer is worth hours upon hours of fun for you then $10 doesn't seem that much. If it's not don't buy it. Battle Field is worth MANY hours of play to me. That certainly makes the $60 i spent on red dead look a hell of alot worse, and i fucking love red dead.

 

[jakefongloo]

Maybe if games were actually good I'd buy things new. Until then, I haven't bought a new game since Mass Effect 2, and I won't buy a new game until Skyrim. EA games tend to blend together also. I'd rather just play Combat Arms and actually keep playing with a large amount of people for longer than 6 months. I guarantee you can't say that for 95% of all multiplayer games on Xbox Live.

The 10 dollar project doesn't stop you from picking up a game six months from now a stream or online or a at a big box etc..etc...etc... only the asinine used games racket.

What are your feelings on used books?

Frankly I don't buy used books I purchase new or use public library facilities

Wait a second, you use libraries, and you're judging me for buying used games? Hypocrisy, thy name is Normandyfoxtrot.

I have no issue with games rental, and a library is simply a literary form of public rental.

That's even worse. You have no problem with rental, which let's you pay someone $5-$10 bucks to have the game out for a weekend, and potentially beat it in that time, but you don't want people to buy used? The dev isn't getting any money from you either way. And don't bring up that old story about how rental places have to pay more. Blockbuster did it back in the 80's, but that was just to appease the film companies, who were really leery of the whole home video thing. There was never any legal reason for them to do so; the right of first sale states that whoever first buys a product can do whatever the heck they like with it. This includes selling it on or renting it out. That's right, the used market is not simply legal because there's no law against it; there's actually a federal law on the books which expressly protects it.

As you probably know now ethic and law often have little if anything to actually do with eachother. As for my support of rental, ultimately it comes to how the system is limited in it's nature.

Ethics really doesn't play into this, and in what little way it does, the morality of it is different depending on which side of the fence you sit on. For the most part, it's economics; as producers, the publishers try to separate their customers from as much money as they can for as little product as they can. As consumers, we try to separate the producers from as much product as we can for as little money as we can. Why is it that so many people on this site immediately jump to the defense of their economic opponents?

Personally, it's ethics to me what is right and what is wrong, I don't care about money once I have enough that I can eat I really don't care about the rest and since i don't and likely never will have anyone relying on my fore their survival I'm allowed the luxury of worry about ethics.

That doesn't even make any sense, at least in context. Care to elaborate?

If I approach a product I have a duty to ensure that the creator of such product is fully and properly compensated, just as a company should have the same duty to their consumer and frankly this is all immaterial to rather or not one party or another refuses to complete their portion of the bargain.

No, you have a duty to see that the owner of that product is properly compensated. That whole license thing is the biggest lie a group of consumers have ever swallowed. To use an argument that directly involves intellectual property, let's say I have a book which I have legally acquired. If I decide to sell on the book, should the person I sell it to pay me, or should they send a money order to the author? Remember here that I'm the one who is losing a copy, and presumably an infinitely copyable digital version exists somewhere, from whence my copy was made.

Physical copies of books are not licensed. You really do own them. E-books are licensed however. So if you're selling a physical copy of a book, you get paid. It's yours. Can't do that with an E-book. ...Licensing is bullshit though. I can agree with that.

I'm glad to see you agree with the licensing bit -- there are too few people on the Escapist who do. Let's extend the book comparison for a bit. With that physical copy, you aren't given copyright. You have a hard copy, but you can't legally do anything with the contents of it except pass it on to another consumer, depriving yourself of that copy in the process. Is there any difference between that and the "licenses" that game companies supposedly sell us? Or are they really selling us a physical copy, and then claiming they sold us a license in order to damage the used market? I agree that E-books are sold as a license, but then so are games on Steam; there's no physical product sold in either case, and used sales are literally impossible.

It's a little different yes. ...If you don't accept the license on a game you can't play or install it. The company has more control with it. If they could do it to books i'm sure they would. They get us on the fact that "we agreed to the terms" which...really is true. We'd rather agree to the terms than not play games though, as most people don't seem to have a problem with the terms. Sadly a game is like an Ebook on a disk. Not a real book. It being digital media let's them kinda strong arm us into agreeing.

Keyword, strongarm. If any other industry tried to make you do that, the contract wouldn't hold up in court, because it would have been made under duress. There's such a thing as an invalid contract.

Well technically, movies are protected in a very similar way. You don't own the movie. You own the license to own the movie and watch it privately. You agree by watching. You don't even get to click yes.

Are you psychic or something? You responded to my edit before I even posted it. However, the claims they have at the beginning of the DVD are largely false; the right of first sale, which I mentioned earlier in the thread, invalidates the vast majority of them, at least in the US.

Yeah, but also nothing is stopping you from selling the game. Obviously since the used game market is so huge. Gaming has to be thought about differently though. Music has concerts, movies have theaters. ..books..have...um...a vastly overpopulation problem to really be a problem..? I don't know. But there's something with books dammit. Games don't have anything like that, they'd be like a direct to DVD movie, which granted are usually crap, but it's the same concept in a way. That's their only revenue. The devs can't hit up a stage and have EXTREME GAME DESIGN and have a contest for your entertainment. It'd probably be really boring too...

So, they do have to think of other ways to make money, like having people who buy used games pay 10 dollars. ...Sadly i think it should go to the devs, not the publishers...

Games have E3...kinda i've never been to one I don't know if the companies get anything... Books have Cons and able to have rightious sales.

 

[Snotnarok]

But they're still fucking a legitimate consumer out of extra money. He didn't steal the game, he bought it a few months after it came out after someone else played it.
Also, DLC may be made between when the game is finished and shipped. You're getting extra stuff, not being denied a complete product.

You're not being denied a complete product, you're getting extra optional material that you do not need to play the functioning game. You're simply being charged for buying used, a measely 10 dollars, the person who bought new probably ended up giving them more than 10 dollars in the long run, and they got all the optional features as a bonus.

But which will you play more?
Also, Call of Duty has a campaign, but it's lasting quality is clearly multiplayer.

Doesn't matter which I play more, the game is still functional even if they gave me multiplayer over single player. But it's be silly for them to charge me for single player I don't want, they have to make it interesting for me. So they do it to multiplayer, as it costs upkeep. Also if I bought it for the multiplayer, then I'd give them the 10 bucks, as I'm still getting it cheaper than buying it new if I played my cards right.

But isn't multiplayer part of a functioning game? And am I not being denied part of a functioning part of a game?

No you're not being denied anything, you bought it used, which means you paid the developer and publisher nothing but you're still able to play a large portion of the game. So whatever entitlement you think you have you don't.

The multilayer costs money to upkeep with severs and all that nonsense, you gave them nothing so you don't get access to that function there's no arguing here. It's called intensive, buy two get one free, did you buy two? Yes? You get one free! No? You get nothing.

It's a big company with lots of people and they all worked hard to make a game and they want you to pay for it. Buying used means you didn't pay them at all.

That doesn't mean they get to treat me like a criminal. I'm well aware that publishers and developers make no distinction between those who pirate and those who buy games used, but we're not the same. Am I really a bad person just because I want to save a few bucks?

No one is treating you like a criminal, let me explain this to you more simple.

You buy used game, money goes ONLY TO GAMESTOP and NOT EA.

You are saving a few bucks yes, but you are NOT paying EA for what they made, you are paying gamestop for the game. So the 10 dollars EA is asking you to pay, is to get something out of that used game sale because otherwise they get NOTHING. So if you want to save a few bucks, expect to get less content.

Think of it as buying a used gameboy, you saved a few bucks but you're missing the battery cover for it.

Not if you bought one in decent condition. It's more like you bought a used Gameboy, but Nintendo has a deal with the seller to withhold the speakers, the headphone jack, and the battery cover until you give them a cut of the profit. It's not like you need any of those to play games...

[sub]I told you I was willing to argue this.[/sub]

Okay, I have no idea how you and the OP are skipping over this point, buying used IS NOT PAYING THE DEVELOPER. You're basically paying for a pirated copy at this point because the developer makes no money so you are NOT entitled to things that you didn't pay THEM for.

I'm not yelling here, I'm just tired of typing the same thing and want these points to be well set. The developer is using the DLC to make SOMETHING out of the used game, because otherwise they don't make a cent. It's a choice that you gotta make, can you live with out the DLC? Yes? Then go ahead get it used, but if you want everything, buy it used.

We aren't skipping over the point, you're failing to recognize that the developer has already been paid, by the original owner of that game. I really don't understand how you guys can do that. Also, we have bold, italic, and underlined tags. There's no need to go all caps if you aren't yelling.

Bold requires tags and my hands are occupied with frenchfries.

Yes, the previous owner paid for that, but you're not giving anything to the developer. And they want SOME money out of this. Is this right? ehhhh Honestly I don't care, it's a simple fact, do you want that extra content? Buy it new. Think of it as the special edition to a movie, you want those extra scenes then you gotta pay.

But the thing is, this is an OPTION. You can say "I want and I deserve" all you want but you get what you pay for, and no ones forcing you to pay the extra 10 bucks, you're making that choice.

Again, if you feel it's wrong, don't buy the game at all. I think DRM is absolute bullshit and I refuse to pay for that garbage, and I won't buy the game. There, I've avoided the DRM and the developer doesn't get shit from me. *shrug*

But they're still fucking a legitimate consumer out of extra money. He didn't steal the game, he bought it a few months after it came out after someone else played it.
Also, DLC may be made between when the game is finished and shipped. You're getting extra stuff, not being denied a complete product.

You're not being denied a complete product, you're getting extra optional material that you do not need to play the functioning game. You're simply being charged for buying used, a measely 10 dollars, the person who bought new probably ended up giving them more than 10 dollars in the long run, and they got all the optional features as a bonus.

But which will you play more?
Also, Call of Duty has a campaign, but it's lasting quality is clearly multiplayer.

Doesn't matter which I play more, the game is still functional even if they gave me multiplayer over single player. But it's be silly for them to charge me for single player I don't want, they have to make it interesting for me. So they do it to multiplayer, as it costs upkeep. Also if I bought it for the multiplayer, then I'd give them the 10 bucks, as I'm still getting it cheaper than buying it new if I played my cards right.

But isn't multiplayer part of a functioning game? And am I not being denied part of a functioning part of a game?

No you're not being denied anything, you bought it used, which means you paid the developer and publisher nothing but you're still able to play a large portion of the game. So whatever entitlement you think you have you don't.

The multilayer costs money to upkeep with severs and all that nonsense, you gave them nothing so you don't get access to that function there's no arguing here. It's called intensive, buy two get one free, did you buy two? Yes? You get one free! No? You get nothing.

It's a big company with lots of people and they all worked hard to make a game and they want you to pay for it. Buying used means you didn't pay them at all.

That doesn't mean they get to treat me like a criminal. I'm well aware that publishers and developers make no distinction between those who pirate and those who buy games used, but we're not the same. Am I really a bad person just because I want to save a few bucks?

No one is treating you like a criminal, let me explain this to you more simple.

You buy used game, money goes ONLY TO GAMESTOP and NOT EA.

You are saving a few bucks yes, but you are NOT paying EA for what they made, you are paying gamestop for the game. So the 10 dollars EA is asking you to pay, is to get something out of that used game sale because otherwise they get NOTHING. So if you want to save a few bucks, expect to get less content.

Think of it as buying a used gameboy, you saved a few bucks but you're missing the battery cover for it.

Not if you bought one in decent condition. It's more like you bought a used Gameboy, but Nintendo has a deal with the seller to withhold the speakers, the headphone jack, and the battery cover until you give them a cut of the profit. It's not like you need any of those to play games...

[sub]I told you I was willing to argue this.[/sub]

Okay, I have no idea how you and the OP are skipping over this point, buying used IS NOT PAYING THE DEVELOPER. You're basically paying for a pirated copy at this point because the developer makes no money so you are NOT entitled to things that you didn't pay THEM for.

I'm not yelling here, I'm just tired of typing the same thing and want these points to be well set. The developer is using the DLC to make SOMETHING out of the used game, because otherwise they don't make a cent. It's a choice that you gotta make, can you live with out the DLC? Yes? Then go ahead get it used, but if you want everything, buy it used.

Your reaching too far here piracy is illegal period it doesn't get to have messy ethical grounds, it's simply is unethical.

Hah, okay whatever, you get what you pay for. Pick new, or used and if you're upset it's the choice you made so be angry at your decision. Regardless if it's BS or not you're choosing to deal with it then you complain about it. It's nonsense, don't buy it if you know it's bullshit.

The problem with this is that it's becoming the norm, rather than the exception. When Activision released CoD4 for $60 on PC, it was outrageous, because the going rate was $50, and that was already $10 over what the going rate had been for the previous ten or fifteen years -- basically until the launch of the current console gen. Today, it seems like every new release is $60, because Activision proved that people would be willing to pay the ridiculous fee. Project $10 is looking to go the same way, and I can't condone that.

Besides, DLC that comes for free with a given edition of the game isn't DLC in my book; it's a part of that edition of the game. It would be like buying a used copy of the Game of the Year edition of something, paying a reduced price based off of the price of that edition, and then being told upon installation that the disc, which was advertised as having those feature, no longer had them because someone else had used them. That is, in a word, bull.

Okay this is the last thing I'm saying on this because while I see what you're saying, you don't see what you're saying.

If you do not wish to support a game that sells with this project 10 dollar stuff, then don't buy it and then move on. I don't support DRM and I don't buy DRM, so you can do it for project 10 dollar.

It's not part of the same edition because that's how they're selling it, either buy it and just go with it, or fight it and don't buy it. This is their selling scheme, I personally had no problem buying Mass Effect 2 new to get the extra content, because again I wanted the content so I bought it new.

 

[oplinger]

Games have E3...kinda i've never been to one I don't know if the companies get anything... Books have Cons and able to have rightious sales.

I don't think the companies get much from E3 other than hype. ...I don't really know either though. It just doesn't seem the same to me though, either way.

No no, hang on...

Games have LPs! ...oh...oh god what did I just type....I need to go burn my hands...

 

[Normandyfoxtrot]

Games have E3...kinda i've never been to one I don't know if the companies get anything... Books have Cons and able to have rightious sales.

I don't think the companies get much from E3 other than hype. ...I don't really know either though. It just doesn't seem the same to me though, either way.

No no, hang on...

Games have LPs! ...oh...oh god what did I just type....I need to go burn my hands...

Hey now LP's are fucking awesome particularly survival horror ones.

 

[oplinger]

Games have E3...kinda i've never been to one I don't know if the companies get anything... Books have Cons and able to have rightious sales.

I don't think the companies get much from E3 other than hype. ...I don't really know either though. It just doesn't seem the same to me though, either way.

No no, hang on...

Games have LPs! ...oh...oh god what did I just type....I need to go burn my hands...

Hey now LP's are fucking awesome particularly survival horror ones.

Out of all the LPs I've seen. They've all been horrible. ...I only like Slowbeef <_<

 

[razer17]

As you probably know now ethic and law often have little if anything to actually do with eachother. As for my support of rental, ultimately it comes to how the system is limited in it's nature.

That's just silly. If anything rental is less limited than used games, because rentals probably goes to far more people than a game that is bought and re-sold. Plus used games help keep brick and mortar businesses alive, because I bet there wouldn't be so many games shops without it.

 

[Dupeo]

Oh my god. I think some people on this thread are being paid by EA. OH MY GOD! And the original poster is suspended! Guys, their gonna shut me down next! AUGH there's someone at my door! HE'S GOTTA GUN! HELP! I'M AT 523888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888

He's dead. And we will find you too if you speak of this.

ALL HAIL EA