Gaming companies ripping us off: when did this become OK?

[theonecookie]

When haven't we been screwed over In fact is there any industry that hasn't tried to take there customers for all they are worth

also locking out content is fine it lowers the cost of used games and people get to pick and chose what they want

And one last point I would like to add is that the video game industry is the only industry where a used copy of something is the same as a new copy (barring films but they make there money at the box office dvd's are an extra)so this locking stuff out just brings it in to line with other industry's

Edit: also is it so wrong to pay the devs for there hard work that they put in to making games that we enjoy now i'm not against used sales not at all but the video game industry is the only place where a used copy is the same as a new one and the primary retailers for the product have a whole parallel economy set up buying and selling used games who's soul aim is to take money for them self and not the devs who made the dam game in the first place which is kinda a dick move

and now to the point the whole idea of locking out online and project ten dollar is a move to screw the retailers who are in turn screwing the devs and publishers over and this is where we have the problem which other industrys have the suppliers directly competing with the distributors economically its a mess and the only ones profiting are the distributors

well how do we fix this, the best idea would be to just stop buying games from places like game , gamestop and gamestation used or otherwise and buy new game from places that dont sell used games like most supermarkets or buy online from places like play or amazon and then buy used copy's from other people online, places like ebay or amazon again the devs could also lower the price of new games so people are more likely to buy new so more profit or all the major publishers could band together and open there own used game shop online or other wise that way we keep used games and they still get the profits win win

this would kill of this nasty cycle of of distributors competing with suppliers and we would end up with cheaper games and the devs would get more money

TLR gamestops a dick burn their house down

 

[ToastiestZombie]

Bethesda Softworks made a profit of $300 million from Fallout 3. 300 MILLION in PROFIT, but they need to lock out the sewers for second hand gamers.

Fallout 3 did not have any new buyer bonuses. What had them was Rage, and even then they were a tiny, TINY part of that pretty huge game, most new buyers probably never found them if they werent looking hard for them. People like you should stop complaining about a tiny part of the game being taken out. If you didn't want all this stuff, then buy the game new! That will tell publishers that people actually think and instead of complaining that you dont get something when you buy it used, you buy it brand new and get all the rewards.

PS: I rented Rage, played it through to the ending and did most of the side quests. That took me about 30 hours and I felt like nothing was being taken away from me when I couldnt go down into some random sewer.

 

[NLS]

What's so bad about online passes and sewer levels?
If you buy new, you're not ripped off. If you buy used, you paid less, and thus you get less. If you want more, then either pay the full price, or pay the extra for online pass.

It's been like this for years when it comes to PC games, but now that console games start using it, all hell breaks loose...

 

[Cyrus Hanley]

It became okay when people threw more money at them instead of keeping it to themselves.

 

[Aura Guardian]

What's so bad about online passes?

Not a damn thing. I like them and I'll support it.

 

[Princess Rose]

**snip**

Here's why I think all these arguments are crap:

In 1990, Super Mario Bros 3 was released for the original NES. It cost $50.

In 2011, people are bitching that $60 is too much for a game.

Between 1990 and 2011, inflation has made EVERYTHING ELSE IN THE WORLD* more expensive. Usually WAY more expensive.

So what I want to know is, why do gamers think that video games, which are much more expensive to make for current gen consoles, should cost the same after 20 years of inflation as something that was far less difficult to make at the time?

You kids and your entitled whining. You have no idea what it used to be like. Compared to the days of the NES, games are insanely cheap, have tons more content, and are more palatable (because of difficulty setting). Games cost more because they COST MORE TO MAKE than they did twenty years ago. So stop whining and get over it.

[sub]*Slight Hyperbole. I was making a point.[/sub]

 

[Something Amyss]

When consumers turned into idiots who would rather defend the company than get value.

I believe it's called the "libertarian effect."

 

[Something Amyss]

In 1990, Super Mario Bros 3 was released for the original NES. It cost $50.

In 2011, people are bitching that $60 is too much for a game.

I got it for 30, new, retail, near launch. What's with this 50 dollar claim?

Aside from that, it's almost like the standards of content changed. But that would be silly, because that would inconveniently take into account something other than raw prices and standards of inflation.

 

[Dott]

Downloadable Content.
Am I the only one who loathes whatever game company does this?
It makes me feel like I'm purchasing a half-completed game, which was sent to the stores just to satisfy customers with the release date. Then they release the rest of the game progressively as they finish more bits of it. Just look at Fallout 3/New Vegas.

Did you also had the same feeling if a company announced expansion packs back then? Because your examples ARE expansion packs.

DLC and expansion packs are not the same. An expansion, to me, is a substantial extension of a game, not just an extra bit added in between the start and the end.

... But again, WoW has only gotten worse with more expansions on the end.
Like a fat guy getting fatter, World of Warcraft just doesn't run very well anymore.

So yeah, it goes for expansions as well. Fuck expansions. Give me sequels.

 

[darksakul]

Easy answer do NOT buy second hand games.

Better Answer, Only buy second hand. Games these days, especially AAA games to not deserve the right to be purchase new unless the developers stop putting out shit in the AAA category. So what that the game do not come in the box with out online multi-player with out a download key. Even if the Multi-player is already coded in the fricking disk. You know what Kills online play more than anything else, a lack of players.

This is what the larger MMO community is now discovering and releasing Free-to-play on traditionally pay-to-play games and servers. And Paying-customers get added perks such as early use of update content, and slightly more Exp and item drop rates.

If you don't like how the gaming companies screw over the 2nd hand market, do not give in. Do not buy new, even if the difference is $5 and do not buy the $10 extra for online play if they ever decided to make that a available dlc. In the topic of DLC don't buy it. I, my self has decided EA is dead to me and refuse to buy there products just because how they threat and think of their customers. I wouldn't even bother buying there products used, not ever install Origin or even consider the Knightsd of the old Republic MMO thats coming out this year just because Bioware made the mistake of partnering up with EA.

Also stop being wimps went you stand up for your selves. There was supposed boycott of MW2 for the PC because the lack of dedicated servers for online play, yet like idiots thousands of gamers buy new copies any ways.

And if you guys actually do a boycott, stick with it instead of giving in.

Screw EA, Square-Enix, Activision, Nintendo, Sega, Microsoft, and anyone else who thinks they can get over the customers with underhanded business practices, unlock codes for online, cheap gimmick add-ons (Nintendo I am looking at you with that 2nd analog stick bull shit for the 3DFS), and any other "dollar short day late" promises that should of been implemented on Day fucking 1.

 

[Redweaver]

**snip**

Here's why I think all these arguments are crap:

In 1990, Super Mario Bros 3 was released for the original NES. It cost $50.

In 2011, people are bitching that $60 is too much for a game.

Between 1990 and 2011, inflation has made EVERYTHING ELSE IN THE WORLD* more expensive. Usually WAY more expensive.

So what I want to know is, why do gamers think that video games, which are much more expensive to make for current gen consoles, should cost the same after 20 years of inflation as something that was far less difficult to make at the time?

You kids and your entitled whining. You have no idea what it used to be like. Compared to the days of the NES, games are insanely cheap, have tons more content, and are more palatable (because of difficulty setting). Games cost more because they COST MORE TO MAKE than they did twenty years ago. So stop whining and get over it.

[sub]*Slight Hyperbole. I was making a point.[/sub]

Here's why your post is crap (to borrow your phrase),

Capitalism consists of two parts:

1. Companies try to get as much money from their consumers for a little product and effort as possible to maximise profits.

2. The customer tries to get as much product as possible for as little of their hard-earned money as they can.

That's NOT whining. That's capitalism WAI.

STOP BLAMING THE CUSTOMERS FOR DOING THEIR PROPER PART FOR CAPITALISM!

 

[D Moness]

Easy answer do NOT buy second hand games.

Better Answer, Only buy second hand.

Question if we ALL buy only second hand games , where are all the second hand games coming from. You do understand to be able to buy a second handed game someone has to buy the game new.

For all the cruisading against buying full priced games , you need those people for you to buy a game second handed.

Also if everyone only bought second handed games (what is short of impossible) that will kill the game industry.

 

[Princess Rose]

In 1990, Super Mario Bros 3 was released for the original NES. It cost $50.

In 2011, people are bitching that $60 is too much for a game.

I got it for 30, new, retail, near launch. What's with this 50 dollar claim?

Aside from that, it's almost like the standards of content changed. But that would be silly, because that would inconveniently take into account something other than raw prices and standards of inflation.

I remember that I couldn't afford to get it because it was more expensive than the other NES games. So I ended up playing at a friend's house. I distinctly remember the issue being that it was 50 bucks when the other NES games were closer to 40 bucks.

Of course, it is possible that Toys R Us jacked up the price. Bastards. ^^;;

 

[Princess Rose]

Capitalism consists of two parts:

1. Companies try to get as much money from their consumers for a little product and effort as possible to maximise profits.

2. The customer tries to get as much product as possible for as little of their hard-earned money as they can.

That's NOT whining. That's capitalism WAI.

You know - that is one of the most logical and sensible arguments for that I've ever heard.

Well said, sir. Well said.

Still, I think more people need to recognize both sides. It's fine to advocate for the customer - in fact it's important to do so - but the companies aren't evil for trying to get more money - that is their function.

 

[Something Amyss]

Of course, it is possible that Toys R Us jacked up the price. Bastards. ^^;;

Aaaaaand Occam's Razor strikes again.

However, there is, definitely, a real issue with inflation. But even without "inflation" as an issue, there's a good reason games stayed at the prices they were at for so long. And why a ten dollar increase WAS a big deal.

The price may have effectively decreased, but the actual spending power of the majority of Americans is kind of....Crap. This has to do with cost of living increases over the years, while the majority of Americans haven't seen a significant increase in their actual salary.

Other things do cost more: Food, housing, transportation. All stuff you need to live. Trying to increase prices cuts people off from the hobby. The sort of people you want playing. You don't want to take a mass market luxury and then restrict it.

Further, the other thing that's changed is games themselves. While it's true games developed beyond Space Invaders, so did film develop beyond 4 minute, silent, black and white novelties.

Do you really think you'd be satisfied if you paid 20 bucks for a 4 minute, silent, black and white movie? I hate to seem presumptuous, but I doubt it.

Would you pay 15 bucks for a CD that was only a few minutes of scratchy instrumental music?

25 bucks for a hardcover that's only about 50 pages?

If you answered no to any of these, why the hell are you trying to mock people for objection to the same?

Seriously, games are getting shorter with less content, and now they're locking said content.

 

[darksakul]

Easy answer do NOT buy second hand games.

Better Answer, Only buy second hand.

Question if we ALL buy only second hand games , where are all the second hand games coming from. You do understand to be able to buy a second handed game someone has to buy the game new.

For all the cruisading against buying full priced games , you need those people for you to buy a game second handed.

Also if everyone only bought second handed games (what is short of impossible) that will kill the game industry.

Consider this, No game release is going to be sold 100% by 1rst time owners or by 2nd hand.
I did not mean 100% of all gamers only buy used that is ridiculous. I stating unless you are already a die-hard fan of that property/series or studio's work there no reason to buy new every time.

For me a game have to deserve to be purchase new. If the game isn't that good why would I pay full price for crap? You think I going to reserve a copy new lets say for example Final Fantasy XIII-2 or what ever sequel FF XIII is getting if I didn't like the first game? Maybe if a friend talks me into it or I played a rented or borrow copy and like it I will get the game used. AAA title games quality is getting worst in the last few years, production is rushed, story is poorly written or Part 3 is just a blatant copy of part 2 with some re-skinning. I do not need or want to pay AAA pricing for a AAA title game with a B/C experience.

Also that is how many people can afford buying games, trading in games to purchase a game new or used. This is an economic recension, Most gamers aren't known to be independently wealthy.
If your out of high school, money will be tight, you need money for bills, food, maybe tuition for college or maybe for your own damn kids. That $35 used copy vs that $60 new, that used copy is starting to look pretty sweet.

Lets say I never played Call of Duty. I pick up a Older CoD tittle used and I like it. That increases my chances of picking up a future CoD title like MW3.

Of course, it is possible that Toys R Us jacked up the price. Bastards. ^^;;

Aaaaaand Occam's Razor strikes again.

However, there is, definitely, a real issue with inflation. But even without "inflation" as an issue, there's a good reason games stayed at the prices they were at for so long. And why a ten dollar increase WAS a big deal.

The price may have effectively decreased, but the actual spending power of the majority of Americans is kind of....Crap. This has to do with cost of living increases over the years, while the majority of Americans haven't seen a significant increase in their actual salary.

Other things do cost more: Food, housing, transportation. All stuff you need to live. Trying to increase prices cuts people off from the hobby. The sort of people you want playing. You don't want to take a mass market luxury and then restrict it.

Further, the other thing that's changed is games themselves. While it's true games developed beyond Space Invaders, so did film develop beyond 4 minute, silent, black and white novelties.

Do you really think you'd be satisfied if you paid 20 bucks for a 4 minute, silent, black and white movie? I hate to seem presumptuous, but I doubt it.

Would you pay 15 bucks for a CD that was only a few minutes of scratchy instrumental music?

25 bucks for a hardcover that's only about 50 pages?

If you answered no to any of these, why the hell are you trying to mock people for objection to the same?

Seriously, games are getting shorter with less content, and now they're locking said content.

I agree with this guy here.

 

[Veylon]

It's always been like this. Many of the NES game retailed at $40-50, and that was before you had the internet to check out the game before deciding. Most of these were (as per Sturgeon's Law) crap. Things were even worse back in Atari times.

And for all the complaints about game length these days, most of them were short. How long does Defender of the Crown take to beat? Or, for that matter, Super Mario Brothers? Only a relative handful of RPGs or strategy games could consume the much-derided four hours of Cain and Lynch II. How long does Super Metroid take, even for 100%?

The blunt fact is, in a capitalist system, consumers get what they demand. Like any luxury, video games have no intrinsic value; nobody needs them. The outrage over game prices is as empty as that of hotdogs at baseball stadiums or diamonds. The prices are set at the limit of what people are willing to pay. Every $60 (or more in poor Australia) plunked down for the latest AAA title is proof of that.

And then there's this:

Do you really think you'd be satisfied if you paid 20 bucks for a 4 minute, silent, black and white movie? I hate to seem presumptuous, but I doubt it.

You may not be and I may not be, but there're millions of gamers who are not only satisfied, but who will trumpet that grainy moving picture as the greatest film ever and say a mere twenty bucks was a steal for 240 seconds of amazing entertainment. Then they'll preorder the sequel (Light and Dark II: Shades of Grey) on the basis of rumors that it may even contain a few seconds of mind-blowing sepia tones.

There are times I weep inside at the quality of consumers.

 

[Ruwrak]

Don't really see the problem. I buy Arkham City in the store, I get the catwoman code.
I don't buy second hand games on principle, because I don't know what happened with it.
It might be scratched or whatever. If I need to buy something, i might as well wait till later when the price gets lower.


't could be me though.

 

[Nouw]

I honestly see no problem with Online Passes. Just buy new! Although the 'new games will cease to exist in a few years' argument is somewhat legitimate in my opinion.