Jimquisition: Online Passes Are Bad For Everybody

[XT inc]

There is a direct 1 to 1 ratio of used game sales and people who decided a game was worth whatever demeaning offer the game store will give you for your trouble. Picture September 26th a Gamestop. Why yes we will give you 8 dollars for gears of war 3 in a mint box with the instructions.

Developers need to take that finger pointing at used games and point it right back at them selves because every used game is a gamer that jumped ship, and that is the creators fault

Online passes and other used market dickery are just ways companies screw themselves out of players, because that is what companies need, customer happiness drives this industry. No one wants to play a game with 20 people online at any given time let alone pay 10 bucks extra for that "privilege".

When did we become sluts for games, instead of its fuel and its fans. So it?s okay to put out a cigar on our arm because we will come back for more? Why would anyone defend this industry who spend millions of dollars to make a bone average game and then gripe at us for buying used, and all their shit dlc.

I'm not entitled to free content and companies aren't entitled to with hold all the good stuff until I invest 40 dollars in dlc onto a 70 dollar game.

yeah yeah gripe and groan all you want before we all end up stoned, braiding our hair, drop acid, forming a drum circle and start spouting off phrases like." The whole scenes gotten too commercial maaaan. It's no longer about the game play or the story its all about the almighty dollar."

 

[dbphreakdb]

Except publishers and developers dont see a dime of that used game money...so most every scenario you put forth loses that developer money because they all require massive influxes of used games where only the first few only have to buy that game new...used means 5 million people can go buy that game used and keep selling it back and 10 million get to play it and the developer or publisher doesn't see a dime from those 10 million users.

This is so wrong. It doesn't matter who owned the game first, who sold it or who bought it used. If there are five million copies sold of a game it doesn't really matter how they got out there. There are five million copies and that's what the company sold. There is no way to prove
that if used sales were taken away it would immediately translate into more new sales. i.e. without used sales, it doesn't automatically mean there would be 10 million copies sold. I'm sure it would translate into some, of course, but there's no real way to know the numbers, so there's no way to quantify it as "lost money". It's only lost if they had it in the first place.

That's a very true and valid argument. Noone knows how the sales will translate.

The very basic laws of supply and demand, however, can project that if there is no option to buy second hand, then more new units would be purchased.

 

[Assassin Xaero]

It's amazing that gamers are such entitled gits, really.

Entitled (verb); Give (someone) a legal right or a just claim to receive or do something.

Yep, we are entitled to buy pre-owned as it's legal.

It's not illegal. It's just not something to be proud of.

Something not to be proud of? I'm sorry, but I don't have $60 laying around every time I want a game. I have a car, have to pay gas and insurance, I also have bills... Should I be proud if I skip out on eating for a few days to afford a half-assed 4 hour campaign? I mean, I buy CD's preowned all the time and buy used movies. Artists or directors don't go around complaining constantly about that. They also don't try to screw us over by make 25 minute CD's with half the songs being intros/filler/outros. They also don't make movies that are only 45-50 minutes then released extended parts of it later for a fraction of the price.

 

[dbphreakdb]

All in all, I find it rather humorous that the sector of gaming that doesn't require locking in a registration... is essentially having to do just that.

Needless to say, I will only be releasing the games i make for xbla and pc.

You know, in such a manner so that i know the only people who are hogging my bandwidth, are the ones that paid me and my employees.

 

[alinos]

you didn't actually read what I said:

If you want to use a publisher's servers and bandwidth, they have a right to bloody charge you.

The game is a product. Online play is a service. If you want the service, you have to pay the people who are providing it, not Gamestop.

Or, in the used vehicle analogy of which people are so fond: the warranty only applies to the first owner; manufacturers provide no warranty for vehicles sold used. Why? Because they only provide a warranty to people who are actually their customers.

Oh i read what you said, but here's some question's.

Spoiler

If you have a concert ticket and suddenly decide your not gonna use it and give it or sell it to someone else do they need to repay for the seat because it's not the original person who bought it.

If you go into a restaurant with friends and don't eat or drink anything because you don't feel like it do you have to pay the restaurant a seat charge because your taking a seat from them.

When you buy a second hand car if it's got 6 months of registration left, because you bought this car do you need to go and get new registration to access the roads even though the car already has 6 months access(This could be different in your country, but in australia, you could sell the car 5 times in 12 months and the only person who would have to buy rego is the person who had it 12 months after the rego was initially purchased)

Someone has already paid the cover charge to access the content. Your merely taking their place. From a company's perspective there is no cost conveyed to them by a second hand player using the online service, than there is if the original purchaser has played consistently over the next 2 years.

If these used copies meant that the original owner and the used owner were both able to play the game at once then there would be some credibility to your statement. As it stands regardless of how people have gotten a legitimate copy of the game. The rest of it should have been budgeted for by the company.

 

[Corsion]

Just pointing out, that any american who complains about $60 games should come buy games in Australia.

I agree with this. If I'm forking out half of my weekly pay from my shit part-time job to buy your game, I don't expect you to make me pay another $10 and wait another hour or so just so I can play your multiplayer.

 

[Zom-B]

Flatly speaking, and I reiterate, that the used game industry benefits noone save for the store. It bilks money from the studios, and it cheats consumers out of their hard earned money by an artificial value depreciation by the same retail store.

Untrue. The used industry benefits those unable to afford new prices. You may not like it, but that's a tangible benefit for many people. Secondly, regardless of what you think, it's also people voting with their wallets, by saying "I do want this game, but I believe that the MSRP for a new copy is too much." That's what's happening when you purchase a used game.

Those new prices are fine for many people, but for many others they aren't. Why do you think we have thrift stores, 2nd hand stores, garage sales, eBay, craigslist and any other way for people to trade goods with each other directly, without buying from the manufacturer? Sometimes, it just makes sense: I'm done with this game, why don't you give m X dollars (less than retail) because it's "used"?

Your logic seems to indicate that as consumers we should only buy things "brand new" and when we are done with them it is immoral to sell them, so they should just be thrown into the trash. That's ludicrous, wasteful and flies in the face of a free society. I purchased the license for a particular game and when I'm done with it the law says I'm free to give it away, resell it, let it sit on my shelf or destroy it, just like any other product I've purchased. Game publishers don't have to like it, but that is how it is and it won't be changing anytime soon.

 

[Catalyst6]

It's amazing that gamers are such entitled gits, really.

Entitled (verb); Give (someone) a legal right or a just claim to receive or do something.

Yep, we are entitled to buy pre-owned as it's legal.

It's not illegal. It's just not something to be proud of.

Something not to be proud of? I'm sorry, but I don't have $60 laying around every time I want a game. I have a car, have to pay gas and insurance, I also have bills... Should I be proud if I skip out on eating for a few days to afford a half-assed 4 hour campaign? I mean, I buy CD's preowned all the time and buy used movies. Artists or directors don't go around complaining constantly about that. They also don't try to screw us over by make 25 minute CD's with half the songs being intros/filler/outros. They also don't make movies that are only 45-50 minutes then released extended parts of it later for a fraction of the price.

If you can't afford the game, then don't buy the game. It's economics. Yes, I like all people wish that games were cheaper and every person could own every game. That would be a wonderful world. But it doesn't work like that, alas, economics gets in the way every time. If it's so "half-assed" that you can't stand to hand over ten dollars to the dev for making it (a fee that many times won't add up to the price of a new copy) then why are you buying it at all?

EDIT: I'm not saying that you can't buy it used. I'm saying that if you consider it a game worthy of spending X amount of money on then you shouldn't have any issue giving a few bucks to the people that actually made the product as well as the people that could sell them out of a trenchcoat in a back alley and be all the same.

 

[dbphreakdb]

you didn't actually read what I said:

If you want to use a publisher's servers and bandwidth, they have a right to bloody charge you.

The game is a product. Online play is a service. If you want the service, you have to pay the people who are providing it, not Gamestop.

Or, in the used vehicle analogy of which people are so fond: the warranty only applies to the first owner; manufacturers provide no warranty for vehicles sold used. Why? Because they only provide a warranty to people who are actually their customers.

Oh i read what you said, but here's some question's.

Spoiler

If you have a concert ticket and suddenly decide your not gonna use it and give it or sell it to someone else do they need to repay for the seat because it's not the original person who bought it.

If you go into a restaurant with friends and don't eat or drink anything because you don't feel like it do you have to pay the restaurant a seat charge because your taking a seat from them.

When you buy a second hand car if it's got 6 months of registration left, because you bought this car do you need to go and get new registration to access the roads even though the car already has 6 months access(This could be different in your country, but in australia, you could sell the car 5 times in 12 months and the only person who would have to buy rego is the person who had it 12 months after the rego was initially purchased)

Someone has already paid the cover charge to access the content. Your merely taking their place. From a company's perspective there is no cost conveyed to them by a second hand player using the online service, than there is if the original purchaser has played consistently over the next 2 years.

If these used copies meant that the original owner and the used owner were both able to play the game at once then there would be some credibility to your statement. As it stands regardless of how people have gotten a legitimate copy of the game. The rest of it should have been budgeted for by the company.

The company did budget for online access. From a single user.

Alot of people think that game creation is not categorically researched and planned, when it is. The initial purchaser of the game license is budgeted into operating cost, with some fuzzy equations that take into account the variables for diminishing returns on game enjoyment, sequel replacement, and a host of several other semi-predictable normalized variables.

The IT sector is replete with mathematical and theoretical geniuses who actually track these sort of statistical probabilities. Used Games falls outside of a guaranteed services contract, and thus, fall outside of these equations, as they are wildcards that cannot be projected in a consistent manner, due to their very nature.

Also: Selling a ticket for less than what you paid for it, just to get a return is, known as scalping here in the states. Only authorized ticket agents really have the legal right and ability to sell a ticket.

 

[RikuoAmero]

Except publishers and developers dont see a dime of that used game money...so most every scenario you put forth loses that developer money because they all require massive influxes of used games where only the first few only have to buy that game new...used means 5 million people can go buy that game used and keep selling it back and 10 million get to play it and the developer or publisher doesn't see a dime from those 10 million users.

This is so wrong. It doesn't matter who owned the game first, who sold it or who bought it used. If there are five million copies sold of a game it doesn't really matter how they got out there. There are five million copies and that's what the company sold. There is no way to prove
that if used sales were taken away it would immediately translate into more new sales. i.e. without used sales, it doesn't automatically mean there would be 10 million copies sold. I'm sure it would translate into some, of course, but there's no real way to know the numbers, so there's no way to quantify it as "lost money". It's only lost if they had it in the first place.

That's a very true and valid argument. Noone knows how the sales will translate.

The very basic laws of supply and demand, however, can project that if there is no option to buy second hand, then more new units would be purchased.

Really? So if all games were magically sold new at $60, there would automatically be more sales? Ummm...what about people like me? I don't want to pay 50 or 60 for a game. For me, the cut off point is 40. Beyond that, and I won't buy your game. If I can get it used cheaper, great. I've saved myself a bit of money. You're forgetting the very basic laws of supply and demand. The demand for cheap used games is a huge market, and one that should not be made disappear.

 

[cookyy2k]

you didn't actually read what I said:

If you want to use a publisher's servers and bandwidth, they have a right to bloody charge you.

The game is a product. Online play is a service. If you want the service, you have to pay the people who are providing it, not Gamestop.

Or, in the used vehicle analogy of which people are so fond: the warranty only applies to the first owner; manufacturers provide no warranty for vehicles sold used. Why? Because they only provide a warranty to people who are actually their customers.

Oh i read what you said, but here's some question's.

Spoiler

If you have a concert ticket and suddenly decide your not gonna use it and give it or sell it to someone else do they need to repay for the seat because it's not the original person who bought it.

If you go into a restaurant with friends and don't eat or drink anything because you don't feel like it do you have to pay the restaurant a seat charge because your taking a seat from them.

When you buy a second hand car if it's got 6 months of registration left, because you bought this car do you need to go and get new registration to access the roads even though the car already has 6 months access(This could be different in your country, but in australia, you could sell the car 5 times in 12 months and the only person who would have to buy rego is the person who had it 12 months after the rego was initially purchased)

Someone has already paid the cover charge to access the content. Your merely taking their place. From a company's perspective there is no cost conveyed to them by a second hand player using the online service, than there is if the original purchaser has played consistently over the next 2 years.

If these used copies meant that the original owner and the used owner were both able to play the game at once then there would be some credibility to your statement. As it stands regardless of how people have gotten a legitimate copy of the game. The rest of it should have been budgeted for by the company.

The company did budget for online access. From a single user.

Alot of people think that game creation is not categorically researched and planned, when it is. The initial purchaser of the game license is budgeted into operating cost, with some fuzzy equations that take into account the variables for diminishing returns on game enjoyment, sequel replacement, and a host of several other semi-predictable normalized variables.

The IT sector is replete with mathematical and theoretical geniuses who actually track these sort of statistical probabilities. Used Games falls outside of a guaranteed services contract, and thus, fall outside of these equations, as they are wildcards that cannot be projected in a consistent manner, due to their very nature.

I call hogwash. The amount any given user plays online and how long it takes them to stop are both wildcards in the fact they arn't certain values. You cannot tell me that resale cannot be factored into those models, because seriously if they can't do it I'm avaliable to sort a model out and charge an appropriate freelance fee, I'm no stranger to building theoretical models.

 

[dbphreakdb]

Flatly speaking, and I reiterate, that the used game industry benefits noone save for the store. It bilks money from the studios, and it cheats consumers out of their hard earned money by an artificial value depreciation by the same retail store.

Untrue. The used industry benefits those unable to afford new prices. You may not like it, but that's a tangible benefit for many people. Secondly, regardless of what you think, it's also people voting with their wallets, by saying "I do want this game, but I believe that the MSRP for a new copy is too much." That's what's happening when you purchase a used game.

Those new prices are fine for many people, but for many others they aren't. Why do you think we have thrift stores, 2nd hand stores, garage sales, eBay, craigslist and any other way for people to trade goods with each other directly, without buying from the manufacturer? Sometimes, it just makes sense: I'm done with this game, why don't you give m X dollars (less than retail) because it's "used"?

Your logic seems to indicate that as consumers we should only buy things "brand new" and when we are done with them it is immoral to sell them, so they should just be thrown into the trash. That's ludicrous, wasteful and flies in the face of a free society. I purchased the license for a particular game and when I'm done with it the law says I'm free to give it away, resell it, let it sit on my shelf or destroy it, just like any other product I've purchased. Game publishers don't have to like it, but that is how it is and it won't be changing anytime soon.

It is your complete right to buy or sell the physical media as you please. I am not saying that you should be wasteful or always buy new. As a matter of fact, that would be, as you pointed out, ludicrous.

What I am saying is that decrying the model that most game manufacturers have decided upon, with online passes, is not wrong. While they could come up with new models to curtail this sort of behavior from release, they do indeed deserve to be paid for any and all work, products, or services they provide.

If buying a game used + online pass is cheaper than a new copy, then do it. But don't complain when you can't use a service that you as a second or third hand customer are not guaranteed unless you pay for it.

It's just hypocritical.

 

[alinos]

except the games industry is like no other.

when you buy a used car it has wear and tear. A game does not. (if a used game has wear and tear generally it's painstakingly obvious. But trying telling whether or not the headgasket on the used car you have bought doesn't have a crack in it. That's going to break in a month.

You don't buy a car drive it to Mcdonalds then decide you want a new car. take it down to the lot you just bought the thing from slap a 10% discount on it and sell it. It simply doesn't work that way.

The only other industries that have even a comparable product to games are DVD's and Music CD's. Most of which when you buy you don't resell. And if you do you resell them yourself. They aren't being sold next to brand new copies of the same product the very next day.

I agree that the games industry is not quite like any other, but I disagree with your other assumptions.

A game may not have "wear and tear", but there are other considerations. Does it have online play? Are people still playing, are the servers up? Is the manual beat up?

Some people do in fact, buy a new car once a year and trade the old one in, or lease yearly.

So, you've never, ever been to a store that sells both new and used DVDs/CDs? I sure have. In fact, there's still one big one going in my city. Just because you don't personally see it, doesn't mean it isn't happening.

Never said any such thing about it not happening. But last i checked, Every Gamestop, Game, EB. All of them all sell Used copies of product's right next to new ones around the country. That simply doesn't happen with DvD's and CD's yes there are used stores and yes they sometime's are couple with the very same new product's. But they are not the majority of retailers that sell these product's. Which when it comes to games are

As for the other consideration's

A) Does it have online play. Not sure how this is a consideration it's sorta like asking does it have single player it's a game feature it's not dependent on the game being used or new(If we ignore the whole Pass thing which i think shouldn't really exist)

B) Does it still have players online if it has online, Well some good foruming will tell you the answer to that before you lay down your cash. and if it doesn't and you already bought it, you can just trade it back(hell depending which store if your quick enough you could take it back and get a refund on a used game)

C)Is the manual beat up, Generally speaking much like looking at the disc for obvious sign's of scratches, you can also see said manual when you purchase the game. Which like with my car example you can't see with a cursory look whether or not the head gasket has a crack or whether the exhaust is going to rust through in 2 months

And yes people do cycle through cars within a year. But that's the operative word "YEAR" these companies get a long period of time to sell a bunch of their nice shiny new cars before they have to worry about used sales cutting in significantly. They have a window where the market simply doesn't get flooded with used version's of their car's instantaneously.

Which can't be said of used games. I've seen game go out of the store at 9am and be back in store by the end of the day with a used sticker on them. Because people rush through them an breakneck speeds because they want to make sure they get maximum cash back.

Most games will have maybe a couple of days grace before the store is flooded with used copies again.

And i can almost guarantee if there was definitive evidence that a player buying a used copy of a game was 50-70% more likely to trade the game back in with 1-5 days. If they could get the profit margin to work you'd have companies start selling new copies of the game for 5 dollars less under a Used copy heading, because the game would be more likely to re-enter the store so they could re-sell it 10 more times.

 

[cookyy2k]

It's amazing that gamers are such entitled gits, really.

Entitled (verb); Give (someone) a legal right or a just claim to receive or do something.

Yep, we are entitled to buy pre-owned as it's legal.

It's not illegal. It's just not something to be proud of.

Something not to be proud of? I'm sorry, but I don't have $60 laying around every time I want a game. I have a car, have to pay gas and insurance, I also have bills... Should I be proud if I skip out on eating for a few days to afford a half-assed 4 hour campaign? I mean, I buy CD's preowned all the time and buy used movies. Artists or directors don't go around complaining constantly about that. They also don't try to screw us over by make 25 minute CD's with half the songs being intros/filler/outros. They also don't make movies that are only 45-50 minutes then released extended parts of it later for a fraction of the price.

If you can't afford the game, then don't buy the game. It's economics. Yes, I like all people wish that games were cheaper and every person could own every game. That would be a wonderful world. But it doesn't work like that, alas, economics gets in the way every time. If it's so "half-assed" that you can't stand to hand over ten dollars to the dev for making it (a fee that many times won't add up to the price of a new copy) then why are you buying it at all?

I can afford the game pre-owned, hence it's bought pre-owned. You keep going on like the new price is literally the only option.

 

[TK421]

I completely and totally agree with Jim on the online pass thing. Online passes are complete crap. When I buy a car, or a t.v, or anything else, I can go resell it, and whoever the original producer was won't get jack from that. I want to know why the game industry thinks it's so special.

 

[cookyy2k]

I completely and totally agree with Jim on the online pass thing. Online passes are complete crap. When I buy a car, or a t.v, or anything else, I can go resell it, and whoever the original producer was won't get jack from that. I want to know why the game industry thinks it's so special.

Because they apparently have customers willing to put up with their crap, unlike every other industry on Earth.

 

[spectrenihlus]

They should go the mass effect route offer free dlc for a new game ad used gamers haev to pay for that. I think that is fair.

 

[Assassin Xaero]

It's amazing that gamers are such entitled gits, really.

Entitled (verb); Give (someone) a legal right or a just claim to receive or do something.

Yep, we are entitled to buy pre-owned as it's legal.

It's not illegal. It's just not something to be proud of.

Something not to be proud of? I'm sorry, but I don't have $60 laying around every time I want a game. I have a car, have to pay gas and insurance, I also have bills... Should I be proud if I skip out on eating for a few days to afford a half-assed 4 hour campaign? I mean, I buy CD's preowned all the time and buy used movies. Artists or directors don't go around complaining constantly about that. They also don't try to screw us over by make 25 minute CD's with half the songs being intros/filler/outros. They also don't make movies that are only 45-50 minutes then released extended parts of it later for a fraction of the price.

If you can't afford the game, then don't buy the game. It's economics. Yes, I like all people wish that games were cheaper and every person could own every game. That would be a wonderful world. But it doesn't work like that, alas, economics gets in the way every time. If it's so "half-assed" that you can't stand to hand over ten dollars to the dev for making it (a fee that many times won't add up to the price of a new copy) then why are you buying it at all?

But if it is used, I can afford to buy it. Why do I not care much to hand money over to devs? Because games are lower quality than they used to be. Games on the PC especially are constantly shafted for the 360, same with single player campaigns for multiplayer. I don't feel bad at all spending half or less of the price to support a local game retail store.

 

[dbphreakdb]

you didn't actually read what I said:

If you want to use a publisher's servers and bandwidth, they have a right to bloody charge you.

The game is a product. Online play is a service. If you want the service, you have to pay the people who are providing it, not Gamestop.

Or, in the used vehicle analogy of which people are so fond: the warranty only applies to the first owner; manufacturers provide no warranty for vehicles sold used. Why? Because they only provide a warranty to people who are actually their customers.

Oh i read what you said, but here's some question's.

Spoiler

If you have a concert ticket and suddenly decide your not gonna use it and give it or sell it to someone else do they need to repay for the seat because it's not the original person who bought it.

If you go into a restaurant with friends and don't eat or drink anything because you don't feel like it do you have to pay the restaurant a seat charge because your taking a seat from them.

When you buy a second hand car if it's got 6 months of registration left, because you bought this car do you need to go and get new registration to access the roads even though the car already has 6 months access(This could be different in your country, but in australia, you could sell the car 5 times in 12 months and the only person who would have to buy rego is the person who had it 12 months after the rego was initially purchased)

Someone has already paid the cover charge to access the content. Your merely taking their place. From a company's perspective there is no cost conveyed to them by a second hand player using the online service, than there is if the original purchaser has played consistently over the next 2 years.

If these used copies meant that the original owner and the used owner were both able to play the game at once then there would be some credibility to your statement. As it stands regardless of how people have gotten a legitimate copy of the game. The rest of it should have been budgeted for by the company.

The company did budget for online access. From a single user.

Alot of people think that game creation is not categorically researched and planned, when it is. The initial purchaser of the game license is budgeted into operating cost, with some fuzzy equations that take into account the variables for diminishing returns on game enjoyment, sequel replacement, and a host of several other semi-predictable normalized variables.

The IT sector is replete with mathematical and theoretical geniuses who actually track these sort of statistical probabilities. Used Games falls outside of a guaranteed services contract, and thus, fall outside of these equations, as they are wildcards that cannot be projected in a consistent manner, due to their very nature.

I call hogwash. The amount any given user plays online and how long it takes them to stop are both wildcards in the fact they arn't certain values. You cannot tell me that resale cannot be factored into those models, because seriously if they can't do it I'm avaliable to sort a model out and charge an appropriate freelance fee, I'm no stranger to building theoretical models.

The law of averages for access time comes into play. For every person that plays a game 8 hours straight every day throughout the week, there will be someone who is only able to play it twice a week for 4 to 6 hours a day. when you add the two together, they come up with a median user.

Take into account that most of the gaming crowd is a set demographic (25 to 35), and most 25 to 35 year olds are busy working jobs to pay their bills, or going to college or whatever, and balance that against the 12-17 and 18-25 demographic theoreticals, and you come out with a median online access time of 20 hours in any given week for any given player.

Then, you take those numbers, and compare cost of access to cost of game, and schedule your sequel release date accordingly.

Now, there are anomalies to this equation, namely in a company named Blizzard. 8 years for a sequel is rather long. However, their products were good enough that they weren't really forced to go to the shelf with a new volume. Also take into consideration that both Diablo 2 and Starcraft, amongst others, require unique keys for online access. They didn't care if you bought the game used for multiplayer

(as a matter of fact, my first copy of each of those games were second hand retail, as they were still sealed, but from a game store that closed down and liquidated their stock to a used games store in the area)

 

[Catalyst6]

It's amazing that gamers are such entitled gits, really.

Entitled (verb); Give (someone) a legal right or a just claim to receive or do something.

Yep, we are entitled to buy pre-owned as it's legal.

It's not illegal. It's just not something to be proud of.

Something not to be proud of? I'm sorry, but I don't have $60 laying around every time I want a game. I have a car, have to pay gas and insurance, I also have bills... Should I be proud if I skip out on eating for a few days to afford a half-assed 4 hour campaign? I mean, I buy CD's preowned all the time and buy used movies. Artists or directors don't go around complaining constantly about that. They also don't try to screw us over by make 25 minute CD's with half the songs being intros/filler/outros. They also don't make movies that are only 45-50 minutes then released extended parts of it later for a fraction of the price.

If you can't afford the game, then don't buy the game. It's economics. Yes, I like all people wish that games were cheaper and every person could own every game. That would be a wonderful world. But it doesn't work like that, alas, economics gets in the way every time. If it's so "half-assed" that you can't stand to hand over ten dollars to the dev for making it (a fee that many times won't add up to the price of a new copy) then why are you buying it at all?

I can afford the game pre-owned, hence it's bought pre-owned. You keep going on like the new price is literally the only option.

I'm not saying that, although I understand why you might think that. No, I'm just annoyed that people get so uppity at the merest mention of having to throw a few bucks at a group of people that put all the time and effort into making these products. GameStop could be selling chickens that they name after the games for all they care. Ten dollars isn't exactly a breaking point, is it? Is it really that big of a deal? And more to the point, if you're unwilling to give ten dollars to the people that made the game, for one reason or another, then why are you purchasing it at all?