How so? Are you saying that dedicated servers that you can rent don't work on consoles? I'm pretty sure that if we've been doing on the pc for 15 years it can be done on an x-boxSaucycardog said:
Online Passes Pay For Dedicated Servers, Says Homefront Dev
- Thread starter Logan Westbrook
- Start date
Recommended Videos
I just said I bet you do, I never said I know for a fact, but I'm saying that IF you buy used, you might as well have pirated the game from the Developer's PoV. you're jumping to conclusions and acting quite defensive. I'm sorryFat_Seth said:
Sure, some gamers have to have all the latest games, and as such go through a cycle of impulse buy then resell after their honeymoon with the game is over, and while that's beneficial to developers of weaker quality games, it does hurt the singleplayer focused games that don't have persistent multiplayer with RPG elements. You a big fan of gsames trying to be like COD? because used game sales help with that.
I've only heard game retailers saying this won't combat used sales, and I frankly don't give a damn about them. Maybe some smalltime PC devs said this, but that's just for PR because PC used games are essentially nonexistent.
Also have to consider the fact that games are getting quite expensive nowadays, so every bit of revenue they can get is needed, and as someone whom only buys new copies, I'm in total support of measures to increase their revenue without raising the prices or cutting quality of the game (in many respects beyond visuals, such as multiplatform stability, trying to go with different gameplay mechanics, and approximate parity (IE the game is similar enough on PS3 and 360)
1. Fat Seth, I am SICK of seeing you directly insulting other forum members. I don't care what the argument context is, it really needs to stop. You're demeaning the argument and provoking other people into a flame war.
2. The idea for a long-running multiplayer game, like Team Fortress 2 (2007 to 2011) is that it constantly has an influx of new players, in exchange for their continued upkeep and added content. The revenue of new players makes it possible to keep the game running.
But WAIT!
After that game has been out for a year or so, there are likely to be about a million used copies gathering dust somewhere. Let's just say that EVERY consumer from then on just buys a used game. After all, we're not trying to determine whether individual used game sales have "enough" of an impact, we're determining if they have AN impact, true or false.
If EVERYONE were to buy used from then on, the company would not get a single penny, despite new players showing up all the time eager to try out their game. It's technically not an "added" strain on their server, since people were obviously leaving, but time goes on and upkeep, server administrators, and the office donut boy don't pay for themselves. In this scenario, there is no question that the company would go under from paying these maintenance costs.
I hope I've cleared up the issue. If you don't like this model of paying once, and then just relying on getting new players once in a while, I'd like to know if people would instead prefer simply paying a monthly fee for every single multiplayer game. Those maintenance costs must be paid somehow.
2. The idea for a long-running multiplayer game, like Team Fortress 2 (2007 to 2011) is that it constantly has an influx of new players, in exchange for their continued upkeep and added content. The revenue of new players makes it possible to keep the game running.
But WAIT!
After that game has been out for a year or so, there are likely to be about a million used copies gathering dust somewhere. Let's just say that EVERY consumer from then on just buys a used game. After all, we're not trying to determine whether individual used game sales have "enough" of an impact, we're determining if they have AN impact, true or false.
If EVERYONE were to buy used from then on, the company would not get a single penny, despite new players showing up all the time eager to try out their game. It's technically not an "added" strain on their server, since people were obviously leaving, but time goes on and upkeep, server administrators, and the office donut boy don't pay for themselves. In this scenario, there is no question that the company would go under from paying these maintenance costs.
I hope I've cleared up the issue. If you don't like this model of paying once, and then just relying on getting new players once in a while, I'd like to know if people would instead prefer simply paying a monthly fee for every single multiplayer game. Those maintenance costs must be paid somehow.
