Poll: Boycott Rage

[AlexLoxate]

Perhaps making more people buy new games could see more sales, thus a possibility of lower prices. I never buy used anyway. Better wait for the price to go down.

 

[Epona]

Of course not. Why would they go after retailers when it's so much easier to make the legitimate consumers (who are usually so willing to get ripped off by a company that makes games they like) pay.
That's why I think all these publishers that complain about used game sales are overreacting and using it as an excuse to pull schemes like Day 1 DLC and Online Pass things. If they were really concerned and the situation was that dire, they would try and set up something that would intercept trade ins and used sales.
It's like with oil prices: if they can come up with an excuse, they will use it.

Because if they would go after retailers, said retailers would simply say "Fine, we just don't stock your games any more, have fun", and even with how growing the digital distribution is, retail still makes nearly 50% of sales, probably more when it comes to consoles.

In the end, if you buy in retail rather than used you are getting full deal. I can't really see how Online Pass or Day 1 DLC hurts the gamer that buys games "as intended" rather than trying to get it marginally cheaper through the used sale offered at the retailer.

Also retailers won't stock the game consoles and they don't sell those digitally. In fact, the retailer makes next to nothing on the consoles and make up for it by selling games (as they believe you will buy games where you buy the console) so there would be no incentive to continue carrying consoles without the games.

 

[Epona]

Perhaps making more people buy new games could see more sales, thus a possibility of lower prices. I never buy used anyway. Better wait for the price to go down.

It works the opposite. As long as a game is still selling well, you will not see a price drop. It's when it stops selling well that the price goes down. Search your feelings, you know this to be true.

So MODS, if the purpose of Captcha is to stop spammers and bots. Why do established posters have to put up with it?

 

[Mxrz]

Yes, they're totally screwing them over by. . . giving their paying customers something extra for their support. Goddamn, that is some true evil there.

They are devaluing the product once it is purchased.

You're reaching awfully hard with that one, but whatever makes you feel better about your crying.

 

[Stall]

-snip-

When you buy new from Gamestop, it's just like buying new from Wal-Mart, or Target, or anyone. A cut goes to the retailer, another cut goes to Nintendo/Sony/Microsoft (since the game is on their console), but most goes to the publisher and developer. So when you give Gamestop that 60 dollars for a new game, you are supporting the developers and publishers, as they are getting a certain cut of that 60 bucks. It's pointless to argue about that, since Gamestop are nothing but another retailer if you buy the game new. The problem is when you buy used: when that happens, the developers and publishers get nothing: that 20-55 dollars goes to Gamestop, and Gamestop alone. They might restock their NEW games, but they won't buy new copies to replace sold used units. They sell what games they get sold themselves for massive profit margins.

Listen, if you care about the industry, then buy new. You don't HAVE to buy new, but just remember that you aren't giving a CENT to the guys who worked their asses off for years to make that game, nor are you giving a cent to the guys who actually made it possible for that first guy to buy the game at retail. Why should developers and publishers cater and meet the demands of people who aren't giving them a cent? You aren't their customer... you weren't going to give them any money... why the heck should they give a damn about what you think if you buy used?

 

[blizzaradragon]

Yes, they're totally screwing them over by. . . giving their paying customers something extra for their support. Goddamn, that is some true evil there.

They are devaluing the product once it is purchased.

So they are doing what is essentially basic economics? Seems legit to me.

In any other used market, once something is purchased and used the value depreciates. If you buy a new car, the second you drive it off of the lot the value goes down. The same should be said about games once the game is put into your console and started up. What developers are doing is essentially giving you the extra oomph for buying it new, just like a new car will have that extra oomph over a used car of the same type.

Essentially, when you buy a new product it should feel like a new product. If you buy a used product it should feel like a used product. Used markets exist for every other industry because of depreciation, so when you buy used you know you are getting a product inferior to a new version of said product. Now that games are doing the same thing, people feel they have the right to complain when in reality they don't. Gamers aren't entitled to shit when they buy used, just like people who buy used in any other market aren't entitled to anything.

 

[Epona]

-snip-

When you buy new from Gamestop, it's just like buying new from Wal-Mart, or Target, or anyone. A cut goes to the retailer, another cut goes to Nintendo/Sony/Microsoft (since the game is on their console), but most goes to the publisher and developer. So when you give Gamestop that 60 dollars for a new game, you are supporting the developers and publishers. It's pointless to argue about that, since they are nothing but another retailer if you buy the game new. The problem is when you buy used: when that happens, the developers and publishers get nothing: that 20-55 dollars goes to Gamestop, and Gamestop alone. They might restock their NEW games, but they won't buy new copies to replace sold used units. They sell what games they get sold themselves for massive profit margins.

Listen, if you don't care about supporting the industry, then don't. You don't HAVE to buy new, but just remember that you aren't giving a CENT to the guys who worked their asses off for years to make that game, nor are you giving a cent to the guys who actually made it possible for that first guy to buy the game at retail. Why should developers and publishers cater and meet the demands of people who aren't giving them a cent?

You said it yourself. Someone bought the game new and then sold it to Gamestop. Did the publishers give Gamestop the money to buy the game from the guy who bought it new? No, then the publishers have no investment in that copy and deserve none of the return on that copy.

Hey, maybe the publishers could start buying back used games and reselling them?

 

[AlexLoxate]

Perhaps making more people buy new games could see more sales, thus a possibility of lower prices. I never buy used anyway. Better wait for the price to go down.

It works the opposite. As long as a game is still selling well, you will not see a price drop. It's when it stops selling well that the price goes down. Search your feelings, you know this to be true.

So MODS, if the purpose of Captcha is to stop spammers and bots. Why do established posters have to put up with it?

*sigh* You do have a point there. It's just... hmmm... oh well, who knows what the future brings.

 

[Epona]

Yes, they're totally screwing them over by. . . giving their paying customers something extra for their support. Goddamn, that is some true evil there.

They are devaluing the product once it is purchased.

So they are doing what is essentially basic economics? Seems legit to me.

In any other used market, once something is purchased and used the value depreciates. If you buy a new car, the second you drive it off of the lot the value goes down. The same should be said about games once the game is put into your console and started up. What developers are doing is essentially giving you the extra oomph for buying it new, just like a new car will have that extra oomph over a used car of the same type.

Essentially, when you buy a new product it should feel like a new product. If you buy a used product it should feel like a used product. Used markets exist for every other industry because of depreciation, so when you buy used you know you are getting a product inferior to a new version of said product. Now that games are doing the same thing, people feel they have the right to complain when in reality they don't. Gamers aren't entitled to shit when they buy used, just like people who buy used in any other market aren't entitled to anything.

If Ford slashed the seats when you resold the car, then it would be the same and it would be unacceptable.

The difference is that a car getting NORMAL wear and tear is acceptable. A game getting ARTIFICIAL wear and tear by the publisher in the interest of making more money is not acceptable, nor should it be.

 

[bootz]

Why don't devs just say to Gamestop if you dont give us a cut we won't let you sell our games.
Its such an easy fix and it doesnt have to hurt the consumers (we will just buy it somewhere else)
Its so simple even I could think of it.

Instead of hurting your comsumers hurt gamestop thats why I'm not buying it.

 

[Epona]

Why don't devs just say to Gamestop if you dont give us a cut we won't let you sell our games.
Its such an easy fix and it doesnt have to hurt the consumers (we will just buy it somewhere else)
Its so simple even I could think of it.

Instead of hurting your comsumers hurt gamestop thats why I'm not buying it.

That would hurt publishers, not Gamestop. In fact, Gamestop would probably be just fine with not stocking new games and being able to blame it on the publishers.

 

[Stall]

ou said it yourself. Someone bought the game new and then sold it to Gamestop. Did the publishers give Gamestop the money to buy the game from the guy who bought it new? No, then the publishers have no investment in that copy and deserve none of the return on that copy.

Hey, maybe the publishers could start buying back used games and reselling them?

So the publishers should have no investment in a copy of their game up on a torrent site, since someone could have possibility bought that original copy that turned up on torrent sites? You said it yourself: if publishers have no investment in that copy that was sold to Gamestop, then why should they have any investment in a pirated copy? Both have the same result: someone getting to play their game without paying them for it.

Listen. Any way you try to spin it, used games create a situation where someone can play the game without giving anything to the publisher. No matter how you argue it, things ultimately come out to the simple fact that the publisher has no investment in you as a consumer when you buy used, so they couldn't give two shits about your rights or what you deserve. If you weren't going to give them money for their game anyways by buying used, then why should they care what you think of day-1 DLC? If you decide against buying the game used because of the DLC, then its not like the publisher has lost any money.

 

[Fiz_The_Toaster]

Or the factor of them being developers meens that they set the standards for what you must do. I know some buisness practices are wrong, thats very obvious. Not including stuff to prevent people from torrenting it or getting second hand sales a few days after seems pretty reasonable to me because it isnt effecting those that purchases the game. And thats just it, they are requireing you to merely, "BUY" the game. Explain to me what is wrong with this. I may be overlooking some huge factor but currently I don't see it with this complaint.

I would like to know how this is wrong too.

I'd like to know that as well.

If you don't like it then why don't you go after the retailers for this, why do you have to hurt and go after the developers for this?

The problem is that consumers who buy used are still considered (legally) to be legitimate consumers but they aren't being treated as such. At this point, those who pirate get more content.

It's the developers (publishers really) who should be "going after" the retailers. They are the morons who aren't stealing back their customers with better trade ins and used prices. Have you ever seen the used prices/trade-in values at gamestop? It isn't exactly competitive. And with online connectivity to all the consoles, they can get the word out directly to the right consumers.

I think the only reason developers haven't gone after retailers for this is probably because the publishers are in the way, and have probably told the developers to back off. I've done trade-ins at Gamestop and it's down right criminal, and I've only bought one used game ever and after doing some reading on that and I felt ripped off.

Maybe I'm just a little cynical on the whole deal, but I just don't really see publishers going after retailers for this. Not when the bottom line and money is involved anyways.

Of course not. Why would they go after retailers when it's so much easier to make the legitimate consumers (who are usually so willing to get ripped off by a company that makes games they like) pay.
That's why I think all these publishers that complain about used game sales are overreacting and using it as an excuse to pull schemes like Day 1 DLC and Online Pass things. If they were really concerned and the situation was that dire, they would try and set up something that would intercept trade ins and used sales which would make money for them in the process.
It's like with oil prices: if they can come up with an excuse, they will use it. At this point it's just really transparent to the point of being insulting.

If it was that dire, then they would, but it isn't, so they won't, agreed.

However, the other thought I've had is retailers can always tell publishers that do that-complain or go after them- to go away if they don't like it. They both need each other whether us gamers like it or not, and unfortunately we're stuck in the middle in all this. The only reason I'm ok with how retailers are operating is because they have to make money too, and they do that from selling games, mainly used games, and very little from everything else. This whole business is a double edged sword, neither side is better than the other, and publishers really don't have much room to say otherwise who have to answer to shareholders.

Also, I don't see how Day One DLC and Online Pass hurts gamers, so you lost me there.

 

[Shifty Tortoise]

I'll be happy to by it new, why? Because the developers and publishers deserve to get money for what they've created. If they have to resort to these tactics, i have no problem with it, they're just insuring they get what they deserve. It's very simple.

 

[WouldYouKindly]

I've heard this argument so many times, "The devs don't get a cent from used game sales!"

So fucking what? Car companies don't make money from used cars. Record companies don't make money from used CDs. Why should games get the privilege of discriminating against the used market? It's not like these are the indies who need every cent. These are major devs and publishers who are most guilty of this kind of bullshit. If they make a good game, it will be profitable and this bullshit is just greed.

Also, it's going to be ineffective as shit. The pirates will undoubtedly make a work around within a week, they always do with this kind of stuff.

In the end, someone scams you. You buy used and it's Gamestop and for 40$ but if you buy new, it's the company and it's 60$.

 

[Raso719]

snipz

Ok, where to start.....

Well first off you assume I want these companies to succeed and give a damn about their well being. For many American companies, I actual couldn't care less. They've abandoned me, you see. They no longer offer games that are tailored to my interests and in the off chance that they do make a game that catches my eye 9 times out of 10 they suckered me in to buying a game I actually did not like so, at least from where I'm standing, I'm doing exactly what I intend to do which is deny them my money because I'm highly skeptical of the games that some publishers and developers produce.

As for depreciating values. If you look at how the music and movie industry has been lately I'm pretty sure media has that too. All to many people confuse "new" with "better" when it comes to music, movies and, yes, games. People want to play "the latest titles" and game companies want to sell the "latest titles" not the "best games" (cuz that still subjective, thank god) so there is this notion that "new" some how translates to better and that older games are the sucks (especially when you consider many of these games will have dead multiplayer modes with ghost towns for servers). So, yeah, I'd say there is a depreciating value. The physical product doesn't decay but value of the experience and it's worth as a "good game" might as technology and trends continue to advance (or sometimes further stagnate).

Uh.... Selling game because they suck..... yeah. You don't like the game enough to keep it. What's not to understand here? The developers didn't put enough effort into replayability or what ever. People sell cars when they get old, people will sell games when they get bored of them or when something shinier comes along. There are lots of older games I'll never sell but many newer ones have a short turn over rate. Maybe companies are making games crappier to encourage people to keep their older one's longer? So what if you really want to keep the game but you still sell it? Well you obviously were willing to part with it so it must of not of been that hard. I mean if you're selling your game to pay for the heating bill that's one thing but, still, you sold your Xbox not your coffee table, not your dog, you xbox 360 and it's games. Obviously they're not that important or you felt they were more marketable or easier to sell or something but still you sold the games. *shurgs* Deal. I don't know how else to put it. You said yourself you get rid of some of your own game quickly. If they were better maybe you would of kept them. Maybe you should get Gamefly or is renting also evil?

And last up consumers being a lesser party and getting screwed. You know, this is where it gets into some deep political crap. In a capitalist society do consumers serve to supplier or the other way around? Who leads who? Are we nothing more than commodities to supply revenue to entities vastly more powerful than we will ever be? How far is too far when a company tries to convince you to buy a product you don't want? Because you buy a product can you still not support 100% of it's features? You know the problem is that, too often, the average consumer must bare the weight of the misdoings of his peers and the greed of the companies he's dependent on for products and there isn't always something he can do to change things.We're now in an age where more and more companies are charging more for services but providing less and less and no one really gives a rat's ass. It baffles me, it really does. So how are we screwed? Well basically the name of the game is no longer keeping costumers happy it's forcing them to stay after they are already here, it's about punishing them for being thrifty consumers and cutting back on the value of a product while charging the same price as it was before you slashed it. I mean what happens when, 10 years down the line, I want to play the game but the game is no longer in print? Don't dodge this one, what happens? Can you say that future generations should be screwed out of the full experience because these companies wanted to make some extra cash? Yeah it's their right (which is a weak ass excuse, IMHO) but is it the right thing to do? Is it the right way to go abut this? Maybe after so many years the entire game will be opened up but since it's ALL ABOUT THE MONEY and not about providing a quality entertainment experience do you really think they are gonna waste money on a patch? We both know they won't. And since it's the single player they're gonna cut you know that 10 years down the pipe no one will be playing the game online and it's servers will be ghost towns. At least when you cut the MP you can still play by yourself.

So, yeah, there you have it. Those are my opinions on the matter. I feel what they are doing is wrong and undercuts the consumers ability enjoy the game with out actually solving any problems. This won't stop piracy and it won't stop used games being sold it just rams a bigger boot up our collective butts and will likely hurt the sales of new games while encouraging more piracy.

Companies need to look to the root of the problem to solve things and if there is no solution then they need to just accept this as part of how the free market works and deal with it. The industry isn't special (at least not until they lobby for new laws to be passed because that's how our government works now).

 

[Zipa]

As a PC gamer this doesn't effect me as there is no used market for PC games anyway. So I will likely still be getting it.

 

[JediMB]

I pre-ordered RAGE.

And then I pre-ordered RAGE again.

Now I'm just considering pre-ordering a third copy to protest these ridiculous cries for "boycott."

 

[Epona]

ou said it yourself. Someone bought the game new and then sold it to Gamestop. Did the publishers give Gamestop the money to buy the game from the guy who bought it new? No, then the publishers have no investment in that copy and deserve none of the return on that copy.

Hey, maybe the publishers could start buying back used games and reselling them?

So the publishers should have no investment in a copy of their game up on a torrent site, since someone could have possibility bought that original copy that turned up on torrent sites? You said it yourself: if publishers have no investment in that copy that was sold to Gamestop, then why should they have any investment in a pirated copy? Both have the same result: someone getting to play their game without paying them for it.

Listen. Any way you try to spin it, used games create a situation where someone can play the game without giving anything to the publisher. No matter how you argue it, things ultimately come out to the simple fact that the publisher has no investment in you as a consumer when you buy used, so they couldn't give two shits about your rights or what you deserve. If you weren't going to give them money for their game anyways by buying used, then why should they care what you think of day-1 DLC? If you decide against buying the game used because of the DLC, then its not like the publisher has lost any money.

No matter how you spin it, a person can buy a used couch and sit on it or even...gasp...sleep on it without paying anything to the company that made the couch. It's called the used market and it's legal. Comparing it to piracy is a fallacy as piracy is not legal and no one here is condoning piracy. Condoning used game sales =/= condoning piracy.