Poll: Boycott Rage

[WaruTaru]

The buyer did not run the program, and had no knowledge of the EULA. The courts said he was not bound because he did not click "I Accept".

You're conflating two separate points from the case: "[1] Judge Pregerson ruled that Adobe had sold its software instead of licensed the software. Thus under the first-sale doctrine, Adobe can not control how SoftMan resells those particular copies of Adobe software after the initial sale. [2] The Court also found that SoftMan had not infringed on the EULA because SoftMan had never run the program and therefore never assented to the terms."

Edit: Regarding the first point, I think the importance is whether he did or did not see the EULA.

The courts say he did not infringe the EULA because he did not assent to it, but they refused to rule on whether the EULA would have been binding if he did actually run and assented to it. So it goes both ways I suppose. One can only assume what would happen if he did run it and assented to it.

Vernor assented to the EULA and accepted it.

No, he didn't. Have you read the case you keep citing?

"In 2005, Mr. Vernor purchased an authentic, used AutoCAD package at a garage sale and put it up for auction on eBay."

"In 2007, Mr. Vernor bought four authentic, used AutoCAD packages from an office sale at Cardwell/Thomas Associates (?CTA?), a Seattle architecture firm." (He put those on eBay as well.)

I stand corrected. It was CTA who sold off their second-hand copy to Vernor.

[...CTA later upgraded to the newer, fifteenth version of the AutoCAD program, AutoCAD 2000. It paid $495 per upgrade license, compared to $3,750 for each new license. The SLA for AutoCAD 2000, like the SLA for Release 14, required destruction of copies of previous versions of the software, with proof to be furnished to Autodesk on request. However, rather than destroying its Release 14 copies, CTA sold them to Vernor at an office sale with the handwritten activation codes necessary to use the software...]

But apparently Vernor was aware of the terms as well.

[...Though he was aware of the SLA?s existence, he believed that he was not bound by its terms...]

So yeah, he read the thing and knew he could not have re-distributed it. And Autodesk repeatedly took down his eBay auction and told him specifically he cannot sell it. He ignored it. That means there need not be any assent at all as long as he knew what he was getting into.

The seller tried to sell a non-working copy with their EULA. Of course that wouldn't fly.

Vernor did not sell broken copies.

You're missing the point of SoftMan, which is that the court ruled that the EULA printed on the box didn't constitute a valid contract.

I'd hazard a guess at the EULA being too onerous and burdensome on the consumer. Isn't there some law that says you cannot sell broken goods in the first place regardless of what the contract says? And it also begs the question why didn't Vernon tried that with Autodesk (or if they did, why did it fail). And as far as I've read, the court that decided on Vernon was mumbling some mumbo-jumbo about being bound to follow precedents. If that is the case, why did they ignore Softman (Or Step-Saver, for that matter)?

In any event, the point is that Vernor in no way represents the complete final word on the subject. It's not law--it's barely precedent until and unless the Supreme Court rules on it--and there are many, many conflicting legal opinions on it.

Yet no case has went to the Supreme Court yet. Why? You would think that those who got shafted in the ruling would want to appeal to get the case overturned, yet no cases are making their way there. Since Vernon blatantly ignored the two cases you provide, wouldn't that mean those two cases are implicitly overruled?

 

[Epona]

The Vernor vs Autodesk has very little in common with games. Also, one court ruling in favor of EULA doesn't make it a law. It sets a precedent for future cases but nothing more.

 

[TheDooD]

Ok for everyone who is saying boycotting this game is wrong I have to ask aquestion.




Why is it that the games industry gets the ability to circumvent and work around the law based on their interactivity?



There is absolutely nothing wrong with the used market. By supporting this "Lets make sure we support the developers" tripe, your also supporting putting both people and whole industries out of work. All the while making the PUBLISHER... not the developers even more profitable than they already are. This sort of action has zero impact on piracy and as such should not be even considered a part of it. What this is for is to destroy the used and rental markets. So because you think the people slaving away for their art should be compensated for their work, your ensuring that that its actually those who are above them are the only ones seeing the excess profit, all the while throwing vast scores of other people under a bus.

If it takes 100 people to develop and distribute a physical game, then it takes another 1000 to sell it and all this does is perpetuates the dangerous precedent that has been building for the last decade that is designed to do nothing but hurt vastly more people than it could ever hope to help.


Honestly its this sort of short sighted thinking that explains just exactly why were in the sort of economy we are in today, but I expect little else from the MEs. I fully support boycotting this game to combat a dangerous precedent that needs to be stopped immediately before even more damage can be done.

I was loving how Rage was shaping up shit if a had the spare cash on me I'll be getting the PC version. Yet I always been a great supporter of the used market because without it I wouldn't be able to really play all the games I wanted to. I just can't agree to supporting a product that shits on the used consumer like they're lesser then a pirate or a common thief. That even if they pay out their owns pockets for Rage they'll get HALF of the content cut out because publishers these days don't like the used market eventhough Gamestop and stores like it BUYS fucking games from them. The publishers are already getting a double dip, they get money for the bulk purchase and they get more money on the single hard copy. These bastards are being overly greedy. I for one want to become a lead artist on a design team. Yet I'll never back a team that just lets it's publisher treat people like dogs just because they're bitching about missing a few extra dollars when they already have millions.

 

[WaruTaru]

The Vernor vs Autodesk has very little in common with games. Also, one court ruling in favor of EULA doesn't make it a law. It sets a precedent for future cases but nothing more.

Uh...huh? Very little in common with games? Do enlighten me. That case specifically states that you cannot resell "software with EULA". All games are software. If those games have EULA, you cannot resell it. And you call that "very little in common with game"?

Precedents are meant to be followed, no? So why are you not following it? You are not supposed to sell used games until the Supreme Courts overruled it, no?

 

[Epona]

The Vernor vs Autodesk has very little in common with games. Also, one court ruling in favor of EULA doesn't make it a law. It sets a precedent for future cases but nothing more.

Uh...huh? Very little in common with games? Do enlighten me. That case specifically states that you cannot resell "software with EULA". All games are software. If those games have EULA, you cannot resell it. And you call that "very little in common with game"?

Precedents are meant to be followed, no? So why are you not following it? You are not supposed to sell used games until the Supreme Courts overruled it, no?

Game software doesn't have a destruction clause. Precedents are not meant to be followed, they can be brought up in the next EULA case but beyond that, there is no law that selling software is illegal or that EULA's are legally binding.

 

[TheDooD]

Really, this is a big enough issue to boycott? These are just sewers that you're not likely to see. In this game's case, I don't see a huge devaluation.

Isn't this just giving an added incentive to not buy the game used, of which no money is going to the developer/publisher, and helping the customer in the end? Seems like a win-win situation. It's not like new copies of a game will ever run out except for 20+ year old games, of which case then there is digital distribution e.g. GOG, Steam, etc.

Where do you think Gamestop gets that huge box full of games because its not a free gift. They buy what they think they may need from the publishers and said publishers get more money when people buys the new copies. that's twice Gamestop supported them now you really think they should give them even more money on a product somebody else bought and then sold to them. The money they make on the used sells is basically going right back into them buying newer games and products. Gamestop isn't Best Buy, Target or Wal Mart. They really have no other means these days to raise enough money to buy new products besides the used market.

 

[Mr.Wizard]

Okay, two things to say.

One - I am not boycotting Rage. I never intended to buy it in the first place so I'm just not buying it (completely different from boycotting)

Two - Just because I am not boycotting Rage doesn't mean I agree with what developers are doing in terms of getting a piece of the used games trade. Yes, developers get no money from used games sales. Do I care? Hell no! Neither do I care that I can go into a pawn shop and buy DVD's cheap, or a DVD player, or a TV! Buying and selling of used games has become a part of gaming culture and for developers to be seeing that and simply thinking of how they could be making more money off of that is greed at best.

Okay three things to say.

Three - Besides which they are making money off of used game sales! Or at least they have the avenue open. By making worthwhile pieces of extra DLC they can make more money off of every person that buys a games and then trades it in. Look at that for a second.

Person A buys Game X new. Plays through the story campaign and trades it in and gets another game.
Person B buys Game X used. Developer sees no money from the sale, but Person B likes the game enough to pay for a couple of pieces of DLC, lets say $15 all up. Then, having exhausted the game content they trade it in and get another game.
Person C buys Game X used....etc etc etc

This can go on for as long as people are enjoying the game and the developers put out worthwhile DLC content at a reasonable price. What they shouldn't do is be massive dicks about it and cut out large chunks of the experience and slap a DLC label on it and give it to new buyers for free. Its a douchebag move and not one I plan to support.

FYI - I rarely buy games used (when I do it tends to be years after their release and they've come down to $20 or $30)

 

[blizzaradragon]

They're not doing anything exactly wrong here, they just want to be paid for the game they made and if you're buying it used, you're not paying them, you're paying gamestop.

It's a simple choice, want the extra features? Buy it new. It's a lot like buying the special edition to a game, are you going to boycott them for not giving you that stuff too? You get what you pay for, that's how a lot of things work.

That's how I see it anyway. It's not even about taking sides really, you're simply not paying the guys who made the game so why should they care what you want? So you want to help them and get your game features well I think buying it new is for you. Besides you get shrink wrap to open and who doesn't enjoy opening a new game?

Also, it's not like they're stripping out the ability to play or save more than one file.

as i understand it, its not extra stuff they're taking out, its a whole chunk of the single player

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/112247-Rage-Cuts-Single-Player-When-You-Buy-It-Used

case you missed what the fuss is about.

Actually the content they are cutting doesn't have any significance to the plot. It is an extra level they threw in that showcases some new enemies and new items, but nothing that compromises the main parts of the game. A good comparison is that it's like some of the missions that Mass Effect 2 had that were given by the Cerberus Network: cool to have but not at all needed in the game to enjoy it.

 

[xXAsherahXx]

Everyone on the Escapist complains about games not being daring enough. You want that to stop? Buy more new games so that devs don't have to worry so much about profit. Maybe then they can think about taking more risks.

I'm tired of the "I hate my locked content" argument. You COULD just wait for the price to go down and then buy it new. Of course you can still buy used games, but how about buying older ones that don't have much of an impact on profit margins?

 

[WaruTaru]

Game software doesn't have a destruction clause. Precedents are not meant to be followed, they can be brought up in the next EULA case but beyond that, there is no law that selling software is illegal or that EULA's are legally binding.

So all they need to do is add a destruction clause? Uh...sure. They can insert a tiny little clause into their EULA and make it binding. Anymore distinctions you wanna throw at me?

"Precedents are not meant to be followed"? Do you know what you are saying? I'll allow you to retract that statement.

 

[Epona]

Everyone on the Escapist complains about games not being daring enough. You want that to stop? Buy more new games so that devs don't have to worry so much about profit. Maybe then they can think about taking more risks.

I'm tired of the "I hate my locked content" argument. You COULD just wait for the price to go down and then buy it new. Of course you can still buy used games, but how about buying older ones that don't have much of an impact on profit margins?

As the industry has GROWN, the industry has become less daring. The reason is that they don't have to risk being daring, they know people will buy the next COD clone anyway. It's when people aren't buying that they have to start thinking out of the box.

 

[Mr Dizazta]

Just buy the damn game new. Problem solved. You know you could try to actually support the developers.

 

[Epona]

Game software doesn't have a destruction clause. Precedents are not meant to be followed, they can be brought up in the next EULA case but beyond that, there is no law that selling software is illegal or that EULA's are legally binding.

So all they need to do is add a destruction clause? Uh...sure. They can insert a tiny little clause into their EULA and make it binding. Anymore distinctions you wanna throw at me?

"Precedents are not meant to be followed"? Do you know what you are saying? I'll allow you to retract that statement.

I give up, you win. Go arrest all those people selling games to Gamestop, see how fuckin far you get.

 

[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.

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.

No offense, but you're starting to grasp for straws now.

The difference is that games are an ARTIFICIAL MEDIA, not physical like a car. That is part of why everyone is getting so worked up about all this: they look at the game as a physical item. I don't know about you, but when I buy a game I pay for the data on the disc, not for the disc itself. I don't go and throw the disc like a frisbee, I play with the data of the disc. So why should someone who pays half the price of my get access to everything I have access to?

What is going on here is that people like you are getting butthurt that the $40 they spend on a game, which not a single cent is going back to the people who made it mind you, are not getting the exact same quality as someone who paid $60 for. The developers and publishers get not a single thing from you, why should they give you anything in return? Lets go back to a car example, since everyone seems to love those. You buy a Ford truck used, and after a day of driving around the engine craps out. You call Ford and demand that they do something about your engine, even though you didn't give them a cent of your money. Then when they tell you that since you didn't buy it from them they can't do anything you decide to boycott Ford altogether.

tl;dr You didn't support the developer/publisher so why should they support you

It's you who are grasping at straws. Games are a product, not an artificial product but a real product. When you buy a CD, you want the music but music isn't just floating in space (else it would be free), it's attached to the media, permanently.

You know though, you may be on to something, perhaps digital code really is artificial and as such, has no value. Like music floating in the air (from the radio), it can be grabbed for free with the correct device (an antenna in that case). Pointing out that games are artificial isn't going to help your case.

None of this matters though because the bottom line is that NORMAL wear and tear is acceptable because it is naturally (can't be avoided) or accidentally occurring. ARTIFICIAL wear and tear is done on purpose and it can be avoided.

Good for you, you can figure out how to take one point said and run with it while ignoring the whole rest of the post. I'll humor you though, lets go with your radio example. With the radio, we can all listen to music for free simply by purchasing the radio and tuning to the station we want to listen to. Here's where the example falls apart though: the radio company paid for the right to play the music over the air, so the musicians have already got their cut. Same goes with television when they air a movie: they paid for the right to air that for us. The difference here is that with a used game the company got paid for the price of one game, while with radio and TV the companies get paid a lot more than the price of one song on iTunes or one DVD.

I want you to answer me a serious question though. One I mentioned earlier but you utterly bypassed. Why should the developer/publisher/company/etc. support you when you buy used? No other industry supports customers who buy their products used, why should the game industry be any different?

Also not part of the argument, but artificial wear and tear can happen naturally. It's called data erosion, and it happens over time to any data-based media. Perfect example: I have a copy of Earthbound for the SNES. The cartridge itself is fine and the connection between it and the system is perfect, but the game now freezes and doesn't load properly in some areas. This is due to the data on the cartridge eroding due to age. It takes a while, but artificial wear and tear does happen.

In this case, the artificial wear and tear is done on purpose. So your Earthbound example doesn't count. Especially since it's an SNES cartridge and nothing was purposely withheld to punish you if you bought it used.

I don't understand how this issue has anything to do with supporting used buyers. If they just left this so called bonus content on the damn disc, there would be no need to support used buyers.

I will answer though, they should support used buyers because they want them to buy the next game in the series on day one. Making your own game look bad to used buyers isn't very smart.

I can accept your last point, as it is a very valid point, but the other side to that is who's going to stop them from just buying the next game used? True there will be people who buy the next game new, but the fact remains that the buyer hasn't supported the previous release.

The point before it throws me for a loop though. By leaving the disc exactly the same for both new buyers and used buyers, they are essentially giving the same thing to people who gave them no support as they gave to the people who did give them support. It makes the new buyers feel inferior because they are paying more for the experience but getting the same. That is where support from the developer comes in. In the example of RAGE, they are giving an extra level to people who bought it new. This just becomes special since it is already on the disc, so it is pretty much day 1 DLC that you don't have to connect to the internet to get. Who says they aren't going to have a patch they release online that lets people who bought it used experience the level?

In short, they're rewarding the person who paid more with more content. A great example of this is the Cerberus Network in Mass Effect 2. People who buy used couldn't get the extra stuff from the Cerberus Network unless they paid. That was easily a ton more content than this, yet the Cerberus Network caused little to no uproar.

Ah, so the goal is to punish used buyers because it may hurt the feelings of new buyers? It's funny how we hear that publishers shouldn't have to support used buyers but they aren't simply ignoring used buyers either are they? No, they are fighting used buyers and this can't end well.

Your argument about Cerberus network seems to be "since there wasn't much complaining then, people need to STFU now". Sorry, that's not much of an argument.

ONCE AGAIN MODS (FUCKING ANSWER THIS TIME), IF THE CAPTCHA IS FOR SPAMMERS AND BOTS WHY THE FUCK DOES EVERY POSTER HAVE TO DEAL WITH IT.

I have to refresh damn near everytime now because the captcha is unreadable. Can't you guys program it to not show up for legit posters or is there some reason you want to fuckin torture everyone?

Explain to me how they are hurting used buyers in this. They didn't remove anything essential from the game, so how are used buyers hurt? Because they didn't get an extra level? It isn't like they removed the final boss or something ridiculous like that. They decided to throw in an extra level for the people who bought it new as a reward, simple as that. There is no punishment for buying used, only reward for those who bought it new. Again, like the Cerberus Network in Mass Effect 2 or like the day 1 DLC in Dragon Age: Origins.

Also with my argument about the Cerberus Network, it isn't that there simply wasn't any complaining but how is it any different.

 

[xXAsherahXx]

Everyone on the Escapist complains about games not being daring enough. You want that to stop? Buy more new games so that devs don't have to worry so much about profit. Maybe then they can think about taking more risks.

I'm tired of the "I hate my locked content" argument. You COULD just wait for the price to go down and then buy it new. Of course you can still buy used games, but how about buying older ones that don't have much of an impact on profit margins?

As the industry has GROWN, the industry has become less daring. The reason is that they don't have to risk being daring, they know people will buy the next COD clone anyway. It's when people aren't buying that they have to start thinking out of the box.

You're correct, but I believe that, in addition, since the industry is losing a decent (not an "Oh my god, panic") portion of money through used games, they feel they have to put out shit they know we will buy to make up for the losses they think they have suffered. Also, another reason for the next COD clone is because they know that FPS transcend the Hardcore and Casual gamer market. They make generic shit for both markets to partake in for whatever reason those people had the bad taste for in the first place.

 

[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.

No offense, but you're starting to grasp for straws now.

The difference is that games are an ARTIFICIAL MEDIA, not physical like a car. That is part of why everyone is getting so worked up about all this: they look at the game as a physical item. I don't know about you, but when I buy a game I pay for the data on the disc, not for the disc itself. I don't go and throw the disc like a frisbee, I play with the data of the disc. So why should someone who pays half the price of my get access to everything I have access to?

What is going on here is that people like you are getting butthurt that the $40 they spend on a game, which not a single cent is going back to the people who made it mind you, are not getting the exact same quality as someone who paid $60 for. The developers and publishers get not a single thing from you, why should they give you anything in return? Lets go back to a car example, since everyone seems to love those. You buy a Ford truck used, and after a day of driving around the engine craps out. You call Ford and demand that they do something about your engine, even though you didn't give them a cent of your money. Then when they tell you that since you didn't buy it from them they can't do anything you decide to boycott Ford altogether.

tl;dr You didn't support the developer/publisher so why should they support you

It's you who are grasping at straws. Games are a product, not an artificial product but a real product. When you buy a CD, you want the music but music isn't just floating in space (else it would be free), it's attached to the media, permanently.

You know though, you may be on to something, perhaps digital code really is artificial and as such, has no value. Like music floating in the air (from the radio), it can be grabbed for free with the correct device (an antenna in that case). Pointing out that games are artificial isn't going to help your case.

None of this matters though because the bottom line is that NORMAL wear and tear is acceptable because it is naturally (can't be avoided) or accidentally occurring. ARTIFICIAL wear and tear is done on purpose and it can be avoided.

Good for you, you can figure out how to take one point said and run with it while ignoring the whole rest of the post. I'll humor you though, lets go with your radio example. With the radio, we can all listen to music for free simply by purchasing the radio and tuning to the station we want to listen to. Here's where the example falls apart though: the radio company paid for the right to play the music over the air, so the musicians have already got their cut. Same goes with television when they air a movie: they paid for the right to air that for us. The difference here is that with a used game the company got paid for the price of one game, while with radio and TV the companies get paid a lot more than the price of one song on iTunes or one DVD.

I want you to answer me a serious question though. One I mentioned earlier but you utterly bypassed. Why should the developer/publisher/company/etc. support you when you buy used? No other industry supports customers who buy their products used, why should the game industry be any different?

Also not part of the argument, but artificial wear and tear can happen naturally. It's called data erosion, and it happens over time to any data-based media. Perfect example: I have a copy of Earthbound for the SNES. The cartridge itself is fine and the connection between it and the system is perfect, but the game now freezes and doesn't load properly in some areas. This is due to the data on the cartridge eroding due to age. It takes a while, but artificial wear and tear does happen.

In this case, the artificial wear and tear is done on purpose. So your Earthbound example doesn't count. Especially since it's an SNES cartridge and nothing was purposely withheld to punish you if you bought it used.

I don't understand how this issue has anything to do with supporting used buyers. If they just left this so called bonus content on the damn disc, there would be no need to support used buyers.

I will answer though, they should support used buyers because they want them to buy the next game in the series on day one. Making your own game look bad to used buyers isn't very smart.

I can accept your last point, as it is a very valid point, but the other side to that is who's going to stop them from just buying the next game used? True there will be people who buy the next game new, but the fact remains that the buyer hasn't supported the previous release.

The point before it throws me for a loop though. By leaving the disc exactly the same for both new buyers and used buyers, they are essentially giving the same thing to people who gave them no support as they gave to the people who did give them support. It makes the new buyers feel inferior because they are paying more for the experience but getting the same. That is where support from the developer comes in. In the example of RAGE, they are giving an extra level to people who bought it new. This just becomes special since it is already on the disc, so it is pretty much day 1 DLC that you don't have to connect to the internet to get. Who says they aren't going to have a patch they release online that lets people who bought it used experience the level?

In short, they're rewarding the person who paid more with more content. A great example of this is the Cerberus Network in Mass Effect 2. People who buy used couldn't get the extra stuff from the Cerberus Network unless they paid. That was easily a ton more content than this, yet the Cerberus Network caused little to no uproar.

Ah, so the goal is to punish used buyers because it may hurt the feelings of new buyers? It's funny how we hear that publishers shouldn't have to support used buyers but they aren't simply ignoring used buyers either are they? No, they are fighting used buyers and this can't end well.

Your argument about Cerberus network seems to be "since there wasn't much complaining then, people need to STFU now". Sorry, that's not much of an argument.

ONCE AGAIN MODS (FUCKING ANSWER THIS TIME), IF THE CAPTCHA IS FOR SPAMMERS AND BOTS WHY THE FUCK DOES EVERY POSTER HAVE TO DEAL WITH IT.

I have to refresh damn near everytime now because the captcha is unreadable. Can't you guys program it to not show up for legit posters or is there some reason you want to fuckin torture everyone?

Explain to me how they are hurting used buyers in this. They didn't remove anything essential from the game, so how are used buyers hurt? Because they didn't get an extra level? It isn't like they removed the final boss or something ridiculous like that. They decided to throw in an extra level for the people who bought it new as a reward, simple as that. There is no punishment for buying used, only reward for those who bought it new. Again, like the Cerberus Network in Mass Effect 2 or like the day 1 DLC in Dragon Age: Origins.

Also with my argument about the Cerberus Network, it isn't that there simply wasn't any complaining but how is it any different.

You think that something MUST be essential before it harms used buyers? We'll have to agree to disagree because there is no getting past this point. Further, if they get away with this you will eventually start slashing critical content and after that, you'll need a unique activation code to play the game at all. Just like PC games and at that time the used market will be dead. I just don't see how people can think "that won't happen to the console market". It will.

As for Cerberus, it's no different and just as bad. I mean really, did you think I was cheering for Cerberus while putting this down? NO!

 

[Lunar Templar]

They're not doing anything exactly wrong here, they just want to be paid for the game they made and if you're buying it used, you're not paying them, you're paying gamestop.

It's a simple choice, want the extra features? Buy it new. It's a lot like buying the special edition to a game, are you going to boycott them for not giving you that stuff too? You get what you pay for, that's how a lot of things work.

That's how I see it anyway. It's not even about taking sides really, you're simply not paying the guys who made the game so why should they care what you want? So you want to help them and get your game features well I think buying it new is for you. Besides you get shrink wrap to open and who doesn't enjoy opening a new game?

Also, it's not like they're stripping out the ability to play or save more than one file.

as i understand it, its not extra stuff they're taking out, its a whole chunk of the single player

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/112247-Rage-Cuts-Single-Player-When-You-Buy-It-Used

case you missed what the fuss is about.

Actually the content they are cutting doesn't have any significance to the plot. It is an extra level they threw in that showcases some new enemies and new items, but nothing that compromises the main parts of the game. A good comparison is that it's like some of the missions that Mass Effect 2 had that were given by the Cerberus Network: cool to have but not at all needed in the game to enjoy it.

*decides to not mention that i haven't played ME2*

and while yes, i did see that 'its not important content' that's being removed, i still don't like where its going, i mean how long before they cut off important content for buying used? sides isn't 'getting money from the used players' what DLC content packs are for, this just smacks of top tier dickishness to me.

mind you >.> i'd forgotten rage existed so take of that what you will, but should also be noted, stuff like this will make, or break (more so depending on the game) a purchase for me, and a stunt like this, and Diablo 3's 'always online' BS, pretty much ensures i have enough for the games i do want, that don't have this kinda crap going on

 

[Epona]

Everyone on the Escapist complains about games not being daring enough. You want that to stop? Buy more new games so that devs don't have to worry so much about profit. Maybe then they can think about taking more risks.

I'm tired of the "I hate my locked content" argument. You COULD just wait for the price to go down and then buy it new. Of course you can still buy used games, but how about buying older ones that don't have much of an impact on profit margins?

As the industry has GROWN, the industry has become less daring. The reason is that they don't have to risk being daring, they know people will buy the next COD clone anyway. It's when people aren't buying that they have to start thinking out of the box.

You're correct, but I believe that, in addition, since the industry is losing a decent (not an "Oh my god, panic") portion of money through used games, they feel they have to put out shit they know we will buy to make up for the losses they think they have suffered. Also, another reason for the next COD clone is because they know that FPS transcend the Hardcore and Casual gamer market. They make generic shit for both markets to partake in for whatever reason those people had the bad taste for in the first place.

Make no mistake, the money guys in the industry KNOW they aren't losing money from the used market. They KNOW they aren't entitled to that money in the first place and so can't realistically count it as a loss. However, the Bobby Koticks of the industry also KNOW that all this sympathy for lost money from the used market is a gold mine and they are cashing in. They won't ever take it in front of a court because they know a court won't allow them to legally kill the used market but they will milk this for all it's worth and try to repeat the death of the PC used market via the use of DRM.

So when they speak of losses due to the used market, are they cooking the numbers the way they do with piracy? Ya know, 1 download = $60 lost? The game industry claiming a loss of sales in this manner is the same as me claiming a loss of $34 Million because I failed to win the lottery. In both cases the money never belonged to the people claiming the loss.

 

[Alade]

As it stands the video game industry and the used game industry are two completely different things. However, the growth of the used game industry cuts the profits of the video game industry. The video game industry chose to retaliate.

The thing that really surprises me is the ethics the video game industry is employing so far. They could have made it so that you can't play shit if you bought used but they didn't. Be thankful and buy new.

The customer is always right. You are not a costumer, you aren't right, you aren't entitled to anything, be thankful for how much the industry is already putting up with you.

 

[Mechanix]

Oh boy here we go, another thread riding the used games are evil bandwagon. Newsflash folks, there's a lot of products out there that are bought from someone and then resold, and that original manufacturer doesn't see any of that money.

Developers are not desperate for money to the point of begging us to not buy used. The only ones that are, probably sell their games through digital download anyway. This tactic of blocking off some aspects of the game in order to stop used sales is nothing more than a money-grabbing strategy.

Ask yourself this. There are a lot of products out there, and a lot of them can be resold. Would it really be wise to make games not resell-able when they previously were? No, that would be backwards and stupid. You want developers to make money for game sales? If someone is buying a used game, it means the game was already sold.