Poll: Boycott Rage

[CM156_v1legacy]

Its like Napster, one guy bought it and shared it with everyone else.

Nope. Not at all the same.

Allow me to tell you why piracy is very, very different.

1.) Used games do exist as part of a secondary market. When someone sells their games to a store for credit, they will occasionally use that credit to fund a new game sale. They may also become a legitimate regular retail supporter of further new copies based on a positive experience they had with a used copy (much more likely than a pirate who got something for free actually deciding to spend money on it's sequel no matter how much they liked the one they got for free).
2.) No new copies are created. In a used game sale you're still only seeing a unique copy bought and sold, so the magnitude of profit damage is kept in relative check. With a pirated copy, however, even if we assume that the original ripped copy was a legitimate purchase, it is still able to spawn infinite copies of it's own. A single copy of a used game may see, for example, 10 owners. A single pirated copy, however, may be stolen by hundreds of thousands.

Why should they not get paid for a product they made?

They did. When they sold the product the first time. It's no longer theirs. See my above post.

didn't mean to compare it to piracy like that. Just using an example.
either way. If a company loses ten sales for its every 1 sale then they lose truckloads of money.

why would they not want to capitalize on that?

They can. I never said they couldn't.

But the ways some are going about it is poor.

Like I said, if they gave the new buyer a discount on future DLC, that would have the preson hold onto the disk longer. And thus there'd be fewer second hand sales if there were fewer second hand copies.

 

[health-bar]

One sided view is one sided.

Used games do not give money to the developers, only to the company selling the used game.
this is a way so even if people buy used the developers and publishers get their earned money.

they are circumventing a system that circumvented them out of money.
its just good business.

They (the publishers) are circumventing a perfectly legal, pro-consumer system (the used market) so they (the publishers) can get money they are NOT entitled to.

Are you "pro-let's rob a bank for the poor people" too?

firstly i must sarcastically say: robin hood robbed the rich and it worked out for him.

I never said the system was illegal. The used game system ONLY benefits the company that is selling it in the store. Publishers and developers are not getting ANY money from used games. Its like Napster, one guy bought it and shared it with everyone else. The fact that companies are pissed because now people just "share" the game instead of buying it is perfectly reasonable and they should take whatever steps they want to make money on a game they made.

Why should they not get paid for a product they made?

Well, Robin Hood was also considered an outlaw so there ya go.

The used game system benefits gamers and the entire industry. It is because people could pick up great games for cheap when they were out of print or just more expensive new that helped bring more people into gaming. Have you never heard of a person picking up a used game and liking it and becoming a fan of the franchise and/or developer and becoming day 1 buyers for the next game/games?

Lastly, they do get paid for their game. On the FIRST SALE. Every game up for sale used was already bought new.

and so 5 other people buy that 1 used game that was bought new originally.

the company has just lost 5 sales for every 1 sale they make.
why shouldn't they try to capitalize? Its a Business. Businesses take opportunities to make money.

This is how the world works.

 

[RedDeadFred]

Don't buy a game that I want just so people can buy it used?
Ya no thanks. I buy all of my games new so this is really no big deal for me at all...

 

[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!

so the worst thing that can happen if they do this is they kill off one of the things that makes them lose money I am all in for them killing off the used games market if it stops companys from telling me a gave they are going to sell for 50 bucks if worth 4 bucks

Yes, Gamestop making alot of money is wrong. So hey, do you get angry when game publisher post record profits or is that ok?

way to let the point go over your head i am saying the used games market is a way bigger ripoff then this because the only way it can exist is by givng a loss of about 40 dollor to the person selling instead of the 15 for a code to the buyer

Then people should boycott Gamestop but they don't so what does that tell you? It should tell you that while everyone is aware that Gamestop rips people off, most people think it's worth the trade off. Makes you wonder how bad the alternative is (keeping the games).

 

[EGtodd09]

Bitches don't want to pay full price, so the developers say "well then you don't get full game". Seems fair to me, always has.

 

[Epona]

One sided view is one sided.

Used games do not give money to the developers, only to the company selling the used game.
this is a way so even if people buy used the developers and publishers get their earned money.

they are circumventing a system that circumvented them out of money.
its just good business.

They (the publishers) are circumventing a perfectly legal, pro-consumer system (the used market) so they (the publishers) can get money they are NOT entitled to.

Are you "pro-let's rob a bank for the poor people" too?

firstly i must sarcastically say: robin hood robbed the rich and it worked out for him.

I never said the system was illegal. The used game system ONLY benefits the company that is selling it in the store. Publishers and developers are not getting ANY money from used games. Its like Napster, one guy bought it and shared it with everyone else. The fact that companies are pissed because now people just "share" the game instead of buying it is perfectly reasonable and they should take whatever steps they want to make money on a game they made.

Why should they not get paid for a product they made?

Well, Robin Hood was also considered an outlaw so there ya go.

The used game system benefits gamers and the entire industry. It is because people could pick up great games for cheap when they were out of print or just more expensive new that helped bring more people into gaming. Have you never heard of a person picking up a used game and liking it and becoming a fan of the franchise and/or developer and becoming day 1 buyers for the next game/games?

Lastly, they do get paid for their game. On the FIRST SALE. Every game up for sale used was already bought new.

and so 5 other people buy that 1 used game that was bought new originally.

the company has just lost 5 sales for every 1 sale they make.
why shouldn't they try to capitalize? Its a Business. Businesses take opportunities to make money.

This is how the world works.

Let me tell you how the world works. The used market exists legally and is a part of capitalism. If you want to do business in a capitalistic economy then you must accept that consumer have a right to resell what they buy. In fact, that right is a contributing factor to why capitalism works. If consumers could not resell what they buy, they would be far more careful about what they buy and that would result in fewer games bought. As it stands consumers can buy a game and get a return on it and buy another game and on and on. Without that assurance, many may not buy that first game.

Now as for this loss of 5 sales. It's only a loss if people would have bought new but who can prove that any of them would have? Further, if a game is worth keeping, there would be fewer used copies available.

When people buy an appliance, they generally don't resell it if they are satisfied with it and it is this way with games too. If Gamestop will only give $10 for a $60 game that you bought 2 days ago and you take that deal...the game must have sucked and you must be certain you'll never play it again.

 

[robert01]

I don't support used game sales, but I don't support the removal of content for either. Mostly because it is simply the beginning of something much larger, and it just shouldn't happen. Everyone here that is complaining about it really needs to look at the larger picture. The video game market isn't the same as any other media market. All the other media markets have some other form of income for each product.

Films have the theaters, this is the MAJOR income for the movie, and usually home video sales is just the icing on the cake, why do you think most DVDs aren't that expensive? They aren't trying to cover the cost of making the film with the sale of the DVD.

Music has concerts/merchandise/other promotional material such as posters, sticker, pins etc. Most albums don't cost in the multiple millions to make either, so if you do buy a used CD the record labels are shitting their pants because they are still going to make money from something else you buy.

Even books having multiple release patterns, hard covers come out first, this is when the book will make most of it's money, and become a 'best seller'. The Author probably only gets paid royalties from this point on, and the publishing company keeps all the rest for themselves. Then the book enters the paperback phase and make a shit ton of more money. Add digital sales on top of that and you are golden. How many books ever cost a million dollars to produce?

Video games are the only market that generally has a single release cycle to cover the cost of production. Most games that get re-released as game of the year, or DLC bundles have probably been a successful game and the publisher wants to push that little bit more to generate more revenue before the game falls into the pit of being 'old'.

So for every dollar that GameStop makes from a used game that could have been a new game, the publisher is losing out on revenue and it makes them harder to make their money back. Overall with what is currently happening what is wrong with them removing something from the used game. You aren't paying full price, why get the full game. It is the same as buying a used car, you aren't paying full price why get new car quality? There is always a sacrifice for buying something used, before it used to be missing manual, or whatever, now that technology is enabling them to make the used game experience a little more restricted people complain because they can't get that new game experience for the used game price.

If everyone wants something to boycott and actually have some form of meaning, try starting with crippling DRM, which only hurts the consumer, and does nothing to stop what the actual problem is, lack of income.

 

[SamBargeron]

I posted the following angry reply, but I think I misunderstood the person I was replying to. Sorry. I have removed the quote regarding which post I was replying to. I think I made some good points though.

As you will be able to clearly see... I believed that the original poster, the person who I quoted, was claiming that Gamestop only made money from used game sales. This sent me on a rant that went into my feelings on the whole new vs used problem.

enjoy...

-

What are you smoking? Gamestop absolutely 100% makes money when you buy games new. EVERY TIME! If Gamestop didn't make money on new games, they wouldn't CARRY new games. How do you think other retailers survive if the store doesn't make money on new sales?

omg...

If you buy a new copy of a game from a Gamestop location... Gamestop makes a percentage approximately equivalent to what Target or Walmart get when a copy is sold. The reason why Gamestop pushes used copies so hard is because...

when gamestop sells a used copy...

instead of making a percentage...

they get every penny...

To explain this better. New game retails for $60. I buy it brand spanking beautiful new from Gamestop. Gamestop gets $12. For brevity, let us assume that the game developers get the remaining $48 (even though they don't, but I don't wanna get into that). I realize that I hate the game and trade it in at Gamestop. They sell it to you, used for $50 and get every cent. You love the game, but you hit hard financial times and trade it in for cash. Gamestop sell the game used for $40 and gets every cent.

Now... on one single CD disk... Gamestop has earned $102... the people who INVESTED IN THAT GAME FOR MANY YEARS AND SPENT HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS TO DEVELOP IT have made $48 (actually more like $20 but I don't wanna explain why)...

I'm against the BS developers are doing to prevent used sales, but don't pretend it isn't a problem. To help you understand why the game developers feel slighted... pretend you wrote a brilliant novel... best seller... it has sold over 100,000 copies... you only got paid for 10,000 of those copies because the rest were bought from Bookstop used. Bookstop earned 100% of the profits off of 90,000 copies and you got 20% of the profit from 10,000 copies. You wrote the book. It took you six years and you invested half as much as you made. Bookstop didn't invest a dime in your book. They bought their copies from your customers, so you didn't receive a penny from Bookstop. I think you'd be angry.

The percentage of used games purchased to new games purchased is EXTREME. Other industries, such as car, book, and movie industries... they have to deal with used sales, but not to the degree games are fighting it. The automotive industry got as bad, but they solved the problem by incorporating used sales into the practices of their brand owned dealerships. They solved used sales by embracing used sales.

Unfortunately, game companies can't do this. You can't go into a Bioware dealership and buy used copies of Dragon Age directly from the developer. That would be impractical (but awesome). So the game industry needs to figure out a solution that will save their industry without alienating consumers or else we'll be seeing some very bad years and a lot of lost jobs in the game industry.

 

[Harry Mason]

This 'buy it new to play things that would have been included otherwise!' crap needs to end.

HELL YES, I'm boycotting Rage. They don't tear chapters out of books when you get them second hand, they don't remove scenes from movies when you buy them secondhand, and they don't take tracks off albums when you get them from a used CD store.

There is a difference between rewarding people for paying full price and punishing them for taking the cheaper alternative (which us full time students who have to work two jobs to stay afloat have to do occasionally). The way to get people to buy new copies of a game is to be a kick-ass company who treats their customers well (like say, Valve).

I've been a long-time id fan, and I was planning on paying full price to support them, but as soon as I heard they were pulling this shit, I got my pre-order money back. That sucks for both me AND id.

 

[CM156_v1legacy]

To explain this better. New game retails for $60. I buy it brand spanking beautiful new from Gamestop. Gamestop gets $12. For brevity, let us assume that the game developers get the remaining $48 (even though they don't, but I don't wanna get into that). I realize that I hate the game and trade it in at Gamestop. They sell it to you, used for $50 and get every cent. You love the game, but you hit hard financial times and trade it in for cash. Gamestop sell the game used for $40 and gets every cent.

Now... on one single CD disk... Gamestop has earned $102... the people who INVESTED IN THAT GAME FOR MANY YEARS AND SPENT HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS TO DEVELOP IT have made $48 (actually more like $20 but I don't wanna explain why)...

Actually, that doesn't quite add up, if I'm not mistaken

They get $12 from the new sale.
They buy it back from person A for about $20. That puts them at -$6
They sell it for $50. That brings them up to $44
They buy it back for around $15. That puts them at $29.
They sell it for $40. That puts them up to $69.

Sorry. That's $33 off.

 

[health-bar]

One sided view is one sided.

Used games do not give money to the developers, only to the company selling the used game.
this is a way so even if people buy used the developers and publishers get their earned money.

they are circumventing a system that circumvented them out of money.
its just good business.

They (the publishers) are circumventing a perfectly legal, pro-consumer system (the used market) so they (the publishers) can get money they are NOT entitled to.

Are you "pro-let's rob a bank for the poor people" too?

firstly i must sarcastically say: robin hood robbed the rich and it worked out for him.

I never said the system was illegal. The used game system ONLY benefits the company that is selling it in the store. Publishers and developers are not getting ANY money from used games. Its like Napster, one guy bought it and shared it with everyone else. The fact that companies are pissed because now people just "share" the game instead of buying it is perfectly reasonable and they should take whatever steps they want to make money on a game they made.

Why should they not get paid for a product they made?

Well, Robin Hood was also considered an outlaw so there ya go.

The used game system benefits gamers and the entire industry. It is because people could pick up great games for cheap when they were out of print or just more expensive new that helped bring more people into gaming. Have you never heard of a person picking up a used game and liking it and becoming a fan of the franchise and/or developer and becoming day 1 buyers for the next game/games?

Lastly, they do get paid for their game. On the FIRST SALE. Every game up for sale used was already bought new.

and so 5 other people buy that 1 used game that was bought new originally.

the company has just lost 5 sales for every 1 sale they make.
why shouldn't they try to capitalize? Its a Business. Businesses take opportunities to make money.

This is how the world works.

Let me tell you how the world works. The used market exists legally and is a part of capitalism. If you want to do business in a capitalistic economy then you must accept that consumer have a right to resell what they buy. In fact, that right is a contributing factor to why capitalism works. If consumers could not resell what they buy, they would be far more careful about what they buy and that would result in fewer games bought. As it stands consumers can buy a game and get a return on it and buy another game and on and on. Without that assurance, many may not buy that first game.

Now as for this loss of 5 sales. It's only a loss if people would have bought new but who can prove that any of them would have? Further, if a game is worth keeping, there would be fewer used copies available.

When people buy an appliance, they generally don't resell it if they are satisfied with it and it is this way with games too. If Gamestop will only give $10 for a $60 game that you bought 2 days ago and you take that deal...the game must have sucked and you must be certain you'll never play it again.

Games are not like other Businesses. A car dealership makes plenty of money on its sold product and therfore does not care about used sales. You must have seen all the fuss music companies put out? The same thing is happening with games only now its with another legitimate business.

Companies want to make money. That $60 doesn't all go to one place. Developers get about $15 off of every game sold (if i remember my stats correctly) and now they want to keep making money. So now you either buy the game new, giving the company its dues, or buy it used and need to pay that $15 or so to access all the content.

They want money for their product and this was their solution. This was their business strategy and I support them fully on their desire to conduct a business.

 

[WaruTaru]

This is how this thread is going to look like soon.

Fight for the artist.

I don't like quoting myself, but:

If I, as an author, re-arrange the words in my book and sort them by alphabetical order instead of the story form you normally get, are you still reading a book?

If I, as a film director, were to cut up the sequence and randomly re-connect them, and play it in reverse, are you still watching a movie?

If I, as a musician, separate the lyrics from the tune, record them separately, and play the tune backwards while the lyrics remain the same way, are you still listening to music?

If I, as a game developer, cut half a code line and attach it to the next code line for every single line of code in the game, turn all the art upside down so that the characters are walking on their head, and play all the sound bits and music only at the intro and end credits, are you still playing a game?

What makes all these things different from how they normally are? You are still paying for whatever I put inside the book/movie/music/game.

^ Answer that.

What exactly are you paying for? The goods (the physical device recording the data) or the experience (the thing that makes what you do enjoyable)? If you answered experience, that means you are not buying the game for the physical goods, you are buying the experience.

Now riddle me this: If you go see a musical or a concert, you pay to enter the theatre, watch the performance, and leave. You enjoyed the experience, which the performers are doing as a service. Somehow, when you record that thing and sell in DVD form, it stops being a service. You still need the goddamn people from the performance to act their roles. How is it that it stops becoming a service when you are still watching their performance through that DVD you bought? Just because something is recorded on a device doesn't mean it stops becoming a service. The game you bought? The Triple-A title? Thats a 100-man performance you are seeing. Why do you think they prevent you from recording their performance when you are in the theatre? Because their performance is their livelihood, and IF YOU WANT TO WATCH THEM PERFORM, FUCKING PAY THEM FOR IT.

/endthread

 

[CM156_v1legacy]

This is how this thread is going to look like soon.

Fight for the artist.

I don't like quoting myself, but:

If I, as an author, re-arrange the words in my book and sort them by alphabetical order instead of the story form you normally get, are you still reading a book?

If I, as a film director, were to cut up the sequence and randomly re-connect them, and play it in reverse, are you still watching a movie?

If I, as a musician, separate the lyrics from the tune, record them separately, and play the tune backwards while the lyrics remain the same way, are you still listening to music?

If I, as a game developer, cut half a code line and attach it to the next code line for every single line of code in the game, turn all the art upside down so that the characters are walking on their head, and play all the sound bits and music only at the intro and end credits, are you still playing a game?

What makes all these things different from how they normally are? You are still paying for whatever I put inside the book/movie/music/game.

^ Answer that.

What exactly are you paying for? The goods (the physical device recording the data) or the experience (the thing that makes what you do enjoyable)? If you answered experience, that means you are not buying the game for the physical goods, you are buying the experience.

Now riddle me this: If you go see a musical or a concert, you pay to enter the theatre, watch the performance, and leave. You enjoyed the experience, which the performers are doing as a service. Somehow, when you record that thing and sell in DVD form, it stops being a service. You still need the goddamn people from the performance to act their roles. How is it that it stops becoming a service when you are still watching their performance through that DVD you bought? Just because something is recorded on a device doesn't mean it stops becoming a service. The game you bought? The Triple-A title? Thats a 100-man performance you are seeing. Why do you think they prevent you from recording their performance when you are in the theatre? Because their performance is their livelihood, and IF YOU WANT TO WATCH THEM PERFORM, FUCKING PAY THEM FOR IT.

/endthread

You mention Droit de suite, but you are aware of the idea behind that?

Namely, if I paint a painting, when I sell it, I can no longer mass produce the painting. But when I sell you a game, yeah. I can still produce said game. The idea was, at the time, to protect people from getting screwed when they put a lot of effort into something they could only sell once.

Secondly, Droit de suite is not legal precident in America. The First Sale Doctrine is.

 

[Epona]

One sided view is one sided.

Used games do not give money to the developers, only to the company selling the used game.
this is a way so even if people buy used the developers and publishers get their earned money.

they are circumventing a system that circumvented them out of money.
its just good business.

They (the publishers) are circumventing a perfectly legal, pro-consumer system (the used market) so they (the publishers) can get money they are NOT entitled to.

Are you "pro-let's rob a bank for the poor people" too?

firstly i must sarcastically say: robin hood robbed the rich and it worked out for him.

I never said the system was illegal. The used game system ONLY benefits the company that is selling it in the store. Publishers and developers are not getting ANY money from used games. Its like Napster, one guy bought it and shared it with everyone else. The fact that companies are pissed because now people just "share" the game instead of buying it is perfectly reasonable and they should take whatever steps they want to make money on a game they made.

Why should they not get paid for a product they made?

Well, Robin Hood was also considered an outlaw so there ya go.

The used game system benefits gamers and the entire industry. It is because people could pick up great games for cheap when they were out of print or just more expensive new that helped bring more people into gaming. Have you never heard of a person picking up a used game and liking it and becoming a fan of the franchise and/or developer and becoming day 1 buyers for the next game/games?

Lastly, they do get paid for their game. On the FIRST SALE. Every game up for sale used was already bought new.

and so 5 other people buy that 1 used game that was bought new originally.

the company has just lost 5 sales for every 1 sale they make.
why shouldn't they try to capitalize? Its a Business. Businesses take opportunities to make money.

This is how the world works.

Let me tell you how the world works. The used market exists legally and is a part of capitalism. If you want to do business in a capitalistic economy then you must accept that consumer have a right to resell what they buy. In fact, that right is a contributing factor to why capitalism works. If consumers could not resell what they buy, they would be far more careful about what they buy and that would result in fewer games bought. As it stands consumers can buy a game and get a return on it and buy another game and on and on. Without that assurance, many may not buy that first game.

Now as for this loss of 5 sales. It's only a loss if people would have bought new but who can prove that any of them would have? Further, if a game is worth keeping, there would be fewer used copies available.

When people buy an appliance, they generally don't resell it if they are satisfied with it and it is this way with games too. If Gamestop will only give $10 for a $60 game that you bought 2 days ago and you take that deal...the game must have sucked and you must be certain you'll never play it again.

Games are not like other Businesses. A car dealership makes plenty of money on its sold product and therfore does not care about used sales. You must have seen all the fuss music companies put out? The same thing is happening with games only now its with another legitimate business.

Companies want to make money. That $60 doesn't all go to one place. Developers get about $15 off of every game sold (if i remember my stats correctly) and now they want to keep making money. So now you either buy the game new, giving the company its dues, or buy it used and need to pay that $15 or so to access all the content.

They want money for their product and this was their solution. This was their business strategy and I support them fully on their desire to conduct a business.

Hmm...the game industry has grown while the auto industry needed bailouts. What were you saying again?

 

[Yopaz]

Why is everyone complaining about Gamestop ?
It is the same when you buy a game from afriend or eBay.

Because GameStop makes an industry of selling used games and on top of that they sell it for some pretty high prices. I've see new games on some stores cheaper than used on GameStop. Games on Demand on Xbox Live Arcade are sometimes cheaper than used games on GameStop. Personally I don't see that much of a difference, but I dislike GameStop because of their prices.

OT: I wont boycott Rage, then again I have no idea what the game is about and never had any plans to buy it so I guess I don't count...

 

[WaruTaru]

You mention Droit de suite, but you are aware of the idea behind that?

Namely, if I paint a painting, when I sell it, I can no longer mass produce the painting. But when I sell you a game, yeah. I can still produce said game. The idea was, at the time, to protect people from getting screwed when they put a lot of effort into something they could only sell once.

Secondly, Droit de suite is not legal precident in America. The First Sale Doctrine is.

If developers can bypass publishers and sell their games for hundreds and hundreds of millions for that single copy, I am all for it. And droit de suite was adopted under California Resale Royalty Act.

 

[Delsana]

Until you have the majority... you can make no changes or demands.

 

[CM156_v1legacy]

You mention Droit de suite, but you are aware of the idea behind that?

Namely, if I paint a painting, when I sell it, I can no longer mass produce the painting. But when I sell you a game, yeah. I can still produce said game. The idea was, at the time, to protect people from getting screwed when they put a lot of effort into something they could only sell once.

Secondly, Droit de suite is not legal precident in America. The First Sale Doctrine is.

If developers can bypass publishers and sell their games for hundreds and hundreds of millions for that single copy, I am all for it. And droit de suite was adopted under California Resale Royalty Act.

You are also aware that even under Droit de suite, a single item has to be sold for a rather large ammount, correct? Items under a certain ammount don't even qualify (Like, it has to be in the hundreds of dollars range for a single item). And even then, it's around 1-2%. That would be about $1 on every used sale going to the company at $55. Yeah, even if Gamestop sold 100,000 copies used at that price, that's barely anything in the scope of things.

As for Cali, that's not US law.

 

[Epona]

Why is everyone complaining about Gamestop ?
It is the same when you buy a game from afriend or eBay.

Because GameStop makes an industry of selling used games and on top of that they sell it for some pretty high prices. I've see new games on some stores cheaper than used on GameStop. Games on Demand on Xbox Live Arcade are sometimes cheaper than used games on GameStop. Personally I don't see that much of a difference, but I dislike GameStop because of their prices.

OT: I wont boycott Rage, then again I have no idea what the game is about and never had any plans to buy it so I guess I don't count...

I don't understand why people who dislike Gamestop and want the publishers to get more sales complain about the high prices at Gamestop. Doesn't that $5 gap between new and used make it more likely people will buy new? It sure works that way for me, I won't pay $17.99 for a $19.99 game or $54.99 for a $59.99 game.

So do you people want Gamestop to half the new price? Say if they were selling a $60 game for $30, would that be better for the publishers?