Poll: Boycott Rage

[a ginger491]

Hahahahahahahahahaa!!!! The call to not boycott so much resulted in another possible boycott! The irony is absolutely hysterical

 

[LITE992]

How is money lost from a used game when the developers and publishers get the money from that game when it was bought new?

 

[Slayer_2]

I hate boycotts only because they never work, and they sound petty. However, I am not buying Rage. The whole game seems like another boring sci-fi FPS, normally I'd be down, but the Teen rating and this DRM crap is just another straw on the camel's back.

 

[Epona]

ID have been nice enough to include a code with every copy of RAGE, if you happen to buy the game of someone who has used theirs then that's your problem

If I give away a separate radio with every car I sell, if you buy the car off someone you cant blame me when they don't give you the radio

Yet we can blame you if you are the one taking the radio away, which is the case here.

 

[WaruTaru]

How is money lost from a used game when the developers and publishers get the money from that game when it was bought new?

How did you lose any content when you clearly did not pay for them?

 

[Vidi Kitty]

How is money lost from a used game when the developers and publishers get the money from that game when it was bought new?

With new games, the used copies sell for maybe $5-10 less than a fresh copy. People want to save that little bit of money, but are still paying alot for the game. So the used game retailers offer just enough money so people sell them their games and don't feel shafted (usually) and then turn around and charge almost as much as a fresh copy. That $5-10 doesn't seem like alot, but when you realize that the makers of the game would make say 10% of the retail price in profit, this used game turnover makes them nothing. No profit, no money towards paying their workers or bills, no nothing. By undercutting the retail cost of the game by just enough to make it enticing, used game retailers are diverting quite a bit of revenue from the game makers into their own wallets.

EDIT: (Posted too early )

So basically, 2 people pay about $110 for a $60 game, but the makers only see anything out of that initial $60.

 

[Epona]

I don't know why people are always getting so upset by this. Developers are simply supporting those who support them. They aren't punished those who buy the game pre-owned, they are rewarding those who buy it new, and I think it's time that people realised that.

What's the difference? You can't give something extra to one group without the other group missing out on something. In fact, isn't the whole point of giving something extra to the group who buys new designed to discourage from buying used?

I wish gamers would stop supporting companies who openly declare war on consumer ownership rights by trying to devalue a product the moment you try to resell it.

BTW, I am sure you do KNOW why people are getting upset about this. You did read the thread right?

The difference? ID are only restricting a very small amount of content in a 20 hour game. Content that ID even said most gamers will overlook and ignore anyway, I just think it's cool that developers are giving us small freebies for giving something back to them. But I'm also annoyed that it has gotten to this point where developers feel that they have to de this to make money from their games. This clearly shows that used sales are a massive problem for developers. Don't get me wrong, I don't agree with everything that developers have done to prevent used sales (CAPCOM's one save system), because this makes the product almost useless for people that do decide to buy the games used.

Also, I do not understand why people are getting upset about this. Yes I did read the thread, but it just don't understand why people think they can pretty much "steal" from developers and be expected to get treated as equally as those who buy the game new.

Well, it can't be both ways. You can't say "it's not a big deal since it's such a small, insignificant amount of content" and also say "it's great that they are doing this for new buyers". If the first is true then it isn't much of a bonus and not even worth considering buying new for which makes the second statement meaningless.

Publishers are getting greedy, it isn't that they HAVE to do this, it's that they want more money. The game industry isn't in a position to need government bailouts, they are just getting greedy.

Buying used is stealing now? Don't you see how brainwashed you have become? Try to put yourself on the other side, what if someone told you that buying a used car was grand theft auto?

I think it's for the player to decide whether or not the content is worth it or not, sure it's a very small portion of the game, but I still want the content because I like to explore games as much as I can.

I did use the term stealing very loosely, just as a way to say that what you are doing means that the developers aren't getting any money from your purchase. Though I can see it had the completely wrong affect on you.

So you think it's for the player to decide but you don't know why some players are complaining yet you WANT that extra content. Wow!

You can't use the word steal and then pretend you didn't really mean it. Developers don't get any money from used sales because they aren't entitled to it. Why is that so damn hard to understand? No other industry gets to double dip in the second hand market and contrary to the bleeding hearts beliefs, the game industry is not special.

I fail to see your point. I will buy the game new regardless of the content, yes I do want it, but it's not going to be the reason to justify my new purchase. Sure developers aren't entitled to the money from pre-owned sales, but what makes you think the people who buy the games used are entitled to the additional content? Not my point, but it's really for the developers to decide.

As for you second point, read my previous post.

I'm sure that none of us are going to come to any sort of conclusion here because we're both completely on either end of the court and I don't think anything either of us say is going to make the other person think otherwise.

It's not additional content, it's content pulled from the game to punish used game buyers.

 

[Epona]

How is money lost from a used game when the developers and publishers get the money from that game when it was bought new?

With new games, the used copies sell for maybe $5-10 less than a fresh copy. People want to save that little bit of money, but are still paying alot for the game. So the used game retailers offer just enough money so people sell them their games and don't feel shafted (usually) and then turn around and charge almost as much as a fresh copy. That $5-10 doesn't seem like alot, but when you realize that the makers of the game would make say 10% of the retail price in profit, this used game turnover makes them nothing. No profit, no money towards paying their workers or bills, no nothing. By undercutting the retail cost of the game by just enough to make it enticing, used game retailers are diverting quite a bit of revenue from the game makers into their own wallets.

Would you be happy if Gamestop severely undercut publishers by making the used price HALF of the new price? So what is it that you are against exactly? People making choices or Gamestop making money?

 

[Dusk17]

OK. I wasn't going to buy it anyways but now I definitely will not buy it.

 

[TheDooD]

I can just as easily ask you why should developers care about someone who does not concern them at all? I really couldn't care less about your waste argument cause I've kept all my games up till now and never throw them away or sell them. Oh yes, the game is yours all right. What went missing? You still have the disc, the box, the data in the game, the manual, and everything else you were promised. You used up your key? Too bad. Maybe you should ask your friend to buy a copy? And between used and piracy, there really is no different the way I see it. So yea, I don't care?

You're coming off as an asshole here because in when the PS2 age and back. People were able to take a game they had and play with a friend's console which should be a viable practice today. Yet with people like you money is more important so developers really shouldn't care about who plays their game its all about the transfer of funds. Since I think you still have your head in your ass the difference between piracy and the used market at lease the used market has some sort of cash flow going on. that means the money stays in the gaming market.

Those things could have happened by wear and tear anyways if you bought you stuff second hand. You took the risk and you had no one to blame but yourself. I'm all for the second crash. Gamers don't seem to care anyways. They think they are entitled to every single thing because "they bought it" regardless of how much they paid for it. The second hand game you bought for a reduced price? Yea, the price you paid reflects the value of the thing you are holding.

The ironic thing about this is that you think you're better then those that buy something 2nd hand. Why should they respect your choice when in turn you don't respect theirs and there's nothing wrong with buying something used. IF you been to a Gamestop, EB games or Funcoland they let you see the disk your buying to see the quality you're getting when buying used. I got Okami got 20 bucks used that was a great deal because I enjoyed the experence. So I got what I paid for. I got Shinobi, Nightshade, Zone of the Enders 2 used all under 10$ in great condition. I got what I paid paid for in truck loads of enjoyment.

 

[Vidi Kitty]

I don't know why people are always getting so upset by this. Developers are simply supporting those who support them. They aren't punished those who buy the game pre-owned, they are rewarding those who buy it new, and I think it's time that people realised that.

What's the difference? You can't give something extra to one group without the other group missing out on something. In fact, isn't the whole point of giving something extra to the group who buys new designed to discourage from buying used?

I wish gamers would stop supporting companies who openly declare war on consumer ownership rights by trying to devalue a product the moment you try to resell it.

BTW, I am sure you do KNOW why people are getting upset about this. You did read the thread right?

The difference? ID are only restricting a very small amount of content in a 20 hour game. Content that ID even said most gamers will overlook and ignore anyway, I just think it's cool that developers are giving us small freebies for giving something back to them. But I'm also annoyed that it has gotten to this point where developers feel that they have to de this to make money from their games. This clearly shows that used sales are a massive problem for developers. Don't get me wrong, I don't agree with everything that developers have done to prevent used sales (CAPCOM's one save system), because this makes the product almost useless for people that do decide to buy the games used.

Also, I do not understand why people are getting upset about this. Yes I did read the thread, but it just don't understand why people think they can pretty much "steal" from developers and be expected to get treated as equally as those who buy the game new.

Well, it can't be both ways. You can't say "it's not a big deal since it's such a small, insignificant amount of content" and also say "it's great that they are doing this for new buyers". If the first is true then it isn't much of a bonus and not even worth considering buying new for which makes the second statement meaningless.

Publishers are getting greedy, it isn't that they HAVE to do this, it's that they want more money. The game industry isn't in a position to need government bailouts, they are just getting greedy.

Buying used is stealing now? Don't you see how brainwashed you have become? Try to put yourself on the other side, what if someone told you that buying a used car was grand theft auto?

I think it's for the player to decide whether or not the content is worth it or not, sure it's a very small portion of the game, but I still want the content because I like to explore games as much as I can.

I did use the term stealing very loosely, just as a way to say that what you are doing means that the developers aren't getting any money from your purchase. Though I can see it had the completely wrong affect on you.

So you think it's for the player to decide but you don't know why some players are complaining yet you WANT that extra content. Wow!

You can't use the word steal and then pretend you didn't really mean it. Developers don't get any money from used sales because they aren't entitled to it. Why is that so damn hard to understand? No other industry gets to double dip in the second hand market and contrary to the bleeding hearts beliefs, the game industry is not special.

I fail to see your point. I will buy the game new regardless of the content, yes I do want it, but it's not going to be the reason to justify my new purchase. Sure developers aren't entitled to the money from pre-owned sales, but what makes you think the people who buy the games used are entitled to the additional content? Not my point, but it's really for the developers to decide.

As for you second point, read my previous post.

I'm sure that none of us are going to come to any sort of conclusion here because we're both completely on either end of the court and I don't think anything either of us say is going to make the other person think otherwise.

It's not additional content, it's content pulled from the game to punish used game buyers.

Quit acting like they are out to punish people. Its selfish of you to think that they are doing this just to make people suffer. They want to see more money for a game they put time and effort into, so they added an extra bit to the game that they control. The used retailers can't get you this piece of the game, only the makers, which promotes you to get a fresh game.

 

[SamBargeron]

ID have been nice enough to include a code with every copy of RAGE, if you happen to buy the game of someone who has used theirs then that's your problem

If I give away a separate radio with every car I sell, if you buy the car off someone you cant blame me when they don't give you the radio

That is a poor metaphor. In the car scenario, if the original owner includes the radio with the car you can use it.

The code only works once...

It is more like including a scratch and sniff sticker with a book. If you buy the book used, the scratch and sniff may be used up and not work anymore.

I think what is pissing people off is the fact that first day DLC exists. I'm kinda confused as to why first day DLC exists, except as a way to manipulate consumers. It seems like the material must be completed in time to be included with the product, so the developers are choosing to withhold it for more money. This is like me writing a book, deciding that chapter 10 is a fun read but not a "necessary part of the reading experience", so I sell it as a separate product and they hit shelves the same day. (keep in mind I have veered away from the one use code topic)

(back on topic now) Now imagine if I could find a way to make it so that people who buy the book new always get that optional chapter, it is optional mind you. But I have a way to make it so that if the original owner read that optional chapter, I have a magic way to make it so that someone who buys the book used CANNOT read the optional chapter without buying it directly from me.

That would be a dick move. The game industry cannot solve this problem by punishing consumers. It is a problem, but they need to make decisions which make consumers feel rewarded for buying new, not cheated for buying used.

Rather than restrict day one product, they could include a coupon for their other products, or a giftcard to their online store (if they have one like Capcom does). I thought that the code in Dragon Age that unlocked a bonus item in Mass Effect 2 (yet to be released) was an amazing idea.

 

[Vidi Kitty]

How is money lost from a used game when the developers and publishers get the money from that game when it was bought new?

With new games, the used copies sell for maybe $5-10 less than a fresh copy. People want to save that little bit of money, but are still paying alot for the game. So the used game retailers offer just enough money so people sell them their games and don't feel shafted (usually) and then turn around and charge almost as much as a fresh copy. That $5-10 doesn't seem like alot, but when you realize that the makers of the game would make say 10% of the retail price in profit, this used game turnover makes them nothing. No profit, no money towards paying their workers or bills, no nothing. By undercutting the retail cost of the game by just enough to make it enticing, used game retailers are diverting quite a bit of revenue from the game makers into their own wallets.

Would you be happy if Gamestop severely undercut publishers by making the used price HALF of the new price? So what is it that you are against exactly? People making choices or Gamestop making money?

Its all business tactics. You don't start a business without one of your goals being to make money. One business starts to undercut the other, and absolutely nothing can be done to stop it. So they add on extra bits that are exclusively from them, ensuring that no matter where you get the product from, they get their piece of the pie IF, big word there, IF you choose to get that extra bit.

 

[Epona]

I don't know why people are always getting so upset by this. Developers are simply supporting those who support them. They aren't punished those who buy the game pre-owned, they are rewarding those who buy it new, and I think it's time that people realised that.

What's the difference? You can't give something extra to one group without the other group missing out on something. In fact, isn't the whole point of giving something extra to the group who buys new designed to discourage from buying used?

I wish gamers would stop supporting companies who openly declare war on consumer ownership rights by trying to devalue a product the moment you try to resell it.

BTW, I am sure you do KNOW why people are getting upset about this. You did read the thread right?

The difference? ID are only restricting a very small amount of content in a 20 hour game. Content that ID even said most gamers will overlook and ignore anyway, I just think it's cool that developers are giving us small freebies for giving something back to them. But I'm also annoyed that it has gotten to this point where developers feel that they have to de this to make money from their games. This clearly shows that used sales are a massive problem for developers. Don't get me wrong, I don't agree with everything that developers have done to prevent used sales (CAPCOM's one save system), because this makes the product almost useless for people that do decide to buy the games used.

Also, I do not understand why people are getting upset about this. Yes I did read the thread, but it just don't understand why people think they can pretty much "steal" from developers and be expected to get treated as equally as those who buy the game new.

Well, it can't be both ways. You can't say "it's not a big deal since it's such a small, insignificant amount of content" and also say "it's great that they are doing this for new buyers". If the first is true then it isn't much of a bonus and not even worth considering buying new for which makes the second statement meaningless.

Publishers are getting greedy, it isn't that they HAVE to do this, it's that they want more money. The game industry isn't in a position to need government bailouts, they are just getting greedy.

Buying used is stealing now? Don't you see how brainwashed you have become? Try to put yourself on the other side, what if someone told you that buying a used car was grand theft auto?

I think it's for the player to decide whether or not the content is worth it or not, sure it's a very small portion of the game, but I still want the content because I like to explore games as much as I can.

I did use the term stealing very loosely, just as a way to say that what you are doing means that the developers aren't getting any money from your purchase. Though I can see it had the completely wrong affect on you.

So you think it's for the player to decide but you don't know why some players are complaining yet you WANT that extra content. Wow!

You can't use the word steal and then pretend you didn't really mean it. Developers don't get any money from used sales because they aren't entitled to it. Why is that so damn hard to understand? No other industry gets to double dip in the second hand market and contrary to the bleeding hearts beliefs, the game industry is not special.

I fail to see your point. I will buy the game new regardless of the content, yes I do want it, but it's not going to be the reason to justify my new purchase. Sure developers aren't entitled to the money from pre-owned sales, but what makes you think the people who buy the games used are entitled to the additional content? Not my point, but it's really for the developers to decide.

As for you second point, read my previous post.

I'm sure that none of us are going to come to any sort of conclusion here because we're both completely on either end of the court and I don't think anything either of us say is going to make the other person think otherwise.

It's not additional content, it's content pulled from the game to punish used game buyers.

Quit acting like they are out to punish people. Its selfish of you to think that they are doing this just to make people suffer. They want to see more money for a game they put time and effort into, so they added an extra bit to the game that they control. The used retailers can't get you this piece of the game, only the makers, which promotes you to get a fresh game.

They are trying to discourage used sales, are they not?

 

[Epona]

How is money lost from a used game when the developers and publishers get the money from that game when it was bought new?

With new games, the used copies sell for maybe $5-10 less than a fresh copy. People want to save that little bit of money, but are still paying alot for the game. So the used game retailers offer just enough money so people sell them their games and don't feel shafted (usually) and then turn around and charge almost as much as a fresh copy. That $5-10 doesn't seem like alot, but when you realize that the makers of the game would make say 10% of the retail price in profit, this used game turnover makes them nothing. No profit, no money towards paying their workers or bills, no nothing. By undercutting the retail cost of the game by just enough to make it enticing, used game retailers are diverting quite a bit of revenue from the game makers into their own wallets.

Would you be happy if Gamestop severely undercut publishers by making the used price HALF of the new price? So what is it that you are against exactly? People making choices or Gamestop making money?

Its all business tactics. You don't start a business without one of your goals being to make money. One business starts to undercut the other, and absolutely nothing can be done to stop it. So they add on extra bits that are exclusively from them, ensuring that no matter where you get the product from, they get their piece of the pie IF, big word there, IF you choose to get that extra bit.

So are you going to answer my questions? Here they are again:

Would you be happy if Gamestop severely undercut publishers by making the used price HALF of the new price? So what is it that you are against exactly? People making choices or Gamestop making money?

 

[Vidi Kitty]

I don't know why people are always getting so upset by this. Developers are simply supporting those who support them. They aren't punished those who buy the game pre-owned, they are rewarding those who buy it new, and I think it's time that people realised that.

What's the difference? You can't give something extra to one group without the other group missing out on something. In fact, isn't the whole point of giving something extra to the group who buys new designed to discourage from buying used?

I wish gamers would stop supporting companies who openly declare war on consumer ownership rights by trying to devalue a product the moment you try to resell it.

BTW, I am sure you do KNOW why people are getting upset about this. You did read the thread right?

The difference? ID are only restricting a very small amount of content in a 20 hour game. Content that ID even said most gamers will overlook and ignore anyway, I just think it's cool that developers are giving us small freebies for giving something back to them. But I'm also annoyed that it has gotten to this point where developers feel that they have to de this to make money from their games. This clearly shows that used sales are a massive problem for developers. Don't get me wrong, I don't agree with everything that developers have done to prevent used sales (CAPCOM's one save system), because this makes the product almost useless for people that do decide to buy the games used.

Also, I do not understand why people are getting upset about this. Yes I did read the thread, but it just don't understand why people think they can pretty much "steal" from developers and be expected to get treated as equally as those who buy the game new.

Well, it can't be both ways. You can't say "it's not a big deal since it's such a small, insignificant amount of content" and also say "it's great that they are doing this for new buyers". If the first is true then it isn't much of a bonus and not even worth considering buying new for which makes the second statement meaningless.

Publishers are getting greedy, it isn't that they HAVE to do this, it's that they want more money. The game industry isn't in a position to need government bailouts, they are just getting greedy.

Buying used is stealing now? Don't you see how brainwashed you have become? Try to put yourself on the other side, what if someone told you that buying a used car was grand theft auto?

I think it's for the player to decide whether or not the content is worth it or not, sure it's a very small portion of the game, but I still want the content because I like to explore games as much as I can.

I did use the term stealing very loosely, just as a way to say that what you are doing means that the developers aren't getting any money from your purchase. Though I can see it had the completely wrong affect on you.

So you think it's for the player to decide but you don't know why some players are complaining yet you WANT that extra content. Wow!

You can't use the word steal and then pretend you didn't really mean it. Developers don't get any money from used sales because they aren't entitled to it. Why is that so damn hard to understand? No other industry gets to double dip in the second hand market and contrary to the bleeding hearts beliefs, the game industry is not special.

I fail to see your point. I will buy the game new regardless of the content, yes I do want it, but it's not going to be the reason to justify my new purchase. Sure developers aren't entitled to the money from pre-owned sales, but what makes you think the people who buy the games used are entitled to the additional content? Not my point, but it's really for the developers to decide.

As for you second point, read my previous post.

I'm sure that none of us are going to come to any sort of conclusion here because we're both completely on either end of the court and I don't think anything either of us say is going to make the other person think otherwise.

It's not additional content, it's content pulled from the game to punish used game buyers.

Quit acting like they are out to punish people. Its selfish of you to think that they are doing this just to make people suffer. They want to see more money for a game they put time and effort into, so they added an extra bit to the game that they control. The used retailers can't get you this piece of the game, only the makers, which promotes you to get a fresh game.

They are trying to discourage used sales, are they not?

That is one effect of what they are doing. The other is having a a way for people to get that extra bit of game if they want to buy a used game and still get everything.

A huge part of this is that the additional content is entirely optional. If you want to buy the game used, go do it and enjoy your game. If you think that a little more of that game would be nice, then go and buy the extra content. They are not forcing you to buy the game new. They are not forcing you to buy the extra content.

 

[Epona]

I don't know why people are always getting so upset by this. Developers are simply supporting those who support them. They aren't punished those who buy the game pre-owned, they are rewarding those who buy it new, and I think it's time that people realised that.

What's the difference? You can't give something extra to one group without the other group missing out on something. In fact, isn't the whole point of giving something extra to the group who buys new designed to discourage from buying used?

I wish gamers would stop supporting companies who openly declare war on consumer ownership rights by trying to devalue a product the moment you try to resell it.

BTW, I am sure you do KNOW why people are getting upset about this. You did read the thread right?

The difference? ID are only restricting a very small amount of content in a 20 hour game. Content that ID even said most gamers will overlook and ignore anyway, I just think it's cool that developers are giving us small freebies for giving something back to them. But I'm also annoyed that it has gotten to this point where developers feel that they have to de this to make money from their games. This clearly shows that used sales are a massive problem for developers. Don't get me wrong, I don't agree with everything that developers have done to prevent used sales (CAPCOM's one save system), because this makes the product almost useless for people that do decide to buy the games used.

Also, I do not understand why people are getting upset about this. Yes I did read the thread, but it just don't understand why people think they can pretty much "steal" from developers and be expected to get treated as equally as those who buy the game new.

Well, it can't be both ways. You can't say "it's not a big deal since it's such a small, insignificant amount of content" and also say "it's great that they are doing this for new buyers". If the first is true then it isn't much of a bonus and not even worth considering buying new for which makes the second statement meaningless.

Publishers are getting greedy, it isn't that they HAVE to do this, it's that they want more money. The game industry isn't in a position to need government bailouts, they are just getting greedy.

Buying used is stealing now? Don't you see how brainwashed you have become? Try to put yourself on the other side, what if someone told you that buying a used car was grand theft auto?

I think it's for the player to decide whether or not the content is worth it or not, sure it's a very small portion of the game, but I still want the content because I like to explore games as much as I can.

I did use the term stealing very loosely, just as a way to say that what you are doing means that the developers aren't getting any money from your purchase. Though I can see it had the completely wrong affect on you.

So you think it's for the player to decide but you don't know why some players are complaining yet you WANT that extra content. Wow!

You can't use the word steal and then pretend you didn't really mean it. Developers don't get any money from used sales because they aren't entitled to it. Why is that so damn hard to understand? No other industry gets to double dip in the second hand market and contrary to the bleeding hearts beliefs, the game industry is not special.

I fail to see your point. I will buy the game new regardless of the content, yes I do want it, but it's not going to be the reason to justify my new purchase. Sure developers aren't entitled to the money from pre-owned sales, but what makes you think the people who buy the games used are entitled to the additional content? Not my point, but it's really for the developers to decide.

As for you second point, read my previous post.

I'm sure that none of us are going to come to any sort of conclusion here because we're both completely on either end of the court and I don't think anything either of us say is going to make the other person think otherwise.

It's not additional content, it's content pulled from the game to punish used game buyers.

Quit acting like they are out to punish people. Its selfish of you to think that they are doing this just to make people suffer. They want to see more money for a game they put time and effort into, so they added an extra bit to the game that they control. The used retailers can't get you this piece of the game, only the makers, which promotes you to get a fresh game.

They are trying to discourage used sales, are they not?

That is one effect of what they are doing. The other is having a a way for people to get that extra bit of game if they want to buy a used game and still get everything.

A huge part of this is that the additional content is entirely optional. If you want to buy the game used, go do it and enjoy your game. If you think that a little more of that game would be nice, then go and buy the extra content. They are not forcing you to buy the game new. They are not forcing you to buy the extra content.

So there you have it, that is an effect of what they are doing so they are indeed punishing used buyers. Thanks

 

[rje5]

I'm tired of people defending developers for charging extra to buy new. It takes time to program in a way to cut off part of the game or add part of a game if someone buys it new. They're going out of their way to piss of customers.

Look at it this way: Car manufacturers don't get money off of used car sales, do they require people to take out the AC if they buy it used? No. Because if they make cars that are good enough, enough people will buy it new for it not to matter.

Do movie companies cut out scenes when it goes to rental? No. Because if it was good enough people would've saw it in theaters.

After a while the value of a product goes down, that doesn't mean the product needs to be cut apart as well.

My point is, make your game good enough for people to WANT to buy it new and the other stuff won't matter. But trying to FORCE people to buy new isn't going to go over well.