Poll: Boycott Rage

[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...

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?

I don't complain about the high prices on games. I complain that a used game on GameStop (the kind that's pretty old) costs more used on GameStop than a new copy o the big electronic stores right next to it. Seems odd that something unopened and sealed should cost less than something that has clearly been used. Meaning GameStop earns more money from selling that single game than all the parties involved in selling a new game receives combined.

That only happens when a retail store is trying to clearance a game out. I remember buying Paper Mario Thousand Year Door at Target for $10 while it was higher at Gamestop. It's only because Target was trying to get rid of it.

Do you complain when Wal Mart has a lower price than KMart too or is this exclusive Gamestop hate?

I never said I hate it, I dislike it. I said that I can't understand why USED games cost less than NEW games, and this goes for quite new games. Such as Alan Wake USED for 50 on GameStop while it cost 35 on Games on Demand and 30 on an electronic store. Now, do you think Xbox Live was having a clearance sale because they didn't have space for it?
Now read this post rather than jsut quoting it. Does it make sense that USED games cost more than NEW games no matter what the reason is?

It makes perfect sense. If an item is on sale (even on XLIVE) then it should be cheaper than everyone else and if lucky, it will be cheaper than a used copy. Finding one or two games that are on sale for a limited time (or until they are gone like Target did) is not a problem at all. It's an opportunity.

If a game went down in price permanently (like Twilight Princess did recently) then Gamestop would eventually catch up and drop their prices to compete. I am really not seeing the problem here.

I guess sarcasm is wasted on you, eh?
This was the permanent price. There is rarely any sales on Games on Deman on Xbox Live so that was the permanent price from a place that doesn't store anything but the game data and the activation code that gives you access to play it.'
So why can it be that the permanent price for a new game is less than what seems to be the permanent price for the same game used?
If it makes sense to you please explain it to me.

 

[Caverat]

The real problem is that we know where this is going. It is going towards destroying the used market, so is that immoral? Shall we just sit on our thumbs until entire games are barred from resale and then protest?

I think it would be foolish to wait that long. In fact, I think Project $10 and the like should have been protested more loudly but I am glad to see that some people are starting to wake up to where this is going.

You can look forward to console having online activation codes that prevent resale. Don't be so afraid of the slippery slope that you ignore the fact that you are on the slope. It isn't as if the game industry hasn't already destroyed the PC market, this is not "can they do it" type of situation. They can and they will if people don't protest.

I do agree about the being poor argument though. If you're too poor to game, I am sorry, the game industry doesn't owe you games but they will be hurt more than you in the end. If the publishers destroy the used market, they will be telling the poor people that they don't want their business. They don't want them buying used and spending a few dollars on DLC, they just don't want their money at all. It will hurt the industry more than it will the poor people who will just find another hobby.

I disagree, we don't know that is is going to destroy the used market. It will probably reduce used sales as it will actually offer some kind of incentive to buying it new, because there had been none previously. But, there will be folks who decide that the extra hour of content, skin, items, what-have-you, that is included with the new copy may not be worth the extra dollars. The used game still works, it just doesn't have all the bells and whistles of a new one.

Let's say for the sake of argument, that this type of thing is geared to completely obliterate the used game market... It still wouldn't be immoral. Saying it is would be like saying engineering the new entirely electric Nissan LEAF is immoral because it is intended to undercut the sale of used cars(Gas prices being high and all). Or it is immoral because it cuts out the gas companies entirely.

Morality doesn't even enter into it. If it did, this behavior would be closer to a positive than a negative, a company is just increasing the likelihood they will actually get paid for their product.

You don't have to like it, but don't go throwing words like 'morality' around in your knee-jerk displeasure reaction.

 

[Epona]

The real problem is that we know where this is going. It is going towards destroying the used market, so is that immoral? Shall we just sit on our thumbs until entire games are barred from resale and then protest?

I think it would be foolish to wait that long. In fact, I think Project $10 and the like should have been protested more loudly but I am glad to see that some people are starting to wake up to where this is going.

You can look forward to console having online activation codes that prevent resale. Don't be so afraid of the slippery slope that you ignore the fact that you are on the slope. It isn't as if the game industry hasn't already destroyed the PC market, this is not "can they do it" type of situation. They can and they will if people don't protest.

I do agree about the being poor argument though. If you're too poor to game, I am sorry, the game industry doesn't owe you games but they will be hurt more than you in the end. If the publishers destroy the used market, they will be telling the poor people that they don't want their business. They don't want them buying used and spending a few dollars on DLC, they just don't want their money at all. It will hurt the industry more than it will the poor people who will just find another hobby.

I disagree, we don't know that is is going to destroy the used market. It will probably reduce used sales as it will actually offer some kind of incentive to buying it new, because there had been none previously. But, there will be folks who decide that the extra hour of content, skin, items, what-have-you, that is included with the new copy may not be worth the extra dollars. The used game still works, it just doesn't have all the bells and whistles of a new one.

Let's say for the sake of argument, that this type of thing is geared to completely obliterate the used game market... It still wouldn't be immoral. Saying it is would be like saying engineering the new entirely electric Nissan LEAF is immoral because it is intended to undercut the sale of used cars(Gas prices being high and all). Or it is immoral because it cuts out the gas companies entirely.

Morality doesn't even enter into it. If it did, this behavior would be closer to a positive than a negative, a company is just increasing the likelihood they will actually get paid for their product.

You don't have to like it, but don't go throwing words like 'morality' around in your knee-jerk displeasure reaction.

Destroying the used market would be destroying a consumers ability to resell their games. Is that immoral? Should corporation be allowed to put profits above consumer rights? I don't think so, do you think so?

 

[Lionsfan]

What about cars/books/furniture/pretty much everything in the world? There's been a second hand market since the beginning of capitalism and the Video Games industry acts like it's all different. Every one else deals with the second hand market, but the Video Game industry acts like they're special and shouldn't have to

cars get new editions every year; books cost pennies per book to make; furniture uses the fact only college students dont care that someone they dont know has probably been naked on said chiar/bed/couch.

more so than that, all media has some way to make up massively for used sales, non-media enterprises have condition, including smell. used video games are in almost perfect condition (minus cases and manuals) and if not there is very little risk to the consumer.[/quote]

How many people do you see buying new cars every year though? Hardly ever, when people buy a car more often than not they're buying a used one. And you don't see the Car Companies bitching about that, they make do with how the market is.

The point still stands on books, while they were going strong publisher's weren't attacking libraries or stuff like that. And the ones that did got labeled as money grubbing whores.

while you say video game industry acts like thier special, so do used consumers. used consumers are simply paying the store, the actual developer who made the game gets nothing. i see ABSOLUTELY NOTHING wrong with them incentivizing new sales by tacking NON NESSESARY content as DLC

agian - i use the example of dragon age - if you bought it new you get the stone prisoner dlc for free. it is a completely non nessesary to the story line, you get several extra quests and a companion, but if they didnt include it no one would complain cause the game is still full and not missing anything.

for a counter example i will throw out need for speed with thier online passes. this is what i consider a bad incentive. you are missing a large chunk of the game (the multiplayer), not to mention a part that was heavily advertised. you still get the full story, but for a game that at e3 they specifically show off only the multiplayer and how cool it is, by leaving out the multiplayer your just pissing off used sales and they might not ever buy your game new.

my point is that tacking on dlc, that does not take away from the experiance if played without it, but adds to the experiance with it is a good thing. i believe the consumers that make the company money should get a little something extra. i also believe used sales are perfectly fine and legetimate, but they really dont deserve the developers concern as they are not paying a dime to them.

Apparently I didn't go far enough into you're point of view. I don't have a problem with DLC. That's easy to get I guess, offer up incentives to those who buy new while other people have to pay. But when companies block stuff that's in the game, or have Launch-Day DLC that makes me mad.

 

[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.

No I'm aware, but again, you're not giving money to the guys who made it when you buy used, so why do you expect them to care? I'm aware this is you know sort of a debatable thing but I've done a lot of jobs where the other party just felt like they didn't want to pay but they expected me to send the files anyway. Guess who didn't get what they wanted? Neither party.

actually i wasn't gonna get RAGE at all *trollface here* so they don't get my money regardless, so my disapproval is less about me getting screwed now, and more about me getting potentially screwed later when its a game i want.

that said...

i honestly have no problem shelling out full price for a new copy, the devs should get their cut, they gotta eat to just like me, but there's gotta be a better way to go about getting said fair share from the used crowd then crap like this, since all its doing is pissing people off

Yeah Ubisoft has that "better way to deal with it" remember? Playing single player? You must be online at all times or you can't play. Buy it new? Fuck you paying scum only pirates get to play offline. But we swear it's to target pirates!

Rage is taking something out you can buy as DLC it's not a huge deal. There's worse ways as I stated with Ubisoft being the fucking U.S.S. Fuckwad in terms of DRM. I'm not saying at all that what they're doing is perfect with RAGE.

However being that the dev gets no money from the used sales I can somewhat understand. If I get it I'm buying it new for 2 reasons 1- I'm a sucker for shrinkwrap+content, 2- I'd get it on PC so I'd have to get it new regardless.

Again, is it perfect? Not really, can they do better? Yes but they can do a LOT worse.

o.0 i'm sorry i kinda missed that 'ubisoft thing', i'm a VERY finicky gamer, and ubisoft has never made a game i care to play

personally, i like DLC as the option my self, content booster packs like Fallout dose, maybe with an extra sprinkling of gear packs and related quests for between bigger DLC.

but really, this whole shit storm over THIS you can probably chalk up to poor wording, cause really, its the sewer level, no one is expected to dick around there.

 

[Caverat]

Destroying the used market would be destroying a consumers ability to resell their games. Is that immoral? Should corporation be allowed to put profits above consumer rights? I don't think so, do you think so?

No, I don't think a consumer's rights should take a back seat. Fortunately, they aren't. Nothing is stopping an individual from reselling a game they buy, it just won't have the full functionality as if bought new from the manufacturer's approved sellers. That's not immoral, stop saying it is.

Ever wonder why some things have 'Not for re-sale' printed on them? It's legal, it's not immoral, it's a perfectly reasonable business practice. Crying because you don't want to pay the sellers price is fine, people ***** and moan about most things. Just stop bringing up morality like your stance is in any way righteous. It isn't. You are crying for the sake of crying some more, stop making it out to be anything else.

Seriously, I get it, you don't like paying full price. Everyone gets it, but for the love of the god that probably doesn't exist, really think something through before arguing a morality angle.

 

[joshthor]

What about cars/books/furniture/pretty much everything in the world? There's been a second hand market since the beginning of capitalism and the Video Games industry acts like it's all different. Every one else deals with the second hand market, but the Video Game industry acts like they're special and shouldn't have to

cars get new editions every year; books cost pennies per book to make; furniture uses the fact only college students dont care that someone they dont know has probably been naked on said chiar/bed/couch.

more so than that, all media has some way to make up massively for used sales, non-media enterprises have condition, including smell. used video games are in almost perfect condition (minus cases and manuals) and if not there is very little risk to the consumer.

How many people do you see buying new cars every year though? Hardly ever, when people buy a car more often than not they're buying a used one. And you don't see the Car Companies bitching about that, they make do with how the market is.

The point still stands on books, while they were going strong publisher's weren't attacking libraries or stuff like that. And the ones that did got labeled as money grubbing whores.

while you say video game industry acts like thier special, so do used consumers. used consumers are simply paying the store, the actual developer who made the game gets nothing. i see ABSOLUTELY NOTHING wrong with them incentivizing new sales by tacking NON NESSESARY content as DLC

agian - i use the example of dragon age - if you bought it new you get the stone prisoner dlc for free. it is a completely non nessesary to the story line, you get several extra quests and a companion, but if they didnt include it no one would complain cause the game is still full and not missing anything.

for a counter example i will throw out need for speed with thier online passes. this is what i consider a bad incentive. you are missing a large chunk of the game (the multiplayer), not to mention a part that was heavily advertised. you still get the full story, but for a game that at e3 they specifically show off only the multiplayer and how cool it is, by leaving out the multiplayer your just pissing off used sales and they might not ever buy your game new.

my point is that tacking on dlc, that does not take away from the experiance if played without it, but adds to the experiance with it is a good thing. i believe the consumers that make the company money should get a little something extra. i also believe used sales are perfectly fine and legetimate, but they really dont deserve the developers concern as they are not paying a dime to them.

Apparently I didn't go far enough into you're point of view. I don't have a problem with DLC. That's easy to get I guess, offer up incentives to those who buy new while other people have to pay. But when companies block stuff that's in the game, or have Launch-Day DLC that makes me mad.[/quote]

i absolutely agree that blocking stuff that is in the game is wrong. however, i dont disagree with launch day dlc - if done right. i cant really put why into words, but i think launch day dlc should be used to promote new sales, the launch dlc should go with new purchasers for free.

 

[Epona]

Destroying the used market would be destroying a consumers ability to resell their games. Is that immoral? Should corporation be allowed to put profits above consumer rights? I don't think so, do you think so?

No, I don't think a consumer's rights should take a back seat. Fortunately, they aren't. Nothing is stopping an individual from reselling a game they buy, it just won't have the full functionality as if bought new from the manufacturer's approved sellers. That's not immoral, stop saying it is.

Ever wonder why some things have 'Not for re-sale' printed on them? It's legal, it's not immoral, it's a perfectly reasonable business practice. Crying because you don't want to pay the sellers price is fine, people ***** and moan about most things. Just stop bringing up morality like your stance is in any way righteous. It isn't. You are crying for the sake of crying some more, stop making it out to be anything else.

Seriously, I get it, you don't like paying full price. Everyone gets it, but for the love of the god that probably doesn't exist, really think something through before arguing a morality angle.

Ok, I am officially confused. You said:

Let's say for the sake of argument, that this type of thing is geared to completely obliterate the used game market... It still wouldn't be immoral.

...and now you say:

No, I don't think a consumer's rights should take a back seat. Fortunately, they aren't. Nothing is stopping an individual from reselling a game they buy, it just won't have the full functionality as if bought new from the manufacturer's approved sellers. That's not immoral, stop saying it is.

So, if this thing is geared toward destroying the used market (and I think it is given that it's already happened to the PC used market), is it immoral or not because you seem to be going both ways.

 

[thepyrethatburns]

I rather buy the game new rather than pay for day 1 DLC. So no especially when we're talking about a new IP which if doesn't sell well in the first month(new copies) will have no follow up no matter how good the game is.

Well, if they want their new IP to take off, is alienating potential customers really a good idea? At one point, CliffyB was talking about doing something like this for Gears 3 but that's an established IP with an established fanbase so, if he had decided to go through with that, they could have gotten away with it. Launching a new IP with the promise of cutting content if you don't buy the game new seems to be reaching for new heights of stupidity in marketing.

At some point, you just have to let people or developers collect their Darwin Award.

Well I'm sorry but I do believe buying a used copy shouldn't have the same value as a new copy. Are they exagerating with cutting from single player? Maybe but if they don't sell it's over,there is no buy it later on Steam for 50% off like a GOW game would benefit from thinner sales,if a game doesn't sale in the first months it's over for it,you can sell 10 million copies 2 years later it doesn't matter.

Well, I hope you remember that when you get a used car and someone has removed the stereo because you didn't pay new car price.

Regardless, you're missing the point as to why this is stupid marketing. There were three ways to put this in order of how well people take it.

1) Buy a new copy of Rage and get extra sewer levels absolutely free. Power to the Players!

2) We have included the sewer levels as Day 1 DLC but, if you buy the game new, then you will get them for free.

3) If you don't buy the game new, then the sewer levels will be locked.

While each approach amounts to the same thing, the third statement is considerably less consumer-friendly than the first one. This is stupid marketing and that's why I think that, for the way they're marketing this, they deserve to collect a Darwin award.

Also, if you're like me and you rent before you buy, then these schemes are lowering the potential that I will buy. If you lock off the multiplayer, then I will judge it solely on the single player regardless of how good people say the multiplayer is. If you're selling Day 1 DLC, then I will judge the single player both on how much the game will actually cost and how well the single-player is without the DLC.

And, if you decide that the best way to promote your game is to wage war on the cash cow that pays for your very existence, then I will laugh as your dull grey Fallout 3/Borderlands ripoff fails and your company goes under.

If the seller says in the annoucement that the car has no stereo I won't tell him to put a stereo in because a new car comes with one.

I really hope people aren't used to day 1 DLC or any kind of bad DLC. While day 1 DLC affects people who buys new and used games,monetary wise only affects those that buy new games since it will make the game effectivelly cost 70-80 euros. So no I prefer this type of promotion if it will replace day 1 DLC.

From what I see on gaming sites, people grumble about it but are coming to accept it's existence. Given that most Day 1 DLC also comes free to those who buy new, it's pretty much the same thing as this is.

I don't understand how you wage war on who pays for your existence,used copy money means 0 to the developer/publisher so it's pretty much the other way around.

And reading books in a library means 0 to book publishers. Take a look at the PC gaming market. The inability to trade in or rent games eventually helped bring it down. If it weren't for Steam, it'd probably be close to a null market. (And Steam has the issue that you don't really own any of your games either.

So yeah it's worse than piracy since a pirate most of the times won't buy the game anyway so they don't actually lose any money. While used sales means direct loss.

Oy vey.....

Many of the people who buy used wouldn't have bought the game new either. By killing the used game market, you are promoting piracy. Faced with the choice of buying new or pirate, more people will pirate.

And then there's the effect on the retail infrastructure. Without the used game market, Gamestop would probably have to retail the game for 80-120. You might think "well, I'll just download it and the retail outlets can crash and burn" which works....up until they drop server support and the games that you paid for become wasted space.

And, even then, where will you get the new consoles? Most places that sell hardware also sell the software/support materials for said hardware because the profit margins are initially the same but you can sell more software/support materials. That's why stores like Best Buy and Gamestop are willing to cut the margins on hardware such as printers and consoles because then you're hooked for ink and games. If you cut the profit margins by eliminating the used market which would greatly impact the new market, how long before those stores either fold (in the case of Gamestop) or they decide that they'd rather replace the store space taken up by consoles with something that makes better profit margins such as printers?

Yeah almost forgot,I agree cutting multiplayer for used copies is the better option,but what do you do when the game has no MP? I said cutting Single player might not be the best choise but something needs to be done and it has to be something that actually makes a difference if you want to buy it used. I'm actually open to anything, another option would be to not sale used copies at all for like 6 months,but could you enforce something like that? I doubt it.

And this ties into reason #3 why I'm dropping gaming after this generation. The very idea that punishing customers for their buying habits is something largely unique to the gaming industry. Pretty much every other industry that deals with non-consumable tangibles uses carrots to coax their customers into changing their spending habits. The gaming industry is the only one that thinks sticks are a good idea.

 

[Cenequus]

I rather buy the game new rather than pay for day 1 DLC. So no especially when we're talking about a new IP which if doesn't sell well in the first month(new copies) will have no follow up no matter how good the game is.

Well, if they want their new IP to take off, is alienating potential customers really a good idea? At one point, CliffyB was talking about doing something like this for Gears 3 but that's an established IP with an established fanbase so, if he had decided to go through with that, they could have gotten away with it. Launching a new IP with the promise of cutting content if you don't buy the game new seems to be reaching for new heights of stupidity in marketing.

At some point, you just have to let people or developers collect their Darwin Award.

Well I'm sorry but I do believe buying a used copy shouldn't have the same value as a new copy. Are they exagerating with cutting from single player? Maybe but if they don't sell it's over,there is no buy it later on Steam for 50% off like a GOW game would benefit from thinner sales,if a game doesn't sale in the first months it's over for it,you can sell 10 million copies 2 years later it doesn't matter.

Well, I hope you remember that when you get a used car and someone has removed the stereo because you didn't pay new car price.

Regardless, you're missing the point as to why this is stupid marketing. There were three ways to put this in order of how well people take it.

1) Buy a new copy of Rage and get extra sewer levels absolutely free. Power to the Players!

2) We have included the sewer levels as Day 1 DLC but, if you buy the game new, then you will get them for free.

3) If you don't buy the game new, then the sewer levels will be locked.

While each approach amounts to the same thing, the third statement is considerably less consumer-friendly than the first one. This is stupid marketing and that's why I think that, for the way they're marketing this, they deserve to collect a Darwin award.

Also, if you're like me and you rent before you buy, then these schemes are lowering the potential that I will buy. If you lock off the multiplayer, then I will judge it solely on the single player regardless of how good people say the multiplayer is. If you're selling Day 1 DLC, then I will judge the single player both on how much the game will actually cost and how well the single-player is without the DLC.

And, if you decide that the best way to promote your game is to wage war on the cash cow that pays for your very existence, then I will laugh as your dull grey Fallout 3/Borderlands ripoff fails and your company goes under.

If the seller says in the annoucement that the car has no stereo I won't tell him to put a stereo in because a new car comes with one.

I really hope people aren't used to day 1 DLC or any kind of bad DLC. While day 1 DLC affects people who buys new and used games,monetary wise only affects those that buy new games since it will make the game effectivelly cost 70-80 euros. So no I prefer this type of promotion if it will replace day 1 DLC.

From what I see on gaming sites, people grumble about it but are coming to accept it's existence. Given that most Day 1 DLC also comes free to those who buy new, it's pretty much the same thing as this is.

I don't understand how you wage war on who pays for your existence,used copy money means 0 to the developer/publisher so it's pretty much the other way around.

And reading books in a library means 0 to book publishers. Take a look at the PC gaming market. The inability to trade in or rent games eventually helped bring it down. If it weren't for Steam, it'd probably be close to a null market. (And Steam has the issue that you don't really own any of your games either.

So yeah it's worse than piracy since a pirate most of the times won't buy the game anyway so they don't actually lose any money. While used sales means direct loss.

Oy vey.....

Many of the people who buy used wouldn't have bought the game new either. By killing the used game market, you are promoting piracy. Faced with the choice of buying new or pirate, more people will pirate.

And then there's the effect on the retail infrastructure. Without the used game market, Gamestop would probably have to retail the game for 80-120. You might think "well, I'll just download it and the retail outlets can crash and burn" which works....up until they drop server support and the games that you paid for become wasted space.

And, even then, where will you get the new consoles? Most places that sell hardware also sell the software/support materials for said hardware because the profit margins are initially the same but you can sell more software/support materials. That's why stores like Best Buy and Gamestop are willing to cut the margins on hardware such as printers and consoles because then you're hooked for ink and games. If you cut the profit margins by eliminating the used market which would greatly impact the new market, how long before those stores either fold (in the case of Gamestop) or they decide that they'd rather replace the store space taken up by consoles with something that makes better profit margins such as printers?

Yeah almost forgot,I agree cutting multiplayer for used copies is the better option,but what do you do when the game has no MP? I said cutting Single player might not be the best choise but something needs to be done and it has to be something that actually makes a difference if you want to buy it used. I'm actually open to anything, another option would be to not sale used copies at all for like 6 months,but could you enforce something like that? I doubt it.

And this ties into reason #3 why I'm dropping gaming after this generation. The very idea that punishing customers for their buying habits is something largely unique to the gaming industry. Pretty much every other industry that deals with non-consumable tangibles uses carrots to coax their customers into changing their spending habits. The gaming industry is the only one that thinks sticks are a good idea.

Not the same thing since you don't own that book. That counts more like a lan party where you go and play someone else's games. Sure it's in a bigger scale since libraries are centuries around while games a few decades. I wouldn't mind public/private game libraries.

I really don't know how you can praise shops like Gamestop or Best Buy while I love my phisical copy of games(most of the times I buy them from amazon) I really hope places like that fail. If you go to buy a game day 1 even and they tell you we have it new for 60 dollars but there is a copy for 40 if you want guess which choice 99% of the people will make. You don't punish who buys used you reward who buys new. There is no contract btwn the company and the buyer of a used copy any support you want for it should only come from who sold you that game. Again what's the incentive to buy new? Till today none. Sure digital distribution will eventually take over the whole sales and nobody will own anything pretty much(you could blame Steam for that for making a whole generation of zombies that are glad to not own anything).

 

[thepyrethatburns]

I really don't know how you can praise shops like Gamestop or Best Buy while I love my phisical copy of games(most of the times I buy them from amazon) I really hope places like that fail. If you go to buy a game day 1 even and they tell you we have it new for 60 dollars but there is a copy for 40 if you want guess which choice 99% of the people will make. You don't punish who buys used you reward who buys new. There is no contract btwn the company and the buyer of a used copy any support you want for it should only come from who sold you that game. Again what's the incentive to buy new? Till today none. Sure digital distribution will eventually take over the whole sales and nobody will own anything pretty much(you could blame Steam for that for making a whole generation of zombies that are glad to not own anything).

I'm not praising them so much as I'm taking a long-term view of the situation. If places like that do fail, what will happen to the game market? Are you going to mail order your consoles? What if they're defective? (Remember, Sony's initial policy was that they would not replace PSPs that had the dead pixel issue.) What about holidays and birthdays when parents are buying games for their kids? What about kids who don't have credit cards and can't mail order anything? Even lowballing the sales figures, I'm not sure how well the games market will be able to survive those types of losses.

You're right. There is no contract. On the other side of that, the game developers are dependent on the good will of the consumer. Pulling moves like this ESPECIALLY for a new IP is a good way to fail. Without ID, there are still plenty of FPS games out there. Without the consumer, ID is nothing.

What's the incentive to buy new? The same incentive that has people camping out on console release dates or making week 1 purchases. This type of DLC scheme really doesn't affect people. Some of the people it does effect are the people who may have bought Rage 2 after buying Rage 1 used.

 

[Snotnarok]

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.

No I'm aware, but again, you're not giving money to the guys who made it when you buy used, so why do you expect them to care? I'm aware this is you know sort of a debatable thing but I've done a lot of jobs where the other party just felt like they didn't want to pay but they expected me to send the files anyway. Guess who didn't get what they wanted? Neither party.

actually i wasn't gonna get RAGE at all *trollface here* so they don't get my money regardless, so my disapproval is less about me getting screwed now, and more about me getting potentially screwed later when its a game i want.

that said...

i honestly have no problem shelling out full price for a new copy, the devs should get their cut, they gotta eat to just like me, but there's gotta be a better way to go about getting said fair share from the used crowd then crap like this, since all its doing is pissing people off

Yeah Ubisoft has that "better way to deal with it" remember? Playing single player? You must be online at all times or you can't play. Buy it new? Fuck you paying scum only pirates get to play offline. But we swear it's to target pirates!

Rage is taking something out you can buy as DLC it's not a huge deal. There's worse ways as I stated with Ubisoft being the fucking U.S.S. Fuckwad in terms of DRM. I'm not saying at all that what they're doing is perfect with RAGE.

However being that the dev gets no money from the used sales I can somewhat understand. If I get it I'm buying it new for 2 reasons 1- I'm a sucker for shrinkwrap+content, 2- I'd get it on PC so I'd have to get it new regardless.

Again, is it perfect? Not really, can they do better? Yes but they can do a LOT worse.

o.0 i'm sorry i kinda missed that 'ubisoft thing', i'm a VERY finicky gamer, and ubisoft has never made a game i care to play

personally, i like DLC as the option my self, content booster packs like Fallout dose, maybe with an extra sprinkling of gear packs and related quests for between bigger DLC.

but really, this whole shit storm over THIS you can probably chalk up to poor wording, cause really, its the sewer level, no one is expected to dick around there.

True, I wasn't yelling at you if you thought that by the by. I was just yelling in general. Ubisoft is the DRM cesspool. They had games that only let you install 3-5 times then you had to rebuy or try to request more. Now they say install but it counts any hardware changes, so new ram? Video card? CD/DVD drive? All counts. Then they have that always online drm, so if you play singleplayer you MUST be online or you get kicked immediately.

They claim it's to stop piracy however every one of their games is on torrent sites and you don't always have to be online for that. So which one would you be more motivated to get?

That's really why I don't mind that day 1 dlc nonsense and this, because the alternative is Ubisoft, and I really don't like them.

 

[Cenequus]

I really don't know how you can praise shops like Gamestop or Best Buy while I love my phisical copy of games(most of the times I buy them from amazon) I really hope places like that fail. If you go to buy a game day 1 even and they tell you we have it new for 60 dollars but there is a copy for 40 if you want guess which choice 99% of the people will make. You don't punish who buys used you reward who buys new. There is no contract btwn the company and the buyer of a used copy any support you want for it should only come from who sold you that game. Again what's the incentive to buy new? Till today none. Sure digital distribution will eventually take over the whole sales and nobody will own anything pretty much(you could blame Steam for that for making a whole generation of zombies that are glad to not own anything).

I'm not praising them so much as I'm taking a long-term view of the situation. If places like that do fail, what will happen to the game market? Are you going to mail order your consoles? What if they're defective? (Remember, Sony's initial policy was that they would not replace PSPs that had the dead pixel issue.) What about holidays and birthdays when parents are buying games for their kids? What about kids who don't have credit cards and can't mail order anything? Even lowballing the sales figures, I'm not sure how well the games market will be able to survive those types of losses.

You're right. There is no contract. On the other side of that, the game developers are dependent on the good will of the consumer. Pulling moves like this ESPECIALLY for a new IP is a good way to fail. Without ID, there are still plenty of FPS games out there. Without the consumer, ID is nothing.

What's the incentive to buy new? The same incentive that has people camping out on console release dates or making week 1 purchases. This type of DLC scheme really doesn't affect people. Some of the people it does effect are the people who may have bought Rage 2 after buying Rage 1 used.

The future or to be honest very near future is complete digital distribution.

I'll keep bashing on this,losing the used sales does not mean losing sale figures.

 

[thepyrethatburns]

The future or to be honest very near future is complete digital distribution.

I'll keep bashing on this,losing the used sales does not mean losing sale figures.

Unfortunately true but, as I said, that ties into reason #3 for me.

Difference of opinion then.

 

[Kair]

There is a simple personal answer to DRM: Piracy.

There is a simple anwser to piracy: DRM! You see how this could go wrong?

This cycle will always lead to even more piracy. DRM is therefore not a good tool for fighting piracy.

 

[kayisking]

There is a simple personal answer to DRM: Piracy.

There is a simple anwser to piracy: DRM! You see how this could go wrong?

This cycle will always lead to even more piracy. DRM is therefore not a good tool for fighting piracy.

This cycle will always lead to even more DRM. Piracy is therefore not a good tool for fighting DRM.

 

[Cenequus]

I could see how this would annoy people who do but I don't sell my used games. I'd just rather enjoy the game every now and then than sell them for a fraction of what they're worth.

That would be good and all but I sell my games for a very large fraction of what I paid and if I bought the game used I normaly sell it for the exact same price I paid.

The future or to be honest very near future is complete digital distribution.

I'll keep bashing on this,losing the used sales does not mean losing sale figures.

Mabey on the PC it is but nowhere else. Game companies are not stupid enough to stop selling physical copies of games on consoles. They know that if they do that anywhere in the near future they will be going bankrupt shortly after.

Do you really believe Xbox live and PSN won't be the same as Steam/Origin etc? The only word that comes to mind is delusional,sorry.

 

[Cenequus]

Do you really believe Xbox live and PSN won't be the same as Steam/Origin etc? The only word that comes to mind is delusional,sorry.

Do you really think that game developers are going to just cut out over 30% of their potential customers? If you do then you would have to be delusional. The last reports I read was that approximatly 70% of all ps3s had gone online before and that number was larger then the number of 360s which I believe was mid to low 60s. Then you have to consider the size of games, the availability of internet, download caps, etc.

Not everybody has amazingly fast internet which means that digital distribution is simply to slow for them. They dont want to spend five days straight downloading a game on their console. Then their is download caps, when a single game that you want to buy it either larger then your monthly download cap or 3/4 of it you wont be buying that game.

Then their is the harddrive space issue. Sure its not an issue if your shipping a min 1TB harddrive but that is currently not the case and I doubt the next generations consoles will initially ship with anything bigger then 250GB.

Complete Digital Distribution of games will not be happen anywhere in the near future. There are far far to many issues for it to ever be a viable solution.



http://kotaku.com/5477036/just-how-big-is-god-of-war-iii

I Imagine you're from US and I'm sorry for your crappy net,really. But most of the big countries in EU the net is as should be 20 MB up and down. To make you an example last time I downloaded and reinstalled LOTRO(around 12 Gb) it took me less than 1 hour.