Poll: Boycott Rage

[Epona]

They want to get paid. Wouldn't you want to get paid for something you put a lot of hard work and effort into?

Correction: They want to get paid multiple times per copy, which they are not entitled to.

Yes, I'd love to get paid multiple times for each job I did but I would lose clients quickly if I started trying force it in an underhanded way.

 

[Weaver]

I'm surprised at how many people here are such apologists to publishers.
You know the story about how all devs are stared dogs living from paycheck to paycheck? It's a bunch of bullshit. The video game industry is raking in record profits irregardless of used sales.

 

[Epona]

The analogies being put out are entirely backwards. Bank robbers being complaining about not being entitled to the bank's deposits? Being shocked that a 2 year old doesn't have a license? Seriously put a little more thought into these. They are taking a stance that shouldn't surprise anyone at all. The dell thing sure, but its not like they have created measures to prevent that.

The economy is difficult for some, but in my opinion it merely means that people shouldn't want to buy every single game available. If something interests you, i'm more than sure you'll be happy to fork over the money for a full priced game. And why wouldn't you? its a game that you truly want to buy. They are entitled to whatever they wish to be entitled to so long as it is within the boundaries of at least being reasonable. And this is very reasonable in my opinion.

Also I dont know about the whole "used game market" thing. Online sales go to extreme lengths to prevent any form of being able to sell games. And if that is what it takes for the developer to get the full amount of customers that it desires, then at some point it may come to that. However I preffer to have hard copy's of my games for novelty purposes.

Point being, boycotting is a massive term and this thread is giving a minor complaint to justify it.

Just like the bank robbers aren't entitled to the money at the bank, the publishers aren't entitled to get paid multiple times per copy of a game. I don't see what's so hard to understand about this.

You buy a game, you own that copy you don't own the code but you do own the disc it is on and can therefore, sell it off to whomever you like. If that weren't true, Gamestop would have been sued out of existence by now. You know why publishers are taking this underhanded route as opposed to taking Gamestop to court right? It's because they would lose if they took it to court.

So back to what I was saying:

You buy a game, it's yours. You sell it to Gamestop, it's theirs. They sell it to someone else and the cycle continues but that copy of the game hasn't belonged to the publishers since they sold it to the retailer and as such they have no right to more money from that copy.

This is a truly simple concept that gamers have been brainwashed to not understand. Long before any of us were born the First Sale Doctrine was established and the game industry can't legally stand against it.

 

[Fiz_The_Toaster]

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

I would like to know how this is wrong too.

I'd like to know that as well.

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Epona]

I'm surprised at how many people here are such apologists to publishers.
You know the story about how all devs are stared dogs living from paycheck to paycheck? It's a bunch of bullshit. The video game industry is raking in record profits irregardless of used sales.

...or because of used sale. How many people bought XXX 2 new because they took a chance on a cheap used copy of XXX 1 and liked it? How many people trade in their games and turn around and put that money back into new games?

Publishers are shooting themselves in the foot by making it harder to buy used, resell a game or by making it hard to let your little brother play Starcraft 2 without it messing with your profile?

 

[Epona]

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

I would like to know how this is wrong too.

I'd like to know that as well.

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

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

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

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

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

They aren't going after them because they would lose and they know it. This is why they are using underhanded techniques to discourage used game sales.

 

[Exile714]

Snip 1

This morning, GameStop reported its earnings for the three months ending April 30, 2011. The quarter--the first of the specialty retailer's fiscal year--was a profitable one, with the company earning $80.4 million in net income on a record $2.28 billion of revenue. That was a 6.9 percent increase from $75.2 million in profits and a 9.5 percent boost from the $2.08 billion in revenues GameStop took in during the same period in 2010.

Yes, its a big company and its revenues are large, but those are rather paltry profits compared to the billions you accuse them of raking in (through used game sales). Might as well just say "GAJILLIONZ." If they were truly being the bloodsucking middlemen, in the way that chinese middlemen link up western companies with cheap labor and pocket the difference, they'd be raking in a lot more money than they are.

If someone is making billions, it means that they make more than one billion, 2 billion is more than 1 billion, that it is billions. Thus gamestop's profit is in the billions. You say that is a paltry sum, but considering they aren't producing or making any product, they are providing a fairly simple service it is actually quite a large sum of money.

You're not thinking about this clearly. Gamestop made $80 million, not $2 billion. That means they took in $2000 million and paid out $1920 million in costs. What are costs? The cost of purchasing the game wholesale, the cost of electricity to the store, the cost of employees, taxes etc. A large portion of the $1920 million went to the game developers.

Also, some people claimed that Gamestop doesn't make any money on selling new games. That's just silly, and anyone who thinks that really doesn't get basic retail economics. (Question for those people: why, then, would Gamestop sell new games if they don't make money from doing so?)

 

[Epona]

This 'buy it new to play things that would have been included otherwise!' crap needs to end. im sick of game companies thinking that they can do this to us, as consumers. we dont have to put up with this bull anymore. WE decide whether or not their game gets bought. WE decide to put money down for a title they release. they dont get to decide that for us. im tired of the companies thinking that they can get away with this, just because they assume we will always buy their games no matter what.

If we allow this to continue, what will happen to games like Skyrim? do you want to only be able to access 15 quests if you buy it new? or to a new extreme: you can only dual wield if you buy it new?

Technically you are "boycotting" them by buying used anyway, no money flows to them and it doesn't show up as a sale, only the "PreOwned-Games Retailer" profits off of it.

You say "Developers don't get a CENT from someone buying the game used" as if we should be shocked. In fact, developers aren't entitled to that any more than Dell is entitled to some of the money from the monitor I sold at my garage sale. It's like being shocked because a 2 year old can't get a drivers license.

Fair enough, you aren't "entitled" (god... how I hate that word) to any part of the game they deem you are not as long as you don't actually buy the game from them, as much as you aren't "entitled" to have Dell repair the monitor you bought from a garage sale if it breaks down 2 days after because you aren't their customer.

So you are going to cease arguing that developers should get money from used sales?

 

[TheRamMan]

Bein a PC gamer we really dont have to worry about "Buy it New". Ther arn't any major PC resale shops so its not a big issue, but I would support ID for there desicion anyway.
The more money to the DEV = Higher chance of Game quality, Studio Staying open, more game releases but an overall bigger bugget to ply with for the future for whatever they may do.
Also I feel Game comapnys RIP me(US) off! Sell a game to them cheap and they turn around and make a huge profit on it.

Im netral on the extra content for PRE-Orders
But for Buying New I like it!

 

[TheRamMan]

Bein a PC gamer we really dont have to worry about "Buy it New". Ther arn't any major PC resale shops so its not a big issue, but I would support ID for there desicion anyway.
The more money to the DEV = Higher chance of Game quality, Studio Staying open, more game releases but an overall bigger bugget to ply with for the future for whatever they may do.
Also I feel Game comapnys RIP me(US) off! Sell a game to them cheap and they turn around and make a huge profit on it. Now if they gave a good percent to the DEV then I would agree with that(also that means they could make less disc and reduce a little bit of waste)

Im netral on the extra content for PRE-Orders
But for Buying New I like it!

 

[Inkidu]

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

I would like to know how this is wrong too.

I'd like to know that as well.

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

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

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

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

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

See, I treat trade in as a long term thing. I pay into the cards. I only go for store credit (which they are willing to give oodles of over straight up cash). I get rewards and contests, and it works for me. Sure there are clasics I'll probably never trade in, but there are plenty of games I beat completely and just collect dust. It's an investment. You're not gong to turn a quick profit. Plus some of that store credit goes to me buying brand new games, which I wouldn't be able to get at all otherwise.

I know I can't afford to buy new every time. It's just not practical. Do I think I'm ripping off a developer or publisher. Hell no. Console games are owned property (it's not like PC) if I want to sell it to my friend down the street it's perfectly legal.

 

[Fiz_The_Toaster]

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

I would like to know how this is wrong too.

I'd like to know that as well.

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

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

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

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

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

They aren't going after them because they would lose and they know it. This is why they are using underhanded techniques to discourage used game sales.

That's what I mean. It would hurt them financially and that's really the last thing publishers want to do. Retailers have way too much power and they can get away with this crap because they know they can. I don't like those underhanded techniques, but it has to be done I suppose. Not that I like it, but not a whole lot I can do about it.

 

[WaruTaru]

Technically you are "boycotting" them by buying used anyway, no money flows to them and it doesn't show up as a sale, only the "PreOwned-Games Retailer" profits off of it.

No you aren't. If the game sold a lot of used copies, its profit for the game shop, and they like profit. If a sequel comes out, the game shop is more likely to order more of that game, thus reducing the copies of other games that they might order if those other games are released at the same time as the sequel. If you plan to boycott, don't touch the game at all, new or used.

 

[inFAMOUSCowZ]

I am boycotting Rage, devs shouldn't need to do this. It is no different then letting a friend borrow a game. Person gets to play a game pay no money. Devs get not a single cent. How is that any different. Someone bought the game, so why does it matter if I play it used or borrow, or even rent. Cutting content is honestly a terrible idea, I never buy a game used unless thats the only way for me to get it.

But ever since project $10 and other similar moves I have been buying used, or not buying at all. The publishers or developers (who ever makes these calls) are shooting them selves in the foot. Since I debate this move has done nothing or even infact made sales worse. Only because they take content out, and that pisses people off. I've been dong this for about a year, and I have no plans on stopping, if only there were more people out there boycotting.

What about gamers who have little income, or gamers who only have the option of getting used and they dont have any online. You are saying fuck you to them. People who enjoy your games, you are saying get the fuck out, you can't afford these games? Then i dont want you. This will make damn well sure they wont ever buy from you again, or only get it used, or even pirate.

TLDR; I am boycotting, and devs/publishers need to stop screwing over their fans, just for a few more sales.

EDIT: Its the same as the Battle Field 3 boycott because of the dlc, I was apart of that too. You can do better online if you reserve the game, ands thats it. Also only way to get these maps. Pre-order bonuses need to end as well. They are cutting content out of a game, give me a map, poster, sound track, toy, gift card. Not some shit they cut from the game to give to a select few.

 

[Epona]

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

I would like to know how this is wrong too.

I'd like to know that as well.

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

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

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

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

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

See, I treat trade in as a long term thing. I pay into the cards. I only go for store credit (which they are willing to give oodles of over straight up cash). I get rewards and contests, and it works for me. Sure there are clasics I'll probably never trade in, but there are plenty of games I beat completely and just collect dust. It's an investment. You're not gong to turn a quick profit. Plus some of that store credit goes to me buying brand new games, which I wouldn't be able to get at all otherwise.

I know I can't afford to buy new every time. It's just not practical. Do I think I'm ripping off a developer or publisher. Hell no. Console games are owned property (it's not like PC) if I want to sell it to my friend down the street it's perfectly legal.

It's perfectly legal to sell PC games to your friend too, it's just that publishers have made it impractical and if we put up with it, they will do the same with console games.

I can't stress enough that our example of what it is to come for console games is to look at PC games.

 

[Vakz]

If players still doesn't buy games new then they're obviously going to have wise up and make games better and actually WORTH buying new.

OR they just each come up with some damn "community"-service that ties all your games from that developer to an account, so you can't resell it.

Make games better, or lock your games so they can't be resold.. which one sounds more likely? I think you'll find a ton of examples on the latter.

 

[lord.jeff]

You say "Developers don't get a CENT from someone buying the game used" as if we should be shocked. In fact, developers aren't entitled to that any more than Dell is entitled to some of the money from the monitor I sold at my garage sale. It's like being shocked because a 2 year old can't get a drivers license.

Dell would charge you for that if they could, almost any company would, I don't think game companies are evil just because they are the only ones that can get away with it.

I don't mind extra content for buying new, you paid more you deserve more and most this games sell the extra as DLC, it may not be the best way to do it but I don't see anything wrong with a company asking for money from it's product. A better way may be to just include 10 dollars worth of DLC with the purchase.

 

[Inkidu]

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

I would like to know how this is wrong too.

I'd like to know that as well.

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

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

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

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

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

See, I treat trade in as a long term thing. I pay into the cards. I only go for store credit (which they are willing to give oodles of over straight up cash). I get rewards and contests, and it works for me. Sure there are clasics I'll probably never trade in, but there are plenty of games I beat completely and just collect dust. It's an investment. You're not gong to turn a quick profit. Plus some of that store credit goes to me buying brand new games, which I wouldn't be able to get at all otherwise.

I know I can't afford to buy new every time. It's just not practical. Do I think I'm ripping off a developer or publisher. Hell no. Console games are owned property (it's not like PC) if I want to sell it to my friend down the street it's perfectly legal.

It's perfectly legal to sell PC games to your friend too, it's just that publishers have made it impractical and if we put up with it, they will do the same with console games.

I can't stress enough that our example of what it is to come for console games is to look at PC games.

Actually no it's not. Selling PC software in the States is like selling a leased car. You can't do it legally because you're paying for the use of it. It's draconian and stupid but I don't think that EULA has changed since I read it so long ago. They spell out quite specifically that you are leasing the software from the company and they basically could come into your hose and take it back if you break the EULA.

They could go to whoever you sold it too and just take it from them without offering any compensation either. That's part of the reason I don't do PC much anymore.

 

[Crimsom Storm]

You wish to know what's wrong? Very well. Do you remember when you'd go to your local Blockbuster as a kid, and your parent would rent you a game? The game you took home then was the COMPLETE PACKAGE. When you sold a game at your garage sale, it had value. Why? It was the COMPLETE PACKAGE.

In the name of "Oh, but it hurts us sooooo badly!", they create Day 1 DLC, and strip out features of the game to be sold to you as "pre-order incentives" or "buy it new" incentives. Then DA2 released Day 1 DLC in the form of a new character, and you didn't get it for buying new. You bought it for pre-ordering 2 months ahead. See the slippery slope yet?

I have no problem pre-ordering a game when it comes out if the pre-order bonuses are just early unlocks (Battlefield: Bad Company 2 Limited Edition), however, I cannot agree with all these new practices trying to rip out half the game just because someone buys used. Eventually, these games WILL NOT BE SOLD NEW. AT ALL. They will discontinue the games. What then eh? Oh, that's right. That $5 bargain bin game you got will be $15 instead.

Anyone who supports this practice are the same yokels who bought into DLC being anything like expansion packs. In the end we got milked $5 for a handful of maps, modding supported ripped out, and all customization lost, just so they could have absolute control over our experience, and shovel junk to us that we could have created ourselves. I miss being able to buy a game, and no matter where I got it from, I actually had the COMPLETE PACKAGE.