Poll: Boycott Rage

[Raso719]

snipz

Judo Chop!

Major difference being that cars are much cheaper and inferior when bought second hand.

Regardless, I don't sell my games, I don't buy second hand. I think it's just better to support a company that you appreciate even if you're just a number to them.

I would buy a brand new R32 GTR from Nissan if a) they still made them, and b) I could afford it.
Thing is, buying a second hand GTR is about 10% the cost of a new GTR.

Buying a second hand game is about 95% of the cost of a new game.

A used car doesn't always lead to buying a piece of crap nor does buying a use game always lead to getting a 100% working item. I've often thought it was funny, however, that you can buy a used game for 5 bucks off the market price of a new game then you wind up paying 5 bucks for disk replacement because the disk might be scratched. However I see this more as evidence that many consumers are morons and less as a failing in the grand scheme of things.

You see sometimes you DON'T want to support a publisher but you might still want play the game and not go to federal prison. You might enjoy the game but you want to send a message to the developer that you hate their DRM. What this kinda of stunt does is make impossible to give that sort of feedback. Now people need to not buy the game at all to send in that capitalist vote that says "your product sucks you don't get me money".

Even still, buying a used game should be seen as an opportunity to gain valuable data. What games are bought used, why and when? Can it tell us anything about the market? Do people not like the current prices? Are they trying to send a message to publishers? Are certain games just not as popular as they were? Do people want more or less replayability? The problem is that companies are seeing used sales as the enemy period. They COULD use this information to increase the quality of their products to make them more desirable as a long term investment but since the industry is currently in the middle of a trend where is sees innovation as the enemy and where gamers have become complacent in playing the same 5 games every year... well, what do you think they'll do make changes to how games are made and what games are made or demonize used games to boost profit margins.

Even so, if companies are pissed about lost sales and still intend on not learning anything from the sales of used games at the very least they could not act like dicks about it and come to some sort of mutual understanding. Is might be cheaper to just add a few lines of programming that makes half of the game inaccessible with out the right password but then is making that half of the game really even worth it if you think that you need to make half of the game unplayable to boost sales? Is it really worth it? Honestly, I don't think they are that foolish. I think they know full well what they are doing and they're trying to act like a injured animal to gain sympathy when they're actually just being greedy pricks. It's not about lost sales it's about gaining more control over the industry. It's about justifying making games shorter and less innovative but still selling for 60 bucks a piece. It's about greed, nothing more and nothing less.

And even if these companies actually are on the verge of death from lost sales due to piracy and used games this isn't the right way to go about things. The consumer isn't the enemy and we need to stop being treated like we are. Many of us want to buy quality games and many people are willing to pay a little more if the extra quality is there but paying extra for what should be part of the package to begin with is just corporate bullying and robbery.

Also what's up with used cloths, and goodwill huh? Yeah, used cars are inferior but the shirts I got from them for 4 bucks a piece that usually sell for 20 bucks and up are in perfect condition. Are they exempt because they are cloths? Is goodwill evil for taking sales away from clothing manufactures? Or maybe I'm evil for being a thrift consumer. Yeah, us thrifty consumers always looking for deals and bargains will be the death of this country and it's economy. We need more brain dead sheep willing to pay out the ass for mediocre products if we're ever gonna get things back on track.

 

[Epona]

Do you see "Punishable by law" in there anywhere?

Were you imprisoned/fined for re-selling a game? Law has nothing to do with it. Its a consumer-developer agreement that pretty much voids your right to demand "full product" if you bought used, because you are not, in the developers view, their consumer at all.

If the law has nothing to do with it, then they are just words with no power. That's where the DRM comes in but the DRM applies whether you read the damn words or not. The words themselves, powerless.

 

[Glademaster_v1legacy]

Did you just make this thread due to Jimquisition? Just curious.

OT: To be honest I was never going to buy Rage anyway due to lck of dedicated servers. It is a semi boycott that I won't buy games like FPS games unless they have dedicated servers and a quality thing as well. If games do do this and stuff like Super Street Fighter 4 are taking the piss to be honest. I mean this isn't even like a L4D 1 and 2 thing. It is the same game with a few extras(like destroying cars) and characters. Could have been added as DLC for free or a small amount for the purchasers of the original game.

 

[Epona]

Im going to but this game new just to spite all you fools who think that depriving a studio of money is the best way to get them to give up hese business practices when the only reason they're doing them is to earn more money
My suggestion would be, if you want the game buy it, you only live once, don't let some busy bodies spouting sensationalist bullhit stop you

If you are going to spend $60 just to spite people on the internet, you are the fool.

 

[Macrobstar]

Im going to but this game new just to spite all you fools who think that depriving a studio of money is the best way to get them to give up hese business practices when the only reason they're doing them is to earn more money
My suggestion would be, if you want the game buy it, you only live once, don't let some busy bodies spouting sensationalist bullhit stop you

If you are going to spend $60 just to spite people on the internet, you are the fool.

Well I was gonna get it eventually, but this just encourages me more, to support developers putting out new IPs instead of whining that poor people don't get one mission

 

[Keava]

If the law has nothing to do with it, then they are just words with no power. That's where the DRM comes in but the DRM applies whether you read the damn words or not. The words themselves, powerless.

If you agree to thing you don't read it's just your problem. With every game before launching it/installing you have to click the button that says "I read and agree to the EULA". From that moment you enter an agreement with the developer and you are on their, private playground, where their rules apply. If they say that the license is not transferable and revocable they can revoke it the moment you resell the game. End of story.

 

[Susan Arendt]

It's this concept that "it would've been included otherwise" that I find baffling. According to whom? Obviously, it varies from game to game, but some content is only being developed because the developer/publisher believes extra money can be made from it via DLC - even if it's ready to go on Day One, that doesn't mean it "would've been included otherwise" were it not for its intended purpose. It's not like companies are making games, then when they're done saying "Hmm...now what could we cut out of this to sell as DLC?" That may have been the way decisions were made when DLC was in its infancy, but that's certainly no longer the case.

And as many others have already pointed out, I fail to see the issue with encouraging consumers to buy a game new. It's in the company's best interests for you to do so, but no-one is twisting your arm forcing you to. You wanting to save money by buying used is perfectly reasonable - but so is the game company wanting to make as much profit from their efforts as possible.

Some content is being pulled from the game, some content is developed specifically to be used as DLC and/or DRM. You don't which is which and neither do we so we guess. Your guess is as good or bad as anyone else's. Still baffled?

I've actually had many conversations with developers on that very subject, so actually, I do know which is which. Also, I see the tactic as rewarding someone for buying new, you see it as punishing someone for buying used. Both are equally valid perspectives.

 

[FalloutJack]

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?

In Soviet Russia, poll boycotts you.

OT: Suffice to say, I find that not everyone is lucky with their money like me, so many people don't just WANT to buy used, but they would HAVE to in order to EVER see the game in question. I use to be there, so I know. Even still, take heart in the fact that said games will always be cracked open wide by the YARRR patrol.

 

[Orcus The Ultimate]

I will boycott. I miss the good old days of gaming, when there wasn't just Toyotism !

 

[Dastardly]

So then selling a used car to a friend should also be illegal. I mean poor Ford, they don't get a cut when when I sell my old Contour SVT.

But your friend also isn't getting a brand new car. He's not getting the exact same product you got, at the exact same quality. Cars, clothes, and other material goods depreciate. The right to sell them used is meant to allow the owner to recuperate some of the remaining value.

Games don't depreciate. If I buy an old copy of some Mario game, Mario isn't older and slower. So someone selling a used game is able to offer the exact same product, but always at a lower price because they don't have to pay to manufacture or ship it. This forces game companies to compete with their own product, which simply can't be done.

This isn't like cars. When Ford tries to sell a new Contour SVT, they can say, "It's new." They may even be able to say, "It's new and it has a warranty for X miles or years." But if the used market for cars was like the one for games, this would be like CarStop saying, "We can sell you the exact same car, in the exact same condition, with all the exact same features, but at half the price."

All that game publishers are trying to do is ensure that their new product is more valuable than their used product. It has nothing to do with the quality of the product, so simply asking them to make "better games" accomplishes nothing--the quality of new and used games are effectively identical.

The game industry isn't special. There's this notion that just because the products are intangible they you can some how hold supreme control over them and give them special privileges.

Special? No. "Supreme control?" Of course not. But it is different. And that does mean they should be allowed to try different ways to encourage new sales, by ensuring that a new product is more valuable than a used product. Just like with every tangible good ever sold.

You know what? If want people to stop buying used games make the games you sell so good people keep them.

You assume the only possible reason people sell games is that they were "bad." I've finished some really great games. And while they were great, I figured I probably wouldn't play through them again. So I sold/traded them. It says nothing about the quality of the game. In fact, if the game were such poor quality, I doubt people would be buying it used, either, so it wouldn't be an issue.

ves towards selling the game back to the publisher or developer rather than a 3rd party. There are all sorts of ways to go about this that don't screw the consumer over it's just more profitable to screw the consumer and treat them as a lesser party than it is to have a mutual respect for each other.

How is the customer being "screwed," exactly? And I'm not asking rhetorically. I really want to know, from your perspective, how this "screws over" the customer.

You say they're treated like a "lesser party." They are. If you buy a game used, you're not a customer of the publisher. You're a customer of the guy you bought the used game from. The publisher has no reason to treat you like a customer, because they have earned no money from you... so what do they have to lose? Your "business?"

Why should you get 100% of a new product, when you're not paying 100% of the new price? That's not asking to be treated as an equal party. That's asking for new customers to be treated like a "lesser party." You want them to pay full price for a game, so that you can then pay less for the exact same game. No depreciation whatsoever.

More on cars: If you go to a used car lot, and they're charging almost new prices, would you buy from them? Or would you go somewhere charging used prices for used cars? Gamestop buys up these used copies, and then sells them for just five dollars less than new. If anyone is "cheating" you, it's them--they could sell you that copy at half price and still be making out like bandits.

 

[Timberwolf0924]

so if I spend $54.99 on a game instead of $59.99 is wrong, then I don't want to be right

 

[Epona]

If the law has nothing to do with it, then they are just words with no power. That's where the DRM comes in but the DRM applies whether you read the damn words or not. The words themselves, powerless.

If you agree to thing you don't read it's just your problem. With every game before launching it/installing you have to click the button that says "I read and agree to the EULA". From that moment you enter an agreement with the developer and you are on their, private playground, where their rules apply. If they say that the license is not transferable and revocable they can revoke it the moment you resell the game. End of story.

1) Do you read every EULA, every word?

2) If you don't agree to the terms, what are you options? Remember, there is no returning an opened game.

The EULA is one-sided and powerless. You waste your time reading it, I won't because in the end the words don't matter, the DRM does.

 

[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?

 

[Dastardly]

I've actually had many conversations with developers on that very subject, so actually, I do know which is which. Also, I see the tactic as rewarding someone for buying new, you see it as punishing someone for buying used. Both are equally valid perspectives.

Even if they were pulling content for this purpose, how is that wrong? As mentioned in some of my replies above, games don't depreciate. Cars do, so when you buy a used car, you're paying less because you're essentially getting less.

Games don't work that way. An old copy of Arkham Asylum doesn't feature an older, slower Batman with transmission problems and a broken A/C. So we're essentially forcing the publisher to compete with its own product. Not an imitation or depreciated version, but the exact product. And they'll always lose, because they're competing with an entity that doesn't have to pay production costs.

Why shouldn't publishers of these digital goods, which don't natural depreciate, be allowed to create a bit of "artificial depreciation" to ensure that the new product is, in fact, more valuable than the used? And while it's a good PR move to frame it as "bonus content for new purchases," why should they be seen as evil if they say otherwise?

 

[Epona]

It's this concept that "it would've been included otherwise" that I find baffling. According to whom? Obviously, it varies from game to game, but some content is only being developed because the developer/publisher believes extra money can be made from it via DLC - even if it's ready to go on Day One, that doesn't mean it "would've been included otherwise" were it not for its intended purpose. It's not like companies are making games, then when they're done saying "Hmm...now what could we cut out of this to sell as DLC?" That may have been the way decisions were made when DLC was in its infancy, but that's certainly no longer the case.

And as many others have already pointed out, I fail to see the issue with encouraging consumers to buy a game new. It's in the company's best interests for you to do so, but no-one is twisting your arm forcing you to. You wanting to save money by buying used is perfectly reasonable - but so is the game company wanting to make as much profit from their efforts as possible.

Some content is being pulled from the game, some content is developed specifically to be used as DLC and/or DRM. You don't which is which and neither do we so we guess. Your guess is as good or bad as anyone else's. Still baffled?

I've actually had many conversations with developers on that very subject, so actually, I do know which is which. Also, I see the tactic as rewarding someone for buying new, you see it as punishing someone for buying used. Both are equally valid perspectives.

LOL, yeah right.

I used to work in a car factory in 1990 so I know all about cars made in 2011.

 

[Moonlight Butterfly]

The only time it's annoying is if my game shop doesn't have a non pre owned copy of the game but then Ill just go online anyways.

I appreiciate not everyone can afford new games but I myself don't have a problem with paying full price for something that i have been looking forward too.

 

[Throwitawaynow]

I know! I bought my PS3 new, and now all the prices have gone down. I DEMAND a refund, how come other people get it cheaper than me?

How foolish can you be? Buying the game earlier, and supporting the game before it comes out gets you a reward.

 

[Keava]

1) Do you read every EULA, every word?

2) If you don't agree to the terms, what are you options? Remember, there is no returning an opened game.

The EULA is one-sided and powerless. You waste your time reading it, I won't because in the end the words don't matter, the DRM does.

1) I usualy read them every few years, they don't change that much between companies. If you rea donce you know what the others will inlucde.

2) Again, from SC2 EULA, because that's the only EULA i actually have on PC right now

4. Service and Terms of Use. As mentioned above, you must accept the Terms of Use in order to access the Service to play the Game.
The Terms of Use agreement governs all aspects of game play. If you do not agree with the Terms of Use, then (a) you may not register for
an Account to play the Game; and (b) you may arrange to return the Game to the place where you purchased it within thirty (30) days of
the original purchase. Once you accept the License Agreement and the Terms of Use, you will no longer be eligible for a refund.

So it's a crappy shop and you should speak with the manager if they don't want to take your game back.

 

[blizzaradragon]

So then selling a used car to a friend should also be illegal. I mean poor Ford, they don't get a cut when when I sell my old Contour SVT.

But your friend also isn't getting a brand new car. He's not getting the exact same product you got, at the exact same quality. Cars, clothes, and other material goods depreciate. The right to sell them used is meant to allow the owner to recuperate some of the remaining value.

Games don't depreciate. If I buy an old copy of some Mario game, Mario isn't older and slower. So someone selling a used game is able to offer the exact same product, but always at a lower price because they don't have to pay to manufacture or ship it. This forces game companies to compete with their own product, which simply can't be done.

This isn't like cars. When Ford tries to sell a new Contour SVT, they can say, "It's new." They may even be able to say, "It's new and it has a warranty for X miles or years." But if the used market for cars was like the one for games, this would be like CarStop saying, "We can sell you the exact same car, in the exact same condition, with all the exact same features, but at half the price."

All that game publishers are trying to do is ensure that their new product is more valuable than their used product. It has nothing to do with the quality of the product, so simply asking them to make "better games" accomplishes nothing--the quality of new and used games are effectively identical.

The game industry isn't special. There's this notion that just because the products are intangible they you can some how hold supreme control over them and give them special privileges.

Special? No. "Supreme control?" Of course not. But it is different. And that does mean they should be allowed to try different ways to encourage new sales, by ensuring that a new product is more valuable than a used product. Just like with every tangible good ever sold.

You know what? If want people to stop buying used games make the games you sell so good people keep them.

You assume the only possible reason people sell games is that they were "bad." I've finished some really great games. And while they were great, I figured I probably wouldn't play through them again. So I sold/traded them. It says nothing about the quality of the game. In fact, if the game were such poor quality, I doubt people would be buying it used, either, so it wouldn't be an issue.

ves towards selling the game back to the publisher or developer rather than a 3rd party. There are all sorts of ways to go about this that don't screw the consumer over it's just more profitable to screw the consumer and treat them as a lesser party than it is to have a mutual respect for each other.

How is the customer being "screwed," exactly? And I'm not asking rhetorically. I really want to know, from your perspective, how this "screws over" the customer.

You say they're treated like a "lesser party." They are. If you buy a game used, you're not a customer of the publisher. You're a customer of the guy you bought the used game from. The publisher has no reason to treat you like a customer, because they have earned no money from you... so what do they have to lose? Your "business?"

Why should you get 100% of a new product, when you're not paying 100% of the new price? That's not asking to be treated as an equal party. That's asking for new customers to be treated like a "lesser party." You want them to pay full price for a game, so that you can then pay less for the exact same game. No depreciation whatsoever.

More on cars: If you go to a used car lot, and they're charging almost new prices, would you buy from them? Or would you go somewhere charging used prices for used cars? Gamestop buys up these used copies, and then sells them for just five dollars less than new. If anyone is "cheating" you, it's them--they could sell you that copy at half price and still be making out like bandits.

Yes, this in every sense of the word! People who complain about stuff like this are people who want to be treated equally without paying to be equal. This is kind of a lame example, but it's like going to a restaurant and ordering a cheaper steak than your buddy and complaining that your steak isn't the same quality as his.

If you buy used, you should get what you paid for. Same goes if you buy it new. You SHOULDN'T pay the used price and expect the quality of something new.

In short, you're cool bro and you understand what is actually going on here.

 

[Susan Arendt]

I've actually had many conversations with developers on that very subject, so actually, I do know which is which. Also, I see the tactic as rewarding someone for buying new, you see it as punishing someone for buying used. Both are equally valid perspectives.

Even if they were pulling content for this purpose, how is that wrong? As mentioned in some of my replies above, games don't depreciate. Cars do, so when you buy a used car, you're paying less because you're essentially getting less.

Games don't work that way. An old copy of Arkham Asylum doesn't feature an older, slower Batman with transmission problems and a broken A/C.

I would totally play that game.