Poll: Since when did developers stop caring about the players?

[Kingsman]

Why would they care even slightly about someone who's not their customer by definition?

Look, its incredibly simple. If you buy the game used, you are not the devs customer, or the publishers - you are Gamestops customer. The dev and the publisher don't see a single dollar from your sale. Thus, the dev has absolutely no reason whatsoever to care about you. Realistically, this is them offering a higher quality product than their competitors - the used market. Thats business 101.

Using that logic, they should call buying used books stealing and burn libraries where they stand. :/

Yes, if by "that" you mean "insane troll". Restating something as a bizarre otherworldy absolute is not a sound debating tactic. Its whats Republicans do.

Don't give me that, it's the exact same logic. The author and his publishing company don't get any profit from used books circling in a secondary market so they should do everything in their power to stop anyone but the buyer from reading it, including burning libraries and calling the sale of second-hand books the stealing of intellectual property.

You're daft if you can't see the similarity.

You're insane if you actually can. No, thats not an insult, if you actually think that going around burning down buildings is actually the same as placiung a restriction on resold games, then you seem deeply mentally disturbed.

Burning down buildings is arson, and could be murder. It is illegal. This is not arson. This is not illegal. Get help. Seriously.

...Wow. Thank you for making yourself the poster-boy for why I hate the people on these forums.

I may have used a straw-man which I could understand being broken with some sort of reasonable argument, but you have completely managed to misconstrue everything and anything I was trying to argue, jumped to a wild tangent with no relation to the topic at hand, and then passed it all off as me being a "troll."

Don't bother replying. I know I won't.

 

[Aeshi]

Probably around the same time the "Players" stopped caring about them.

Somebody should pay all the Developers out there to just flat-out stop making games for a few years, then we'll see if people are so quick to take them for granted.

 

[The Forces of Chaos]

Probably around the same time the "Players" stopped caring about them.

Somebody should pay all the Developers out there to just flat-out stop making games for a few years, then we'll see if people are so quick to take them for granted.

People will happy fill the void.

 

[aba1]

snip

My general rule of thumb is just dont buy the game if people just stoped rather than saying I am only one person then we would actually get somwhere.

So when it comes to games that let the dev or publishers decide what I can and cannot do in the game I just dont buy them. I dont want to have a game 20 years down the road I cannot play because xbox live is no longer running.

 

[lovest harding]

1) Piracy and the used game market have the exact same end impact on developers. In their eyes, one is no different from the other, as each end up cutting them out of a sale. One might be legal, and one illegal, but the ultimate effect of both is equal.

2) The "DRM" hate against D3 is ridiculous. It's a multiplayer game, meaning you have to be connected to the internet to play it anyways. People are complaining because they are entitled, and want D3 to be single player. Since they aren't getting their way, they are making a fuss.

3) DRM as a whole is just an easy target for hatred. I cannot think of an instance where DRM has EVER inconvenienced me in the last 5 or so years. If you look at PC gaming history, then you'd find that DRM is more user-friendly and non-evasive than ever. Old school DRM was entering the third letter in paragraph 8 on page 13 in the manual. If you lost the manual, then you were fucked. Slightly less old DRM was CD keys, and anyone who played PC games during the late 90s/early 00s will tell you how easily you could lose these fucking things. From where DRM began... it's come a long way.

So yes, this is all unjustified.

1. I agree.

2. Bullshit. I've played Diablo and Diablo II since they were first released and have only played them as single player games. There is, in fact, a single player storyline (as in a story you can play by yourself) in Diablo 3, therefore I shouldn't be forced to be connected to the internet to play a game I wish to play by myself. As I've said lots of times regarding this issue, my internet connection isn't that stable. I can go days where it doesn't go out or only 15 minutes and when it goes out, it goes out for a few minutes at a time.
As a consumer, I shouldn't be punished for having a connection that isn't randomly up to some game developers standard to play a single player game.

3. Meh. Not in the mood to discuss. xD

 

[Rarhnor]

You know how you solve the content lock?
BUY THE GAME NEW!...HELP THE DEVS!

The games industry is just that. An industry.
It needs money to function. Games are costing millions of £/$ now and that money needs to be recouped.

If locking out single/multiplayer components is what it takes to recoup that money, then I'm all for it.
Either that, or move the industry completely to Digital Distribution, which I also back whole-heartedly.
I've been a gamer for nigh-on 19 years now and if this sudden surge of people hating DRM/Content-lock and just buying pre-owned carries on, I'm gonna see this industry that I love so much be destroyed by the very people who claim to love it

I agree.
+ you have to consider that there are taxes, that get lost in the process of buying used games. Where I come from, our recession could have been much more easy on us, had the private consumer spent close to 3% extra on items, for example in the luxury category, like games. These taxes aren't covered (rarely anyway) on secondhand items. These taxes would've gone to distributors, developers, importers, and more.
Money makes the world spin... literally.

 

[GonzoGamer]

No it isn't justified but the publishers think it is because they think that everyone who pirates or buys used really has money but just doesn't want to spend it on them.
When I was poor I bought used and even pirated because it was all I could afford. Now that I have money, I buy new. I however do not buy any new game that pulls this kind of shit.

The stupid thing is that it probably wont even affect the pirates, just the legitimate (yes even though the publisher doesn't make the profit they are legitimate consumers who are doing nothing illegal) used customers.

What the publishers should do is set up their own used trade-in/sales program. It certainly wont be too hard to offer more competitive prices/values than gamestop and that's the entity getting their money...not the used consumer. But as they haven't done this, I think they just use used sales and pirating as an excuse to execute these sorts of schemes. They have obviously fooled people into feeling sorry for them so I guess that's working for them...for now.