Poll: Would you rather...

[TheJesus89]

I was recently having a conversation with a friend, and a topic came up.

I'm not going to divulge in the unnecessary details, but here's the question:

Would you rather, when buying physical copies of game,
A) AAA games continue to be sold in the same way they are today. You can share, borrow, and trade them.

or

B) AAA Games are now locked to a specific console or account, but they are $30 cheaper, brand new. You cannot share, borrow, or trade them.

I just want to see everyone's opinion on the situation.

 

[Another]

I would really love to keep option a available, but for the last two years I've been mostly using Steam which is basically option B. Not $30 cheaper right out of the gate, but they can hit that point pretty quick.

Also for option A, I don't really share or borrow, I really only trade and even then it's only because games are expensive. Taking $30 dollars off essentially removes the last reason I had to keep a physical copy. The only qualm I have with B, is if whatever service hosts my games ends up kicking the bucket. With steam I don't have to worry, but a specific console company? ehhh... not so much.

 

[TheJesus89]

I would really love to keep option a available, but for the last two years I've been mostly using Steam which is basically option B. Not $30 cheaper right out of the gate, but they can hit that point pretty quick.

Also for option A, I don't really share or borrow, I really only trade and even then it's only because games are expensive. Taking $30 dollars off essentially removes the last reason I had to keep a physical copy. The only qualm I have with B, is if whatever service hosts my games ends up kicking the bucket. With steam I don't have to worry, but a specific console company? ehhh... not so much.

The games are physical copies. I forgot to mention that.

 

[Savagezion]

It's as tough call. I chose option B though. As through option B I can still play a game to check it out at a buddy's house on his account. I don't much care about sharing, borrowing, and trading. I mostly keep what I buy anyways with very few exceptions. I do borrow to try games out to decide if I want to buy them but sometimes I just check it out at their place. However, if I would be more inclined to risk 30 bucks than 60 on a game not meeting my expectations and may be less inclined to hassle myself with "try before you buy".

 

[Another]

I would really love to keep option a available, but for the last two years I've been mostly using Steam which is basically option B. Not $30 cheaper right out of the gate, but they can hit that point pretty quick.

Also for option A, I don't really share or borrow, I really only trade and even then it's only because games are expensive. Taking $30 dollars off essentially removes the last reason I had to keep a physical copy. The only qualm I have with B, is if whatever service hosts my games ends up kicking the bucket. With steam I don't have to worry, but a specific console company? ehhh... not so much.

The games are physical copies. I forgot to mention that.

Well, there goes my one issue with option B. It's still essentially the steam set up with physical copies that can't be shut down. Sounds pretty good. Needs to be locked to account and not console though, just in case the console takes a dive.

 

[Nantucket_v1legacy]

I voted option B.

I never lend my games out anyway because I'm a tight bugger. I hate lending things because I've worked an entire day to buy that item and 9 times out of 10 said person you've lent it to never returns it. Or they return it years later after endless reminders... ¬_¬

As long as customer service is available for those people who forget their passwords then I see no issue.

 

[Goofguy]

Option A. No one is forcing me to buy games as soon as they are released. I am patient enough to wait until the prices are dropped.

 

[Beautiful End]

Option A. Because I am available to take a risk when buying a game. You know, give a game a chance to surprise me. If I don't like it, I can always get some sort of money back. Or gift it. Or whatever.

To me, option B would suck because even if I end up buying a 100 games for, let's say, 5 bucks but they all suck, I'm stuck with them forever. I probably would stop buying games unless I'm absolutely sure about the game being good, close to perfect. But that's my opinion.

 

[TehCookie]

Option A, just because they're $60 at launch doesn't mean I have to buy them at that price. I'll wait for them to decrease and get the best of both. Not to mention I want to be responsible for my things. I always have issues with account stuff, and my physical copies still work decades later.

 

[WoW Killer]

I went for Option B, but it'd never happen. You're basically saying half price. Of course I'd go for that (I don't do enough used game trading to care about losing that option). The industry kicks up a big fuss about used games, but I don't believe it accounts for anything more than the tiniest fractions of lost revenue for the publishers. So there's no way they could get the price down by 50% doing that.

 

[Scoffy89]

I'd go for option A, just because I wouldn't like having my game tied to my profile or console.

It already annoys me that either I or my sister end up having to buy a separate online pass for multiplayer games when it is bought new because only one of us will get to use the code and we each have our own xbox so it becomes a hassle when we both want to play the same multiplayer.

 

[phatty500]

I Keep every game i buy simply to have a collection so id love option b. That said my room mate also has an impressive collection of games ive been working my way through but for 30 bucks off the hop any game i absolutely wanted id have no problem with.

 

[Guffe]

I think i'd go option B
Mainly because none of my friends have the same console as me so no borrowing or stuff anyway
But if we'd go back 6 years or so I'd vote A