84 replies to this topic

[∑-sigma-]

I'm sure that due to the nature and necessity of furniture, second-hand sales don't really effect them negatively. But alas, furniture is not video games, not every house requires video games, and when people do purchase video games, they don't purchase a $2000 game to sit on in the lounge whilst watching a $2000 game sitting on a $1000 game. (Chair, TV and TV Cabinet, respectively.)

The two are very different when you take the "business" out of it, so try again.

[Othin]

You're talking about objects which have real tangible, degradable features. Not an arrangement of data people price artificially.

Relevance?

I'm sure that due to the nature and necessity of furniture, second-hand sales don't really effect them negatively. But alas, furniture is not video games, not every house requires video games, and when people do purchase video games, they don't purchase a $2000 game to sit on in the lounge whilst watching a $2000 game sitting on a $1000 game. (Chair, TV and TV Cabinet, respectively.)

The two are very different when you take the "business" out of it, so try again.

Video games are not the only non-necessity people often get in a used form.

To address both of you, let's look at books as an example instead. Say a publisher were to apply such a device to books: the books can only be opened within the residence you purchase them for. Just an arrangement of words, not a necessity at all. And yet would that not be insane?

[Celice]

My relevance, if you couldn't unravel it on your own, was exemplified by the dude right after me. As for whether the book example would be insane, they've been doing that. It's called JSTOR, Amazon books, and other such places which sell you limited access intended only for the payee. It's not insane. It's profitable, and under that context, a completely sane proposal. You might not agree with it, and that's alright--it's not important that you do or do not.

[Othin]

Seems to me that JSTOR is a bit of a special case, and not one without its share of issues.

I Googled "Amazon Books" and the top results mentioned "new and used" books. If you're referring to the Kindle, it's my understanding that those books are available in physical form without the restrictions on used books - there may well be the rare exception, but that's hardly comparable to the matter at hand.

[Rehab]

That option is still there. Sony's system allows for the play of used games on any console, for a small additional fee that you can pay at any time through PSN, from what I have read. There is nothing hard to understand about what I said.



You can do whatever you please with it still. The developers will profit off of all sales of their games with this system, not just new copies.



I can't believe how blown out of proportion you are making this. There is not going to be a used game market now? Maybe not for the new Xbox, but there will be for the new PlayStation and the new Nintendo console.



And if that doesn't prove how desperate developers are to combat the used game market, I don't know what does. This new system is significantly better than letting developers do ridiculous stuff like that. Developers likely pressured the console manufacturers into doing something about it.

My paragraphs aren't all directed against yours pair for pair, so I don't mean to direct all my ire at you. I do realize that these measures won't destroy the used games market on their own, and shouldn't pretend it will, but it's born of a childish sentiment that makes an enemy of the consumer, and I think we should stick up for ourselves. If we sit here and take it, we're letting them set a dumb precedent that could lead to things becoming even dumber.
If it's that important, the least they can do is meet us halfway, and make everything more readily downloadable and available.

I'm sure that due to the nature and necessity of furniture, second-hand sales don't really effect them negatively. But alas, furniture is not video games, not every house requires video games, and when people do purchase video games, they don't purchase a $2000 game to sit on in the lounge whilst watching a $2000 game sitting on a $1000 game. (Chair, TV and TV Cabinet, respectively.)

The two are very different when you take the "business" out of it, so try again.

It's not so different for music or books. I can't count how many books I've given to a drive or found marked down outside a shop's main selection, and I'm pretty sure I can find a used CD easy. I've heard that the games industry has been trying to make a legal exception of itself and failing in the eyes of courts. Much as I love the fruits of game-makers' labor, I think they're on a fool's errand.

If you miss out, you miss out.
If a game is years old, and only costs about %10 of the original price, then I can understand how implementing this idea would suck major balls, but the focus of this is as it's been stated previously, pre-owned games that aren't years old, maintaining an incredibly close price to the new retail price with all the profit going to the store, instead of the developer. From what I've been led to believe, Developers get nothing on pre-owned games, even if this system has draw backs, sometimes you have to rid yourself of a few things to get to your desirable destination.

Sometimes, you have to get rid of things to survive, it's just the way things go. *shrug*

But it shouldn't be necessary to survive, at least not the way they're doing it. It's trying to make an exception of games when there isn't one to be made. After not getting what they want from judges, they're making enemies of the customer, begging them to draw the line somewhere, or at least pointlessly inconveniencing them and becoming more aloof. Now, I can agree that taking 5 or 10 dollars off a used price and giving nothing back to the makers is a jerk move on retail's part, but why take it out on us? I'd prefer they just sold us the stuff directly, to be honest.

Edited by Rehab, 31 March 2012 - 09:07 PM.

[Tangerine]

My paragraphs aren't all directed against yours pair for pair, so I don't mean to direct all my ire at you. I do realize that these measures won't destroy the used games market on their own, and shouldn't pretend it will, but it's born of a childish sentiment that makes an enemy of the consumer, and I think we should stick up for ourselves. If we sit here and take it, we're letting them set a dumb precedent that could lead to things becoming even dumber.
If it's that important, the least they can do is meet us halfway, and make everything more readily downloadable and available.

I don't have any desire to stick up for myself, as I believe that the idea being implemented for the PS "Orbis" is a step in the right direction. Once a fee is discussed and made public is when I will decide my stance on it completely. If it's something ridiculous like $15 just to play a used game, then it's worth getting upset over. But if the cost to unlock a used game is the same as the cost of a digital title, then that is just utterly ridiculous to get upset over. You would still be paying less than if you bought it brand new, but you will be supporting the developer. Sony has the right idea completely in order to make both parties happy, how they implement it and the parameters of it are what is going to be the deal breaker.

The problem with videogames being completely digital is that it would result in a huge job loss across the major gaming regions. Game stores would essentially go out of business if they could not think of something else to do, and that is a lot of people who no longer have jobs.

Edited by Tangerine, 31 March 2012 - 09:37 PM.

[Blademaster!]

When PC game makers try putting dumb restrictions - like keeping you from installing a game more than thrice - cracks pop up in the internet within a day. However, it isn't that easy with console games.

It's true there's no used PC game market, though. The issues are different.

Alright. The way you phrased what you said before just didn't make any sense to me, sorry.

[Defeatist Elitist]

Don't PC gamers already have to put up with this already (outside of being able to just pirate stuff)? Last I checked there is no used game market for pc games.

Yeah, I don't buy used games or anything, but what I meant was, if I want to lend my game to a friend and there is some sort of protection on it, there's no way that's going to be stopping me. When people try this shit for PC, it's laughably easy to get around.

Also I mostly get indie shit anyway.

[CrashGordon94]

As much as i'd like to agree with you, ethics don't seem to exist in the business world. All they care is to get money at all costs. Even if it means trampling their own customers.

You can agree with me. Just because something doesn't exist does not mean it SHOULDN'T exist.

Also, how's this for a solution: Two laws passed, one to prevent game makers from doing anything to restrict used buying EVER BUT ALSO another one that requires the game stores to give a certain percentage (a better one) to the makers for both new AND used games, as well as giving both laws large enough fines as to push the cretins into the red financially so they won't try to get around it. There! None of this bullshit and the makers still profit from used games!

[Nintenlord]

Only way to prevent pirating and used games is to make games worth buying, like in the good old days. It will never happen as developers are lazy and egoistic and business people in the industry don't understand gaming.

[Esau of Isaac]

To people complaining about them being "unfair": Where are you when game shops are being allowed to sell developers' games as their own? There have been stories about shops removing the packaging and marketing the game as used at a reduced price so they keep all the profit. Is that not unfair to the developers, who put all the time and work into MAKING the games that you do nothing but play and enjoy? Is it any surprise that Sony (and now Microsoft) are doing their best to keep the developers happy?

What does any of this have to do with anything? Obviously if the game is being taken and marked as used when it is not then it is not right. No one here is going to argue against that. Individuals here however are in support of being able to buy used games. It should be their prerogative as a consumer in the market to buy either new or used, and at what price. It's no business of the gaming company what I do with my copy. It never should be.

I mean developers are largely unhappy with used game sales because they do not make any profit off the sale of their games. The above example of what some stores have been doing is illegal, but used game sales themselves aren't. In the end it's the developers who are putting all of the work into this, and if they want to benefit from their game being sold then who are we to say no?

The consumers. The ones that keep their hole-ridden excuses for boats up above sea level. They want to implement restrictive measures on the people they expect to give them money? Fine, their prerogative. But then when they have the pure fucking audacity to act as though gamers are suddenly being entitled by expecting the same purchasing rights they have for other products. Then they can go right ahead and fuck themselves.

Here's the thing with Sony's system (as I agree that a complete lockout may be a bit much, so I do not entirely support Microsoft's atm): you can STILL buy used games, you just have to pay a fee after buying it to get it to work as if it were the full game. Depending on this fee, you could still buy the game for significantly cheaper than if it were new. The only difference is the developers are still getting your money in some form, and you have to pay a little bit extra than before. This largely depends on how much they decide to charge for their fee, but I wouldn't expect it to be any more than a digital title might cost you ($3-10).

So you might have to pay a little bit of extra money to support the developer whose game you are playing. Big deal? No, not really. I think this system, or something similar, is the way to go in the future to keep all parties happy. Look at the BS Capcom is pulling off. They are talking about only allowing ONE save file in their games in order to combat used game sales. You can only play the game once. You can't reset the save file, you just get to play the game once and then it's over. Capcom is an enormous company in the gaming industry, not some backwoods one doing this. Would you rather developers be doing things like that? Because they're going to. I'd rather pay 5 bucks or something extra for a game I can do whatever I want with than have to buy a new game for a second playthrough.

I would rather them do neither, and I refuse to compromise with the videogaming company for some method in which I will be fucked as a consumer the least. How about I just not get fucked at all?

This is not going to kill gaming. PlayStation is the #11 overall brand in the world on Facebook, that says a lot about their teen and young adult fanbase. Xbox is #19 and Nintendo is not in the top 20. Even if overall sales are lower next generation at the start, they will improve. And it will still be a generation full of good games that people are going to want to buy.

And Enron was one of the wealthiest, most successful companies in the world twelve years ago.

[Celice]

Only way to prevent pirating and used games is to make games worth buying, like in the good old days. It will never happen as developers are lazy and egoistic and business people in the industry don't understand gaming.

So the way to prevent people from buying a used game is to make them want to buy the marked up full-unit price when they could just as easily get the same product for a lower price...? Or even free...?

You should investigate the indie bundles which have been going on for months and months now, the ones where you pay only what you want to.

[Esaka]

Looks like I now to have to do a full Capcom boycott now, joy, I did enjoy the games, just not Capcom.
Do you know how much of a pain it is to find everything new BTW? Ugh...
So yeah, region locks are easy to hack, this? WTF.

VG crash come now.

[CrashGordon94]

I would rather them do neither, and I refuse to compromise with the videogaming company for some method in which I will be fucked as a consumer the least. How about I just not get fucked at all?

Right on, Esau! We don't have to take it!

[Tangerine]

Only way to prevent pirating and used games is to make games worth buying, like in the good old days. It will never happen as developers are lazy and egoistic and business people in the industry don't understand gaming.

Games are just as good now as they ever were, if not better because small creative companies are able to strive. People just didn't have the options they do now. If all of the options for "free" games were as available to people in the 80s it'd be just as prevalent of a problem.

What does any of this have to do with anything? Obviously if the game is being taken and marked as used when it is not then it is not right. No one here is going to argue against that. Individuals here however are in support of being able to buy used games. It should be their prerogative as a consumer in the market to buy either new or used, and at what price. It's no business of the gaming company what I do with my copy. It never should be.

Uh, and? Sony's system will still allow for a huge used games market. Try again.

The consumers. The ones that keep their hole-ridden excuses for boats up above sea level. They want to implement restrictive measures on the people they expect to give them money? Fine, their prerogative. But then when they have the pure fucking audacity to act as though gamers are suddenly being entitled by expecting the same purchasing rights they have for other products. Then they can go right ahead and fuck themselves.

What restrictive measures? Having to pay an extra couple bucks to play a used game? Good lord, nobody would be complaining about a $5 increase in used game costs, now would they?

If anything this will be the final nail in the coffin of rented games.

I would rather them do neither, and I refuse to compromise with the videogaming company for some method in which I will be fucked as a consumer the least. How about I just not get fucked at all?

Well then enjoy gaming without Sony and Microsoft. You'll be stuck with Nintendo, who have a barren wasteland in place of third party support.

omg they screwin' me over so hard now I have to pay extra five dollar on used game to support developer!!!! oh the humanity!!

And Enron was one of the wealthiest, most successful companies in the world twelve years ago.

When Sony and Microsoft go bankrupt due to a scandal, then you can start comparing them to Enron. This was just plain silly.

Edited by Tangerine, 01 April 2012 - 11:52 AM.

[CrashGordon94]

Tangerine, stop defending them.

[Tangerine]

Then stop blowing things out of proportion. Sony's system is the way to go to keep developers and users happy. It needs refinement, but it was just conceived. What idea comes out a diamond? I think developers should profit off of each sale of their intellectual property. I mean I dunno how much I have to repeat myself until people stop complaining about there not being used games anymore. Not everyone is wearing a tinfoil hat. You basically have to be unable to read to think it will result in used games not existing anymore. Sony is counting on them existing.

Sony's system at its root:

Used game cost now: $30
Used game cost for Orbis: $35 (or something)

That's basically it. Prices were made up since used games don't have a universal cost, obviously. Like I can't believe people are predicting a gaming crash over a little extra cost on used games, when it will likely result in a DECREASE in new game costs. And more than likely, game stores will be forced to lower their prices as users take the additional fee into account when purchasing. Which would result in no change at all, apart from developers getting some of the money on a sale.

And let's not forget this is all just a rumor to begin with.

Edited by Tangerine, 01 April 2012 - 12:06 PM.

[Refa]

The amount of times I lend a game to someone is close to nadda, haha, so I guess how discontent I'll be at this depends on the number of games that implement such a decision (for used games that I may be) and how sever it will be. For all we know, all it'll do is lock us out of a costume pack or something similarily insignificant and how much it costs.

I don't really have anything against the concept itself, and Sony/Microsoft make kool consoles, so as long as they don't charge like $20/used game I won't be up in arms over it.

Also, I've heard some 3DS games don't allow battery erasing in order to restrict used game sales. Don't ever think Nintendo are some kind of "good guys"; they've survived in the market through cunning, sometimes downright vicious practices. This is, after all, business.

Not to mention all of the crap they pulled during the 16 bit era like throwing Sega to the wolves at the expense of the medium as a whole, being the only manufacturer of SNES carts and charging too much for them, etc. etc.

[Esau of Isaac]

Uh, and? Sony's system will still allow for a huge used games market. Try again.

Yeah, at their leisure, according to your explanation. Fuck that noise.

What restrictive measures? Having to pay an extra couple bucks to play a used game? Good lord, nobody would be complaining about a $5 increase in used game costs, now would they?

If anything this will be the final nail in the coffin of rented games.

How is dictating what a consumer can and cannot do with a game they have bought, especially their ability to sell and lend it to others, anything but restrictive?

Well then enjoy gaming without Sony and Microsoft. You'll be stuck with Nintendo, who have a barren wasteland in place of third party support.

I will. I'll enjoy not supporting a policy I don't appreciate, and I'll enjoy spending my money in other, more entertaining methods.

omg they screwin' me over so hard now I have to pay extra five dollar on used game to support developer!!!! oh the humanity!!

It's okay, bro: I'll stand for the better business practices so you don't have to.

When Sony and Microsoft go bankrupt due to a scandal, then you can start comparing them to Enron. This was just plain silly.

The point, which you so gleefully decided to let whoosh on by your head, is that it's irrelevant how huge a company is. Don't act as though Sony and Microsoft are somehow assured and untouchable in the future as gaming companies because of their past and current position. Everything's transient.

[Tangerine]

Yeah, at their leisure, according to your explanation. Fuck that noise.

You buy used game.

You pay extra fee to developer for used game to be fully playable (we do not even know the parameters of this, as a user said just before your post).

This is fair.

How is dictating what a consumer can and cannot do with a game they have bought, especially their ability to sell and lend it to others, anything but restrictive?

Guess you don't subscribe to the idea of digital distribution either huh. Electronics are evolving beyond your scope. It's time to hang up your coat if you're going to whine so much over what has been in the works for a very long time, and will continue to progress well beyond the time you stop giving them your money.

It's going to happen. Even if Sony and Microsoft back down this generation, it is coming. And nobody can stop it. So you're either going to drop the hobby, or accept that it is going to happen and do your best to make sure the system put in place is sound.

@bold: The used game market will still exist.

I will. I'll enjoy not supporting a policy I don't appreciate, and I'll enjoy spending my money in other, more entertaining methods.

Your loss, not anyone else's.

It's okay, bro: I'll stand for the better business practices so you don't have to.

"Bro"?

I support this system should it become more refined. You're not doing anything so "I don't have to". Glad to see how upset you are though, I might support this idea even more if I'll get to see more outbursts like yours.

The point, which you so gleefully decided to let whoosh on by your head, is that it's irrelevant how huge a company is. Don't act as though Sony and Microsoft are somehow assured and untouchable in the future as gaming companies because of their past and current position. Everything's transient.

I understood your point. Your point was faulty and extremely poorly thought out. Enron went out of business for fraudulent activities, it was not a case of a company losing support or whatever and falling down the totem pole. Sony and Microsoft have established userbases that are not going to go away over something like this. How big a company is is not irrelevant at all. A powerful brand is EXTREMELY relevant. How successful would the PS3 have been if it were made by Sega and not the successor of the most successful videogame console of all time? That's what I thought. Sony and Microsoft are not about to go out of business for faulty business practices. If they lose power it will NOT be almost immediate as with Enron, and it most certainly will not be because they are taking a step towards digital distribution.

Loving the attitude though, you're really looking level-headed and unbiased here.

Edited by Tangerine, 01 April 2012 - 01:33 PM.