There's either something I absolutely don't understand or these people actually don't know anything about economics. They're complaining about people spending money in a market that just isn't theirs. They want revenue from a market where they're
not present.
People usually don't go out and say “I want this game, I'll pay whatever it costs”. They have a limited amount of money and they want to spend a specific amount on a game. That price is $60-X. Game publishers are not offering a product at $60-X. End of story.
Publishers and developers have been crybabies for a long time, and the
only reason why I'd like to see a always online, no used games future is to experience the moment when they finally have to stop blaming everyone for their own shortcomings.
The video game industry might be young but it's not that young anymore. Some of the publishers have had
decades to convince me to keep my games and they've done
nothing. Their newest tactic this generation was to convince me that I couldn't possibly have played all of the content I want when I played the game. I was supposed to keep it and, of course, keep spending additional money. Instead of rewarding me for buying early and not selling they've been trying to get me to spend more and more. The Game Of The Year Edition will get you more content for less money, but hey... you were the one who was dumb enough to pay full price on Day 1 so why would they care?
Very few companies have given me reasons to keep my games. Alan Wake was a cool package. I got the game, some bonus stuff, soundtrack and additional DLC. The DLC was released later on. I was rewarded for buying on Day 1 (with the cool collector's edition) and I was rewarded for keeping the game (DLC content). Then it somehow shifted to “You get the full game if you buy new, people who buy used won't be able to play online”. This added nothing and didn't influence me positively at all. It caused me to not buy games.
Hopefully this will get even more exposure with people back to work tomorrow.
