shinobi602
Member
19,000 signatures....
This is why we can't have nice things.
This is why we can't have nice things.
There's a petition for asking Microsoft To Bring Back Xbox One's DRM
- Thread starter artist
- Start date
lionkitten
Banned
See I just don't believe this. You might wait for the new game to go on sale like the Steam sale or how I just finally picked up Borderlands 2 on XBLA when it was $10, but to say you'd NEVER have bought those games new is a fallacy. By waiting for the new game to go cheap, I was able to contribute to Gearbox for their work and I still got a great deal.
spookyfish
Member
What's funny is Microsoft is probably all "Well, we were planning to switch it back anyway after enough people had bought it ..."
"but to say that every used game sale is a lost new game sale is beyond absurd "
Nobody says this. The post you responded to was pointing out that currently, a large amount of money is being spent on games without that money going toward the game creators -- that's an undeniable fact. There are people who only buy used. These people aren't contributing a penny to the creation of new games.
Want better games? Give game creators money for their games. GameStop isn't going to make your next favorite game a reality. Don't act like buying a game used entitles you to the services these game creators provide or entitles you to act like you're contributing to this industry.
Impeccable
Member
18,725 fake signatures.
You refuse to believe that I have never bought a game used that I would have bought new instead?
Does....not.....compute.
So game X is released new. I don't want to buy it new so I wait for it to become used. I then buy it. This is the only way I would have bought game X. This is a fact.
If game Y comes out new and I wait for it to become super discounted, and I buy it then that is totally different because game Y and game X are not the same game. I would have never bought game X new.
How does this not make sense?
The money that people pay Gamestop to clear the inventory of used games is used by GS to stay solvent and buy countless new copies of the latest games wether they sell or not as well as paying the staff and everything else.
The creation of the used copy was already paid for anyway, it didn't make a new copy of the game disappear that wasn't paid for.
A LOT of people say that. In fact I have tweeted back and forth with David Jaffe about this very subject. I've seen Cliffy B say this as well. No, they post I was responding to may not have said it but the sentiment is echoed and extrapolated from that say ideal.
I'm assuming the "you" you are using is in general and not specifically talking to me because I never said I only buy used, or that I think I'm entitled to anything. I don't buy and sell to Gamestop and haven't for a while. I use eBay so I can control the amount I sell my game for.
And again, the money being spent on used games wouldn't be going to the creators anyway. Removing used games from the equation doesn't mean all of that used game money will go to the developers, it means people will buy less games at launch at full price.
I'm also not lamenting the quality of games either. This year, in the past 6 months, I've played great, good and decent games and they were all released this year.
The amount of profit retailers make on new games in miniscule. This is why they drive used game sales. They make more money from their investment.
It doesnt. Are you saying you wait for a $60 game to becone 55.... why would it matter if it was used or new. Even waiting for $30 why woukd it matter if its new or used. Its the price point your buying at not condition
Jim E. Rossler
Banned
They are, in fact, sustaining the market.
If NO ONE wanted to buy used games, there would be no market for them, The Day 1 $60MSRP buyers would have no means of financing their next purchase, and if they didn't like it, no means of Trading it in for a different one. If gamestop was only paying $5 trade in value on day 2 for COD9:Ghost dogs2- Revengeance, almost no one would trade it in. Any less would buy Ghost dogs day 1, knowing they're shit out of luck if it's actually a bad game, with no way to get any amount of money back.
You can't trade that new game in for full credit 7 days later if it turns out to be shit.
You can if it's used. I know exactly what he's talking about, if you're going to play some weird JRPG and you think you might not like it you can buy it for $30 new and trade it in for a few dollars (if it's already reduced to $30 new then it's been out forever and gamestop aint paying you shit for it since there's not much demand) or you can buy it for $30 used and if you don't like the battle system trade it in full value for a different $30 game. MUCH better deal.
Where does this logic come from? How does how much profit they make from a game correlate to quality? If anything the used game option is actually a reason for them to improve quality of their product so people are less likely to trade it in/more likely to buy it at a higher price.
RedNumberFive
Banned
ITT: we pretend that GameStop is the only place to buy/sell/trade games.
It's no secret they'd be beyond bankrupt if they only dealt in new games considering the margins.
For them to survive on new games only it means price of new games increase and we all know what that means.
Of ckurse if you wait you can read user reviews and opnions and know if you will actually like the game.
It comes across as you saying that you like used games because of poor purchase choices you make or impulse purchases.
Brawly Likes to Brawl
Member
I'm willing to believe that there are at least 19,000 genuine fools out there who would have happily drank MS' DRM kool-aid.
RedNumberFive
Banned
Why would that not be a legitimate reason to like them? Do you like wasting your money? Would you not prefer an option to recover some of your money if you made a mistake?
Jim E. Rossler
Banned
It comes across as you refusing to see why the real and tangible benefits available to used game consumers are attractive.
Why don't publishers let me trade back in directly to them via mail for credit on the pubs next game or current games? Cut the middle man, the middle man they repeatedly reward with exclusives and DLC I can't get unless I buy from gamestop.
lionkitten
Banned
This. This is what he's missing.
You're not buying used because somehow used has more value to you. You're buying used because you perceive it as cheaper at that moment in time.
SwiftDeath
Member
Because astroturfing doesn't happen ever we swear
Yay to giving publishers and platform holders more control about how we get to perceive games
Instead of buying a game and seeing if it's any good I have to try and figure it out by shifting through all the online BS
First of all if I were buying used at gamestop it would be more than $5, it would be $10 because of the discount card. $10 makes a difference. Second of all, I never said it was about cost. It's about the fact that I can return the game if I don't like it or beat it on 7 days.
They won't. Those signatures don't = sales. Which is what made them change in the first place.
User reviews do not equal my opinion. A ton of people loved Oblivion. I turned it off and returned it after the first "dungeon" after creating my character. I bought Skyrim used and wound up loving it. In the event that I didn't, I could have returned it for full value.
For the record, I will by buying ES VI new because I enjoyed Skyrim so much.
Other people's opinions in no way, shape or form mean I will like or not like a game. The only way to know that is for me to play it myself.
lastflowers
Banned
Or play the demo?
This. If people made far better games in the first place, far fewer people would be trading it in within a week or two of purchase, and it's day 1 value would hold far longer. Theres a reason why you still have to pay full, or near-full price for games like Skyrim and CoD even months or even years after they've launched.
WOW!
Really 19k signatures?
Yep, people love to be fucked, split those ass cheeks real good.
Wow....
SwiftDeath
Member
Because demos always show you a fair representation of a game and don't at all try to hide flaws/weaknesses in the gameplay mechanics?
Because developers/publishers aren't incentivized to make demos look and play good regardless of the rest of the game?
If you think those incentives wouldn't increase given a ecosystem without used games, then I would vehemently disagree
ZombiePlatypus
Member
Yup. These people are gonna get what they ask for in time. (Assuming MS wasn't involved in starting this petition...)
Dark Octave
Banned
lol Where do I sign?
Unfortunately not all games have a demo available. Perhaps next gen they will be better equipped for this by allowing free trials for all games like PSplus but in order to get ahead of first week sales a demo needs to be available ahead of time.
Open Source
Banned
The "deserve" argument is beside the point. The point is that used games affect the revenue that gets returned to creators and investors, whether they deserve it or have a legal right to it or whatever other irrelevant argument is bought up. The more people opting for used over new, the greater the amount of revenue that ends up in pockets other than those of the creators and investors. And that affects what those creators and investors create and invest in. And they will increasingly create and invest in stuff that is less vulnerable to the effect used games: digital platforms with DRM, DLC, consumables, non-retail and non-console games, etc. This is already happening, and it will happen to a greater extent next generation.
It is interesting, though, to see people claiming that creators have no right to used game revenues, and yet they still expect them to provide game support out of their own pocket to people who buy used games. Just another instance of used game advocates' twisted idea of "fairness" and unwillingness to look at the full picture, only the parts that benefit them.
Used games do reproduce, in an economic sense. One new game traded in can spawn numerous used game sales.
So you've never bought a digital game or a piece of DLC?
Used games don't necessarily save you money. I get digital stuff "new" far cheaper than you get used games.
Open Source
Banned
Blah blah blah. 2012 Gamestop financial statements and this: http://www.gamasutra.com/view/news/...ame_sales_they_help_according_to_GameStop.php
You "limited" data is completely meaningless by itself. Mine provides at least some context to that one number you cite. Too bad you went all asshole instead of doing some research and discovering that I actually had more and better data than you. But not unexpected.
Nowhere do I imply that disposable income increases, only that game prices have greater downward pressure in the absence of used games.
ParenegadeM
Banned
Microsoft should be more open and communicative about why they can't offer a choice.
zomgbbqftw
Banned
Surely this is not a serious notion. One hopes that it isn't because intelligent people should not be making unintelligent statements such as this.
In closed ecosystems (which consoles are, make no mistake) the absence of used games will drive up prices for consumers as there will be no competition. Without used games competing for the same business as new games there will be no compulsion for publishers to push aggressive pricing (digital or physical). Why would they? Consumers have no choice, they have to buy it at whatever price is set or not buy it, and gamers as a group have proven themselves to be pretty weak willed, at least when it comes to buying AAA blockbuster titles.
Used games keep publishers honest which is why they are so very desperate to get rid of them and why consumers should do whatever is necessary to keep them.
Amazing. I'm surprised gaming is as large of an industry as it is the way you speak. Used titles are no different than trading/renting carts from the NES days.
Since you speak like you know about the industry, enlighten us to how it got so damn big with borrowing, renting, selling all these DECADES?
We went from one man making an entire game in the 70's and early 80's to having Hollywood actors mo-capped with used games around. What is so pressing that needs attention NOW?
If it is an issue now then it was an issue always since it always existed. How did the industry grow?
It was 100 odd sigs when I posted this ..
SwiftDeath
Member
It was 100 odd sigs when I posted this ..
Your plan to sink the X1 is gaining steam then
19,000 Sony shareholders signing on...
lastflowers
Banned
Only the proliferation of steam, iOS, google store ecosystems.
SenjutsuSage
Banned
I personally liked the original vision for the Xbox One. I had concerns, but I liked a number of things about its design, and I hope many of those things can come back. That said, I'm not signing some stupid petition because I don't think they accomplish anything.
ParenegadeM
Banned
Just offer the OPTION.
I have an internet connection. No data caps. I don't buy used games because I actually like to support the developers I purchase from. For the people who are the opposite of this they should just give them that option.
I have an internet connection. No data caps. I don't buy used games because I actually like to support the developers I purchase from. For the people who are the opposite of this they should just give them that option.
Open Source
Banned
Games compete against other games, not just against used versions of themselves. Why do you think prices are so low on closed systems like iOS? (Not to mention, arguing that Steam is an open platform because the PC is an open platform is a head-scratcher.)
And ever hear of price discrimination? You sell as many as you can to people willing to pay the high price, and you offer options like coupons and other discounts to people who aren't. Used games prevent these kinds of discounts from being effective because used game prices can always go lower to undercut those discounts and aren't subject to as high a cost of acquisition/manufacture.
Open Source
Banned
Because renting/used games hadn't been organized on a large scale and transformed into a huge business that constitutes something like 33% of total retail sales. You didn't walk into gamestop and have them offer you a cheaper used version every time you attempted to buy a new game.
It's like saying that because there were cassette tapes and VCRs back in the day that could record and copy, billions of torrent downloads can't possibly be causing any issues in the movie/music business. Or that because people could always videotape shows and FF ads, Tivo can't possibly be disrupting the ads business on TV. Nope. That would an outlandishly stupid notion!
Yup, I'll be the mortimer's complement.
charlequin
Banned
The game industry is already sick with middlemen. Platform-holders are middlemen. Publishers are middlemen. Developers are, generally speaking, beholden to an economic system that considers a slew of middlemen more important to renumerate than them. Gamestop might be one of the least valuable middlemen in that equation (to developers -- until recent gains in ecommerce, Gamestop actually provided a very useful service to end consumers by stocking a much wider range of titles and accessories than big-box stores) but the relentless focus on only
What your analysis leaves out more specifically, though, is that the used game market provides the liquidity that directs money in the industry away from the very top titles and towards mid-range titles. Generally speaking, consumers only consider the top brands worth a price premium over the expected sticker price -- and nowadays, $60 on day one is such a premium. In a world with game trade-ins, the lifetime price of a mistake is reduced (you trade it back in for $5-10) and the effective cash outlay to try out a game is lessened (since you roll your $20 in trade from your previous titles into the purchase.)
It's true that there are other ways to help out smaller devs, but Microsoft's plan (by design) would've made it worse: filtering more money into the top titles (both through day-one sales and expanded DLC offerings) at the expense of the already declining mid-range and the indie titles that MS' platform doesn't fully support.
Err, because the platform-holders and big publishers conspired to drive their margin on new products so low that it is literally impossible to support a business selling new games? I mean, I would figure that was obvious.
Also, the ASP on used titles is much lower than new titles, because the biggest role of used software isn't to provide a $5 savings on this week's hot games -- there aren't nearly enough used copies for these to be monetarily significant -- but rather to fill in the lower price points that the industry has largely avoided satisfying at retail.
It's very much not. People are (rightfully) mocked for far less sweeping hubris than what it takes to claim you're entitled to a cut of other people's legitimate business model just because you feel like it.
EDIT: Awkward.
That tinfoil hat is getting a bit tight.
And personally, I liked some of what the old One policy brought. And I'm sad that the 180 killed those things. But that doesn't mean I don't think the 180 improves the situation for the majority of gamers.
Quadraphonic
Member
What vision? Honestly, what benefit does the consumer get?
Similar threads
- Poll