Like to buy used games?

[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 April 1, 2012 by Tangerine

[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 April 1, 2012 by Tangerine

[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 April 1, 2012 by Tangerine

[Esau of Isaac]

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.

You buy used game.

You do whatever the fuck you want with it because you bought the goddamn game and it's yours.

This is more fair than your stupid methodology.

Guess you don't subscribe to the idea of digital distribution either huh.

As I've already hinted, my feelings on the growing use of digital-only distribution are ambivalent to say the least.

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.

Unless there are millions more like me who decide to vote with their dollar. The industry will have a hard time stepping in a direction the consumer refuses to tread.

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.

Then I'll drop the fucking hobby. I don't compromise on my ability to use my money the way I want. Period.

Your loss, not anyone else's.

Absolutely arguable.

"Bro"?

Buddy. Pal. Amigo. Friend.

I support this system should it become more refined. You're not doing anything so "I don't have to".

I'm voting with my dollar in a manner that will allow the consumer the ability to more clearly dictate what they want to do with their money.

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.

"Herpaderp, maybe I'll just keep sawing my leg off if it distresses you so much!"

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.

You are being willfully dense in order to argue my point. I never at any point attempted to make a 1;1 parity parallel between the two situations. The fucking point which was glaringly obvious is that being a huge corporation means diddly dick. I'm not remarking on how they will fall, only that they are not invincible as you seem to suggest.

[Tangerine]

You buy used game.

You do whatever the fuck you want with it because you bought the goddamn game and it's yours.

This is more fair than your stupid methodology.

No it isn't. You just don't agree with their proposed system, so you have decided it is not fair.

Developers receiving money from every used game purchase is fair.

As I've already hinted, my feelings on the growing use of digital-only distribution are ambivalent to say the least.

Unless there are millions more like me who decide to vote with their dollar. The industry will have a hard time stepping in a direction the consumer refuses to tread.

Where were you guys when digital distribution became popular? Nowhere, you made no difference. It happened. And things will continue to progress in that direction.

Then I'll drop the fucking hobby. I don't compromise on my ability to use my money the way I want. Period.

Then do it and stop complaining.

Buddy. Pal. Amigo. Friend.

About that...

I'm voting with my dollar in a manner that will allow the consumer the ability to more clearly dictate what they want to do with their money.

Well you do that, it's not going to effect me any. I am certainly not going to be your cheerleader.

"Herpaderp, maybe I'll just keep sawing my leg off if it distresses you so much!"

Nah, it's just how upset you get over videogames. My leg is worth more than my amusement!

You are being willfully dense in order to argue my point. I never at any point attempted to make a 1;1 parity parallel between the two situations. The fucking point which was glaringly obvious is that being a huge corporation means diddly dick. I'm not remarking on how they will fall, only that they are not invincible as you seem to suggest.

Your point was crap. Being a huge brand name is extremely important (as displayed in my Sony/Sega scenario), I am very glad you are not a business owner. If Enron were not committing crimes they'd still be around today. The only point you made was that "big businesses committing criminal acts can go out of business". It has no relation at all to this situation unless your goal was to state the obvious. I have never once said they were invincible, I was rebuking the claims that this move will put them out of business or have some huge negative impact on the market.

Your entire Enron argument is pointless.

Edited April 1, 2012 by Tangerine

[Esau of Isaac]

No it isn't. You just don't agree with their proposed system, so you have decided it is not fair.

Yeah, me deciding something isn't fair is how I decide to say something is fair or not. Who'd have thunk opinions work out like that?

Developers receiving money from every used game purchase is fair.

How is it fair? Why should a developer receive any money from any used purchase of anything?

Where were you guys when digital distribution became popular? Nowhere, you made no difference. It happened. And things will continue to progress in that direction.

Right. The consumer can never make a difference in the market. It will always go one way whether they want it to or not.

Whatever you say man.

Well you do that, it's not going to effect me any. I am certainly not going to be your cheerleader.

It will. As long as more like me refrain from supporting bad business rather than just dealing with stupid little compromises, you're not going to fall prey to bad business practice. How grand.

Nah, it's just how upset you get over videogames. My leg is worth more than my amusement!

But your purchasing power isn't. Depressing.

Your point was crap. Being a huge brand name is extremely important (as displayed in my Sony/Sega scenario), I am very glad you are not a business owner.

Sega was a huge brand name twenty years ago and the main leading name aside from Nintendo. Where is Sega now? Oh yeah, they're falling the fuck apart at the seams. And why? Because they made continued, badly thought out, moronic business moves.

If Enron were not committing crimes they'd still be around today. The only point you made was that "big businesses committing criminal acts can go out of business". It has no relation at all to this situation unless your goal was to state the obvious. I have never once said they were invincible, I was rebuking the claims that this move will put them out of business.

Your entire Enron argument is pointless.

I am going to assume you're just purposefully being obstinate at this point because I have completely explained what I was stating down to the most basic forms possible, and there is no way a functioning human brain that understands English could have possibly misunderstood what I stated.

Edited April 1, 2012 by Esau of Isaac

[Tangerine]

Yeah, me deciding something isn't fair is how I decide to say something is fair or not. Who'd have thunk opinions work out like that?

Well, there's being objective.

How is it fair? Why should a developer receive any money from any used purchase of anything?

It's their intellectual property. Game stores should not be allowed to profit off of it without paying tribute to the company.

Right. The consumer can never make a difference in the market. It will always go one way whether they want it to or not.

Whatever you say man.

You are not "the consumer" you are "a consumer" or "a group of consumers". The point is this is the same road as digital distribution, and more consumers clearly opposed your thoughts than supported. And so it has quickly become the most popular form of media distribution.

It will. As long as more like me refrain from supporting bad business rather than just dealing with stupid little compromises, you're not going to fall prey to bad business practice. How grand.

What you decide is bad business is not the same as what everyone else does. But keep thinking that way.

But your purchasing power isn't. Depressing.

I like to know that I am supporting the developer no matter how I choose to purchase my game. And yeah, even if I didn't like the idea I'd STILL purchase the next PlayStation console, and possibly the Xbox in the future as well. Because Sony has the best third party support and arguably the best first party titles. I want to play the few game series' that I like. And I don't buy enough games to be an avid whiner about the extra added cost. Plus you know, I make a very good living.

Sega was a huge brand name twenty years ago and the main leading name aside from Nintendo. Where is Sega now? Oh yeah, they're falling the fuck apart at the seams. And why? Because they made continued, badly thought out, moronic business moves.

The only reason Sega was able to make so many mistakes was because of their brand power. Sega could not have sold the PS3. The PS3 survived its rough launch based on brand name alone.

I am going to assume you're just purposefully being obtstinate at this point because I have completely explained what I was stating down to the most basic forms possible, and there is no way a functioning human brain that understands English could have possibly misunderstood what I stated.

No, just attempting (and failing) to make you realize how pointless your argument is in actuality.

Edited April 1, 2012 by Tangerine

[Nintenlord]

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...?

If the game is actually worth the money you pay for it, people are more inclined to keep the game instead of trying to recoup losses by reselling, meaning there is less games available used. People are willing to keep a game they aren't going to play again very often as long as they don't feel cheated or ripped of.

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.

The job of games is to entertain, not be creative. And the games are getting worse in it and it reflects in sales, which in turn increases the amount of fusions/bankruptcy/lay-offs in industry as we have seen in last 5-some years. And don't attempt top talk about any "objective" quality, it doesn't exist in entertainment. And if you can't compete with free, you don't deserve to be in business.

[Narga_Rocks]

I think the thing that irks some people here (other than Esau, who is just foaming at the mouth) is that when you purchase a thing, aren't you supposed to own it? Like, you buy a game, a car, a couch, a tv, and you keep it until you no longer want it. You let your friends borrow your game, your car, your couch, your tv, if you know they'll appreciate having it for a day and you don't need it that day. And then, when you decide you want to permanently get rid of it, you sell the object to another person and then it is theirs. Why should video games be different? It pisses people off because the distributors are basically saying that you don't own a game the same way you own anything else you buy. It's not completely yours even when you buy it. That the distributor still has the right to skim money off any further transaction would imply that it is not completely yours when you buy it. That's kinda bothersome.

And Esau, Enron is a terrible example. Find a company that went belly-up without doing something illegal. You are providing proof that if you conduct criminal activities you can go bankrupt no matter how big a name you are. How does that have anything in common with doing stuff that pisses off your customers causing you to fail? Sega is a much better example than Enron, so why didn't you bring that up from the start? Not that I have any knowledge on which particular bad decisions caused Sega to fail, so Sega might still not be a good example for what you are trying to prove.

Also, did you get that Tang supports this? Like, did you really get it? You keep claiming to be protecting her from stuff by using your consumer muscle but she's clearly stated that she doesn't need to be protected from this. She supports giving developers a little extra money for each transaction involving a game (despite them already getting money from the inital purchase).

[Tangerine]

The job of games is to entertain, not be creative. And the games are getting worse in it and it reflects in sales, which in turn increases the amount of fusions/bankruptcy/lay-offs in industry as we have seen in last 5-some years. And don't attempt top talk about any "objective" quality, it doesn't exist in entertainment. And if you can't compete with free, you don't deserve to be in business.

How does it reflect in sales at all? Vg and console sales are as good as ever, and gaming has significantly more exposure, popularity, success and coverage today than it ever has.

You said games were getting worse, but nothing you said backed it up. Pirating is just plain a lot more easy to do today than it was in the past. People would be doing the exact same thing back then if they could. The PS3 has the greatest attach rate of any console in the past 2 generations except for the PS2. And yet it is in last place this generation in overall console sales.

I think the thing that irks some people here (other than Esau, who is just foaming at the mouth) is that when you purchase a thing, aren't you supposed to own it? Like, you buy a game, a car, a couch, a tv, and you keep it until you no longer want it. You let your friends borrow your game, your car, your couch, your tv, if you know they'll appreciate having it for a day and you don't need it that day. And then, when you decide you want to permanently get rid of it, you sell the object to another person and then it is theirs. Why should video games be different? It pisses people off because the distributors are basically saying that you don't own a game the same way you own anything else you buy. It's not completely yours even when you buy it. That the distributor still has the right to skim money off any further transaction would imply that it is not completely yours when you buy it. That's kinda bothersome.

The only thing you can't really do under this system is rent games and borrow/lend games. You can still sell them. With digital distribution you can't do any of those things legally, and yet it is the most popular form of media distribution and barely anyone legitimately complains about it.

Edited April 1, 2012 by Tangerine

[Esau of Isaac]

Well, there's being objective.

Yeah, let's be objective about something subjective. Sounds like a plan.

It's their intellectual property. Game stores should not be allowed to profit off of it without paying tribute to the company.

Why? Who gives a fuck if it's their intellectual property? I bought it. I should own it and have the full capability to sell it to whoever I want, at whatever price I feel like, with no meddling from anyone.

You are not "the consumer" you are "a consumer" or "a group of consumers". The point is this is the same road as digital distribution, and more consumers clearly opposed your thoughts than supported. And so it has quickly become the most popular form of media distribution.

No, this fucking isn't. Digital distribution was embraced for portability, ease of access, and comfortability. However, many still buy physical copies of games. If I get the chance and it's not out of my way, I certainly like to do so. So do hundreds of thousands of others, that either don't want to or can't use the internet in such a situation. Stop acting like this new methodology is some ending point all roads lead to.

Oh, and "the consumer" means all consumers.

What you decide is bad business is not the same as what everyone else does. But keep thinking that way.

Right, and this new business model is just meeting with pure and total approval from everyone but me right? Get over yourself.

I like to know that I am supporting the developer no matter how I choose to purchase my game.

Then purchase it new. Don't consign everyone else to a system of difficulty because you feel so indebted to a random company.

And yeah, even if I didn't like the idea I'd STILL purchase the next PlayStation console, and possibly the Xbox in the future as well. Because Sony has the best third party support and arguably the best first party titles. I want to play the few game series' that I like. And I don't buy enough games to be an avid whiner about the extra added cost.

This is really all I needed to hear to begin with, but it's good for you to say it right out.

Plus you know, I make a very good living.

How very apt.

The only reason Sega was able to make so many mistakes was because of their brand power. Sega could not have sold the PS3. The PS3 survived its rough launch based on brand name alone.

Sega did sell the PS3. It sold like three of them. It sold the 32X, the Saturn, and the fucking Game Gear. It's odd, it's like continued lack of success and poor business decisions contribute to the slow but sure death of a company.

And Esau, Enron is a terrible example. Find a company that went belly-up without doing something illegal. You are providing proof that if you conduct criminal activities you can go bankrupt no matter how big a name you are. How does that have anything in common with doing stuff that pisses off your customers causing you to fail? Sega is a much better example than Enron, so why didn't you bring that up from the start? Not that I have any knowledge on which particular bad decisions caused Sega to fail, so Sega might still not be a good example for what you are trying to prove.

People, Christ: The point is not to have spoken of the methodology by which a corporation falls, only that big names are not immutable.

Also, did you get that Tang supports this? Like, did you really get it? You keep claiming to be protecting her from stuff by using your consumer muscle but she's clearly stated that she doesn't need to be protected from this. She supports giving developers a little extra money for each transaction involving a game (despite them already getting money from the inital purchase).

Their rights as a consumer. Not their decision as a consumer.

Edited April 1, 2012 by Esau of Isaac

[Narga_Rocks]

The only thing you can't really do under this system is rent games and borrow/lend games. You can still sell them.

Technically, you can still sell them under the sony system. But your ability to sell is not the same. If each two-step transaction will cost an extra $5 (or worse, more), then there is a likelihood that the used game purchasers would be likely to give the seller less money for it. It's not nearly as open. Then there's the microsoft one that you don't support...

With digital distribution you can't do any of those things, and yet it is the most popular form of media distribution and barely anyone legitimately complains about it.

Which is hilarious. It's funny that more people aren't complaining about it. There aren't very many things you purchase that work this way. It's more like a house. If you want to let someone play your game, you let them come to your computer/console to play it. If someone will "borrow" your house, they are sleeping over at your house. Not very many purchases are like that, so I can see why some people would complain. Personally, I like to buy it *new*, so I'm a fan of stuff like gamersgate and steam and gog, and I don't have anybody that would borrow my stuff. Well, 10 years ago I let cousins borrow a couple of games and I borrowed ff3/6 from a friend, but that was a long time ago. Really, I don't have a problem with all this (except the microsoft thing because a lot of things I buy are 4+ years old which makes it hard to find new if you can't buy it from a website to download. I'd still want the option but Sony's system would allow it).

@Esau: of course big names aren't immutable. Was that really your only point? That doesn't mean that this is going to hurt them one bit. Just because a few people are like you doesn't mean millions will be.

Edited April 1, 2012 by Narga_Rocks

[Esau of Isaac]

@Esau: of course big names aren't immutable. Was that really your only point? That doesn't mean that this is going to hurt them one bit. Just because a few people are like you doesn't mean millions will be.

Every group of millions has to start with a few.

Not that this news hasn't already caused a gigantic shitstorm in gaming media.

[Tangerine]

Why? Who gives a fuck if it's their intellectual property? I bought it. I should own it and have the full capability to sell it to whoever I want, at whatever price I feel like.

Alright buddy.

No, this fucking isn't. Digital distribution was embraced for portability, ease of access, and comfortability. However, many still buy physical copies of games. If I get the chance and it's not out of my way, I certainly like to do so. So do hundreds of thousands of others, that either don't want to or can't use the internet in such a situation. Stop acting like this new methodology is some ending point all roads lead to.

Uh, and? Console manufacturers and developers are going to move in that direction because it is more profitable for them. And the advantages of digital distribution still exist and are still supported, as shown by the enormous success of PSN and XBL Classics and DLC titles.

Oh, and "the consumer" means all consumers.

Yeah, my point was that you don't represent everyone.

Right, and this new business model is just meeting with pure and total approval from everyone but me right? Get over yourself.

"Get over myself"? Who's the one sitting here acting like their opinion is more important than anyone else's, and that they represent "millions of others"? It certainly isn't me.

Then purchase it new. Don't consign everyone else to a system of difficulty because you feel so indebted to a random company.

I'm not doing anything to you guys, I am "the consumer" with a differing opinion . I don't always purchase games new, some are tough to find after a while or are hidden gems in the rough and need to be bought used. I don't mind paying an extra 5 bucks to support the devs just as I would purchasing a digital title.

This is really all I needed to hear to begin with, but it's good for you to say it right out.

Yeah, of course, because you absolutely hate it when people disagree with your thoughts. I value the series' that I like more than I value your tears and whining.

Sega did sell the PS3. It sold like three of them. It sold the 32X, the Saturn, and the fucking Game Gear. It's odd, it's like continued lack of success and poor business decisions contribute to the slow but sure death of a company.

No, it didn't. The PS3 is a competitive console in the market. None of those were. Sega tried to sell expensive consoles and failed because their brand was not powerful enough.

Seriously dude, go take a valium.

[Esau of Isaac]

Alright buddy.

Good to know we're on the same page pal.

Uh, and? Console manufacturers and developers are going to move in that direction because it is more profitable for them. And the advantages of digital distribution still exist and are still supported, as shown by the enormous success of PSN and XBL Classics and DLC titles.

It doesn't matter if they move in that direction if the consumer doesn't follow them. And while digital distribution is a burgeoning media, it also happens to be hampered by the fact that many individuals have no access to an internet connection at all.

Yeah, my point was that you don't represent everyone.

I never said I represent everyone.

"Get over myself"? Who's the one sitting here acting like their opinion is more important than anyone else's, and that they represent "millions of others"? It certainly isn't me.

Both of us are acting like our opinion is more important than others'. That's why they're opinions. And you're putting words in my mouth. Again.

I'm not doing anything to you guys, I am "the consumer" with a differing opinion . I don't always purchase games new, some are tough to find after a while or are hidden gems in the rough and need to be bought used. I don't mind paying an extra 5 bucks to support the devs just as I would purchasing a digital title.

What games are hidden gems in the rough and need to be bought used? Don't you make a very good living? Why not give them the full money for it? Or hell, why not buy it used and then just donate the remainder to the company?

Yeah, of course, because you absolutely hate it when people disagree with your thoughts. I value the series' that I like more than I value your tears and whining.

I absolutely hate it when people support an alarmingly stupid business practice when they could just support them directly by buying the title at the factory price rather than used.

No, it didn't. The PS3 is a competitive console in the market. None of those were. Sega tried to sell expensive consoles and failed because their brand was not powerful enough.

Yes, they were, barring the 32X. The Saturn was a competitive console in the market. It bombed because of competitors but sold several million units and had a plethora of titles that are still remembered today. As was the Game Gear, the Gameboy's rival. You're just saying that brand name is the only thing that decides whether a console will live or die. That doesn't make sense. They all died because they were terrible products. Sega was plenty popular, people just got fed up with them and stopped buying their shitty products. It's as simple as that.

Seriously dude, go take a valium.

I can be completely calm and still be exasperated at your poor ideals.

[Tangerine]

Take this to PM if you want to continue it. I am pretty tired of having to deal with your aggressive and inappropriate BS on the forum.

Apparently I am going to have to PM you myself.

edit: removed this argument post and moved to PM.

edit 2 (really? Now you're going to complain about this? Is there anything you don't complain about?) It is my job to move arguments that get out of hand to PM outside of FFTF, and I have not once "abused" my position towards any member. Feel free to PM me or make a ticket about any time I have done this, I am completely open to it. But you have none. You know, the rules apply to me too. "Wanting to talk" is not the same as insulting anyone who disagrees with you. You are more than free to continue to post here without the garbage, but until you are prepared to do that it is staying in PM. One of my friends messaged me and told me it looked to be heading in the wrong direction and that it would be better suited to PM, I agreed, and now two other mods have agreed. I think it's time to stop being biased and accept that our argument was a going south; move to PM or continue civilly.

Edited April 1, 2012 by Tangerine

[Florete]

The only thing you can't really do under this system is rent games and borrow/lend games.

This is the only problem I have with it, really. I'd still want to lend and borrow games without my friends or myself needing to pay extra to play it, or be able to play on a separate console if my first one broke or something. If they work with that - and I'm sure they can - this sounds fine to me.

And of course, doomsayers. No surprise there, but I am disappointed in a few people whom I thought were better than that (not naming any names, though). Honestly, I highly doubt this is going to be the "end" of video games or anything like that. There will be an initial burst of anger, but the dust will settle, people will get used to it, and life will go on. I'm sure we've all seen it before in other areas of life.

[Dr. Tarrasque]

This is the only problem I have with it, really. I'd still want to lend and borrow games without my friends or myself needing to pay extra to play it, or be able to play on a separate console if my first one broke or something. If they work with that - and I'm sure they can - this sounds fine to me.

Doesn't seem like a difficult case to solve actually, an account for the online gaming system of the respective console could work to get around this.

In the case of borrowing/lending games to friends, they could just make it so it's playable in a console owned by someone in your friend list after you've sent approval from your own console.

In the case of a new console, they could make it so that you can still enter your account on your newer console and have the option to "renew licenses" or whatever to make them playable on your new console and register them there

Just hope they don't overlook these things.

Edited April 1, 2012 by Sirius