No More Used Games

[Strategisphere]

I was recently brought to the stark realization that used games are on the way out. Its just the way the gaming industry is trending. Both the Playstation 4 and the xbox 720 have all but been confirmed to not support used games. The reason being is that it costs the used game market costs the manufactures money. PC gaming is also moving away from used games, as physical copies have given way to programs like Steam. Soon enough, physical copies will be gone from all gaming devices. It is happening with technology everywhere. My question is what will be Nintendo's move? Will they announce another handheld or console that doesn't support used games? Will they stop printing physical copies, and just rely on the eshop? Is the shipping fiasco behind FE13 really a ploy to push electronic sales? I'd like to hear your guys' opinion on this matter.

[Strunk]

Is the shipping fiasco behind FE13 really a ploy to push electronic sales?

I kind of wish people would stop with this part. It was a shipping error. Is that so hard to accept?

Anyway, I don't buy enough games period to care one way or the other. If they stop letting people buy and play used games, I'll get new copies instead. I also don't care about the new systems, since I won't actually be getting any of them for quite a while.

Oh, and people have been saying that used games were on the way out for years. It still hasn't happened.

[shadykid]

I was recently brought to the stark realization that used games are on the way out. Its just the way the gaming industry is trending. Both the Playstation 4 and the xbox 720 have all but been confirmed to not support used games. The reason being is that it costs the used game market costs the manufactures money. PC gaming is also moving away from used games, as physical copies have given way to programs like Steam. Soon enough, physical copies will be gone from all gaming devices. It is happening with technology everywhere. My question is what will be Nintendo's move? Will they announce another handheld or console that doesn't support used games? Will they stop printing physical copies, and just rely on the eshop? Is the shipping fiasco behind FE13 really a ploy to push electronic sales? I'd like to hear your guys' opinion on this matter.

funny, if this is the EDGE rumor they specifically said PS4 is NOT doing this

if its not, then i want to see the source

[Tsuchinoko]

I doubt used games are on the way out. I just can't see it happening because all around it's just a stupid idea. I mean even if you ever wanted to lend a game to your friend you wouldn't be able to do it because the game is technically used. It would really be a shame. Plus I think if used games weren't allowed the gaming companies would lose a lot of customers. There are a lot of people out there who just buy used games to save money because honestly it is hard to keep dropping 40-60 dollars every time a game comes out. I don't like buying used but I understand why people do.

As for the no physical copies thing, I think it will happen eventually, but not for a long long while. And that's what I am more scared of. I love having the actual carts and cases and instructions. It's part of the whole game experience that has grown for the past 30 years. You buy a game, unwrap the plastic, look through the instructions really fast, then play it. I haven't bought a digital game yet that wasn't only available digitally. And I don't think I ever will. I just hope it never gets to that point where the only way to buy games is through download.

[Kaze]

I have seen rumors about Sony and Microsoft not wanting to support used games for the PS4 and 720, but I've never really put much thought into it. I haven't really seen any official statements by either company to say that they won't allow used games to be ran on their systems...Though, it does make one wonder how they can prevent something like people buying used games...Will the game be a one use only type of thing? I just personally don't see how it can happen unless the games are automatically saved on your XBox Live account, PlayStation Network, or Nintendo system if one happens to need to buy a new system.

Also, I doubt Nintendo purposely delayed shipments of Fire Emblem: Awakening just to see an increase in eShop purchases of the game...

[Strategisphere]

I kind of wish people would stop with this part. It was a shipping error. Is that so hard to accept?

Anyway, I don't buy enough games period to care one way or the other. If they stop letting people buy and play used games, I'll get new copies instead. I also don't care about the new systems, since I won't actually be getting any of them for quite a while.

Oh, and people have been saying that used games were on the way out for years. It still hasn't happened.

Sorry, I was trying to be sarcastic with that last part... kinda hard to do that over the internet... my bad. And your right, people have been saying used games are on the way out for years, but the PS4 and xbox 720 are right around the corner, most likely launching this year. Whether or not they allow used games will have a large impact on the gaming world most likely.

funny, if this is the EDGE rumor they specifically said PS4 is NOT doing this

if its not, then i want to see the source

I heard that the PS4 was doing away with used games in a video by woody's gamertag in which he talked about rumors, and thats all we have to go on right now. Sony has a reveal scheduled for Feb 20th, so we will (probably) know then.

How this relates to fire emblem is as follows: Since it is unlikely Nintendo will launch a new system, handheld or otherwise, if they want to get rid of used games they would have to stop printing them. Meaning eshop only games. Is it possible then that Nintendo won't print anymore FE13 games? I highly doubt it, but the fact remains that we will likely see a change in the way we buy 3ds games this year. It has an very slight chance of affecting awakening, but it will affect the next fire emblem game ((and all ds games for that matter (and all games in general for that matter)).

[Anacybele]

Not being able to play used games would be a HORRIBLE business decision. Not only would it negatively affect the customers, but it would be bad for the companies too. Why? Let me explain.

First, we know it affects customers because they'd have to keep buying the game over and over if they want to replay it. That WOULD give the company more money, right? Wrong. See, in order for a customer to have to keep buying the game, the developers have to keep MAKING it. And you need money to keep making a game. So really, either the company would actually be LOSING money doing this, or they'd be right back where they were before.

Another way it would negatively affect the companies is that it would also essentially make their consoles have limited uses. If you can only play games a limited number of times, then a console can only be used a certain number of times too. Which would make all of it go to waste.

Hell, this would also affect the planet. Making more copies of games means using up more resources and more quickly, which is bad for our precious little ball of rock and water.

When making business decisions, you should ALWAYS consider EVERY possible consequence of a decision, or it could end up costing you too much money, employees, customers, and even your business all together. Nintendo, Sony, Microsoft, ANYONE would be complete dumbasses to decide to make used games unplayable.

[Strategisphere]

Not being able to play used games would be a HORRIBLE business decision. Not only would it negatively affect the customers, but it would be bad for the companies too. Why? Let me explain.

First, we know it affects customers because they'd have to keep buying the game over and over if they want to replay it. That WOULD give the company more money, right? Wrong. See, in order for a customer to have to keep buying the game, the developers have to keep MAKING it. And you need money to keep making a game. So really, either the company would actually be LOSING money doing this, or they'd be right back where they were before.

Another way it would negatively affect the companies is that it would also essentially make their consoles have limited uses. If you can only play games a limited number of times, then a console can only be used a certain number of times too. Which would make all of it go to waste.

Hell, this would also affect the planet. Making more copies of games means using up more resources and more quickly, which is bad for our precious little ball of rock and water.

When making business decisions, you should ALWAYS consider EVERY possible consequence of a decision, or it could end up costing you too much money, employees, customers, and even your business all together. Nintendo, Sony, Microsoft, ANYONE would be complete dumbasses to decide to make used games unplayable.

While I don't want microsoft/sony/nintendo to get rid of used games, I can see how they would gain from it.

As far as resources/developers go, there isn't much change. The way that they would regulate used games is by providing a registration code with the game, much like EA does for online features of games like madden and battlefield. You would need a code to play the game on the disk, and once you have that code, you can play as much as you want. Consoles would not have a limited amount of uses, because consumers are still making one purchase.

I am sure that microsoft/sony/nintendo will examine this decision from every possible angle, and they wouldn't make the decision unless they stood to gain from it, which they probably do.

This is all speculation on my part though.

[eCut]

Not really sure what this has to do with Awakening as a whole, so moving it to general discussion.

[Constable Reggie]

While I don't want microsoft/sony/nintendo to get rid of used games, I can see how they would gain from it.

As far as resources/developers go, there isn't much change. The way that they would regulate used games is by providing a registration code with the game, much like EA does for online features of games like madden and battlefield. You would need a code to play the game on the disk, and once you have that code, you can play as much as you want. Consoles would not have a limited amount of uses, because consumers are still making one purchase.

I am sure that microsoft/sony/nintendo will examine this decision from every possible angle, and they wouldn't make the decision unless they stood to gain from it, which they probably do.

This is all speculation on my part though.

The only rational way used games are killed off is by a total conversion to downloadable games (and even then it's debatable due to the EU decision), and that's definitely not going to happen next console generation. Anything else they attempt to do will be akin to shooting themself in the foot with a shotgun. Video game companies may find much pleasure of the thought of getting rid of used game sales, but if they act on it, they're going to suffer the consequences. Not only do you antagonize the majority of console players and more importantly, Gamestop and other used game markets, but then you have to get past the EU. Thought not being able to resell digital software that you legally owned was bad? Try doing that to physical media and an explosion of lawsuits will arise.

Edited February 8, 2013 by Constable Reggie

[Esau of Isaac]

The only rational way used games are killed off is by a total conversion to downloadable games (and even then it's debatable due to the EU decision), and that's definitely not going to happen next console generation. Anything else they attempt to do will be akin to shooting themself in the foot with a shotgun. Video game companies may find much pleasure of the thought of getting rid of used game sales, but if they act on it, they're going to suffer the consequences. Not only do you antagonize the majority of console players and more importantly, Gamestop and other used game markets, but then you have to get past the EU. Thought not being able to resell digital software that you legally owned was bad? Try doing that to physical media and an explosion of lawsuits will arise.

This is true but it would be foolish not to see that physical games are slowly going the way of the dinosaur. Internet's only been widely available for a bit over a decade, but already we're seeing almost all titles available and bought widely through downloaded means. Even as someone who prefers a physical copy of my games, and who is heavily against the concept of the destruction of used games, I can see all videogames being exclusively downloaded with harsh DRM a decade or two from now.

[Snowy_One]

I can see where they're coming from though. Used and pirated games cost game companies a LOT of money. Every used copy of Halo that Gamestop sells is money not going to Microsoft after all and neither Gamestop or the companies make money off of pirated games. As much as I hate to admit it, we, the consumer who uses used games or pirates, are to blame for this. BUUUUUUTTTT...

1) People seriously underestimate how many used games there are. This should be obvious, but let's say you bought a game of Tales of Symphonia and liked it. Tell me, would you return such a good game so willingly? You go to Gamestop and you'll notice that they have a LOT of used games, but most of them are either newer titles (which have a lot of copies out) or older copies of bad games. The really good games get resold a LOT less!

2) Return policies. You might feel Gamestop is ripping you off when you sell them a game you didn't like, but compare that to what will happen if used games vanish. Let's say your friend decided to buy you FIFA but you didn't like it. Guess what? YOU'RE STUCK WITH THE TITLE! Even if Gamestop is still around, accepting it back is stupid as they can't resell it. You can't trade it away because no one else can use it. You might not even be able to return it for the money depending on the policy! You better pray!

3) The only way to ensure this is to make consoles only-online. And this blows. A few days ago there was a problem with my router (bet none of you noticed) that knocked me off-line for the entire day. So what did I do? I played FFX. When I had a power outage I opened up my 3DS and played OoT. For the first year and a half after I moved into my new room I didn't have internet yet I could still play games. These are things that CANNOT be done if only-internet is required! HEAVEN FORBID their servers go down for ANY reason! Does anyone remember what happened with Diablo III?

[Duff Ostrich]

If I am forced to buy every game new, then the number of games I purchase will decrease significantly. It's not a question of spite, but instead of practicality. There are very few games I find to be worth $60, but many of those same titles are easily justifiable at a $35 price point. Not that anyone would (or should) care about this, but it is a situation I'm likely to find myself in if they go this route.

Of course, there's always the PC, and mine is half decent. As long as I can wait several months and get a particular multiplatform game for 20%+ off on Steam then that's going to continue to be my first stop.

[BrightBow]

I don't see how this is a problem. Games drop very quickly in price these days. Shouldn't take long for them to fall below 35$.

Edited February 8, 2013 by BrightBow

[Firespark Faerie]

This isn't just limited to games. Services like iTunes, Netflix, and Kindle have been in this business for a while and if anything video games are a little late to jump onto the bandwagon. Physical copies in general are being slowly phased out, though I can't see them going completely extinct for a long time. The thing with downloaded media is that it saves the developers money that would be spent on hardware and packaging, and yes, also preventing people from buying used copies. I have very mixed feelings about this, knowing that many gamers, especially children can't afford to buy games new and rely on used ones aside from gifts. It could hurt the market terribly, as well as ruin the public opinion of Sony and Microsoft if they were to ban used games on their console. While I don't see this as a realistic decision for the companies to make, it would certainly be a by-product of pushing downloadable game sales.

The plus side to this model however, is that there will never be shipping problems or shortages of a particular game, since any number of people can download it. Also, so long as the servers are maintained the game will be buyable for years to come without scouring over eBay just to pay $100+ for a used copy of a rare older game (I'm looking at you, Suikoden II). If one get's the urge to play a "retro" game, they can be obtained easily, often at a low price. Amazon already offers a wonderful download service for PC games in this respect.

Edited February 8, 2013 by Firespark Faerie

[Constable Reggie]

This is true but it would be foolish not to see that physical games are slowly going the way of the dinosaur. Internet's only been widely available for a bit over a decade, but already we're seeing almost all titles available and bought widely through downloaded means. Even as someone who prefers a physical copy of my games, and who is heavily against the concept of the destruction of used games, I can see all videogames being exclusively downloaded with harsh DRM a decade or two from now.

If by bought widely through downloaded means, then you mean Steam. And if by Steam, you mean Steam sales. That's why digital games work right now (because let's be honest, who buys digital games on xbla/psn right now, and who buys physical copies on pc), because they're heavily discounted. Idiots like EA and likely other game companies are going to rush head on to switching to digital without realizing two reasons why Steam works: extremely low prices and unobtrusive-feeling drm. Origin's 39 million user number? Yeah, that's completely bullshit considering they transferred every last obscure EA account into one (had a BF2 account 5 years ago? Now it's origin, etc).

PC is slowly changing to digital media, evidenced the huge number of physical copies that require Steam. But Steam works for the two reasons mentioned above (that other idiot companies don't realize), and this isn't going to be happening for next gen consoles. There's not going to be used-game detection shit on the PS4 or whatever, because then you risk losing Gamestop's endorsement and the user base's. Internet's a big thing, yes, but it's still not big enough that every single person who plays xbox/ps3 has it, so online-restrictions won't work either. We've already seen the user base pretty much strike down most harsh drm restrictions on pc (Spore lawsuits, ME/DA outcries, pretty much every single Ubisoft thing ever), so the consoles aren't going to be much different. And again, they'll have to get by the EU's recent decision that digital copies are owned and thus sellable.

9th generation consoles is a wash. Anything could happen by then.But I'm willing to bet that unless video game companies follow Steam's procedure, anything they do will fail. Even EA, who proudly claimed that "75% off/etc steam sales devalue videogames as a whole, so we're never going to have them", ended up doing 75% sales from time to time.

Edited February 8, 2013 by Constable Reggie

[Superbus]

First off, nothing - repeat, nothing - is confirmed about Microsoft's report that they'll be going with a single-use code for console games. No confirmation in the slightest.

Secondly, used games are going away, but honestly, that has little to do with some diabolical plot by Microsoft, Sony and their third party publishers (let's face it: this would be used to placate Electronic Arts and Ubisoft, who are threatening their own distribution systems; Sony and Microsoft don't benefit as much due to them taking the PR hit). This has more to do with the fact that digital is starting to take over boxed retail through natural attrition. Let's not even count Steam, because Steam is PC exclusive; solely on console, Sony's Day 1 Digital push, combined with Nintendo's increasing push on both handheld and the Wii U, mean more people are getting comfortable downloading their games over the internet. It works out for them - no shipping, the customer pays transfer fees due to owning the last-mile of the connection, AND they get to charge the same price, AND there's the added benefit of DRM to boot? No wonder they're releasing more digitally. Granted, that doesn't affect granny buying a game for their children, but I guarantee they'll be trained to either get vouchers from a big box store (I think GameStop will be in trouble within three to five years; think WalMart or Target) or just gift cards, within three years. As for the EU's insistence that digital copies of games can be sold, just because they say that doesn't mean that these companies have to put in a way to make it easy to do so. (If they do, I predict there will be fixed prices, with 30% going to the owner of the distribution service and a set amount going to the publisher; this would remove incentive for people to sell their games as they wouldn't get jack for them once everyone got their blood).

Yes, users are really mad that Microsoft *might* (emphasis) go with the most restrictive DRM we've seen on a console, and that Sony *COULD* do likewise. Honestly, it won't matter. Users have shown for decades that they will bitch, and scream, and moan, and at the end of the day, they will pay for what they're told to pay for. No one cares about the customer because the customer has shown they are pliable. So these companies, if they do this, will laugh all the way to the bank.

[Constable Reggie]

When the EU court said that you can resell digital games, it didn't mean also giving money to the retailer/publisher. Fixed prices, are you kidding me? Companies can try and weasel out of the ruling, but several european courts (primarily Germany's) have shown they won't hesitate to sue. When you sell a music cd to your friend, do you give 30% of that money to the record labels?

Gamestop, the biggest video game and console retailer, basically threatened companies that if they do this, they'll lose money. If Microsoft or Sony actually go through with their plans to add online restrictions, they'll lose not only Gamestop's endorsements, but also every potential console buyer without internet/no intention to play online. Again, they'd be shooting themselves in the foot. Now that Valve's entering the console market (Steam Sales is very compelling reasoning for digital titles, something that no other digital retailer does nearly as well), and that the WiiU already showed that it doesn't block used games, who do you think most of the customers will follow? Dedicated fanboys of Halo/God of War/other exclusives may still buy the consoles, but that wouldn't be nearly enough to generate a profit, I'm willing to bet. Used games are going to exist next console generation. Charging 60$ for a digital copy when the physical copy is also that or even less is not going to incentivize enough people to go digital.

I'd say go ahead and let them try it anyway. It'll be fun watching whoever has the balls to try it crash and burn.

Edited February 8, 2013 by Constable Reggie

[Superbus]

When the EU court said that you can resell digital games, it didn't mean also giving money to the retailer/publisher. Fixed prices, are you kidding me? Companies can try and weasel out of the ruling, but several european courts (primarily Germany's) have shown they won't hesitate to sue. When you sell a music cd to your friend, do you give 30% of that money to the record labels?

Gamestop, the biggest video game and console retailer, basically threatened companies that if they do this, they'll lose money. If Microsoft or Sony actually go through with their plans to add online restrictions, they'll lose not only Gamestop's endorsements, but also every potential console buyer without internet/no intention to play online. Again, they'd be shooting themselves in the foot. Now that Valve's entering the console market (Steam Sales is very compelling reasoning for digital titles, something that no other digital retailer does nearly as well), and that the WiiU already showed that it doesn't block used games, who do you think most of the customers will follow? Dedicated fanboys of Halo/God of War/other exclusives may still buy the consoles, but that wouldn't be nearly enough to generate a profit, I'm willing to bet. Used games are going to exist next console generation. Charging 60$ for a digital copy when the physical copy is also that or even less is not going to incentivize enough people to go digital.

I'd say go ahead and let them try it anyway. It'll be fun watching whoever has the balls to try it crash and burn.

Even if the EU sues, it can be held up in court for a long, long time. And if that looks likely, then the EU simply won't get that business. It will become a video game wasteland again, like it was in the 80s. Dizzy isn't as good as we all remember it being.

As for GameStop threatening Microsoft and Sony, both of those companies have GameStop by the balls. The only retailers that could make an impact are the big box stores that sell other stuff, like Walmart. "Pulling your videogame product? That's OK, we'll just remove all of your shit, and sell Samsung TVs instead." Good luck with that. GameStop, on the other hand, has no leverage. "Oh yeah!? You want to get rid of our beautiful used games!?!? Well, we'll just... remove both of you! Yeah! Two out of the three system manufacturers, we'll remove them from our store! We'll maintain a global presence with Nintendo products and Farmville cards! HA!"

I'm not seeing it.

[Constable Reggie]

You seriously think video game companies are going to simply abandon roughly 30-40% of their sales and market because they can't have their way? You must be joking.

Do you really think Gamestop is going to give up 43% of their profit then? If they go through with it, either way Gamestop is going to lose money. Not advertising anything whatsoever related to Microsoft/Sony would hurt them far more than it would Gamestop. I'm not talking about removing everything MS/Sony related (though I could see them refusing to carry consoles while still carrying games).

Edited February 8, 2013 by Constable Reggie

[Esau of Isaac]

If by bought widely through downloaded means, then you mean Steam. And if by Steam, you mean Steam sales. That's why digital games work right now (because let's be honest, who buys digital games on xbla/psn right now, and who buys physical copies on pc), because they're heavily discounted. Idiots like EA and likely other game companies are going to rush head on to switching to digital without realizing two reasons why Steam works: extremely low prices and unobtrusive-feeling drm. Origin's 39 million user number? Yeah, that's completely bullshit considering they transferred every last obscure EA account into one (had a BF2 account 5 years ago? Now it's origin, etc).

I generally buy most games digitally on PC not because of the discounts --although they are absolutely a factor in buying older games in bulk-- but because of the ease of use and the speed at which I can get my copy. I've always enjoyed having a boxed copy in my hands, but these days retailers are concentrating less and less on their presence from the PC perspective, and people are relying more and more on simply downloading them. Origin's doing poorly comparatively, but with the presence of games that people "have" to play, it will probably be able to survive. And I'm fairly thankful for it as Steam needs some sort of opponent. Absolute power and all that.

PC is slowly changing to digital media, evidenced the huge number of physical copies that require Steam. But Steam works for the two reasons mentioned above (that other idiot companies don't realize), and this isn't going to be happening for next gen consoles. There's not going to be used-game detection shit on the PS4 or whatever, because then you risk losing Gamestop's endorsement and the user base's. Internet's a big thing, yes, but it's still not big enough that every single person who plays xbox/ps3 has it, so online-restrictions won't work either. We've already seen the user base pretty much strike down most harsh drm restrictions on pc (Spore lawsuits, ME/DA outcries, pretty much every single Ubisoft thing ever), so the consoles aren't going to be much different. And again, they'll have to get by the EU's recent decision that digital copies are owned and thus sellable.

9th generation consoles is a wash. Anything could happen by then.But I'm willing to bet that unless video game companies follow Steam's procedure, anything they do will fail. Even EA, who proudly claimed that "75% off/etc steam sales devalue videogames as a whole, so we're never going to have them", ended up doing 75% sales from time to time.

It doesn't have to be a massive jump, it can be gradual. I remember going out and buying all of my videogame expansion packs physically barely over a decade ago. But since the advent of digital downloading I haven't had the need. Physical copies of them exist, of course, but I guarantee their sales are waning comparatively. It might not happen in five years, maybe not ten, and perhaps not even in twenty. But I find it hard to believe that physical gaming won't be gradually phased out as digital media becomes more and more prevalent in everyday life, let alone in the gaming community.

[Constable Reggie]

Convenience is the trade off for not having a physical copy. PC games, however, go above that by also having heavily discounted games. I'm not talking just about Steam Sales on old games, Greenmangaming usually knocks down almost EVERY significant recent title to roughly 35-40 bucks. Far cheaper than the 50-60 bucks everyone else is asking for. PC gaming and the importance of digital games on pc works because of that. Everything is much cheaper. New Xbox/PS won't have that, and that's why it'll fail. Would you buy a digital title that can't be shared with your friends, and that you don't physically own for 60 bucks, or a physical copy that isn't as easily obtained although if we're talking about playstation it'd probably be faster just to go to the store and buy it than trying to download it lololol, but also costs 60 bucks? I know which one I'd choose. Video game publishers need to understand that they need to reduce the price of an initial game for digital games to be successful.

And yeah, Origin isn't nearly as bad as it was before, because they learned from Steam and a) got rid of all obtrusive and downright insulting drm and privacy clauses that it originally had, and b) went back on it's "Steam sales devalues videogames" statement and put their games on heavy discounts from time to time.

[Esau of Isaac]

I don't think the majority of internet sales come from sources that have to do with discounts, at least when games first come out. I'm not familiar with buying PC titles at such prices when they are first released online, and I'd be willing to bet all of my other gamer friends are either ignorant to it or consigned to simply buying from Steam at MSRP.

As for whether I'd buy a physical one I can share or not, that's a bit of a loaded question. Most games that you buy on the PC at the least can't be shared anymore. If everyone as a whole were steadfast eternally that wouldn't ever happen, but people can be molded over time. That's why we have DRM now, because people gradually became comfortable and corporations slowly tightened the noose. It happened to PCs, and it will happen to consoles eventually as well, as consoles strive to become more and more like small, cheap PCs.

[Constable Reggie]

I personally feel that digital games on pc are justified by the lower prices (I never buy pc games at full price), and that's the opinion of most of my steam friends too. It's one reason why Origin was horribly mocked in the beginning, because they thought they could be just as successful as Steam without sales. As for DRM, it depends on the kind. Steam is a drm, but it's drm that doesn't feel obtrustive at all. Compare that to Origin v1.0 and UPlay, and you can see the massive difference, in the number of users. Video game companies seem to think that they can copy Steam, add more drm and controlling shit, and be as successful. Obviously, that wasn't the case and the playerbase called them out on that bullshit. What would make 8th Gen Xbox/PS any different? You think the casual playerbase, that brings their games to their friends' houses, is going buy console-restricted games?

One important difference between pc and console is that consoles are ready from the getgo. With PC, you have to install the game, while console games you can just bring the disc to your friend's house and play it immediately. PC never had that, and it's one of the few advantages that console has over PC.

[Superbus]

You seriously think video game companies are going to simply abandon roughly 30-40% of their sales and market because they can't have their way? You must be joking.

Do you really think Gamestop is going to give up 43% of their profit then? If they go through with it, either way Gamestop is going to lose money. Not advertising anything whatsoever related to Microsoft/Sony would hurt them far more than it would Gamestop. I'm not talking about removing everything MS/Sony related (though I could see them refusing to carry consoles while still carrying games).

If companies are going to force digital, why not? They gain on shipping costs anyway. For big-box promotion, most companies already work with Walmart, Target and Best Buy. So they'd cut out GameStop. Big whoop. Add Amazon to the mix, and you've pretty much replaced what GameStop was providing.

GameStop doesn't have a choice. They are a video games retailer. If they're not shipping video games, they're useless. And trust me, the end user doesn't give a shit. Hell, I know a subset of gamers that would cheer the world if GameStop went under.

The only people that would theoretically suffer if GameStop were to be negatively impacted would be AA publishers, and they're going digital anyway; I'm talking about companies like Atlus, NIS, etc.