Renting over buying? I think so.

[twesterm]

runningonempty said:

twesterm said:

runningonempty said:

I came across this article recently and pretty much have to agree with the guy. 
http://www.slapstic.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=161:why-theres-no-reason-to-purchase-a-60-single-player-only-game&catid=10:opinion-articles

I'll go a step further and say there aren't an overwhelming number of reasons to buy a $60 game period. Sure, once in a while there's something, but overall, there's just not a lot out there I can justify spending that kind of cash on. Particularly in a lousy economy.

I'm an avid gamefly'r and have been for a while. If I actually took the time to sit down and do the math I'm pretty sure my savings would be in the thousands. In the amount of time I've had gamefly I've cycled through at least that much from but my spending over the duration of my membership is only in the low hundreds. I find that pretty hard to argue with.

So what's the consensus? Is renting the better or more logical alternative to buying 99% of the time (small exceptions made for the truly exceptional)?

 

Actually there's one huge reason: if people start renting games more and buying games less then you will jsut get less games and less high quality AAA games.

Personally, I prefer buying because I like owning them and it generally takes me longer than a weekend to get through even a short game.

How do you figure? Gamefly buys huge quantities of games and has to continue buying them as stock wears out, gets damaged, stolen, or purchased by users. To stay on top of their business model they've got to keep investing in games so, if anything, they're actually helpful to the industry and renters benefit from the cost savings.

 

 

I doubt Gamefly would buy enough stock to cover every gamer.  That would be just plain silly.  It would be nice for the first week or two of the games release but then they would be stuck with an insane huge overstock.