By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
Squilliam on 03 June 2010
Edit Thread
Kasz216 said:



That's a really silly arguement.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I mean, once again i'll direct people to this...

 

 

Your arguement is "If not enough people are willing to boycott it, it's clearly not wrong."

 

No it isn't.

Based on that logic... people are in the minority about being pissed about the BP Spill in the gulf.  People are in the minority at wanting gas companies in general to not gouge people... people who are against child labor are in the minority...I can go on and on about shit the majority of people think was wrong but didn't successfully boycott.

 

People aren't in the minority about being pissed off because of the BP spill. However they are powerless in terms of doing anything about it in most cases as they aren't usually the direct consumers of BP fuel. People who were against child labour have had that practice stopped. People can A. Buy B. Not buy the product. Noones rights are being infringed its just a change in the terms of sale.

 

People will swallow a lot of crap... and be unhappy about it, because they want what they want.   The fact that you think people shouldn't be upset that consumer rights keep getting more and more erroded by Videogame companies si just... well stupid.

 

Its just stupid? Thats just incredibly poor logic.

 

Video Game companies already hold a lot of special priveldeges most manufacturers don't get.  They want even more... I mean name one other field where this would be an acceptbale practice to force people to pay you on the used market.

 

Such as? What special priviledges do they have?

 

Sales will be lower though... every major branch of economics tells us that about the reaction hurting the used market when it comes to durable goods... and this is the second part of why your thesis is flawed.  They don't really know.  I mean any economist could tell you it's a bad idea.  They claim they're losing tons to piracy, even though the research doesn't show this... even in very anti-pirating countries like the US... run by the government.

 

Does it hurt the buyer? I don't believe it would hurt buyer. It helps used buyers in two ways, the first being a lower cost for those uninterested in online play. Thats a significant proportion of the market and especially the used market becaused multiplayer can be time sensitive with people wanting to play with their friends whilst they are all still interested in the title. The second is that it allows the purchaser to graduate his/her level of interest rather than paying the whole single multiplayer cost at once whether both features are desired or not.

 

Does it hurt the seller in the used market? Yes definately. However it would only in effect be a few dollars in real trade in values as the Gamestop trade value reflects the long term discounted cost price where features like multiplayer are less valuable. In the short term given Gamestops large margins they would be take the majority of the hit as they could not sell the game for $50-55 as is typical but for a lesser amount such as $40-45 depending on loyalty card.

 

They point to these, ignoring the real culprits are rising dev costs and poor decisions.  No doubt when sales go down they'll keep their online plan... and instead blame piracy for the further decline, and try and put in more draconian members.  With most people following off the cliff.

 

When sales go down they will keep their plan? No that doesn't logically make sense. Given the fact that its tendency is to increase, therefore they must have had some success in an industry sense or more publishers wouldn't be adopting this tactic.

 

 

I personally don't see its relevance. EA are not preventing the sale of used goods, they are simply incentivising the sale of new goods in the initial sale period and beyond that they are monetising some of the sale of the used goods.

 



Tease.