| RolStoppable said: All fair points, but that still doesn't mean it's a good idea to change the dynamics of the used games market. A good idea would be one that solves the problems of the industry and I don't think their strategy will be an actual solution, but rather just another band-aid that won't be able to stop the bleeding. |
True true. But I don't think it'll be as catastrophic as it should be: I'm still rooting for an industry-wide 1983-style collapse, but I think even this line isn't going far enough to cause that.
| gigantor21 said: You give me entire trilogies/series on superior hardware for $10, when the console versions each cost more at Gamestop, and I'm not going to lose sleep over not being able to trade it in or let people borrow. Especially on PC, where such a thing was usually never an option to begin with. On consoles, though? Being able to borrow, trade and sell used games on my own terms has been an invaluable advantage over the PC experience. Indeed, the only reason I was willing to try many games this gen was because of that option; there were far fewer games I was willing to gamble full-price on than generations past, and fewer still that actually felt worth the investment. I don't know if that'll be the case broadly, but I know they'll have to do a lot more to get me on board next gen if they're going to restrict those options. |
So essentially, the restrictions are worth it if the price is low enough. In other words, it's not principle, it's cost. Isn't that exactly what I said?
