Psychology survey : You who supports DRM/Xbox One/EA, who are you?

[the2real4mafol]

Jereel Hunter said:

the2real4mafol said:

Like who? I can only think of 4 major ones, THQ, Pandemic Studios, Team Bondi and Bizarre Creations. But just because some companies are going bankrupt, it don't mean they can restrict my rights as a customer does it?

Do I decide how much these games will cost to make? No.

Does my games retailer sell new games for half price, one month after launch for most games? Yes

I could go on like that, but i don't see how you can blame the customers for the collapse of several developers. Is it so wrong that people recycle their games to partly fund their next purchase? and so those who can't afford £40 to £50 a game can still have a chance to afford to enjoy these great games. Once people buy a good, they can do what they want with it except copy it. That's how a market works and that's how it will always work. You may think DRM may help but it will do more harm than good, people will not stand for it with physical goods. It's barely tolerable with digital goods  

Only 4 "major ones". Yes, and an order of magnitude more smaller ones. It's not 'blame', it's a reason. I make a game. 4 million people play my game, but only 1.2m of them actually bought it, and so my game loses money. Gamestop made money on my game, but I didn't, and now I'm bankrupt. Is that somehow fair?

People like you have a flawed view of seeing a video game as a "good". They should be viewed just like digital goods. If I buy a car, and I drive it for 100k miles, it loses value in every sense of the word. It has less use left in it. it is no longer in perfect shape. It is less of a car than it was 100k miles ago. Maintenance costs rise. But a game? It's the same game. I can play it, and give it to the friend, they can play it, and trade it in,and someone else can buy it used. Unless the disk is damaged, ruining it, it's still as good as the day it released.

There's a second issue. When you buy a car, couch, etc, the cost of it is largely set by materials and labor. This car cost $4000 in labor and $8000 in materials and shipping, so when I buy it for $14,000, I know where that money went, and how much is going to support the company's infrastructure/bottom line. But a game? All games, old or new cost probably less than $1... physicially. The entire budget is spend in development and marketting. Not really tangible costs to the consumer. The fact that a new AAA game cost a fortune to make isn't as clear as when you see a new BMW with high tech features, but the company still needs to make money off of it.

Considering this to be wrong is your opinion, but claiming that they company selling it has no right is just plain false. Software on computers has very clear licensing to prevent this - it's necessary and reasonable. The fact that console gamers aren't used to it is the real issue. But the fact is, the average PC game is cheaper than the average console game for this very reason. If PC games didn't have Keys and could be passed on as easily as console games, they'd have to be a little more expensive too.

good points

But i don't see how punishing your potential customers will make them want to buy your games. Surely, if that was good. More people would hear about the next game and want it. Spread of information by mouth and hype go do wonders for a game. I think the problem is really that games cost too much in development these days, they MUST have the best graphics, they MUST have the best voice actors, they MUST be realist and they MUST be like Hollywood. All these makes development far more expensive then necessary and thus need to sell millions more copies than before, they also come out far less often as this expensive development takes a long time. All damaging to potential profit making, which they all go for. 

Also, games themselves may be as good as when they are first bought but the consoles they are played on degrade just as a car would over time. But that 3rd paragraph makes sense. Also, digital goods are different, as it stands you can't sell them on, although i think you should. We can't just not be expected to buy buy buy and not be allowed to sell on later.

Also, you'll never convince me to change my mind, i'll make that clear. I just see it as wrong, we shouldn't be dictated to by no one. I understand that they want to make profit, who doesn't? But you don't attack your source of potential profit. As the CEO of Take Two says you must impress your potential customers to get their money. It's surely common sense here. I'm sorry but if you think the industry faces problems now, it will shoot itself in the foot if Microsoft goes ahead with madness. As it stands, a physical good is there for people to do what they with. They have no right to say what we buy, isn't ours. Even with digital goods, sure we can't sell them on but who are they to demand us to play online?!? It don't currently happen with any digital games service, but Xbox One demands it. How does that bit of DRM benefit publishers? But as i see it, don't fix what ain't broken.    

~http://www.computerandvideogames.com/409797/take-two-ceo-games-must-delight-consumers-to-avoid-secondhand-market/