greenmedic88 said: JaggedSac said: Kasz216 said: Untrue.  Afterall it works that way with books, where the words stay the same and CDs... which sound the same. To think otherwise is to not understand the basic value of the used market to new markets... there are MANY more effects than the simple one you mentioned.   For example, Say i'm not sure I want to buy this game that is 60 dollars... however I know if I don't like it... I can return it for 30. Now instead of wasting 60 dollars i'm only wasting 30... because I can resell the game. Now instead say because of this content's exclusion I can only sell it back for 15 or 20.  My risk is now 35-40 dollars.  Perhaps this is too big of a risk.   Or in general I don't think videogames are worth 60 dollars, but I can beat the game in a week and get back 30... because once I beat a game generally i'm never going to back to play it again... by making less of the initial expierence buyable you are taking away value in my resale. I must say, this person would be better off renting games.  30 bucks is two months at GameFly, two months to finish the game with no late fees.  If they are such smart consumers, perhaps they should examine more of their options. For some, it's all about having options, regardless of how stupid they might be. I never understood the logic of rushing to complete a game you just bought so you can trade it in sooner "to get the most money back from my purchase." Like you said, just rent the game if you're going to play it for less than a month. If you habitually trade in games, GameFly would save you a ton of cash.

Assuming you can fight your way through their stocks of titles unless you wait to play some games for a while. They sent me Madworld despite it being near the bottom of my list and a number of the games above it (just like Madworld) had high availability.

 

Akvod said: IllegalPaladin said: Akvod said: IllegalPaladin said: Akvod said: IllegalPaladin said: Though I suppose I'm also curoius to know if this content is already on the disk. *sigh*   Please define DLC. It could range from getting your full content to just getting the unlock code so you can play the content. *sigh*   Please define DLC. Look you can say the full name of it, but that doesn't change the fact that just because they're advertising it as DLC doesn't mean that the content might not already be on the disk and all you're downloading is an unlock code.   *sigh* Would you, you personally, define DLC as a code?     OF COURSE IT'S NOT ON DISC!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! OTHERWISE IT WOULDN'T BE DOWN-LOADED CONTENT. CONTENT.   A code isn't CONTENT. I never thought of using a generic meme before, but this is literally, LITERALLY, how I'm typing this:

Why are you getting so angry? It doesn't matter whether you, I or the other guy defines a code as not being content. Publishers that use a download that activates in game content do in fact call that DLC. So just because EA is calling this DLC does not necessarily mean it's going to fit into your definition. It'll fit into their definition.

I'm still hoping you'll address my other argument, but I figure that's a lost cause by now.

Akvod said: IllegalPaladin said: Not like it's a big incentive for me though as I don't buy a whole lot of games and I mostly rent. If you're going to lock me out of content with crap like this, then I'm just going to rent your game for a short time and be done with it. Still, I'm not really a fan of this idea and it's another way to nickel and dime DLC since I'd highly doubt they'd release all future DLC for a title for free and now you have to pay just to get access to it if you didn't buy the game new. Heck, what if a publisher like Activision gets in on this and charges $15-20 for online access to the next Call of Duty game if you bought it used? Of course, that'd already be on top of the $10 map packs and such. Yeah, I know! How dare EA not GIVE you DLC for FREE! How dare they! How dare they give OTHER people DLC for FREE!   You're being deprived ABSOLUTELY NOTHING. NOTHING. If EA decided to cancel this special offer/deal, and you drag down the people who bought new copies, you STILL get NOTHING, just like you lost NOTHING. We, the people who are buying BC2 new, are GAINING SOMETHING, because we have been given an incentive by EA to buy something in return to get something for free. EA in turn, ALSO, gains something. It's a Win-Win for me and EA. YOU LOST NOTHING, NOTHING, NOTHING.   The only way you can justify that you lost something is by proving that somehow you were entitled to have gotten the DLC in the first place (how do you even claim that, when you haven't even paid for it yet?), and that EA made up a conspiracy to withold it from you. And you must do so under NO PROOF, using complete and utter skepticism and cynicism.

so we're ignoring the fact that this content was free with BFBC1 then? Though is now only free to SOME people in this version? How is that NOT a betrayal of consumer rights. You've gipped me of my ability to give away the full content of the game that I had previously. It's also amusing that you keep ignoring constant valid arguements simply because you have no arguement against them and still want to think your right. I say again... stop being intellectually dishonest.

Akvod said: IllegalPaladin said: Akvod said: IllegalPaladin said: Akvod said: IllegalPaladin said: Though I suppose I'm also curoius to know if this content is already on the disk. *sigh*   Please define DLC. It could range from getting your full content to just getting the unlock code so you can play the content. *sigh*   Please define DLC. Look you can say the full name of it, but that doesn't change the fact that just because they're advertising it as DLC doesn't mean that the content might not already be on the disk and all you're downloading is an unlock code.   *sigh* Would you, you personally, define DLC as a code?     OF COURSE IT'S NOT ON DISC!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! OTHERWISE IT WOULDN'T BE DOWN-LOADED CONTENT. CONTENT.   A code isn't CONTENT. I never thought of using a generic meme before, but this is literally, LITERALLY, how I'm typing this:

The GIF works both ways.

Like I said, it can range from the content already being on the disk and ready to go and you have to pay just to get access to it, to being full blown new content (a la new TF2 maps, weapons and modes for example). To say that all DLC is already on the disk is idiotic, but to say the contrary completely true is just as absurd.

 

 

Can we cut down on the massive quotes guys?

My "warped view" is based on actual economics... and what pretty much any economics teacher would tell you.

While your view is clearly pulled from your ass with no knowledge of how markets work.

You still can't seem to grasp the simpliest of concepts on why the used market helps the new market. One of the biggest reasons being that it makes your "risk" less since you have a resellable product.

If you buy a game and it's shitty you can sell it and you've only lost half of the MSRP. You've done nothing to actually hold a debate... and done nothing to aknowledge points that are fairly obvious to understand even if you were to disagree with them.

JaggedSac said: Kasz216 said: Untrue.  Afterall it works that way with books, where the words stay the same and CDs... which sound the same. To think otherwise is to not understand the basic value of the used market to new markets... there are MANY more effects than the simple one you mentioned.   For example, Say i'm not sure I want to buy this game that is 60 dollars... however I know if I don't like it... I can return it for 30. Now instead of wasting 60 dollars i'm only wasting 30... because I can resell the game. Now instead say because of this content's exclusion I can only sell it back for 15 or 20.  My risk is now 35-40 dollars.  Perhaps this is too big of a risk.   Or in general I don't think videogames are worth 60 dollars, but I can beat the game in a week and get back 30... because once I beat a game generally i'm never going to back to play it again... by making less of the initial expierence buyable you are taking away value in my resale. I must say, this person would be better off renting games.  30 bucks is two months at GameFly, two months to finish the game with no late fees.  If they are such smart consumers, perhaps they should examine more of their options.

Which is the market Gamefly tries to tap into, but doesn't that succesfully. If they did there wouldn't be much of used game market at all.

Davey1983 said: Sorry, but this is a jerk thing to do. This is not a reward for dedicated fans-- this is an attempt to screw over a portion of the fan base. $15 for two maps if I buy used? Ridiculous. How many people who buy used are going to actually know about this-- I'd bet not many. Most people will probably buy the game and later realize that EA has held back content. This will only upset customers.

Here's the thing though: used buyers aren't customers.  EA only upsets the guys who are screwing over EA.  The only outcomes for that are:

1. Used buyers start buying games new
2. Used buyers boycott "EA"... but they don't buy new games so they're actually just boycotting Gamestop, which benefits EA
3. Used buyers are indifferent and continue as is.

It's win-win-neutral for EA and neutral for legit buyers.

This strategy is perfectly fine. When you pay the 60$ for a game, you are essentially paying 60$ for what is inside of the disk. Anything extra, well, is just that, EXTRA. You have NO right to get DLC for free just unless the company wants that.

They are not depriving ANYONE from ANYTHING. They might as well not release the DLC and you would be saying that they are depriving you form something that was supposed to be there, but the truth is that you paid for what you got and anything extra is not your business. It's like saying that I will sell you a hamburger and if you want cheese with it you have to pay extra, but you say that the cheese was supposed to be in the hamburger. The deal is that the one who decides what is the hamburger supposed to have is the one who is selling it. If you don't like that, don't buy the freaking hamburger.

Kasz216 said: JaggedSac said: Kasz216 said: Untrue.  Afterall it works that way with books, where the words stay the same and CDs... which sound the same. To think otherwise is to not understand the basic value of the used market to new markets... there are MANY more effects than the simple one you mentioned.   For example, Say i'm not sure I want to buy this game that is 60 dollars... however I know if I don't like it... I can return it for 30. Now instead of wasting 60 dollars i'm only wasting 30... because I can resell the game. Now instead say because of this content's exclusion I can only sell it back for 15 or 20.  My risk is now 35-40 dollars.  Perhaps this is too big of a risk.   Or in general I don't think videogames are worth 60 dollars, but I can beat the game in a week and get back 30... because once I beat a game generally i'm never going to back to play it again... by making less of the initial expierence buyable you are taking away value in my resale. I must say, this person would be better off renting games.  30 bucks is two months at GameFly, two months to finish the game with no late fees.  If they are such smart consumers, perhaps they should examine more of their options. Which is the market Gamefly tries to tap into, but doesn't that succesfully. If they did there wouldn't be much of used game market at all.

So renting isn't a better option than paying $60 for a game and selling it back for $30 after a week?  I can rent a game for $5 for at least a week.  Some places let you have it even longer.  That seems like the better idea to me.  Perhaps people are just stupid.