Here's an idea.
Buy 1 game. Pirate 1 game.
That makes it even since they are double dipping.
Here's an idea.
Buy 1 game. Pirate 1 game.
That makes it even since they are double dipping.
axumblade said:
Well, if you can GIVE away a crappy movie, then you can GIVE away a crappy game. The person just has to pay a few bucks to be able to play it (which since movies are about 5-20 dollars wheras games are about 20-60 dollars seems like a fair exchange to me considering a person would generally spend a significant amount more money and time on the game then they'd ever spend with the movie. The movie industry is different anyways. Movies have 2 times in their cycle to make money. Box Office and Home Release sales. With the exception of fighters (and a few other games, rail shooters and ddr would have you), gaming doesn't have the option of being made readily available to play for pay months before you can bring it home on a console. |
I DO give games away. Regardless... it doesn't change the point.
Explain why game companys should profit extra from making a game I didn't like and therefore give away. That's just... stupid.
If the game gets resold... well... to bad that's what the company gets for making a game that people wanted to resell rather then a game that gives people reasons to hold on to it.
There is NO justification for the online pass.... at all. Outside of greedy companys being even more greedy and finding any excuse they can to charge more for stuff rather then work on making it so their products are better and appeal to more people.

I am finding it kind of funny people keep calling the video game company greedy for wanting some profit off of a sale of thier product while some of these same people are complaining about what money they might lose from reselling the same product.
I could really careless about this subject at hand as I rarely if ever buy used or sale any games back. I do kind of wonder where these will lead and if some of the people who do not really pay attention to such things will buy a used game and feel ripped off. They will probably blame the Game makers and not the place that failed to inform them in some fashion.
It could actually be for the best for everyone if you think about it. Perhaps they will make better games as in more people will want to keep the product and not do the reselling. Though I am sure there are some people who will still sell games back no matter what. I know two fo them myself where I work. They have had a PS3 since right after launch yet togather they only own a total of 4-5 games. Its not from lack of buying games, its from not ever wanting to keep any of the games. I do not own a PS3, but if I was really interested in a game such as GOW3 I be dammed I would sell back after one or two playthroughs. The game has great reviews for what it is from both websites and people on these boards. To say it was a bad game so they sold it back confuses the hell out of me.





the video games industry is suffering, while the (professional) used game sellers make enormous profits with the same product ..
that's why EA and apparently Sony started to do this in order to profit from second hand sales and to teach gamers to not be so cheap to take the used copy if the new one is only $5 more
of course that devalues your copy by $10, if you want to sell it, but it also means you will get used games for $10 less (good for people who are only interested in single player anyway)
If I buy used I make sure I buy at well below the new price, even well below the platinum/greatest hits/classic price. And I tend not to buy used games from retailers. The used game market is on online auction sites.
Developers should do a deal with retailers and give them a bigger cut of new game sales in return for them receiving a cut of used game sales.
If game retailers can't survive on the meagre offerings they receive from new game sales then specialist game retailers, and Mom and Pop game stores are going to cease to exist and you'll only be able to get your stuff from the Walmarts, Targets and Best Buys of the world. When that happens the number and variety of games will decrease because those department store retailers won't want to stock niche titles that are relatively slow sellers.
Niche games will all be forced to become DLC so will be limited in size and scope at least until internet speeds become super fast in most of the world.
I don't mind making people pay a fair rate for using online which is an ongoing maintenance cost which new game buyers should be subsidising used game buyers. But I don't think the possible demise of the specialist game retailer is a good trade off.
“The fundamental cause of the trouble is that in the modern world the stupid are cocksure while the intelligent are full of doubt.” - Bertrand Russell
"When the power of love overcomes the love of power, the world will know peace."
Jimi Hendrix
I love how people get sand in their vagina over other people using Gamestop.
How does it affect any of you? If you don't like used game prices at Gamestop, shop elsewhere. If you don't like the trade-in prices go put it on Ebay for a week instead.
Truth is, most people who trade their games are too lazy or impatient to find the best deal. They are more than happy to trade in their old games and buy a new one in a single visit to Gamestop.
I hope more publishers do what EA do, not because I agree with it but because certain parts of the gaming industry need to die and stunts like this should speed it up.
Nov 2016 - NES outsells PS1 (JP)
Don't Play Stationary 4 ever. Switch!
EA is an ALRIGHT Game company all around.
Completely sums it up.
“Absolutely, we can do much more with it. I don’t know if we are even close to 50 percent of PlayStation 3’s power at this point,” said Asmussen about God of War 3. ARE YOU KIDDING ME???
every game ea makes other than madden will suffer, people will always buy madden.

EVEN YOU CAN OUTRUN THE FASTEST MAN, IF HE DOES NOT START THE RACE.
CANT WEAR Mckinleys JEANS CAUSE MY WARDS DONT FIT.
Well, I can't say I'm a huge fan of the idea, but I can't say I'm against it, either. I understand that the publisher can still incur costs from a used game that continues to circulate. I also saw the string on movies vs games. The thing there, is that once you have a movie, you own it, and it has no further burden on the company who made it. They may have lost the sale, sure, but you're not using their resources. However, a used game with online is different. Companies expect that interest, with sales, will wane over time. But, the used market keeps the interest on the game higher for longer. Single player has no burden to the company, but you're not paying the fee for that. What you are paying is the fee to play online. The company makes less money than a new game sale, but this money is used to pay for the servers with the increased interest in the game. I see it as a similar, but better, concept than an MMO. You're using the MMOs servers, so you pay a monthly fee. Likewise, on Madden 11, you're using EAs servers. Buying the game new means you have paid for your use of the server. Both have the trait of if you sell it, the other person needs to pay again to play online. Madden 11, in this case, would be a pay once, versus the monthly MMO fee. And if you don't care about online? Then you don't need it! I personally like the options this opens up, myself, though I kinda don't like the pay twice concept. I do see where it comes from, though, why it's needed and why, ultimately, it may be a good thing for gaming.
-dunno001
-On a quest for the truly perfect game; I don't think it exists...