I totally support this. Used game sales are harming the industry and they should be stopped.
Can you just remind me why I want to encourage gamers to give their money to gamestop, not the developer?
I fully support this idea, as it happens I just bought another EA Sports game recently, and I intend to buy many more. They make top quality games, and that is because they invest money in their development and I am very happy to support that development, as it means better games for me!
Games4Fun said:
|
No i mean, like if Gamestop is to sell used EA games then EA would get a certain percent. If Gamestop refuses then EA wont sell their games in Gamestop.
Garnett said:
|
Gamestop makes the majority of its cash of used games, so if they did it this way gamestop would probably just /shrug, also if im not mistaken gamestop is the biggest videogame retailer in north america so no way EA would just sluff them off.
| Games4Fun said: 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 would guess that's only because your having a major disconnect in logic.
A used sale of Madden 11 is NOT a sale of EA's product.
They SOLD EA 11 to someone.... who then sold it back to gamestop.
People fight for the resale value because once you buy Madden 11 from EA.... it is no longer EA's product. It's YOUR product. The person who bought it.
It's PURELY about consumer rights.
Fun story FYI. I don't sell games to gamestop. Ever. Nor do I play online on consoles. This actually benefits me because i'll be able to get games cheaper and don't play online. Either way it's a HUGE violation of customer rights.
| dunno001 said: 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. |
That doesn't make any sense at all. Here is why.
If I kept my copy of Halo 3. I'm playing Halo 3 online.
If I sell my copy of Hao 3... someone else is playing Halo 3 online.
In otherwords... the online costs for 1 person playing online at any time are ALREADY in the original purchase. A used sale effects that in no way.
Now if PC games started selling for 40 and had a 10 dollar online pass to stop piracy... you'd have a point. Even then you'd need a system to allow trasfers of code if you sell your game.
Kasz216 said:
I would guess that's only because your having a major disconnect in logic. A used sale of Madden 11 is NOT a sale of EA's product. They SOLD EA 11 to someone.... who then sold it back to gamestop. People fight for the resale value because once you buy Madden 11 from EA.... it is no longer EA's product. It's YOUR product. The person who bought it. It's PURELY about consumer rights. Fun story FYI. I don't sell games to gamestop. Ever. Nor do I play online on consoles. This actually benefits me because i'll be able to get games cheaper and don't play online. Either way it's a HUGE violation of customer rights. |
But it is. You don't own the rights to distribute, you don't own the IP, you don't own all the licenses. Basically consumers buying used games are buying the game from gamestop, but they don't own the rights to the game
Munkeh111 said:
But it is. You don't own the rights to distribute, you don't own the IP, you don't own all the licenses. Basically consumers buying used games are buying the game from gamestop, but they don't own the rights to the game |
Yes they do.
Otherwise you know... gamestops wouldn't be a problem because they'd be.... Illlegal. When you buy a game you do own the rights to distribute that copy.
Buying a used game from gamestop is no different then buying a new game from gamestop in terms of rights and the law.
Kasz216 said:
Yes they do. Otherwise you know... gamestops wouldn't be a problem because they'd be.... Illlegal. When you buy a game you do own the rights to distribute that copy. Buying a used game from gamestop is no different then buying a new game from gamestop in terms of rights and the law. |
It's not really about the law, but it is about not giving money to people who have made the game
Munkeh111 said:
It's not really about the law, but it is about not giving money to people who have made the game |
Once again.... why do they deserve money?
Think about this for a second.
John buys a game... hates it.
Sells it to gamsetop Jim buys it used.
Why should they be entitiled to Jim's money? John clearly hates it and sold it back.
All used sales do is punish people who convince people who don't like there games that they would like it.
Say I buy a game... I hate it. I give it to my friend for free. They no have to pay 10 dollars for the online... why? Why do they have any right to anymore money when the first purchase was very clearly an unsatisifactory outcome?
They already got their money for that purchasee.
If I buy some pasta at a restraunt take a bite and don't like it... and then give it to my girlfriend... should my girlfriend be forced to pay the restruant 5 dollars? Because they were the creators of the dish? That's completly asinine.
About Us |
Terms of Use |
Privacy Policy |
Advertise |
Staff |
Contact
Display As Desktop
Display As Mobile
© 2006-2025 VGChartz Ltd. All rights reserved.
