By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Gaming Discussion - Anti-used gaming policy is good for gamers.

Muffin31190 said:
dane007 said:

Oh i did read it and i wanted to post that. I could have corrected  my spelling typos. 

"And 3rd i'm sry but WHO THE HELL are you to say who should game and who shouldnt just because of a certain "socioeconomic" class, that shouldn't exclude them from the gaming experiences that we all enjoy, now I understand that if I don't make as much I won't be able to enjoy as much as someone earns more money but NO ONE should be excluded from gaming because of there economic backround" 

 

Are you telling me that peopel who can't afford the basic necessities in life wold think of gaming? You sure about that lol. What i am trying to say that peoeple who can't afford to ea t, drink , who live pay cheque by cheque would not have gamin on their priorites list. They woudl focuse on how to support themseles , fmaily , childrens education adn so on. Piracy if kept on going would have killed gaming in tghe long run. Its simple if you lend a friend to finish the sp cmapaign and then play the multilayr then its one loss of slae, you multiple by nillions of peopel whoho do that--- well you can do th emath as to how much dmage it does to companies. The DRM is to prevent doing that. Its time gamers pay games at full price or if not wait till it get discounted.. Used and second hand games should not exist

kk well i can barely understand you, and im guessing English is not your first language. Your logic is faulted with the whole piracy idea because guess what ever since there have been video games there has been piracy and guess what .... Piracy hasnt killed the industry *gasp*. And when you have Developers In the Gaming Industry openly going against DRM then i think we realize that it is all about GREED and not about Surviving Piracy. Also i think the average Human knows where their Priorities lie such as family, education, and for themselves to live, The way you stated it made it sound like Poor people have no buisness in gaming.

And just one more fault in your Logic, I BORROWED the game called Metal Gear Solid and guess what? I loved it so you know what I did, I bought every Metal Gear Game Since, but if I never would have borrowed that game then guess what? I would have never Spent the Hundreds of dollars I have on that series.

i nevre said  it ha skilled the industry. i siad if it keeps on goin glike that ,, it will kill it eventually. This gen saw alot more game companies shutting down due to lack of sales as mor emore people rather borrow from friends then pay for a game. Its not greed at al. Developers need ot make a living with all their hard ork they put into their games and if peopel now adays leach of friend then yes the have to implment policies to ensure you buy their games.

 

"Also i think the average Human knows where their Priorities lie such as family, education, and for themselves to live, The way you stated it made it sound like Poor people have no buisness in gaming.' 

 

Its true,, why would families pr peopel who can't afford basic necessities to support themselves , think about tgaming?  MP that you mention it how this anticonumerism ,, then what about consumer rights for free education and free health care in america? If i remember correctly,, Obama wanted free health care for everyone amd if i remember correctly he was labelled as a communist . I never saw anyone defending obama about it or bashing people who prevented free healthcare. NOw tell me is gaming more imprtant then free health care or even free education.?  If gaming is for evreyone then shouldn't free health care and free education  be on that list as well ? 

"And just one more fault in your Logic, I BORROWED the game called Metal Gear Solid and guess what? I loved it so you know what I did, I bought every Metal Gear Game Since, but if I never would have borrowed that game then guess what? I would have never Spent the Hundreds of dollars I have on that series.

"Lol theres no fault with my logic. You would fit within sharign to one froiend or sharing with 10 family members asa Ms hasn;t state what constitutes as family. My logic was referrign to many people in this gamin forum and may other gaming forums ,, where they have open admitted that they never buy game and that only play games borrow from friends. That my friend is stealing and damaging to the gaming industry. 



Around the Network
JWeinCom said:
dane007 said:
JWeinCom said:
dane007 said:
Serious_frusting said:
20happyballs said:
Serious_frusting said:
Everyone who owns a tv is not to let anyone else watch it, because tv companies are losing money so to gain profits a tv should be sold for every personal experience.

Oh, when you have a bluray or dvd remember not to lend it to someone or let they watch it because its anti director. What a load of crap.


The policy still allows you to share with family and friends. Its just reselling that is blocked. And besides, you didn't even address the main point of my post.


Which was what exactly?

How do you share? 


Its funny to read peopels post bashing anti used policy on cusumers and how we own teh game when we buy it. Most of you don't r realise that none of us really own the game we purchase. You own only the license to play it.  Thi s kind of thing have beebn happening for a very long time and it even happens on ps3 games. heres  one prOof from sony exclusive Resistance 2. qUOTE " Here is an extract from Sony's EULA for Resistance 2 (http://us.playstation.com/games/useragreement/resistance-2-ps3.html):

GRANT OF LICENSE. SCEA grants you a non-exclusive right to use this software for personal, non-commercial play on a PlayStation® computer entertainment system only. You may not (i) rent, lease or sublicense the software, (ii) modify, adapt, translate, reverse engineer, decompile or disassemble the software, (iii) attempt to create the source code from the object code for the software, or (iv) download game content for any purpose other than game play. You have no proprietary rights in any game content including game play statistics. SCEA may modify such content at any time for any reason. This software may include time and use restrictions. For time and use restrictions regarding this software, visit www.us.playstation.com/support/useragreement." The only difference this time around the publishers and developer are havign a close watch because of piracy. Yes it is piracy when you lend your license to yoru friend who refuses to pay for a gme and reaps the benefits of palying the entire sp campaign and then multiplayer. You want to play buy the game . Can't affordit, wait til it drops. not hard right? Forgot Steam incoporates similar policy to Used Game adn RM. Games on steam at the start are at tiems more expensive then retail stores. Its not as cheap as peopel make it sound like and some games youa re forced to launch it throught steam and be online like metro 2033

So, can I sell Resistance 2?  Can I give it to a friend?  Can I play it without connecting to the internet every 24 hours?  Can I play it without ever connecting to the internet at all?  Can I sell it on ebay?  Can I loan it to someone and get it back? Can I play it wherever and whenever I want and give it to whoever I want?  Yes on all fronts.  You can argue technicalities all you want, but the bottom line is I could do whatever I want with Killzone 2 so for all practical purposes I own it.  Furthermore, EULAs are not binding in many cases. 

LOL and because of the very facts you mentioned is the reason why policy like MS and sony (probably) will be implemented this gen. if people actually bought games instead of leaching then non of this would happen.


Rules of trolling:

If argument falls apart, change argument completely.  Repeat as necessary.   Throw in an lol.

Sorry to burst your bubble but i wasn't trolling. Nice try though. Just having normal convestaion   . Have a great day sir :)



20happyballs said:

I'm tired of everyone getting all worked up about Microsoft's used game policy. It's for the developers. It's not like it's greedy for developers to ask of this. Developers are not selling discs, they are selling entertainment experiences. It's only right that they be able to charge per experience given, not the physical discs sold. No one seems to have a problem with app store games not being sharable. 

In all actuality, an anti-used game policy is what is needed to keep the gaming industry alive. We all know that with improved graphic fidelity,  the cost to develop a game will also increase. Consequently, game developers will need to find a way to be able to continue making a profit. The most obvious way to address this increase in development costs would be to increase the selling price of games. However, many of us would respond badly, myself included. Sure people will still buy games brand new when they are first released, but it is likely that more and more people will start to wait for these games to become cheaper and buy it used. Which means that any increase in revenue brought on by the increased sales price would be offset by gamers waiting to buy games used. 

In the end, it is not only the developers who are going to lose out, but also gamers. The increased difficulty for a developer to turn a profit will means less AAA quality games, less new IPs, and developers taking less risks overall. We're already seeing the affects of increased development costs in the current generation. Why do you think so many developers are making first person shooters? Why do you think that many developers are making sequels instead of new IPs? 

 

 

 

Please see the brilliant Youtuber who explained precisely that no game studio has EVER gone out of business because of used games. Studios go out of business because they spend a ton of money and put out a crap game that does not sell. And this has nothing to do with used games. If 10 million people want to play a game, then the game needs to sell a minimum of about 7 million copies for all 10 million of those people to get to play the game when they want to play and for however long it is they want to keep the game. That game will be profitable, and give enough revenue to keep developing more games.

Used games never have and never will be a threat to developers who make consistently good games.



“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

 

20happyballs said:
Stefan.De.Machtige said:
20happyballs said:

I'm tired of everyone getting all worked up about Microsoft's used game policy. It's for the developers. It's not like it's greedy for developers to ask of this. Developers are not selling discs, they are selling entertainment experiences. It's only right that they be able to charge per experience given, not the physical discs sold. No one seems to have a problem with app store games not being sharable. 

In all actuality, an anti-used game policy is what is needed to keep the gaming industry alive. We all know that with improved graphic fidelity,  the cost to develop a game will also increase. Consequently, game developers will need to find a way to be able to continue making a profit. The most obvious way to address this increase in development costs would be to increase the selling price of games. However, many of us would respond badly, myself included. Sure people will still buy games brand new when they are first released, but it is likely that more and more people will start to wait for these games to become cheaper and buy it used. Which means that any increase in revenue brought on by the increased sales price would be offset by gamers waiting to buy games used. 

In the end, it is not only the developers who are going to lose out, but also gamers. The increased difficulty for a developer to turn a profit will means less AAA quality games, less new IPs, and developers taking less risks overall. We're already seeing the affects of increased development costs in the current generation. Why do you think so many developers are making first person shooters? Why do you think that many developers are making sequels instead of new IPs? 


Bold: Let me be clear...

*Serious face*

If the hope (or survival) of the gaming industry depends on stripping its customers of rights and services, then my friend, it deserves to die!

*Even more serious face*

(IMO)


They have never been rights. They have been privileges. Digital game purchases are not resellable and nobody complains. You know why? Its because reselling a game you've bought and played is not actually a right. And IMO, I'd rather accept the used game policy than let the gaming industry die. That's just selfish.

It is not a privilege, when money is put down by us we expect what we get. Games on the pc are cheaper that is why no one complains about them. The games on consoles look worse than pc games and cost more. So we expect owner ship when we buy it. I don't get this problem with music or movies. So why would I want this in gaming? If they want better sales they have to make better games.



Gamers arguing against used games sales is about as moronic as poor people arguing in favor of regulations that benefit the rich, at their own expense.



Around the Network

Another one of these threads I see...



 

 

Anti-Used is in no way good for gamers. My biggest issue is that it will be impossible to buy some older games. Sure, I can buy those in some shitty online store in the future for 69.99 €... Yeah, no thanks.

Besides, if video game makers somehow "deserve" to get a cut from used sales, what about writers? Movie makers? Musicians? Don't they also deserve something when their stuff gets bought used? How come no one's ever whining about that? I mean, sometimes some friends of mine come around and watch a movie with me that I bought! And they don't even pay! Those bastards!

It's just greed, nothing more. If the costs for making games becomes too high and you can't break even with a million sales... Then fucking bring down the costs, what the hell. You don't NEED one trillion dollars for marketing, seriously. Or make a game that sells even more than a million. But don't go whining about "no one buys my games, it's because of used games!". That's just bullshit and I can't hear it anymore.



Official member of VGC's Nintendo family, approved by the one and only RolStoppable. I feel honored.

scat398 said:
Watching all of this unfold reminds me of the music industry in the late 1990'-2000. For those of you that weren't born or weren't of age to know what was going on, the music industry almost completely folded up shop, because of those crazy kids and their used cd market. I still remember Garth brooks on late nite television talking about how the used cd market was destroying the industry, and the sad part is, he was right. At first it was just the used cd's and the digital age came and suddenly you didn't even have to by the music you could just share it with your closest million friends.

The problem isn't the gaming industry the problem is the consumer who wants to consume and not pay for it, and frankly gamers are even worse than the music stealers. Drm saved the music industry, without it, naps tee would have completely bankrupted the industry and Sony music and all the others would be gone, but apparently history is set to repeat itself again. Gamers swear up and down that it is their right to give away a game, copy it, pirate it, whatever they want to do with it, and preferably at no price at all!

But now the music industry is finally starting to comeback, digital music is now a common thing to actually buy and publishers get a cut of the sale and the used cd market is all but dead.

Gamers can either aling themselves with the music stealers or recognize that games like music are not a physical medium, they are a service and should be treated as such.

You must be joking, or is this a serious attempt at history revisionism?

Used CD market did not threaten the music industry, nor did lending CD's to friends.
Napster did, which is multiplication and falls under piracy, something completely different.
DRM did not save the music industry, catching up with technology and selling music per song for a compelling price did. There's nothing stopping people from sharing unprotected versions of a song, but it is now easier or easy enough to do it the honest way.

Are you really putting lending / giving away a game on the same level as copying and piracy?

Live music performances are a service, theater performances are a service, On-Live is a service.
Music CD's, DVD's/Blu-rays are a mass produced commodity.
You own the disc, you can give it away, you can resell it, you can make backup copies for yourself according to EU law.
You cannot distribute copies. See the difference?

Btw Used cd market is not dead. For example http://www.beatgoeson.com/ Still going since 1991



RolStoppable said:
Slimebeast said:
I agree with the OP 100%. The used games market must be crushed so that developers get more revenue and better budgets to create even better games for us all.

Not sure if serious.

Normally this would have to be a joke, but you are known to have some strange views. The most obvious one being that you abandoned the Xbox brand years ago, but are still rooting for Microsoft.

I am serious.

I don't like to have consumers rights removed per se, but I don't want gamers to put their money into the pockets of Gamestop and not supporting the developers.

And in general the industry is not in a huge need of revenue, no. The big publishers are totally rotten and money-hungry and most AAA games piss me off, but that doesn't change that a lot of mid-market games, good ones, don't get sequels because they weren't profitable.

I hate Microsoft and all their practices, I despise them and their attitude. But you know, it's still this thing with many Sony fans and their confidence and cockyness, many of them licking up everything Sony and never being able to criticize anything by Sony - and not the least all these fans being in such a huge majority - that makes me want MS and the Xbone to kinda shut them up.



Dark_Lord_2008 said:

You got me. This thread is obviously joke/sarcastic in nature. The arguments that have been used to defend the indefensible are laughable. Limit choice and force a lump it or leave it approach onto potential customers and XBox 360 owners wanting to upgrade to a next generation console. The golden rule of retail is that the customer is king and is right most of the time. It is easier to keep loyal customers happy than spend lots of money trying to win over new customers. A pro-corporate/anti-consumer/anti-competition policy that aims to maximise profits at the detriment of customers is destined to fail. 

I predict that XBox One sales and market share of the 8th generation will be well down on this generation both in terms of sales and in market share. I do not even see the XBox One reaching beyond 60 million console sales. Microsoft is paying developers not to promote or advertise PS4 games, another cynical business move. Microsoft is so desperate for sales and it is taking desperate measures to curb its upcoming failure in the 8th generation console sales wars. All the money MIcrosoft has spent to promote its system and build its brand will count for nothing if it finishes third/last place in the console sales wars again. 

lol did you copy/paste this text from somewhere else? Because it doesn't sound as your style.

But I agree about the 60 million part.