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.

20happyballs on 08 June 2013
Kantor said:

Since the majority of posts in this thread are entirely unhelpful: no, it isn't.

Firstly, you have the right to sell any physical copy of something you have bought. This is true of objects far more expensive to manufacture than a single copy of a video game: electronics, cars, private jets, cruise ships, and so on. People don't complain about the App Store because:

a) You have bought a digital product, not a physical one.

b) It cost almost no money to purchase.

Those two things are true, to a lesser extent, for Steam.

Secondly, someone on a tight budget is not going to be willing to spend as much on games if they don't think they will ever get any money out of it afterwards. Consider that you buy a game for $60, thinking that you can resell it for $20, and you will have paid only $40 for the game. At that price point, you will be more willing to buy any given game, and may buy more games in general. Microsoft could, of course, cut out the middleman and just cut the MSRP to $40, but that would require the agreement of retailers and publishers and so on, so it's a more difficult solution. Plus, this way anyone who wants to "spend that extra $20" as such and keep the game gives the full $60 to Microsoft/the devs/the retailer/etc.

Thirdly, you've seen the backlash whenever anyone tries a policy of this sort, and that kind of publicity will not help sales.

Finally, a reasonable response. I agree that your arguments are valid, but I don't think anyone made those rules mentioned above. They are just implied. We can resell our physical purchases because it would be far too hard to regulate that. Otherwise, I'm sure that manufacturers would opt for a non-resale legislation. 

Your second point is a good argument, but we honestly don't know the actual and overall impact on sales. Steam seems to be doing good despite the inability to resale full-priced games.





Around the Network
sc94597 on 08 June 2013

All it does is make the purchase of a video-game console less appealing to the poor and lower-middle class. In consequence somebody who would buy 1 or 2 new games a year on that console, will buy none as they would decide it's too expensive to own such a console at all if they must buy ALL their games new. Game sales will either remain the same, or in my prediction, DECREASE.

Anyway, fortunately we have competition and the free market where consumers can choose other platforms that do not restrict used gaming to game on.



Carl on 08 June 2013
20happyballs said:

Carl2291 said:
Maybe if videogame developers didnt think they were working on the next big fucking Hollywood blockbuster, they wouldnt need mediocre games with small fanbases to sell 10 Million units.

The best way to increase profit, would be to actually start making videogames that people want to buy. Gaining consumer trust would be a start.

Stop cloning Call of Duty. Stop putting out unconvincing videogames. Stop developing games for 4-5 Years at a time. Stop putting out overpriced, shitty DLC. Stop putting DLC on the fucking disc. Stop advertising your product as something that it quite clearly isnt. Make a compelling product.

- I'm sorry, but your post is blaringly ignorant.  You say "make a compelling product", that will answer all their problems. That is a complete insult to the hard working developers out there who are doing their best to make a game, but people don't end up liking it. It's much easier said than done. Many game developers are making games to the best of their ability. But as with every source of entertainment, enjoyment is based on personal preference and opinion. For the most part, game developers are making games in which they think would be enjoyable. However, it's hard to really create a gaming experience that everyone will appreciate.

These companies need to stop blaming the consumer and look closer to home for the problems.

There is a reason why the Indie scene is doing so well right now. Its because they release new, good videogames, that dont cost a lot to make... And are worth the price you actually pay. Its controlled development and the likes of EA and Square Enix could learn a thing or two.

- Personally, I've only found a handful of indie games that I actually liked. The reason is, as stated in my argument above,..my personal preference. Indie games just don't appeal to me. I'm addicted to the quality found in AAA games, which consequently makes the games impossible to develop cheaply. AAA games do give you an experience worth the price. It's just that the price to produce those games are more. There's no other way around it.  

 




Its an insult to dev teams who dont give a shit.

 

Videogame developers need to make a compelling product for it to sell. A shit game wont sell. A game with problems will have poor legs and will hit the bargain bin fast. It needs to have a target market and it needs to be able to appeal to that said market.

Define a AAA game for me, please.



                            

20happyballs on 08 June 2013
Wright said:
20happyballs said:

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.



Adminittedly, they are somewhat of an exception. But even they are relying on making sequels for the Witcher franchise. In regards to their development costs, it's important to find out how they were able to keep it down. 





tiffac on 08 June 2013
kowenicki said:

OT

Long term you are correct...... but its not really an issue anyway as the majority will all be digital sooner than people think.


Sir you just made the biggest reason why these restrictions are not needed for the physical media in the 1st place. Everything will probably go digital or at least the majority of the sales will be in the developed countries. So what is the purpose of these restrictions when the future is already set in stone?

I mean guys like me who have lousy internet would be alienated but not because my consumer rights where affected but because our internet infrastructure suxs and no one will blame thr industry for that.



Around the Network
Stefan.De.Machtige on 08 June 2013
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.

Selfish? The consumer is being selfish?

Lol :D

It's the industry which is failing their consumers, not the other way around. It's never the consumers fault. Not in any industry on this planet.



In the wilderness we go alone with our new knowledge and strength.

20happyballs on 08 June 2013
Carl2291 said:
20happyballs said:

Carl2291 said:
Maybe if videogame developers didnt think they were working on the next big fucking Hollywood blockbuster, they wouldnt need mediocre games with small fanbases to sell 10 Million units.

The best way to increase profit, would be to actually start making videogames that people want to buy. Gaining consumer trust would be a start.

Stop cloning Call of Duty. Stop putting out unconvincing videogames. Stop developing games for 4-5 Years at a time. Stop putting out overpriced, shitty DLC. Stop putting DLC on the fucking disc. Stop advertising your product as something that it quite clearly isnt. Make a compelling product.

- I'm sorry, but your post is blaringly ignorant.  You say "make a compelling product", that will answer all their problems. That is a complete insult to the hard working developers out there who are doing their best to make a game, but people don't end up liking it. It's much easier said than done. Many game developers are making games to the best of their ability. But as with every source of entertainment, enjoyment is based on personal preference and opinion. For the most part, game developers are making games in which they think would be enjoyable. However, it's hard to really create a gaming experience that everyone will appreciate.

These companies need to stop blaming the consumer and look closer to home for the problems.

There is a reason why the Indie scene is doing so well right now. Its because they release new, good videogames, that dont cost a lot to make... And are worth the price you actually pay. Its controlled development and the likes of EA and Square Enix could learn a thing or two.

- Personally, I've only found a handful of indie games that I actually liked. The reason is, as stated in my argument above,..my personal preference. Indie games just don't appeal to me. I'm addicted to the quality found in AAA games, which consequently makes the games impossible to develop cheaply. AAA games do give you an experience worth the price. It's just that the price to produce those games are more. There's no other way around it.  

 




Its an insult to dev teams who dont give a shit.

 

Videogame developers need to make a compelling product for it to sell. A shit game wont sell. A game with problems will have poor legs and will hit the bargain bin fast. It needs to have a target market and it needs to be able to appeal to that said market.

Define a AAA game for me, please.

There have been many incredible games that just didn't sell well. If only it were that simple...





Carl on 08 June 2013
20happyballs said:

There have been many incredible games that just didn't sell well. If only it were that simple...


You didnt define a AAA game for me.



                            

20happyballs on 08 June 2013
Stefan.De.Machtige said:
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.

Selfish? The consumer is being selfish?

Lol :D

It's the industry which is failing their consumers, not the other way around. It's never the consumers fault. Not in any industry on this planet.


Selfish in regards to your own opinion. You'd rather everyone lose out of a great industry, than lose your ability to sale a used game.





tiffac on 08 June 2013
kowenicki said:
tiffac said:
kowenicki said:

OT

Long term you are correct...... but its not really an issue anyway as the majority will all be digital sooner than people think.


Sir you just made the biggest reason why these restrictions are not needed for the physical media in the 1st place. Everything will probably go digital or at least the majority of the sales will be in the developed countries. So what is the purpose of these restrictions when the future is already set in stone?

I mean guys like me who have lousy internet would be alienated but not because my consumer rights where affected but because our internet infrastructure suxs and no one will blame thr industry for that.

the WHOLE industry wants it yesterday... they are just helping it along... helping it along.


I do believe there are better ways of helping the digital age come along. PSN, Xbox Live and Steam has already shown it can work without the restrictions to physical media. :/