| Dusk said: DRM |
"Just for comparison Uncharted 4 was 20x bigger than Splatoon 2. This shows the huge difference between Sony's first-party games and Nintendo's first-party games."
sabvre42 said:
There is no subscription, but the game is entirely online. If they allowed used copies to work, they would bankrupt themselves. They have a projected cost (estimated play time) per player which could not be controlled if unlimited resales were possible. In a period of 5 years, the single game could be resold 2-12+ times. That's both server space and guaranteed service for all those people that contributed NOTHING for the said service. Additionally, the price is going to drop. How can they justify unlimited server time to an unknown number of players for unknown number of years for 10-30? |
I really disagree with that idea. When someone buys an used game they are not getting rights of online out of nowhere, those rights are going from the original buyer to the new user. The fact that the original owner doesn't own the game anymore doesn't change the fact that someone paid to use their services, even if it isn't the one playing right now. Videogame companies have to assume that the copy they sell is going to be used the maximum amount of time possible, and plan accordingly with enough extra content to compensate. If companies don't like that, they should go fully digital.
| JayWood2010 said:
For the record i dont agree with used game sells when used games are being sold only a day old |
Pretty much this. When gamestop resells a new game for 5-10 less than new retail... it's an industry that hurts the developers.
Unlike the whole piracy argument, those consumers do eventually pay for and buy the game. They just cheap out and screw over the developers to save a few bucks.
Pre-owned games ensure that more people play the game and have more money to spend on games.
While I understand why Bethesda would do this I believe that they could have achieved more success while building on their reputation by allowing the sale of pre-owned copies of the game.
If they want to see more revenue they should focus on releasing expansion packs and the like, not defending against the few and far between second hand sales.
This is the Game of Thrones
Where you either win
or you DIE
vivster said:
I'm a big fan of Steam ;) On an unrelated note, I went to Disneyland yesterday with a used ticket that I bought from my friend. For some reason they wouldn't let me in. Even though he already paid for entrance once. What a bunch of dicks. |
Lol. Your examples are ridiculous. But I can't tell if you're being serious or not, so I think I'll just not say anything more.
I bet the Wii U would sell more than 15M LTD by the end of 2015. He bet it would sell less. I lost.
Sounds good to me, it's digital on a disc... No need to get your panties in a bunch.
It is near the end of the end....
sabvre42 said:
There is no subscription, but the game is entirely online. If they allowed used copies to work, they would bankrupt themselves. They have a projected cost (estimated play time) per player which could not be controlled if unlimited resales were possible. In a period of 5 years, the single game could be resold 2-12+ times. That's both server space and guaranteed service for all those people that contributed NOTHING for the said service. Additionally, the price is going to drop. How can they justify unlimited server time to an unknown number of players for unknown number of years for 10-30? |
Then they should probably choose a better online model more suited for the console environment.
This could very easily be done on an offline game as well. There is, and likely from now on, will always be an online factor to every game even if there is no direct online player component so this kind of thing is likely just a sign of the times from Zenimax and Bethesda. Hopefully others don't follow suit.
Gotta figure out how to set these up lol.
Ka-pi96 said:
Except the existance of MMOs with no subscription but also no initial fee to pay debunks that entirely. If they can make money without actually selling a single copy then why can't Zenimax? |
That's sort of a strawman. Pay to win games are not the same thing. Do you really believe pay to win and subscriptions are the only doable model? Or is because you are being cheap and can't tolerate the developer getting proceeds from EVERY sale?
Darwinianevolution said:
I really disagree with that idea. When someone buys an used game they are not getting rights of online out of nowhere, those rights are going from the original buyer to the new user. The fact that the original owner doesn't own the game anymore doesn't change the fact that someone paid to use their services, even if it isn't the one playing right now. Videogame companies have to assume that the copy they sell is going to be used the maximum amount of time possible, and plan accordingly with enough extra content to compensate. If companies don't like that, they should go fully digital. |
Unfortunately in many ways this is a user created problem. From the likes of pirates to nut jobs saying they are going to boycott a game and get it used (contradiction btw). So the game is good enough that someone is willing to pay money for it, they just don't want that money going to the people that made it. So they would prefer to pay a company like gamestop money for selling them an overpriced used copy instead of just supporting the people that actually worked on and developed it.
People will just become more picky about what they buy if this kind of thing becomes a trend.
Gotta figure out how to set these up lol.
About Us |
Terms of Use |
Privacy Policy |
Advertise |
Staff |
Contact
Display As Desktop
Display As Mobile
© 2006-2026 VGChartz Ltd. All rights reserved.
