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

Forums - Gaming Discussion - what would be worse for you: used game ban or always online compulsion?

 

what would be worse for you ?

used game ban 7 9.86%
 
always online compulsion 34 47.89%
 
both are terrible 25 35.21%
 
i dont care. 5 7.04%
 
see results 0 0%
 
Total:71

fucking boomers go with the times pls stop holding us back



 "I think people should define the word crap" - Kirby007

Join the Prediction League http://www.vgchartz.com/predictions

Instead of seeking to convince others, we can be open to changing our own minds, and seek out information that contradicts our own steadfast point of view. Maybe it’ll turn out that those who disagree with you actually have a solid grasp of the facts. There’s a slight possibility that, after all, you’re the one who’s wrong.

Around the Network

Banning used games would be a terrible thing, but you would at least have a game after all is set and done. Always online would turn your games into digital nothing once the servers go down, and it would kill the used market as well, since noone would buy others' games if they knew they could disappear at any momment.



You know it deserves the GOTY.

Come join The 2018 Obscure Game Monthly Review Thread.

Speaking for myself, always online wouldn’t bother me at all. I like to game online even if it’s single player so the achievements are timed correctly and I can still chat with friends (depending how narrative focused it is). But that’s being selfish because there’s parts in the world that have dodgy internet. With Gamepass and Digital taking over, I see less issue with no used games but I still don’t like it. In conclusion, they’re both a non-issue with me but I still wouldn’t want it forced.



Always online is worse because that’s just them trying to control you.



Both are extremely terrible.  Part of the appeal of physical is that you don't have to be online though.  The most pro consumer position would be physical games + no online necessary.  The least pro consumer position is digital + always online required.  Trying to figure out which is worse is kind of splitting hairs.



Around the Network

I'm all digital and don't deal in used games. And practically I am online all the time, but if it was compulsory, that would suck.Anyways, both of those would be bad regardless.



I prefer bargain bin and budget editions to used, so used ban directly affects me less (anyway it can affect me indirectly, as it lowers the average bargaining power of all end users), while OTOH I consider an important and useful consumer right that single player be possible offline, but I consider both things very bad, unfair and anticonsumer.



Stwike him, Centuwion. Stwike him vewy wuffly! (Pontius Pilate, "Life of Brian")
A fart without stink is like a sky without stars.
TGS, Third Grade Shooter: brand new genre invented by Kevin Butler exclusively for Natal WiiToo Kinect. PEW! PEW-PEW-PEW! 
 


I think both are bad but really neither would impact me at all since I don't buy used video games and am always connected to the internet. Plenty of people aren't though so both would be pretty detrimental.



Both are terrible. If any of those happen to be true I'll probably stop gaming on console due to inconvenience

I don't have internet connection always available, cable network just sucks hard when I live. 3G is fine, but It's such a pain in ass having to connect my Switch to my mobile every time my cable connection stops working. And of course 3G is expensive, another not cool point to keep in mind 

But the perspective I can't buy used, neither I borrow friend games is deadly as well. Nowadays I can afford buying new, but when I was a teenager who had 3DS I could only afford second hand games. I also give some of my games to my cousin, which she loves, it wouldn't be nice I had to stop giving her my games



Both are terrible, but for me used ban would be worse as I buy a lot of used games on big discount when they aren't the highly coveted and antecipated by me titles. Always online isn't much of a problem outside of eventual trips but can really be annoying due to account share with my son.



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

Azzanation: "PS5 wouldn't sold out at launch without scalpers."