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

Forums - Gaming - Renting over buying? I think so.

Renting via Gamefly was great throughout the past year. I had to cancel it recently though, but I'd like to use it again. Sometimes you couldn't get access to the games you wanted on your list based on their supply and you'd have to wait around 4-5 days once you send out your game for a new one to arrive, but I was also able to play through great games like ICO, Zone of Enders 2, and Okami and a lot of other good/decent/crappy games this way.

I'd say it all depends on how good the game is, it's length, and how much replay value there is.

In the case of Mirror's Edge for example, I beat the game in one day and I only had enough interest left in trying to get a couple of trophies before I sent the game back the next day. Well worth avoiding the $60 price tag.



Around the Network

im not into renting anymore it cost over 10$ to rent for like 12 days here game now need more time to complete with all these trophies and stuff

i buy from wallmart open the package carefully keep the receipt play for 90 days if i loose intrest in the game or there is nothing more to do i carefully put it back and return it for a full cash refund



                                                             

                                                                      Play Me

runningonempty said:

I came across this article recently and pretty much have to agree with the guy. 
http://www.slapstic.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=161:why-theres-no-reason-to-purchase-a-60-single-player-only-game&catid=10:opinion-articles

I'll go a step further and say there aren't an overwhelming number of reasons to buy a $60 game period. Sure, once in a while there's something, but overall, there's just not a lot out there I can justify spending that kind of cash on. Particularly in a lousy economy.

I'm an avid gamefly'r and have been for a while. If I actually took the time to sit down and do the math I'm pretty sure my savings would be in the thousands. In the amount of time I've had gamefly I've cycled through at least that much from but my spending over the duration of my membership is only in the low hundreds. I find that pretty hard to argue with.

So what's the consensus? Is renting the better or more logical alternative to buying 99% of the time (small exceptions made for the truly exceptional)?

 

Actually there's one huge reason: if people start renting games more and buying games less then you will jsut get less games and less high quality AAA games.

Personally, I prefer buying because I like owning them and it generally takes me longer than a weekend to get through even a short game.



IllegalPaladin said:

Renting via Gamefly was great throughout the past year. I had to cancel it recently though, but I'd like to use it again. Sometimes you couldn't get access to the games you wanted on your list based on their supply and you'd have to wait around 4-5 days once you send out your game for a new one to arrive, but I was also able to play through great games like ICO, Zone of Enders 2, and Okami and a lot of other good/decent/crappy games this way.

I'd say it all depends on how good the game is, it's length, and how much replay value there is.

In the case of Mirror's Edge for example, I beat the game in one day and I only had enough interest left in trying to get a couple of trophies before I sent the game back the next day. Well worth avoiding the $60 price tag.

 

I recently had a similar experience with Afro Samurai. Cool game but way more style than substance. I was over it after a couple of hours and sent it back the next day. When you really think about it, that right there pretty much paid for my gamefly subscription a few times over.



"A samurai's word is harder that metal."

 

twesterm said:
runningonempty said:

I came across this article recently and pretty much have to agree with the guy. 
http://www.slapstic.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=161:why-theres-no-reason-to-purchase-a-60-single-player-only-game&catid=10:opinion-articles

I'll go a step further and say there aren't an overwhelming number of reasons to buy a $60 game period. Sure, once in a while there's something, but overall, there's just not a lot out there I can justify spending that kind of cash on. Particularly in a lousy economy.

I'm an avid gamefly'r and have been for a while. If I actually took the time to sit down and do the math I'm pretty sure my savings would be in the thousands. In the amount of time I've had gamefly I've cycled through at least that much from but my spending over the duration of my membership is only in the low hundreds. I find that pretty hard to argue with.

So what's the consensus? Is renting the better or more logical alternative to buying 99% of the time (small exceptions made for the truly exceptional)?

 

Actually there's one huge reason: if people start renting games more and buying games less then you will jsut get less games and less high quality AAA games.

Personally, I prefer buying because I like owning them and it generally takes me longer than a weekend to get through even a short game.

How do you figure? Gamefly buys huge quantities of games and has to continue buying them as stock wears out, gets damaged, stolen, or purchased by users. To stay on top of their business model they've got to keep investing in games so, if anything, they're actually helpful to the industry and renters benefit from the cost savings.

 



"A samurai's word is harder that metal."

 

Around the Network

I rent all the time, especially games I don't feel the need to purchase.



Not a 360 fanboy, just a PS3 fanboy hater that likes putting them in their place ^.^

runningonempty said:
twesterm said:
runningonempty said:

I came across this article recently and pretty much have to agree with the guy. 
http://www.slapstic.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=161:why-theres-no-reason-to-purchase-a-60-single-player-only-game&catid=10:opinion-articles

I'll go a step further and say there aren't an overwhelming number of reasons to buy a $60 game period. Sure, once in a while there's something, but overall, there's just not a lot out there I can justify spending that kind of cash on. Particularly in a lousy economy.

I'm an avid gamefly'r and have been for a while. If I actually took the time to sit down and do the math I'm pretty sure my savings would be in the thousands. In the amount of time I've had gamefly I've cycled through at least that much from but my spending over the duration of my membership is only in the low hundreds. I find that pretty hard to argue with.

So what's the consensus? Is renting the better or more logical alternative to buying 99% of the time (small exceptions made for the truly exceptional)?

 

Actually there's one huge reason: if people start renting games more and buying games less then you will jsut get less games and less high quality AAA games.

Personally, I prefer buying because I like owning them and it generally takes me longer than a weekend to get through even a short game.

How do you figure? Gamefly buys huge quantities of games and has to continue buying them as stock wears out, gets damaged, stolen, or purchased by users. To stay on top of their business model they've got to keep investing in games so, if anything, they're actually helpful to the industry and renters benefit from the cost savings.

 

 

I doubt Gamefly would buy enough stock to cover every gamer.  That would be just plain silly.  It would be nice for the first week or two of the games release but then they would be stuck with an insane huge overstock.



The only way that I will rent games is if it is a newer game that looks kind of interesting to me and I do not want to waste $60 on a game I possibly could not like. If I do like it though I will go out and buy it as I take forever to actually complete a game. I am not the type of person who can just sit down and beat a game in a weekend. I usually take about a couple weeks to actually beat the game. I also prefer buying because if I would want to go back and play a game after i have beat it I can because I own it.




Get your Portable ID!

End of 2009 sales predictions:

PS3 - 33 Million     360 - 40 Million    Wii - 75 Million

twesterm said:
runningonempty said:
twesterm said:
runningonempty said:

I came across this article recently and pretty much have to agree with the guy. 
http://www.slapstic.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=161:why-theres-no-reason-to-purchase-a-60-single-player-only-game&catid=10:opinion-articles

I'll go a step further and say there aren't an overwhelming number of reasons to buy a $60 game period. Sure, once in a while there's something, but overall, there's just not a lot out there I can justify spending that kind of cash on. Particularly in a lousy economy.

I'm an avid gamefly'r and have been for a while. If I actually took the time to sit down and do the math I'm pretty sure my savings would be in the thousands. In the amount of time I've had gamefly I've cycled through at least that much from but my spending over the duration of my membership is only in the low hundreds. I find that pretty hard to argue with.

So what's the consensus? Is renting the better or more logical alternative to buying 99% of the time (small exceptions made for the truly exceptional)?

 

Actually there's one huge reason: if people start renting games more and buying games less then you will jsut get less games and less high quality AAA games.

Personally, I prefer buying because I like owning them and it generally takes me longer than a weekend to get through even a short game.

How do you figure? Gamefly buys huge quantities of games and has to continue buying them as stock wears out, gets damaged, stolen, or purchased by users. To stay on top of their business model they've got to keep investing in games so, if anything, they're actually helpful to the industry and renters benefit from the cost savings.

 

 

I doubt Gamefly would buy enough stock to cover every gamer.  That would be just plain silly.  It would be nice for the first week or two of the games release but then they would be stuck with an insane huge overstock.

Well no, I didn't mean to imply that. More just that they are continually having to replenish stock for a variety of reasons. I don't know what number is actually workable from a business standpoint. I'm just saying that there's an ongoing investment and, therefore, money going to the industry on the whole.

 



"A samurai's word is harder that metal."

 

I just like having my own permanent collection. I like the idea of sharing these games with my kids, when the time comes.