Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

SilverMK2 wrote:

chaos0xomega wrote:I've heard you argue this before, and its as flawed an argument now as it was then. While it doesn't 'cost anything extra', it still requires the maintenance cost to upkeep the servers, pay the tech support crew, and to pay the developers to patch the game. That cost doesn't change. The money used to pay these people and maintain/upgrade these systems so that you can utilize and play the game, as well as so that the developer can continue to pay people to develop NEW GAMES, COMES FROM PURCHASING NEW COPIES OF THE GAME. By purchasing a used copy of the game, you are essentially piggy backing in off of someone else, for all intents and purposes, you are a parasite, taking what you want without giving anything back to the system and its associated workplace economy. While you aren't adding any extra load to the servers or anything, you are accelerating the degradation of the system by denying the developer an additional revenue stream which is used to maintain it and improve it.

Again, I'm going to point to pretty much every other industry which has a second hand market - books, cars etc... just like the games industry they seem to cope quite well with large 2nd hand markets. Car companies still try to attract people to their garages to either buy 2nd hand or service their car, buy spares etc (DLC) and can make quite a good return - after all they have already sold the car new, may have sold it 2nd hand again, and are making money hand over fist by servicing the car over the years. I've yet to hear of a car company going bust because people buy used cars, or a publisher going under because of car boot sales or even national 2nd hand chains.

If you buy a used car, you buy it knowing that it will not be as good as if you bought it new, it will be older, and more likely to break down, and a thousand other reasons.

If you buy a used book, you buy it knowing that it will not be as good as if you bought it new, it will be used, and likely slightly dog-eared and worn.

If you buy a used game, you buy it knowing that it will be EXACTLY as good as if you bought it new, the entire game will be there, and so there is no difference to buying the game new, apart from price.

If you want to buy a book or a car, you know that, if used, it will not be in as good a condition as a brand new item, this encourages you to buy one for the full retail price, as you are getting a superior product.
If you want to buy a game, you know that, if used, the only difference to a brand new product will be that the manual may be slightly worn, there is virtually no encouragement to buy a copy for full retail price, as you are getting exactly the same product for less money.

The only way for developers and publishers to ensure that the used game industry more accurately parralels the used car and book industries is to ensure that people that pay the full retail price get a superior product, be that in the form of one-time use DLC, or locking out features if you do not enter a one use code.

Kanluwen wrote:

Daedalus wrote:Part of the issue with responding to this is that no one can do it yet, as the game manufacturers are just now implementing this. For this conversation to have a point, we'd really have to revisit it 10 years from now, and see that either, this 'doomsday scenario' happens, or the sky isn't falling after all.

It's been implemented since Dragon Age: Origins, at the very least. The problem with responding to this is that people are seeing these announcements and not framing them properly in their heads. They view it all as an attack upon the customerbase, when in reality it's being done to screw over the spankers who own chains like EB/GameStop.

I didn't play Dragon Age, so I wouldn't know. My problem is this: I'm the client. I don't give a gak about their second-hand game wars. Solve it through legislation. Don't solve your non-technical problems through technical means. At the end of the day, I want a functional product that just works, and I don't want it to ARTIFICIALLY diminish, be it over time, or be it because a friend is done with it and gave it to me. I expect a car to diminish over time. I don't expect a (well taken care of) book to diminish over time. Same thing with movies. Same things with games.

And Microsoft isn't above turning off services that it deems unnecessary anymore. See their MSN Music service and Original XBox Live. Not the same as this specific situation, but a service is a service, right? Missing a part of your game because you're trying to play it 10 years later sucks.

So your argument is that ten years later, you should still be considered a customer even if it's a free service?

I do not believe that MSN Music was a free service. Multiplayer in games, in the case of XBox live, is something I consider a function of the game. I'm the client. I don't care that it's a service that Microsoft offers. It's a console. I see the back of the game box says it offers multiplayer, and so then I get it. If the ability to play it with others goes away after that, be it a year later, five years later, or ten years later, then the product that is offered is unfit for it's purpose.

Here is my counter to your argument: How often must you buy something from a company before you're considered a customer? Is the company being philanthropic to offer such service 'free'?

daedalus wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:

Daedalus wrote:Part of the issue with responding to this is that no one can do it yet, as the game manufacturers are just now implementing this. For this conversation to have a point, we'd really have to revisit it 10 years from now, and see that either, this 'doomsday scenario' happens, or the sky isn't falling after all.

It's been implemented since Dragon Age: Origins, at the very least. The problem with responding to this is that people are seeing these announcements and not framing them properly in their heads. They view it all as an attack upon the customerbase, when in reality it's being done to screw over the spankers who own chains like EB/GameStop.

I didn't play Dragon Age, so I wouldn't know. My problem is this: I'm the client. I don't give a gak about their second-hand game wars. Solve it through legislation. Don't solve your non-technical problems through technical means.

But here's the rub. It can be solved through technical means. Legislation probably would not accept this as an issue, since they'd rather just ban video games or whatever thrill of the week is going on.

At the end of the day, I want a functional product that just works, and I don't want it to ARTIFICIALLY diminish, be it over time, or be it because a friend is done with it and gave it to me. I expect a car to diminish over time. I don't expect a (well taken care of) book to diminish over time. Same thing with movies. Same things with games.

A well-taken care of book will diminish over time. A well-cared for movie will as well, through simple usage.

If a friend "is done with it and gave it to you"--you're not a customer of the developer. If your friend gives it to you, and knows that you'd need a code or something of that nature--he's a jerk.

And Microsoft isn't above turning off services that it deems unnecessary anymore. See their MSN Music service and Original XBox Live. Not the same as this specific situation, but a service is a service, right? Missing a part of your game because you're trying to play it 10 years later sucks.

So your argument is that ten years later, you should still be considered a customer even if it's a free service?

I do not believe that MSN Music was a free service. Multiplayer in games, in the case of XBox live, is something I consider a function of the game. I'm the client. I don't care that it's a service that Microsoft offers. It's a console. I see the back of the game box says it offers multiplayer, and so then I get it. If the ability to play it with others goes away after that, be it a year later, five years later, or ten years later, then the product that is offered is unfit for it's purpose.

Goliath wrote:
If you buy a used game, you buy it knowing that it will be EXACTLY as good as if you bought it new, the entire game will be there, and so there is no difference to buying the game new, apart from price.

Not necessarily. The beautiful full color manual and cloth map packaged with the game could be missing or damaged. Furthermore the game disc itself could be scratched to hell and only read every fourth time.

That's the analogue to the book's pages being dog-eared. What's going on here is Chapter 7 of the book disappears when the book changes hands.

daedalus wrote:

Goliath wrote:
If you buy a used game, you buy it knowing that it will be EXACTLY as good as if you bought it new, the entire game will be there, and so there is no difference to buying the game new, apart from price.

Not necessarily. The beautiful full color manual and cloth map packaged with the game could be missing or damaged. Furthermore the game disc itself could be scratched to hell and only read every fourth time.

That's the analogue to the book's pages being dog-eared. What's going on here is Chapter 7 of the book disappears when the book changes hands.

So I think we can now safely assume you have no clue what you're talking about.

The "analogue to the book's pages being dog-eared" is "the game disc could be scratched to hell and only read every fourth time"?

Oh, as a fun fact: places like GameStop will sell those scratched to hell discs to you at the price they set. If they don't work, you're SOL as they won't replace it.

Kanluwen wrote:
Your idea of "I should be able to continue playing it five or ten years later" is ridiculous. How many software products do you have that you can actually use after 5-10 years without having to run emulators?

I can natively play Deus Ex (the original) on my Windows 7 PC. I'm sure I could come up with others, but that's the one I chose as I was doing that just the other day. The original Diablo seems to work also, though it's dependent on finding an IPX wrapper for Win 7 if you want to play on the LAN. While that's annoying, there's a 'fix' for it.

Kanluwen wrote:

Here is my counter to your argument: How often must you buy something from a company before you're considered a customer?

What kind of stupid counter is this?

Apparently one so stupid you can't actually answer it, so I will try to elaborate as to what exactly I mean. You question whether you should be considered a customer ten years later. I'm sidestepping the 'free service' bit, because its not a free service, it's built into the cost of the game license/console, otherwise, they're doing it wrong. I don't honestly know how long someone should be considered a customer. I was inquiring as to what was reasonable. If you're NOT still a customer after ten years, are you one after five years? Are you a customer six months later? When do you stop being a customer, and need to buy something else to become one once again?



Automatically Appended Next Post:

Kanluwen wrote:
So I think we can now safely assume you have no clue what you're talking about.

It took you this long? I figured you'd dismissively written off any opinion other than yours as absurd before you first entered the thread. How about this one. I buy games. I buy them new. That makes me a 'customer'. No matter how much of a clue what I'm talking about, if I still don't like this, am I not just as entitled to my opinion as the next guy?

The "analogue to the book's pages being dog-eared" is "the game disc could be scratched to hell and only read every fourth time"?

Yup. "some physical damage but otherwise doesn't usually prevent accessing the content" is "some physical damage but otherwise doesn't usually prevent accessing the content". It's not a perfect analogy, I know, but I've never seen one that was. At any rate, it's a better analogy than calling content disappearing equivalent to "oh, it's just the pages dog-eared a little."

Oh, as a fun fact: places like GameStop will sell those scratched to hell discs to you at the price they set. If they don't work, you're SOL as they won't replace it.

I'm sure they will. There's a special place in Hell for those who dictate the practices and policies of GameStop and their ilk. I never once tried to argue that.

daedalus wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:
Your idea of "I should be able to continue playing it five or ten years later" is ridiculous. How many software products do you have that you can actually use after 5-10 years without having to run emulators?

I can natively play Deus Ex (the original) on my Windows 7 PC. I'm sure I could come up with others, but that's the one I chose as I was doing that just the other day. The original Diablo seems to work also, though it's dependent on finding an IPX wrapper for Win 7 if you want to play on the LAN. While that's annoying, there's a 'fix' for it.

Those are PC games, so not reliant on an ever changing format. Console games largely depend on you have a working console that runs the game. I'd like to play Pokemon Red, but I'll need an appropriate console. Whereas if I want to play Age of Empires, it still works on my PC, regardless of operating system.

Kanluwen wrote:
Here is my counter to your argument: How often must you buy something from a company before you're considered a customer?

What kind of stupid counter is this?

Apparently one so stupid you can't actually answer it, so I will try to elaborate as to what exactly I mean. You question whether you should be considered a customer ten years later. I'm sidestepping the 'free service' bit, because its not a free service, it's built into the cost of the game license/console, otherwise, they're doing it wrong. I don't honestly know how long someone should be considered a customer. I was inquiring as to what was reasonable. If you're NOT still a customer after ten years, are you one after five years? Are you a customer six months later? When do you stop being a customer, and need to buy something else to become one once again?

You stop being a customer the moment you trade in your original copy that you bought brand new, to Gamestop, or you're never one if you buy it pre-owned first time.

Kanluwen wrote:
So I think we can now safely assume you have no clue what you're talking about.

It took you this long? I figured you'd dismissively written off any opinion other than yours as absurd before you first entered the thread. How about this one. I buy games. I buy them new. That makes me a 'customer'. No matter how much of a clue what I'm talking about, if I still don't like this, am I not just as entitled to my opinion as the next guy?

You have as much right as anyone, but that doesn't make what you think any less wrong to people that think differently.

The "analogue to the book's pages being dog-eared" is "the game disc could be scratched to hell and only read every fourth time"?

Yup. "some physical damage but otherwise doesn't usually prevent accessing the content" is "some physical damage but otherwise doesn't usually prevent accessing the content". It's not a perfect analogy, I know, but I've never seen one that was. At any rate, it's a better analogy than calling content disappearing equivalent to "oh, it's just the pages dog-eared a little."

There's not a huge used book market. If people buy books, they read and then keep them for years on end, because you aren't getting very much at all when you trade them in. Compare that to games, that you can buy new for 40 pounds, give back to Gamestop for 25, who then sell it on for 35.

Oh, as a fun fact: places like GameStop will sell those scratched to hell discs to you at the price they set. If they don't work, you're SOL as they won't replace it.

I'm sure they will. There's a special place in Hell for those who dictate the practices and policies of GameStop and their ilk. I never once tried to argue that.

Agreed. The condition of the games I've seen being traded in are just stupid. Although, the big store here for pre-owned, which is Gamestation, checks each and every disk before they accept them. At least then you can be almost sure it works out of the box. Controllers though, they don't pay you for them, but they sell on pre-owned ones for stupid money,

Go ahead and try to play XCOM on your Win7 PC and tell me how well that works out for you.

iproxtaco, you could be playing Pokemon red within 15 minutes if you really wanted to. Simply go download the ROM and emulator. There ya go, you're playing it on your PC.

As for there not being a big used books market, have you ever been to Amazon.com?

iproxtaco wrote:

daedalus wrote:
I can natively play Deus Ex (the original) on my Windows 7 PC. I'm sure I could come up with others, but that's the one I chose as I was doing that just the other day. The original Diablo seems to work also, though it's dependent on finding an IPX wrapper for Win 7 if you want to play on the LAN. While that's annoying, there's a 'fix' for it.

Those are PC games, so not reliant on an ever changing format. Console games largely depend on you have a working console that runs the game. I'd like to play Pokemon Red, but I'll need an appropriate console. Whereas if I want to play Age of Empires, it still works on my PC, regardless of operating system.

Oh, yeah, in that case, 100% of all the games I personally own on consoles still work 100% without emulation at 100% functionality. I'm not sure that was the point Kan was trying to make though.

Apparently one so stupid you can't actually answer it, so I will try to elaborate as to what exactly I mean. You question whether you should be considered a customer ten years later. I'm sidestepping the 'free service' bit, because its not a free service, it's built into the cost of the game license/console, otherwise, they're doing it wrong. I don't honestly know how long someone should be considered a customer. I was inquiring as to what was reasonable. If you're NOT still a customer after ten years, are you one after five years? Are you a customer six months later? When do you stop being a customer, and need to buy something else to become one once again?

You stop being a customer the moment you trade in your original copy that you bought brand new, to Gamestop, or you're never one if you buy it pre-owned first time.

Okay, so my completely-in-the-future-hypothetical-hand-picked situation: I own the game. Whatever game that employs this business model. I bought it new and legitimately, x number of years ago. Y number of years ago, the company that produces "the game" stopped offering the ability to unlock this feature. Maybe the company went under, maybe the service died. Doesn't matter. I finally dust off my X-Station 720 to play it for a while. I find that my hard drive/memory stick/whatever is fried that contains the magic beans that make the little sewer hatches open. I then manage to replace/reformat/repair said drive, at the cost of the data on it. As I start to play, remembering that section of the game fondly as one of the cooler ones, my experience is diminished, as it's now inaccessible. As the customer and original owner of the product, do I not still have a 'right' to have that experience back? If not, why? How is it 'right' that this has been removed from the content because I decided to play it years later than the developer accounted for, and had to replace my system because hard drives are relatively short lived?

Maybe I'm an outlier, but yes, I do the above quite frequently. Once every few years, I go back to Fallout, the Ultima games, Planescape: Torment, even Starcraft. That's not including my oldschool console games. Sometimes games even older and more obscure. All news about things like this does is make me not want to buy the games that employ such schemes, period.

Yup. "some physical damage but otherwise doesn't usually prevent accessing the content" is "some physical damage but otherwise doesn't usually prevent accessing the content". It's not a perfect analogy, I know, but I've never seen one that was. At any rate, it's a better analogy than calling content disappearing equivalent to "oh, it's just the pages dog-eared a little."

There's not a huge used book market. If people buy books, they read and then keep them for years on end, because you aren't getting very much at all when you trade them in. Compare that to games, that you can buy new for 40 pounds, give back to Gamestop for 25, who then sell it on for 35.

Amazon is a fairly successful used book venue, and I think a good many people purchase used books from it quite often.

Again, I'm not saying that the game companies SHOULDN'T protect their interests. I'm not saying I can even as much as tolerate GameStop. I'm just saying there's gotta be a better way. And as far as this not effecting the companies, I'm not buying a game that I can't play as long as I have the physical media. Steam is something I was uncomfortable with for a long time, but I've come to terms with it because there's simple enough ways to backup/export your games. Steam is also a largely used enough service that I hope they would have the decency to release some means of 'unlocking' their games from the service, should they ever go under.

So once again, your example relies upon the game system in question going under and obsolescence being intolerable.

Do you realize how ridiculous of a stance that is, Daedalus?
It's like saying that Ford should service your Model T, because hey they made it originally right?

nectarprime wrote:Go ahead and try to play XCOM on your Win7 PC and tell me how well that works out for you.

Original XCOM? Yeah, probably wouldn't work. In that case, I'd try to DosBox it, but this is not really a question of hardware/OS incompatibility anyway, it's a question of a 'walled garden' being created because an activation service doesn't exist anymore. That's not something you can typically just emulate away.

You'd have to get lucky and hope for some sort of (dubiously legal) files found online at some sort of enthusiast's fan site to 'fix' the issue.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Kanluwen wrote:So once again, your example relies upon the game system in question going under and obsolescence being intolerable.

Do you realize how ridiculous of a stance that is, Daedalus?
It's like saying that Ford should service your Model T, because hey they made it originally right?

If my Model T had to call Ford when I started it so it could decide whether I had the version that could drive a max of 20 mph, or the version that could drive a max of 30 mph, and defaulted to 20 mph if it couldn't reach Ford? Then yes, yes I would.

If it's a standalone product that's completely functional that doesn't need permission to access the 'premium features' that I already paid for, like, for example, a Model T, then no, of course not. That's ridiculous.

My question is how are they able to tell if the game is "used" or not? I mean if I bought it new, my console dies and I replace it, will it still know that I purchased it new or because I have a different console it now thinks its "used"? Basically linking the disc to the console in their system.

daedalus wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:So once again, your example relies upon the game system in question going under and obsolescence being intolerable.

Do you realize how ridiculous of a stance that is, Daedalus?
It's like saying that Ford should service your Model T, because hey they made it originally right?

If my Model T had to call Ford when I started it so it could decide whether I had the version that could drive a max of 20 mph, or the version that could drive a max of 30 mph, and defaulted to 20 mph if it couldn't reach Ford? Then yes, yes I would.

If it's a standalone product that's completely functional that doesn't need permission to access the 'premium features' that I already paid for, like, for example, a Model T, then no, of course not. That's ridiculous.

Here's the problem between our stances I think.
You're lumping two things together that should not be lumped together, unless your intent is purely to confuse the issue.

These 'premium features' are not being held by the developer on the developer's servers. The registration to access these 'premium features' are not being held by the developer on the developer's servers.
They are being held by Sony and Microsoft. Developers publishing on the consoles have access to this method, thanks to the companies who maintain the consoles. The developers have to give a cut to Sony and Microsoft anyways, so why should they not take advantage of this system?

The UMK3 thing that Slarg brought up was a completely different story, in that Midway(the owners of the property) went under and were then bought out. The games were pulled from the Live Arcade for the reason that the property was exchanging hands and MS did not have a deal with the new owners of the property, not because of any kind of obsolescence.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Infreak wrote:My question is how are they able to tell if the game is "used" or not? I mean if I bought it new, my console dies and I replace it, will it still know that I purchased it new or because I have a different console it now thinks its "used"? Basically linking the disc to the console in their system.

The codes are registered to your Live/PSN accounts, not the console. This isn't like CD keys where you had just one and you had to buy multiple copies to use it on multiple PCs.

I'm way behind the times lol

Kanluwen wrote:
Here's the problem between our stances I think.
You're lumping two things together that should not be lumped together, unless your intent is purely to confuse the issue.

These 'premium features' are not being held by the developer on the developer's servers. The registration to access these 'premium features' are not being held by the developer on the developer's servers.
They are being held by Sony and Microsoft. Developers publishing on the consoles have access to this method, thanks to the companies who maintain the consoles. The developers have to give a cut to Sony and Microsoft anyways, so why should they not take advantage of this system?

The UMK3 thing that Slarg brought up was a completely different story, in that Midway(the owners of the property) went under and were then bought out. The games were pulled from the Live Arcade for the reason that the property was exchanging hands and MS did not have a deal with the new owners of the property, not because of any kind of obsolescence.

Though I'm still not a fan of single player content being held hostage through any online service, I do see your point. I suppose times are changing and my expectations surrounding this are somewhat...old-fashioned.

I wonder who would do the hosting for PC versions of the content for RAGE. I guess Id/Bethesda directly? I assume they're not just going to release it only as a Steam/Windows Live game.

I'll just leave this final point here from me:

The developers and producers of video games have no economic incentive to support the used game market. So they will instead support the new games market, which they do have economic incentive to support. No amount of nerdrage will change this. If you want to rage at someone, rage at gamestop for focusing so much on the used game market that the developers are forced to use these kinds of methods to make the amount of money necessary to continue making AAA games.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Oh, another note:


http://www.spacemarine.com/blog-post/space-marine-elite-pass-details

Space Marine will feature an ‘Elite Pass’ for the Xbox 360 and PS3 platforms. A single-use code will be printed on the back of the manual found in all new copies of the game which unlocks the full multiplayer experience. Players who don’t have the pass will have access to the entire single-player campaign as well as multiplayer modes and maps, but they will not be able to progress past rank 5 or unlock any of the associated upgrades. Users without an Elite pass will be able to purchase one for $10 through the Xbox Live and PlayStation Network stores.


FAQ:

Will multiplayer become locked out once I reach rank 5 without the Elite Pass?

No, players are free to play as much multiplayer as they like without redeeming the pass. Only progression past rank 5 is locked out.

Is customization tied to the Elite Pass?

The customization options will be available to all players. Certain weapons and cosmetic upgrades that are unlocked by leveling up would be unavailable unless the player progressed past Level 5 with an Elite Pass.

Do I need a unique Elite Pass Code for every user on my console?

No. One Elite Pass Code will give full multiplayer access to multiple users logged into the console where the Elite Pass Code was first activated (subject to the console manufacturer’s and THQ’s terms of service).

This is the same system they used for Homefront, I should note, and has no effect on PC gamers because the game is tied to Steam anyway so it's basically impossible to get a used version.

Mr. Self Destruct wrote:Oh look, another reason not to buy something from Bethesda.

This game is not by bethesda...

GalacticDefender wrote:

Mr. Self Destruct wrote:Oh look, another reason not to buy something from Bethesda.

This game is not by bethesda...

Bethesda is the publisher. Usually its the publisher who makes this kind of call when it comes to releasing games.

On one hand I can see why devs want to make players buy new games but on the other I can also see why people buy used.

Lets take game A:
Game A bought new with no added extras.
Game A bought used, may have minor damage but still useable.

Easily most would go for used, its the same game but cheaper.

So lets look at Game B:
Game B bought new comes with new skins for characters and other aesthetic items.
Game B bought used comes without said skins etc.

Most would probly still go for used, as its a case of hey look "I can turn my blue guy pink and give him a fuzzy hat". They would have to make some seriously cool skins/items to make me spend whatever the difference is.

So game C:

Game C bought new allows online play and DLC.
Game C bought used without online and DLC.

The new game would more than likely win here as theres a good chance I want to play online and I want the DLC.

Ill take "big bad" EA as an example here, I purchased ME1 for £5 PC since I couldnt pass up such a cheap game. Played it, loved it however if there was a code to some DLC that i didnt get then fair enough. ME2 came out and I bought it new because I wanted to see the ME franchise flourish(and I did feel a lil guilty over ME1). ME2 came with the Cerberus code which let me download select DLC for free, Awesome!

If devs want me to buy a game new then there better be a justification for it, if a new and used game are exactly the same ill go used everytime. Skins and aesthetic items dont fully interest me either. So items like select DLC is a way for me to get a new game.

So I actually agree with the devs in cutting content to try get users to buy new. Not that it matters now as the majority of my games will now either come from Steam or Amazon. The devs still get a cut of the pie and I get a new game at used game prices so everybody wins!

So some people got mad that Bethesda made a game and if it is bought used(from Gamestop for example) it will be missing some content. However, some people don't see an issue with Gamestop removing content from a new game as long as they get something for it from Gamestop.

Could be an act of revenge and if it is, I really, really enjoy it.

johnscott10 wrote:If devs want me to buy a game new then there better be a justification for it, if a new and used game are exactly the same ill go used everytime.

This is pretty much why they're doing what they're doing.

You want the full game, you buy new. You want a cheap game, you get an incomplete cheap game.

Melissia wrote:

johnscott10 wrote:If devs want me to buy a game new then there better be a justification for it, if a new and used game are exactly the same ill go used everytime.

This is pretty much why they're doing what they're doing.

You want the full game, you buy new. You want a cheap game, you get an incomplete cheap game.

The funny thing is that only 1 of my games was missing content, which funnily enough I never intended on using haha. It was one of THQs games online mode that I couldnt use. But my gf didnt realise that it would be missin that until after she bought it lol.

johnscott10 wrote:

Melissia wrote:

johnscott10 wrote:If devs want me to buy a game new then there better be a justification for it, if a new and used game are exactly the same ill go used everytime.

This is pretty much why they're doing what they're doing.

You want the full game, you buy new. You want a cheap game, you get an incomplete cheap game.

The funny thing is that only 1 of my games was missing content, which funnily enough I never intended on using haha. It was one of THQs games online mode that I couldnt use. But my gf didnt realise that it would be missin that until after she bought it lol.

What Melissia is probably trying to say is that times are changing and this is how developers are going to get people to buy new games versus the used ones for which they get no profit. But when you realize that you save only 10% off of retail price for what could be scratched to hell, missing the case, or even missing the manual it begins to seem not worth it. Add on the fact that there is DLC which you will miss out for buying used and then you will stop buying used. The DLC offered only has to be at least $5.99 to offset the price of a used game that would be $59.99 normally. Developers get to set the prices of their DLC too, and Gamestop can't touch that unless they start throwing in their own money by either dropping the prices of their used games, giving more for used games, or supplying gift cards with used games missing content. Seeing as though they don't reduce the price for "Game of the Year" editions they sell used and are therefor missing the extra content you would get for free if you bought it new, I doubt they would do any of that.

Same goes for buying ME2 used, you don't get the Cerberus Network card which means you miss out on a lot of DLC console-wise.

Guys, if you are getting such gak service from Gamestop, stop using them - if even a tiny proportion of your used game stories about them are true they shouldn't last a second in competitive retail.

A lot of what you are seeming to be saying is that Gamestop is the big bad evil and should go under rather than any comment on why games developers should be able to lock out more or less essential or core content to bought as new copies of the game and force buyers of used copies to buy their access to said core content.

SilverMK2 wrote:Guys, if you are getting such gak service from Gamestop, stop using them - if even a tiny proportion of your used game stories about them are true they shouldn't last a second in competitive retail.

Except for the fact that people don't understand this. I haven't bought from GameStop since 2006. My money is where my mouth is, I only buy games new from Best Buy, Amazon, or Steam.

A lot of what you are seeming to be saying is that Gamestop is the big bad evil and should go under rather than any comment on why games developers should be able to lock out more or less essential or core content to bought as new copies of the game and force buyers of used copies to buy their access to said core content.

GameStop is the big bad evil, and it's why developers are doing this.

This isn't a case of "1+1=3"--the developers are replying directly to a phenomenon that they've noticed. They know people buy many games used from retailers like GameStop, EB Games, etc.

I don't buy used games anymore. In fact, given Gamestop's attitude towards PC gaming (they absolutely LOATHE PC gaming because they can't sell the game used), I rarely ever buy from them, period.

I go into Gamestops occasionally just to see what games are out, and only ever buy from them if they have a game I can't get anywhere else new. It doesn't happen very often and the last title I bought from them was the Metal Slug Anthology for my PSP a couple of years back. I don't mind one of the Gamestops in the area though, the manager and I will chat sometimes about different retail things, but its the only Gamestop I would ever buy anything from. Again, because of the manager. Seriously, the dude had copies of LOTRO shipped from Delaware to Virginia for free which is pretty cool of him to do.


Other than that, I don't touch Gamestop with a 10 foot pole. As far as developers taking out essential content, good on them.

For all the people who are complaining.....


Buy the game legit?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Melissia wrote:I don't buy used games anymore. In fact, given Gamestop's attitude towards PC gaming (they absolutely LOATHE PC gaming because they can't sell the game used), I rarely ever buy from them, period.

Is Gamestop America's version of EB games [Australia] ? Because I know at least over here in Geelong, Victoria, Australia, the EB games guys have a very Escapist [zero punctuation] point of view to PC gamers, usually treating them a little better than the run of the mill console gamers But I think in your case Melissia, its either bad employees being biased, or your exaggerating a little bit. Regardless of employee attitude, Im sure you could still walk in to gamestop, pick up a PC game and pay the $60 or whatever it is in America, and get a smile from the person behind the desk. No reason to stop buying games from there.

EBGames and GameStop are one and the same.
They just name each differently.

It sucks for people like me who rent games :(