94 posts in this topic

By improving profit margins I mean they only offer DRM solutions to the table, and faster hardware to handle the DRM and growth of lazy coders/bloatware, and strong-arming a cut of every game sales with revocation of resale value by enacting an unlock code. I don't hear anything about revolutionary gaming, amazing features, or anything that is a selling feature so far above and beyond whats capable on the 360. Its very likely ALL 360 support will be dropped (live servers offline as well) as soon as the new unit is launched - thus forcing the console upon us just like with the original xbox. Im sure the 360->next xbox ports will play amazing though.. Im just not buying it.

SNES pricing wasn't good but there wasn't market saturation either. ROI was unknown as it was an untouched market. Now you can go to college to specialize in only adding shadows to 3D elements. Add in super fast computers and robust SDK's - employing thousands of folks to develop don't mean they ALL do it at once. Each one may spend a couple hours working on a single title opposed to months previous with a small team completing it.

They'll most likely scale back with the Xbox 360 but they won't stop supporting it completely. A lot of people will still use it even after the next-gen Xbox is launched.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Where does it say that?

If anything Microsofts dev tools are going to suck because Microsoft wants developers to use MS libs for developing which means overheads. With Sony developers can do what they want which means being able to super optimise their games and squeeze every last ounce of power out of the hardware they can.

You made your own conclusion and I made mine from OP. I don't think all companies want to "work directly on metal" and most use several middleware libraries. That quote sounds like nextBox has its dev. tools in better shape than PS4. If you think that's somehow bad and unique to Microsoft or Xbox then I don't have anything more to say.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sony doesn't just throw them in at the deep end and make them work it out for themselves, MIcrosoft are FORCING developers to use their libs which means they won't be able to code to the hilt, Sony has their own dev tools and libs but developers don't HAVE to use them if they don't want.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, cause everyone is willing to wait in line for one freaking copy to save $5-$20 off the retail price. Your worst case scenario is not a realistic one. In reality the vast majority of people who exclusively buy used games will not purchase new games, in which case the developer isn't losing anything. Instead they are getting their foot in the door with the consumer, hence the possibility of a repeat customer on their next release (the most important thing any salesmen would want).

Seriously... read what you yourself write. And then they should just wait for the game to be in the bargain, been. brand new game for same price as a resurfaced used one. AND you help the developer, not Gamestop make money.

Its not our fault that the developers spend more money than movie studios and have to nickel and dime us to get a profit. And this is coming from someone who almost never buys used games.

actually it is our faults. we're the ones who wants games with great stories, storytelling, graphics, sounds, cinematics, long games.... and so on. Also I don't think you know what nickel and diming means.

Repeatedly unfinished content has be released after the game and marked up in price despite being budgeted for the original development process. Is that really fair?

I don't think you understand how at launch DLC works either. games are developed with certain goals. either way the game that is released is the full game. the extra DLC is generally developed by a second or even third team. it doesn't matter if it's released at or soon after launch, it's still separate extra content.

And most games make their money on release, where there are no used copies available. And many gamers buy games to collect them, in fact I have 5 copies of Halo CE and 3 copies of Chromehounds.

If by most, you mean high sales AAA games like COD and such then yeah. however this doesn't mean that the developer doesn't deserve more. and need more to make new games, you don't survive to make new games by making back your money.

and again, why should you give gamespot your money instead of giving it to the guys who actually made the game by buying cheap from the bargain bin.

The only way for you to possibly see reselling of games as an actual financial problem for developers/publishers is for it to be considered in the worst possible scenario. And that's that around a 1000 people buy the game, and that 1000 copies is redistributed among the rest of the world. This will never be the case, ever. If someone likes a game, studio or publisher they are highly more likely to purchase into it upon release, which means (as I said before) that used games can get a foot into the door for many developers and bring repeat business. Would you rather someone never buy a game from you because they are a) not sure about it and b) don't want to fork over $60? Or, would you rather lose out on a $60 sale for them to buy all your releases from then on day 1? Perhaps lose $60 (which you aren't actually losing, you just aren't making it) so that you can make $60 * X number of subsequent releases?

Well to start with I called it a super extreme scenario. and while most publishers and devs aren't hugely effected to it to the degree of bankruptcy, studios have closed because lack of financial, despite their games having enough popularity that they should have survived. so why did they close ? 2nd hand sales, unsupported renting(renting companies who don't pay back) and piracy. And as I said, any lost income affects the studio negatively.

Business wise, I'd want the latter. Developer wise, same thing.

This is why I just don't understand the games industrie's beef with resale.

Again you're ignoring bargain bin sales. The industry is blocking 2nd hand sales because they have actual numbers that sow how much they lose on it, something you don't. and because people are buying their fully 100% usable as new products without anything going to them.

2nd hand could be accepted if shops that offered trade in split the profits 50/50 with the developer. as it is, 2nd hand IS a rip off. however the only ones getting ripped off is the customer and the developers. Notice how the stores who do 2nd hand either don't have bargain bins, or reduced price on older games, or their bargain bins and old game prices are significantly higher than that of other stores.

Sony doesn't just throw them in at the deep end and make them work it out for themselves, MIcrosoft are FORCING developers to use their libs which means they won't be able to code to the hilt, Sony has their own dev tools and libs but developers don't HAVE to use them if they don't want.

The difference is that MS dev tools are extremely efficient to start with so there's little benefit to machine code. besides that, sorry but NO PS has ever allowed you to code that low level. you HAVE to use libs and such on the PS to, you just have to use Sony's crappier ones. allowing low level and/or machine code coding is pretty much the same as saying "Hey come for us, we have an open door to let in malware and exploits to people can pirate your and everyone elses games on our platform".

on top of MS libraries being more efficient, they're also more effective and easier to work with from a developer perspective, letting you peak faster and develop faster.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Seriously... read what you yourself write. And then they should just wait for the game to be in the bargain, been. brand new game for same price as a resurfaced used one. AND you help the developer, not Gamestop make money.

Or new games will lose the competition of used games and become like Nintendo First Party titles, never dropping in price until a new iteration of the series is released. If we think they are being greedy now with the want to destroy the resale market, wait until they control how much you pay and for how long. $60+ games for years until they release a new one (which will be conveniently when the sales of its predecessor drop). I'm not in the mood for games that never go down in price.

actually it is our faults. we're the ones who wants games with great stories, storytelling, graphics, sounds, cinematics, long games.... and so on. Also I don't think you know what nickel and diming means.

I know it isn't my fault. To be honest, only one thing matters in a game, and that's the gameplay itself. I could care less if it looked like real life or if the story was brilliant so long as I enjoy the mechanics and their execution. That's what makes a game a game. Some of the best games have the worst stories, actually. I barely even care about Skyrim's story (I enjoy the exploration mechanic). And I do know what nickel and diming means. They already do it in spades with DLC, Subscription/Online passes, etc. They try and scrounge every last bit of money out of you. I remember when DLC was free as was the privelage to play online. In fact, most game budgets go to creating online components which are usually the highest point of expenditure do to the amount of work and resources behind providing such a component. So, in fact, if games like Assassin's Creed and Dead Space 2/3 eliminated their multiplayer portions they probably would have lower dev costs.

I don't think you understand how at launch DLC works either. games are developed with certain goals. either way the game that is released is the full game. the extra DLC is generally developed by a second or even third team. it doesn't matter if it's released at or soon after launch, it's still separate extra content.

The problem isn't what "team" is developing it, its about what money was budgeted for what content on release. Even if there are 20 different teams working on DLC/extra content for the game that is planned to be part of the release game, they should be budgeted into the initial cost of producing the game. Yet, on many occasions unfinished content from a game's dev cycle has been released post launch as payed DLC (this has happened). So if you want more evidence of "nickel and diming" here it is.

If by most, you mean high sales AAA games like COD and such then yeah. however this doesn't mean that the developer doesn't deserve more. and need more to make new games, you don't survive to make new games by making back your money.

and again, why should you give gamespot your money instead of giving it to the guys who actually made the game by buying cheap from the bargain bin.

You speak as if every developer self publishes. There are many ways to get money without directly using the profit from previous games (investments, etc). So even if your game breaks even, if it is a hit/cult classic or whatever type of promising product you have the possibility of signing on with a publisher, getting an initial investment in development costs and pushing out another game. In this case the publisher will more than likely advertise said game (helping guarantee more sales), have a set allotment of copies for release (the publisher pays the dev, not the consumer) and then prints those and makes money off that. Many studios are not self published and that includes non-AAA studios. Then we have stuff like Kickstarter, for example. To think its a linear make game -> sell game -> make profit to make more games is ignorant.

Well to start with I called it a super extreme scenario. and while most publishers and devs aren't hugely effected to it to the degree of bankruptcy, studios have closed because lack of financial, despite their games having enough popularity that they should have survived. so why did they close ? 2nd hand sales, unsupported renting(renting companies who don't pay back) and piracy. And as I said, any lost income affects the studio negatively.

Name one example where second-hand sales was the primary reason a company went out of business. I'll bet you won't find any.

Again you're ignoring bargain bin sales. The industry is blocking 2nd hand sales because they have actual numbers that sow how much they lose on it, something you don't. and because people are buying their fully 100% usable as new products without anything going to them.

2nd hand could be accepted if shops that offered trade in split the profits 50/50 with the developer. as it is, 2nd hand IS a rip off. however the only ones getting ripped off is the customer and the developers. Notice how the stores who do 2nd hand either don't have bargain bins, or reduced price on older games, or their bargain bins and old game prices are significantly higher than that of other stores.

A resold game is anything but 100%. In fact, most used games I've bought don't last without extreme care. Also, keep in mind a lot of my "second hand" game purchases are repurchases where my disc either broke or I'm buying the game for a friend and don't feel like spending full price a second time. The picture being painted of resale is that only cheap, disrespectful people buy those games. Yet there are many types of people who do purchase used games such as myself as well as buy the new copies. I'd be more inclined to look the other way if the games I bought were backed by a disc warranty which replaced them if they broke or something, but as it stands the way games are sold they are not sold as a licence but a physical product. With eliminating used sales, the game industry is trying to have their cake and eat it to.

You will have to buy a game at full price and pay for the licence to use it every time you do so as well. How is that a licence? If games were like a license, I could pay for the disk separately from the ability to play it. For example, with Windows 8 I can buy the license digitally and the disc separately for another $20. Can we do this with games? No. You want a new disc? Fork over $60+. The games as licence argument fails because that is not how they are sold, the principle does not apply.

And Gamestop has perfectly fine pricing. Its not the pricing that's a ripoff, its the trade-ins that are a ripoff. Also keep in mind their pricing is based on supply and demand as well as the age of the game. So thinking of it that way... If they have a highly demanded used game (which is almost always a highly demanded new game as well) they will bump up the price a lot (as well as the amount they pay you for a trade-in). Thus the games that are highly demanded are probably 1) hard to find 2) difficult to get trade-ins for and 3) probably sell a lot of new copies as a result of people looking for used ones when entering the store.

There is a lot going on in the background that you are conveniently ignoring just to paint them as evil moneygrubbers. People seem to forget there is a sales process that occurs in such stores. I'm not even entertaining the fact that places like Gamestop constantly provide trade-in incentives for new games/hardware. I traded in my old 360 for a brand new 360's. I guess we never thought about old game sales working towards earning money for developers directly?. But then again, that stuff doesn't matter because re-selling is evil.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Or new games will lose the competition of used games and become like Nintendo First Party titles, never dropping in price until a new iteration of the series is released. If we think they are being greedy now with the want to destroy the resale market, wait until they control how much you pay and for how long. $60+ games for years until they release a new one (which will be conveniently when the sales of its predecessor drop). I'm not in the mood for games that never go down in price.

Steam says hi. and says that your argument is flawed sicne the inability to do second hand sales, so far have only resulted in far reduced bargain bin prices.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know it isn't my fault. To be honest, only one thing matters in a game, and that's the gameplay itself. I could care less if it looked like real life or if the story was brilliant so long as I enjoy the mechanics and their execution. That's what makes a game a game. Some of the best games have the worst stories, actually. I barely even care about Skyrim's story (I enjoy the exploration mechanic). And I do know what nickel and diming means. They already do it in spades with DLC, Subscription/Online passes, etc. They try and scrounge every last bit of money out of you. I remember when DLC was free as was the privelage to play online. In fact, most game budgets go to creating online components which are usually the highest point of expenditure do to the amount of work and resources behind providing such a component. So, in fact, if games like Assassin's Creed and Dead Space 2/3 eliminated their multiplayer portions they probably would have lower dev costs.

Apparently you don't know what nickel and diming is, since not only are you using it pretty much the opposite of what it means, you're using it on the wrong party. DLC was never free. there have been free "levels" released, that still happens. DLC today however have more in common with the old Addon packs, well actually they're pretty much the same thing, except DLC is fully digital. Addon packs had to be paid for.

online still is free. for the original purchaser, online passes where created because of 2nd hand sales. so bargain bin is a better deal for everyone.

and no, the online portion of Assassins creed was by no means the most expensive portion of the game. seriously... at least try to be taken seriously.

The problem isn't what "team" is developing it, its about what money was budgeted for what content on release. Even if there are 20 different teams working on DLC/extra content for the game that is planned to be part of the release game, they should be budgeted into the initial cost of producing the game. Yet, on many occasions unfinished content from a game's dev cycle has been released post launch as payed DLC (this has happened). So if you want more evidence of "nickel and diming" here it is.

No, you buy "this" game package, any addon is developed for extra money and sold as a separate addon. all games can be finished start to finish without the need for extra pay for DLC.

if you're going to argue that point then you should also argue that ME2 and ME3 should be part of the price for ME1 :rolleyes:

You speak as if every developer self publishes. There are many ways to get money without directly using the profit from previous games (investments, etc). So even if your game breaks even, if it is a hit/cult classic or whatever type of promising product you have the possibility of signing on with a publisher, getting an initial investment in development costs and pushing out another game. In this case the publisher will more than likely advertise said game (helping guarantee more sales), have a set allotment of copies for release (the publisher pays the dev, not the consumer) and then prints those and makes money off that. Many studios are not self published and that includes non-AAA studios. Then we have stuff like Kickstarter, for example. To think its a linear make game -> sell game -> make profit to make more games is ignorant.

Noe even sure what you're tryign to argue here. whoever publishes the game, you still need to make money on it.

as for kickstarter. NO game so far has been 100% funded by kickstarter. well no game except tiny short indie games. even the new WC and Elite games who have record kickstarter campaigns, aren't wholly funded by kickstarter, those millions are mere pocket change compared to what is need to make those games, kickstarter for them is two things. marketing and incentive for the real money backers.

Name one example where second-hand sales was the primary reason a company went out of business. I'll bet you won't find any.

primary or not, there are several companies where second hand made a significant part of why.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If this is the case then I am buying a PS4...assuming sony doesnt pull the same BS.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A resold game is anything but 100%. In fact, most used games I've bought don't last without extreme care. Also, keep in mind a lot of my "second hand" game purchases are repurchases where my disc either broke or I'm buying the game for a friend and don't feel like spending full price a second time. The picture being painted of resale is that only cheap, disrespectful people buy those games. Yet there are many types of people who do purchase used games such as myself as well as buy the new copies. I'd be more inclined to look the other way if the games I bought were backed by a disc warranty which replaced them if they broke or something, but as it stands the way games are sold they are not sold as a licence but a physical product. With eliminating used sales, the game industry is trying to have their cake and eat it to.

You will have to buy a game at full price and pay for the licence to use it every time you do so as well. How is that a licence? If games were like a license, I could pay for the disk separately from the ability to play it. For example, with Windows 8 I can buy the license digitally and the disc separately for another $20. Can we do this with games? No. You want a new disc? Fork over $60+. The games as licence argument fails because that is not how they are sold, the principle does not apply.

And Gamestop has perfectly fine pricing. Its not the pricing that's a ripoff, its the trade-ins that are a ripoff. Also keep in mind their pricing is based on supply and demand as well as the age of the game. So thinking of it that way... If they have a highly demanded used game (which is almost always a highly demanded new game as well) they will bump up the price a lot (as well as the amount they pay you for a trade-in). Thus the games that are highly demanded are probably 1) hard to find 2) difficult to get trade-ins for and 3) probably sell a lot of new copies as a result of people looking for used ones when entering the store.

There is a lot going on in the background that you are conveniently ignoring just to paint them as evil moneygrubbers. People seem to forget there is a sales process that occurs in such stores. I'm not even entertaining the fact that places like Gamestop constantly provide trade-in incentives for new games/hardware. I traded in my old 360 for a brand new 360's. I guess we never thought about old game sales working towards earning money for developers directly?. But then again, that stuff doesn't matter because re-selling is evil.

Yes, a resold game is 100% the same game. sure the disc may be scratched or resurface and the box may be a bit worn, but they're not the game. the game itself is 100% the same

and if your disc broke. umm pretty much all publishers, that is ALL because it's regulated, has services where you can order replacement discs for a small price. that small price is far smaller than even the cheapest second hand as it's just materials and shipping.

no games are sold as two entieites the physical copy and the licence to play it, you need both. in general. but not always. and as I said, if MS is doing this, that probably means they're mixing digital cownloads and physical and your disc comes with a code allowing you access to the DD and the disc is merely an alternative install option.

actually both the sell price and trade in price at gamestop is a ripoff. the price is a ripoff when a brand new copy can be grabbed from the bargain bin at another store for the same or nearly the same price.

so now you changed your stance again, I thought those who bought used games would NEVER buy new games :rolleyes:

If this is the case then I am buying a PS4...assuming sony doesnt pull the same BS.

As I said before, IF MS is doign this they're doing it only for one of two reasons

1: Sony is also doing it and the publishers are forcing their hand most likely, either way both consoles will have it.

2: the publishers promised MS that as long as they have a 2nd hand sales in effect and sony doesn't they will exclusively release all titles on the nextbox. in which case MS did the coup of the century.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As I said before, IF MS is doign this they're doing it only for one of two reasons

1: Sony is also doing it and the publishers are forcing their hand most likely, either way both consoles will have it.

2: the publishers promised MS that as long as they have a 2nd hand sales in effect and sony doesn't they will exclusively release all titles on the nextbox. in which case MS did the coup of the century.

Then WiiU it is. PC is turning into must always be online as well.

I don't mind them limiting 2nd hand game sales because it rarely affects me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As a WiiU owner, the WiiU is not a next gen device. it's more of a 7.2 generation device.

either way, look at it this way, if MS and Sony lets them lock games from 2nd hand sales, they're going to do the same on PC or drop the PC.

if they do option 1, then PC is out with sony...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Apparently you don't know what nickel and diming is, since not only are you using it pretty much the opposite of what it means, you're using it on the wrong party. DLC was never free. there have been free "levels" released, that still happens. DLC today however have more in common with the old Addon packs, well actually they're pretty much the same thing, except DLC is fully digital. Addon packs had to be paid for.t

When Halo 2 was out, the online component was free (no "passes") and the first few DLC map packs were 100% free. DLC was free at one point. And nickel and dimining means many things dependent on context, in this context in means charging many times in order to increase your profit, effectively this definition:

"1. To drain or destroy bit by bit, especially financially: nickel-and-dimed the project to death."

link: http://www.thefreedictionary.com/nickel-and-dime

No, you buy "this" game package, any addon is developed for extra money and sold as a separate addon. all games can be finished start to finish without the need for extra pay for DLC.

Yet there have been situations where that is not the case. You can state the contrary but the fact is it does, has and will continue to happen.

if you're going to argue that point then you should also argue that ME2 and ME3 should be part of the price for ME1 :rolleyes:

/facepalm

Noe even sure what you're tryign to argue here. whoever publishes the game, you still need to make money on it.

as for kickstarter. NO game so far has been 100% funded by kickstarter. well no game except tiny short indie games. even the new WC and Elite games who have record kickstarter campaigns, aren't wholly funded by kickstarter, those millions are mere pocket change compared to what is need to make those games, kickstarter for them is two things. marketing and incentive for the real money backers.

My point is in order to make money you need to spend money. The basics of creating a product and selling it. Take a loss to get profit down the line. Sure, they bought Gears of War in the used games section but they bough the Collectors Editions of Gears 2 and 3 afterwards, that's a profit in and of itself. That's my point, yet the gaming industry acts like that isn't an option and is a crime against their hard work.

primary or not, there are several companies where second hand made a significant part of why.

Examples?

Yes, a resold game is 100% the same game. sure the disc may be scratched or resurface and the box may be a bit worn, but they're not the game. the game itself is 100% the same

So the fact you need the disc to play said game has no relation to anything? I mean, your getting the exact same product even if 80% of the way through the game the game bugs out because of a scratch, right?

and if your disc broke. umm pretty much all publishers, that is ALL because it's regulated, has services where you can order replacement discs for a small price. that small price is far smaller than even the cheapest second hand as it's just materials and shipping.

That "small" price is $20+tax+shipping and a 5-10 day wait and is usable only once per game (360). On top of that you have to ship them your previous disc which must be 80% intact, send them your 360's id number, etc. That's a lot for a simple replacement when I can drive down the street, spend maybe $3 on gas, pick up a used copy for $29 in 15 minutes. But oh no, that's a lost sale for the developer, right?

actually both the sell price and trade in price at gamestop is a ripoff. the price is a ripoff when a brand new copy can be grabbed from the bargain bin at another store for the same or nearly the same price.

Gamestop's prices are usually $5-$10 lower than everyone else, that's specifically because they pay you so little for a tradein. I think for a $20 used game they'll pay you $7 on trade in.

so now you changed your stance again, I thought those who bought used games would NEVER buy new games :rolleyes:

/facepalm 2 you just don't want to understand how selling something works, do you?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So what are the examples of games that can't be finished with DLC? particularly paid DLC.

and just because some games have released free DLC doesnt' mean everyone should. especially since the content in Halo DLC was about a microfraction of the cost to develop compared to the cost of DLC today.

and your facepalm I guess is because you didn't actually have a counter argument and you realized how stupid your original argument was then.

see the thing is with your argument, there would potentially never have been any Gears of War 2 and 3 to buy collectors editions of. collectors editions are only mean for a small amount of collectors anyway, not to fill the bottom line. you can't lose money for the 2-4 years it takes to make the first game and then not make money for th next 2 years until the sequel is made, that's just absurd.

if the disc is scratched, you didn't check it good enough when you bought it, or it didn't get resurfaced properly, either way you didn't check it which you have to do when you buy used.

and yeah, sure Gamestop's used game prices are 5-10 higher than "gamestop's" bargain bin. I wasn't talking about gamestops prices, the bargain bin at big electronics stores. even at 5 more, it's kinda worth it to support the developer, get a new unopeded package without kids fat and other bodily fluids, no scratches, and an online pass.

Actually last I checked, though I don't abuse my disc so I never had to do it, the price was more like 5$, and you need to either take a photo of the disc with an ID or return the disc for a replacement.

interesting how you're now suddenly rather spend 3+29$ to get a replacement instead of 20$-25$ for the bargain bin though....

as for you second facepalm, I guess that's because you realized you've been two completely different and incompatible things.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why do you always have to have the stubborn contrary argument to ANY topic, seriously all I see is you being condescending towards people no matter the topic.

Developers don't deserve a cut of used sales, no one else in any other industry that makes products gets any.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why do you always have to have the stubborn contrary argument to ANY topic, seriously all I see is you being condescending towards people no matter the topic.

Developers don't deserve a cut of used sales, no one else in any other industry that makes products gets any.

other industries aren't really comparable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Convenient.

At the end of the day they put a price to their product and release it, if its not enough to cover the cost of development then either put the price of the game up or don't release it. Don't screw over the consumer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So what are the examples of games that can't be finished with DLC? particularly paid DLC.

Um... I'm not quite sure what you mean here. The way this reads is odd.

and just because some games have released free DLC doesnt' mean everyone should. especially since the content in Halo DLC was about a microfraction of the cost to develop compared to the cost of DLC today.

... yet today we pay for that same content.

and your facepalm I guess is because you didn't actually have a counter argument and you realized how stupid your original argument was then.

No, its because you made a statement which was beyond ignorant.

see the thing is with your argument, there would potentially never have been any Gears of War 2 and 3 to buy collectors editions of. collectors editions are only mean for a small amount of collectors anyway, not to fill the bottom line. you can't lose money for the 2-4 years it takes to make the first game and then not make money for th next 2 years until the sequel is made, that's just absurd.

So instant money is more important than investing in the future? I see why the gaming industry enjoys nickel and diming us then. I mean, consoles don't do this every generation or anything, right? It took what... 3 years for the PS3 to make any profit?

if the disc is scratched, you didn't check it good enough when you bought it, or it didn't get resurfaced properly, either way you didn't check it which you have to do when you buy used.

Actually, gamestop is supposed to check it.

and yeah, sure Gamestop's used game prices are 5-10 higher than "gamestop's" bargain bin. I wasn't talking about gamestops prices, the bargain bin at big electronics stores. even at 5 more, it's kinda worth it to support the developer, get a new unopeded package without kids fat and other bodily fluids, no scratches, and an online pass.

If the game dropped in price the developer isn't getting their money back anyways. In fact, it probably dropped in price because it wasn't selling enough or its been out for over a couple years. You see, the only reason games ever drop in price at all these days is specifically because of the used game market. And a great example of this is COD games, which never drop in price for the first two years of their release. Why? Because used copies don't exist, and when they do they are bought so fast that even Gamestop prices them just $5 under straight retail. The only time COD/MW games drop in price is upon announcement of a new title, and the same is true for games like Halo and other AAA titles. So with the used market dead, who's to stop every single game from using this pricing scheme? Just so the developer "gets what they deserve"?

That's pretty pretentious.

Actually last I checked, though I don't abuse my disc so I never had to do it, the price was more like 5$, and you need to either take a photo of the disc with an ID or return the disc for a replacement.

Go read Microsoft's website. Its all there in plain english.

interesting how you're now suddenly rather spend 3+29$ to get a replacement instead of 20$-25$ for the bargain bin though....

The difference is time. The bargain bin can mean 2 years of waiting, a used game is usually available between 3-8 months post release if the game isn't doing well and I feel like trying it out.

as for you second facepalm, I guess that's because you realized you've been two completely different and incompatible things.

No, because you don't understand how a person thinks when buying something. Its not a contradiction, its a sales concept. Its about converting a used purchase into a new purchase. Most if not all exclusively used game buyers will not buy used games unless they are absolutely sure it is worth it to do so. It has nothing to do with paying the developer what they deserve, but buying what we want as a consumer. And with the high prices for games these days, it only makes sense that people are reserved when they know investing in a game could mean another $100 worth of DLC down the line (and in some cases DLC that is required for continued play).

Oh, and other industries are easily comparable to the games industry. Especially movies. They are "consumed" in the same way games are, they just aren't interactive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Eff that noise. I'm getting further and further away from online gameplay. Last thing I want is the requirement to always be connected.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

mandatory connectivity is not a good idea since outages will occur, but then their logic is that internet is as important as electricity. clearly you can't use the console if the power's out, so why be able to use it if the internet's out?

otherwise it's good to know the consoles are finally coming, i expect them both to be available by the time GTA V comes out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.