HawkMan Posted January 30, 2012 Share Posted January 30, 2012 Other forms of products that when sold used, don't lose quality or anything else... Movies Books Tools Paintings and other Art what do all of those have in common ? the majority of people who buy them buy them to collect, not to play through once. Games are unique in that they are quite often a single use consumable or at most a two or three times. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ayepecks Posted January 30, 2012 Share Posted January 30, 2012 Consumed does not mean used up http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consumables A consumable is, according to the 1913 edition of Webster's Dictionary, something that is capable of being consumed; that may be destroyed, dissipated, wasted, or spent. John Locke specifies these as "consumable commodities."[1] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bertch Posted January 30, 2012 Share Posted January 30, 2012 I can't see this affecting pc games as much as console games. Most of the new PC games come with a one time cd-key anyways. I wouldn't be surprised at all if they started using cd-keys that are linked to your account on the xbox and ps3. +BeLGaRaTh 1 Share Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+BeLGaRaTh Subscriber¹ Posted January 30, 2012 Subscriber¹ Share Posted January 30, 2012 I can't see this affecting pc games as much as console games. Most of the new PC games come with a one time cd-key anyways. I wouldn't be surprised at all if they started using cd-keys that are linked to your account on the xbox and ps3. That is the way I see it happening, which also adds fuel to the digital download only future, hence why EA created Orrible (sorry Origin) to compete with steam. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
compl3x Posted January 30, 2012 Author Share Posted January 30, 2012 :blink: And how do said games "not do well"? Because apparently sales have nothing to do with not doing very well, according to you. Wait, what? When did I say... Never mind. . . And consumables are CONSUMED. They are USED UP, as your very definition says. Games are not consumables. They still exist after being played. You might want to confer with HawkMan, he seems to think otherwise. what do all of those have in common ? the majority of people who buy them buy them to collect, not to play through once. Games are unique in that they are quite often a single use consumable or at most a two or three times. People buy, sell, and trade that stuff all the time. Prove it's done less than video games. The only unique difference is that technology exists to restrict your ability to sell your own games, which you legally obtained, onto someone else. Once again the industry is punishing legitimate customers. +LogicalApex 1 Share Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ayepecks Posted January 30, 2012 Share Posted January 30, 2012 Wait, what? When did I say... Never mind. . . You might want to confer with HawkMan, he seems to think otherwise. People buy, sell, and trade that stuff all the time. Prove it's done less than video games. The only unique difference is that technology exists to restrict your ability to sell your own games, which you legally obtained, onto someone else. Once again the industry is punishing legitimate customers. In the previous sentence. I did. I quoted him and responded. And just because you legally obtained something doesn't mean you inherently get the bonuses paying customers get. When you buy a used object, most times warranties are no longer valid. If someone bought a computer and got an iPod for free, you don't inherently get the iPod just because you bought the computer. And when you buy a videogame, you don't inherently get the right to any additional DLC or extras someone who purchased the game got. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HawkMan Posted January 30, 2012 Share Posted January 30, 2012 a dictionary term form 1913... only slightly outdated, look up the new ones and you'll see they don't necessary have to be used up or depleted Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spaceelf Posted January 30, 2012 Share Posted January 30, 2012 They did get a return when they sold it in the first place. Of course they did. But did that return actually make a profit? What if 10,000 people bought it, but 100,000 people played it, and the developer has to be closed down because it's not financially sustainable for the publisher to continue funding their projects? What if keeping the multiplayer servers up drives the revenue to the negative? Naturally a lot of EA games are big budget and we can all complain about their prices and their services and their sports games and whatever but Westwood and Pandemic would surely have had a better chance if more people bought their games in such a way that the publisher and developers gained, no? Cripes, all the semantics arguing in this thread...go back to the part about the online passes, not whether you define a term as accepted or literal. :p Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boxster17 Posted January 30, 2012 Share Posted January 30, 2012 As I said before, I don't understand why many consoles gamers feel they're entitled to everything from a new game when buying it used. PC gamers have had to deal with serial keys to play online for the last decade, so I fail to see why it's such a problem when it comes to consoles now. Not to mention with digital media, you can't exactly lend the disc to a friend so he can play it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alladaskill17 Posted January 30, 2012 Share Posted January 30, 2012 Online passes, DLC, subscriptions on top of subscriptions rejoice! Gaming is nearing it's Apex ;) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Emn1ty Posted January 31, 2012 Share Posted January 31, 2012 A game is a consumable product, limiting the damages from used sales is their right and makes sense. If you don't want to pay full price, wait a month or two and pick it up from the bargain bin. and no, a consumable product is not comparable to used car sales. It is equivocal to movie resales, used books, etc. Not to mention this would royally screw over services such as Gamefly. I don't understand why gaming companies are so against reselling of their games. They act as if they make little to nothing off of resales when in order for resale to happen it must sell first. And noting that fact a large percentage of a game's sales are in its first few months of release when no used copies are even available. It may be a "consumable" product, but there has never been such heavy regulation of this form of media. Movies, books, TV shows, music, etc have never been locked out to single uses/devices or people so harshly. Gaming companies seem to care more about how much they can make rather than their reputation these days. I'd rather make 20% less off my game if it buys me a 50% increase in dedicated fanbase (and therefore a 30% bonus on the next title if it does well) than make my money now. Respect your fans, trust them and let your game go viral to expand your playerbase. All the above features do is frustrate gamers and make the focus of discussion something that has little to do with how the game actually plays. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
compl3x Posted January 31, 2012 Author Share Posted January 31, 2012 a dictionary term form 1913... only slightly outdated, look up the new ones and you'll see they don't necessary have to be used up or depleted I looked at the first 10 Google results for define: consumable and they all said the same thing. How about you provide a credible definition of where consumable doesn't mean used up, depleted, intended to be purchased recurrently etc.? In the previous sentence. Perhaps you can directly quote what I said. If it indeed exists outside your imagination. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HawkMan Posted January 31, 2012 Share Posted January 31, 2012 I looked at the first 10 Google results for define: consumable and they all said the same thing. How about you provide a credible definition of where consumable doesn't mean used up, depleted, intended to be purchased recurrently etc.? Perhaps you can directly quote what I said. If it indeed exists outside your imagination. Actually you'll notice that those same dictionary terms does not say it "HAS" to be depleted, but usually is. even the 1913 one quoted earlier. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
compl3x Posted January 31, 2012 Author Share Posted January 31, 2012 Actually you'll notice that those same dictionary terms does not say it "HAS" to be depleted, but usually is. even the 1913 one quoted earlier. So you won't/can't provide a definition where consumable isn't defined as depleted, used up, worn out etc.? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HawkMan Posted January 31, 2012 Share Posted January 31, 2012 As I said, all the ones youre pointing out already do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
compl3x Posted January 31, 2012 Author Share Posted January 31, 2012 As I said, all the ones youre pointing out already do. . . . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spaceelf Posted January 31, 2012 Share Posted January 31, 2012 My argument is quite simple. I think the devs deserve the money for game sales more than Gamestop does. At any rate, I don't really think this topic is going anywhere so whatever. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+LogicalApex MVC Posted January 31, 2012 MVC Share Posted January 31, 2012 Of course they did. But did that return actually make a profit? What if 10,000 people bought it, but 100,000 people played it, and the developer has to be closed down because it's not financially sustainable for the publisher to continue funding their projects? What if keeping the multiplayer servers up drives the revenue to the negative? Naturally a lot of EA games are big budget and we can all complain about their prices and their services and their sports games and whatever but Westwood and Pandemic would surely have had a better chance if more people bought their games in such a way that the publisher and developers gained, no? Cripes, all the semantics arguing in this thread...go back to the part about the online passes, not whether you define a term as accepted or literal. :p Err what? So, your claiming that companies need to be compensated for used game sales because they can't make a profit off direct sales? This is absurd. I understand why companies today are making so much money. Consumers are too bone headed to think logically for 15 seconds and instead give them a license to do whatever in some odd sense of charity to businesses. If a company is selling its product below costs it deserves to go out of business. The market is telling the company that their product does not have enough economic value. This is how capitalism works... There is no sympathy for a business that doesn't offer enough economic value to be around, period. The core topic of the thread, can the company offer bonuses of new, but optional content, to original buyers, isn't unprecedented. It is done commonly with warranties, but I'm not a fan of those either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smashing Pumpkin Posted January 31, 2012 Share Posted January 31, 2012 I wonder if online passes across the board would force retail prices down in the absence of a used market. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trag3dy Posted February 1, 2012 Share Posted February 1, 2012 I wonder if online passes across the board would force retail prices down in the absence of a used market. I'm willing to bet they would charge more because then they would know for a fact there is no competition. On the other hand, you'll often see pc versions of games for $10 less than the console versions, so who knows. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yusuf M. Veteran Posted February 1, 2012 Veteran Share Posted February 1, 2012 Cleaned Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boxster17 Posted February 3, 2012 Share Posted February 3, 2012 The excuse used by companies on games is just horrible, and defending it doesn't help the consumer. Games haven't risen in price, and the usage of the same engine for 6+ years doesn't really make new games cost more. Just wanted to point out that this is the problem so to speak. If you bought a game in 2000 for about 50 bucks that same game today would be costing you about 60-65 bucks. The prices get even higher when you start looking at what you paid back in the day for Atari and NES games (roughly double of what they cost today). You can't take the price at face value, you need to take inflation into account as everything is relative to the times. These online passes are a way to help subsidized some of these increased costs since they aren't raising game prices Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colin McGregor Posted February 4, 2012 Share Posted February 4, 2012 I dont rent games and if i buy a game it collects dust i dont sell it, most places only give like 15 for something i paid 60 so this doesn't mean **** to me. As long as the code is free for people that bought the game and comes inside the case then do what you want developers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Emn1ty Posted February 4, 2012 Share Posted February 4, 2012 Just wanted to point out that this is the problem so to speak. If you bought a game in 2000 for about 50 bucks that same game today would be costing you about 60-65 bucks. The prices get even higher when you start looking at what you paid back in the day for Atari and NES games (roughly double of what they cost today). You can't take the price at face value, you need to take inflation into account as everything is relative to the times. These online passes are a way to help subsidized some of these increased costs since they aren't raising game prices Price is also relative to what people earn and how much expendable income they have. In this recession people have less money. Regardless of inflation, people are less willing to pay for things that aren't essential. Especially when that "thing" can be 1/10 of your paycheck at times. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HawkMan Posted February 4, 2012 Share Posted February 4, 2012 Price is also relative to what people earn and how much expendable income they have. In this recession people have less money. Regardless of inflation, people are less willing to pay for things that aren't essential. Especially when that "thing" can be 1/10 of your paycheck at times. That IS inflation. And $50 today is a far smaller part of anyones paycheck than it was in 2000, much less 1990. Recession or not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts