SmileyTPB1
Distinguished
- Jul 26, 2006
- 164
- 0
- 18,680
- Status
I dont see a problem. If you cant afford new you can wait for the price drop which is inevitable. If you cant wait for that you can still buy used. I see game studios shutting down and closing doors a lot and some of them are very talented which is unfortunate. The creators get zero from used games, but the consumer gets a perfect good as new copy. Well not anymore...if I buy new and you buy used a week later, doesnt bother me my product is superior.
kashifme21
Distinguished
- Feb 1, 2009
- 273
- 0
- 18,810
Its a good kick in the groin to console tards, i personally dont care lol. They are willing to pay more per game, they already are used to this sort of treatment.
machvelocy
Distinguished
- May 1, 2010
- 89
- 0
- 18,640
Trialsking
Distinguished
- Mar 2, 2007
- 733
- 0
- 19,010
[citation][nom]kashifme21[/nom]Its a good kick in the groin to console tards, i personally dont care lol. They are willing to pay more per game, they already are used to this sort of treatment.[/citation]
Exactly my feelings. I will stick with my "elitist", expensive PC games from Steam that I cannot resell. Oh yeah, I got most of the for less than $20 on Steam Summer/Winter sale.
Exactly my feelings. I will stick with my "elitist", expensive PC games from Steam that I cannot resell. Oh yeah, I got most of the for less than $20 on Steam Summer/Winter sale.
- Jul 24, 2006
- 22,736
- 236
- 57,490
[citation][nom]Joshua666[/nom]Buying 2nd hand games means that the developers make earn no money what so ever from you purchasing it.[/citation]
The developers are making no money off this either. Developers are on salaries, they don't get proceeds from sales. This money is for the publisher, that is, the company that funds the development, does most of the marketing, stamps the discs and usually has the most sway over the development of the game. Big publishers seeking to go the low-risk route are the reason for the endless recycling of franchises that sold well in the past.
Fortunately, Ubisoft haven't published many good games in a long time, so this is not much of an issue.
The developers are making no money off this either. Developers are on salaries, they don't get proceeds from sales. This money is for the publisher, that is, the company that funds the development, does most of the marketing, stamps the discs and usually has the most sway over the development of the game. Big publishers seeking to go the low-risk route are the reason for the endless recycling of franchises that sold well in the past.
Fortunately, Ubisoft haven't published many good games in a long time, so this is not much of an issue.
cmcghee358
Distinguished
- Oct 26, 2009
- 2,612
- 0
- 20,960
[citation][nom]Joshua666[/nom]Well I think the above comments are not very well thoughtout at all.Buying 2nd hand games means that the developers make earn no money what so ever from you purchasing it. Please think about the following example.Joe Bloggs comes into his local game store to purchase LA Noire on the Xbox 360, its priced at £30 brand new, he has the cash and is all good and ready to pay for it. Now the cashier has a preowned copy of LA Noire that is in mint condition, and is selling it at £27. The cashier directly attempts to sell the 2nd hand version of the game thus diverting profit that would go from the developer completely. Its this exact situation the developer/publishers wish to avoid. You cannot compare this situation to a lawn mower, think it through before you type. You dont go into a tv store to buy a tv only to come out with a preowned one cos it is a couple quid cheaper.[/citation]
Here's a tip. Don't make crap games your customers tire of. I still have all my Grand Theft Auto games? Don't we all?
Here's a tip. Don't make crap games your customers tire of. I still have all my Grand Theft Auto games? Don't we all?
captaincharisma
Glorious
- Oct 13, 2004
- 10,963
- 76
- 45,290
itchyisvegeta
Distinguished
- Oct 19, 2010
- 232
- 0
- 18,680
I am fine with online passes, but I think 5 bucks is more reasonable than 10 bucks. Also, online passes would be unnecessary if developers would keep up with DLC, or if the 10 dollar online pass would include most or all of the recent DLC.
You're all forgetting that when you purchase a game, you are actually paying your part in a contract with the publisher licencing the game for your use. Any CD/DVD/Software are only the means for achieving your right under the contract. Any reselling should be licensed by both parties, i.e. you and the publisher. It's the same way with an all day pass at an amusement park. You can't go for half a day and then resell your pass for the other half.
NuclearShadow
Distinguished
- Sep 20, 2007
- 1,535
- 0
- 19,810
Boy isn't giving it such a reassuring name just enough to forget its totally against you. Perhaps a bank robber should do bank robbery-enhanced! Surely then people will realize that hes doing a service by robbing the bank.
The reason why they can legally get away with such is however and why this isn't like a lawnmower, car, antique, or other object is simple.
The terms of agreement you accept with it and digital media laws.
Go ahead and read one sometime, they are 100% against the consumer
and they even go as far as to say even if their product directly causes
any harm they cannot be held responsible. (Remember Starforce?)
You are signing your rights away and accept that you do not actually buy the game but rather a lease and permission to use it. Until gamers get off their couch or if they are a master race gamer their desk chair
with protest and refusal to purchase until the terms of agreement change they will not and things like Uplay will only get worse. Of course we know gamers will never do such just look at how the MW2 boycott went.
There is a major flaw however to the system which actually may be able to be protested in court. Every other form of contract deal involves the deal being explained and then the deal is made. With any game you purchase the game and then its automatically assumed that you blindly accepted the terms of agreement. We PC gamers know this all to well, if we buy a game we can't even take it back so if we go to install and the terms of agreement says we have to be naked while playing the game while screaming into our mics singing the wheels on the bus song, we are stuck with either accepting or having a $50 coaster. The fact that the money is taken and nonrefundable before a actual agreement of the terms is done could very well terminate the agreement in the first place. It would be interesting to see someone try to take this to court.
*edit*
Also don't forget by law you actually have the legal right to back up any media that you legally own as long as you do not share it with others.
But notice that DRM itself violates this law by making copies not work? Even a console gamer should have a right to back-up any game they buy
be able to slap it in their console and have it work. But consumer rights laws are hardly ever enforced and hidden within the terms of agreement
you are likely signing your rights away. Once again money triumphs over rights.
I am OK with the idea that intellectual property cannot be resold provided that, as certain rights are being altered for IP (such as first sale) due to the different nature of IP, other rights stemming from this different nature must be considered.
For example:
1) Rights-holders must not refer to illegal duplication as theft (applicable in false advertising and slander/libel). Any official claims of financial consequences of illegal duplication cannot be derived to from those of theft and must stand on their own merits.
2) Users have the right to demand proof that none of a paid-for product's functionality can be removed after sale. This obviously is impossible when talking about physical property, but is very important for IP.
Specifically, DRM IP must prove that it can function (ie, play) even if the parent company and all its assets vanish. An appropriate solution to this would be a third-party-tested, thoroughly foolproof system to distribute the necessary DRM keys and server code in the event of the company's assets being lost.
Minimum service levels must be specified and maintained in order to avoid the actions above, and these minimums must be reasonable. (Ie, in any given month the service must be available at least 75% of the time, and in a year, 95%).
3) Licenses for software must be granular, with a minimum term of at most, say, one year. Prices for the one year option must be less than, say, twice that of the best license deal (ignores true sales). This means that perpetual licenses cannot exist and must instead be sales. (Covers the "it's just a license" loophole in #2).
Or, better than all of that, just ban all DRM.
For example:
1) Rights-holders must not refer to illegal duplication as theft (applicable in false advertising and slander/libel). Any official claims of financial consequences of illegal duplication cannot be derived to from those of theft and must stand on their own merits.
2) Users have the right to demand proof that none of a paid-for product's functionality can be removed after sale. This obviously is impossible when talking about physical property, but is very important for IP.
Specifically, DRM IP must prove that it can function (ie, play) even if the parent company and all its assets vanish. An appropriate solution to this would be a third-party-tested, thoroughly foolproof system to distribute the necessary DRM keys and server code in the event of the company's assets being lost.
Minimum service levels must be specified and maintained in order to avoid the actions above, and these minimums must be reasonable. (Ie, in any given month the service must be available at least 75% of the time, and in a year, 95%).
3) Licenses for software must be granular, with a minimum term of at most, say, one year. Prices for the one year option must be less than, say, twice that of the best license deal (ignores true sales). This means that perpetual licenses cannot exist and must instead be sales. (Covers the "it's just a license" loophole in #2).
Or, better than all of that, just ban all DRM.
Uhh, to any of you guys talking about how buying a game and clicking yes to something is a contract, well... step right up! have i got some deals to make with you.
don't be absurd. contracts require a signature. these ip companies can either get my signature on their contract at the time of purchase or they can stick their ridiculous assertions up their ass lateron.
how did this laughable concept come about anyway? that clicking a button = signing a binding contact? and how in the world have these asshat corporations convinced the majority of the public that they have the force of law? good lord, are you sheeple that gullible? these corporations are laughing all the way to the bank.
baaa
don't be absurd. contracts require a signature. these ip companies can either get my signature on their contract at the time of purchase or they can stick their ridiculous assertions up their ass lateron.
how did this laughable concept come about anyway? that clicking a button = signing a binding contact? and how in the world have these asshat corporations convinced the majority of the public that they have the force of law? good lord, are you sheeple that gullible? these corporations are laughing all the way to the bank.
baaa
Super_Nova
Distinguished
- Mar 9, 2011
- 88
- 0
- 18,640
I think this is a big middle finger towards all customers. If I have bought a game from Ubi and have to reinstall my os, or uninstall the game and later decide to reinstall the game, I have to pay again to get a new code. So I pat twice for a game that I already have bought at full price. Great way to treat paying customers no matter how some people are trying to bagatalize this measure. The industry is forcing people in to piracy with these kind of measures and they owe it all to themselves.
I stopped supporting, Activision, Ubisoft and EA games a long time ago, I have long since stopped caring about the games they release as well!
Like all boycotts, you need to inform them why you are not going to purchase a product from them, so that they are aware of the lost sale.
There are many games coming out I will be buying from publishers that deserve my money, and just like my non purchases, I inform these publishers why they have got my money so they know what they are doing right! (GW2 anyone)
Most people just cant stick to not having that title irrelevant of how the Publisher treats them as a consumer, SAD!
Like all boycotts, you need to inform them why you are not going to purchase a product from them, so that they are aware of the lost sale.
There are many games coming out I will be buying from publishers that deserve my money, and just like my non purchases, I inform these publishers why they have got my money so they know what they are doing right! (GW2 anyone)
Most people just cant stick to not having that title irrelevant of how the Publisher treats them as a consumer, SAD!
[citation][nom]dakuman[/nom]I dont see a problem. If you cant afford new you can wait for the price drop which is inevitable. If you cant wait for that you can still buy used. I see game studios shutting down and closing doors a lot and some of them are very talented which is unfortunate. The creators get zero from used games, but the consumer gets a perfect good as new copy. Well not anymore...if I buy new and you buy used a week later, doesnt bother me my product is superior.[/citation]
most companies that close, close for a damn good reason. their games were medicore yet they funded them like were making the next uncharted/resistance/gta
and of the ones that close unfairly, its not because of poor game sales, its because of the publisher shutting the studio down got make more money off the game they launched.
if there are used game it means that the game wasn't good enough to hold on to in the first place.
[citation][nom]randomizer[/nom]The developers are making no money off this either. Developers are on salaries, they don't get proceeds from sales. This money is for the publisher, that is, the company that funds the development, does most of the marketing, stamps the discs and usually has the most sway over the development of the game. Big publishers seeking to go the low-risk route are the reason for the endless recycling of franchises that sold well in the past.Fortunately, Ubisoft haven't published many good games in a long time, so this is not much of an issue.[/citation]
true, but development studios commonly do get bonuses for job well dones
[citation][nom]itchyisvegeta[/nom]I am fine with online passes, but I think 5 bucks is more reasonable than 10 bucks. Also, online passes would be unnecessary if developers would keep up with DLC, or if the 10 dollar online pass would include most or all of the recent DLC.[/citation]
or if most post game dlc was more than some throw away 2 multiplayer maps for 20$, or if the single player dlc lasted more than a 15 minute glorified run to a new weapon
most companies that close, close for a damn good reason. their games were medicore yet they funded them like were making the next uncharted/resistance/gta
and of the ones that close unfairly, its not because of poor game sales, its because of the publisher shutting the studio down got make more money off the game they launched.
if there are used game it means that the game wasn't good enough to hold on to in the first place.
[citation][nom]randomizer[/nom]The developers are making no money off this either. Developers are on salaries, they don't get proceeds from sales. This money is for the publisher, that is, the company that funds the development, does most of the marketing, stamps the discs and usually has the most sway over the development of the game. Big publishers seeking to go the low-risk route are the reason for the endless recycling of franchises that sold well in the past.Fortunately, Ubisoft haven't published many good games in a long time, so this is not much of an issue.[/citation]
true, but development studios commonly do get bonuses for job well dones
[citation][nom]itchyisvegeta[/nom]I am fine with online passes, but I think 5 bucks is more reasonable than 10 bucks. Also, online passes would be unnecessary if developers would keep up with DLC, or if the 10 dollar online pass would include most or all of the recent DLC.[/citation]
or if most post game dlc was more than some throw away 2 multiplayer maps for 20$, or if the single player dlc lasted more than a 15 minute glorified run to a new weapon
[citation][nom]Joshua666[/nom]Well I think the above comments are not very well thoughtout at all.Buying 2nd hand games means that the developers make earn no money what so ever from you purchasing it. Please think about the following example.Joe Bloggs comes into his local game store to purchase LA Noire on the Xbox 360, its priced at £30 brand new, he has the cash and is all good and ready to pay for it. Now the cashier has a preowned copy of LA Noire that is in mint condition, and is selling it at £27. The cashier directly attempts to sell the 2nd hand version of the game thus diverting profit that would go from the developer completely. Its this exact situation the developer/publishers wish to avoid. You cannot compare this situation to a lawn mower, think it through before you type. You dont go into a tv store to buy a tv only to come out with a preowned one cos it is a couple quid cheaper.[/citation]
I'm sorry, this is one of the most foolish comments i've come across. First off, if i was going to buy a game new, I'd buy it new. i don't speak for everyone with that, but no one is confused about what they're getting when they buy a used product. No money is lost by devs because if i buy used, i walked into the store intending to.
Second of all, no money is lost by Devs because if you pick up a new copy or a used copy in a Gamestop, GAMESTOP has already paid the Dev for the merchandise! Duh! they dont split their revenue "oh, well billy bob purchased Assassins creed so i'd better send fifty eight bucks to Ubisoft this week!"
retarded....they arent losing money, they're bitching and that's a ton of difference. once the game is purchased its no longer their property, thus they should have no rights to extort money from its resale. its blatant and utter criminalism and i'm of the opinion they should be hit where it hurst most: their bottom line. I personally haven't bought any Ubisoft games in quite a while and while I dont personally like Activision's internal business policies or EA's creative teams, THEY get my business because they aren't overt crooks like Ubisoft.
I'm done.
I'm sorry, this is one of the most foolish comments i've come across. First off, if i was going to buy a game new, I'd buy it new. i don't speak for everyone with that, but no one is confused about what they're getting when they buy a used product. No money is lost by devs because if i buy used, i walked into the store intending to.
Second of all, no money is lost by Devs because if you pick up a new copy or a used copy in a Gamestop, GAMESTOP has already paid the Dev for the merchandise! Duh! they dont split their revenue "oh, well billy bob purchased Assassins creed so i'd better send fifty eight bucks to Ubisoft this week!"
retarded....they arent losing money, they're bitching and that's a ton of difference. once the game is purchased its no longer their property, thus they should have no rights to extort money from its resale. its blatant and utter criminalism and i'm of the opinion they should be hit where it hurst most: their bottom line. I personally haven't bought any Ubisoft games in quite a while and while I dont personally like Activision's internal business policies or EA's creative teams, THEY get my business because they aren't overt crooks like Ubisoft.
I'm done.
[citation][nom]NuclearShadow[/nom]*edit*Also don't forget by law you actually have the legal right to back up any media that you legally own as long as you do not share it with others.But notice that DRM itself violates this law by making copies not work? Even a console gamer should have a right to back-up any game they buybe able to slap it in their console and have it work. But consumer rights laws are hardly ever enforced and hidden within the terms of agreementyou are likely signing your rights away. Once again money triumphs over rights.[/citation]
In the UK, Its against the law to make backup copies, It is also against the law to rip a CD you own to play on your MP3 player you bought in a shop legally!
Copyright law is all messed up, because technology changes so fast and law makers do not understand technology and the fact that it takes forever to review and change laws, by which time the proposed change to law is outdated already!
In the UK, Its against the law to make backup copies, It is also against the law to rip a CD you own to play on your MP3 player you bought in a shop legally!
Copyright law is all messed up, because technology changes so fast and law makers do not understand technology and the fact that it takes forever to review and change laws, by which time the proposed change to law is outdated already!
giovanni86
Distinguished
- May 10, 2007
- 466
- 0
- 18,790
I can't do much about what these companies are doing these days. But i like a very few games that are about to come out. I will be buying these at full price. As for used games, about 70% of my 360 collection consists of used games. I do wish that the money i spent on a used game would go to the developers, but lets face it. The only reason every game store i used to know about back in the 90's isn't around today is because they couldn't capitalize on what gamestop/ebgames has going for it in the used market. And another thing, developers do get paid per game that sale new. I think it was around $13 bucks. If you know Michael Pachter and have seen some of his shows on GT he explained how much each each get, Publisher/Developer/Microsoft/Gamestop per game and explains in great detail on the pricing which has become $60. I have nothing against the pricing, quite frankly i did like it when it was $50 but games do take longer to make these days because of the great detail that goes into making them. As for used games, this will hurt my decision making when it comes to buying a used one, but they won't get my money new, they will never get my money, the used market will get it once the game hits $5 - $10 bucks and that's if i really care to buy it considering some features might not be available considering i have to cough up another 10 just to finish it. My 5 cents.
[citation][nom]Joshua666[/nom]Well I think the above comments are not very well thoughtout at all.Buying 2nd hand games means that the developers make earn no money what so ever from you purchasing it. Please think about the following example.Joe Bloggs comes into his local game store to purchase LA Noire on the Xbox 360, its priced at £30 brand new, he has the cash and is all good and ready to pay for it. Now the cashier has a preowned copy of LA Noire that is in mint condition, and is selling it at £27. The cashier directly attempts to sell the 2nd hand version of the game thus diverting profit that would go from the developer completely. Its this exact situation the developer/publishers wish to avoid. You cannot compare this situation to a lawn mower, think it through before you type. You dont go into a tv store to buy a tv only to come out with a preowned one cos it is a couple quid cheaper.[/citation]
You didn't spend much time thinking first did you?
Ok, there are actual lawn mower stores here. They sell both new and used lawn mowers. If you walk in looking at new lawn mowers and they have used mowers that match what you're looking for...they will suggest the used mower to increase their own profits....which is completely identical to buying used vs new video games.
[citation][nom]yettyman[/nom]I don't see a problem with it. The lawn mower example is flawed because there are other things that come with buying the lawn mower new that you won't get used. Warranties are the main thing. You wouldn't buy a used lawn mower and get a full warranty from the manufacturer without paying more. The same goes for cars. You don't get the 100,000 mile warranty on a 2008 Ford Mustang if you buy is used in 2011. This happens in all businesses because they lose money for offering the services when they don't see the revenue.The game companies just want to get a part of all the sales of their game which they should be entitled to. The real problem is with the used game companies. They are even more profit hungry than the game companies. The do no work to make the game but then buy for way below market value and sell it for profit.[/citation]
The lawn mower stores here offer full warranties on the used mowers they sell....and there's a dealership here that offers 100,000 mile warranties on every used car they sell.
Also, the producer/publisher is only entitled to profit from the original sale. By your line of thought, when you buy anything, the maker should be making more profit. So, auto makers should be getting paid on the same car every time it's sold...
You didn't spend much time thinking first did you?
Ok, there are actual lawn mower stores here. They sell both new and used lawn mowers. If you walk in looking at new lawn mowers and they have used mowers that match what you're looking for...they will suggest the used mower to increase their own profits....which is completely identical to buying used vs new video games.
[citation][nom]yettyman[/nom]I don't see a problem with it. The lawn mower example is flawed because there are other things that come with buying the lawn mower new that you won't get used. Warranties are the main thing. You wouldn't buy a used lawn mower and get a full warranty from the manufacturer without paying more. The same goes for cars. You don't get the 100,000 mile warranty on a 2008 Ford Mustang if you buy is used in 2011. This happens in all businesses because they lose money for offering the services when they don't see the revenue.The game companies just want to get a part of all the sales of their game which they should be entitled to. The real problem is with the used game companies. They are even more profit hungry than the game companies. The do no work to make the game but then buy for way below market value and sell it for profit.[/citation]
The lawn mower stores here offer full warranties on the used mowers they sell....and there's a dealership here that offers 100,000 mile warranties on every used car they sell.
Also, the producer/publisher is only entitled to profit from the original sale. By your line of thought, when you buy anything, the maker should be making more profit. So, auto makers should be getting paid on the same car every time it's sold...
eddieroolz
Splendid
- Sep 6, 2008
- 7,057
- 0
- 25,860
- Status
TRENDING THREADS
-
-
-
Question Help in troubleshooting possible graphics card issue?
- Started by nort99
- Replies: 5
-
Question RX 6600 visual glitches right after upgrading to it- Started by Wamek
- Replies: 4
-
News US sanctions transform China into legacy chip production juggernaut — production jumped 40% in Q1 2024- Started by Admin
- Replies: 35
-
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram