32 replies to this topic

[ProjectX3dsman]

I am actually against DRM also, but the whole reason why developers and publishers are against used game sales is because they don't receive profit from a sale from a game they made and it is given to the place that sold said used game. It is only natural for actions to be used in order to stop such action. I would not say that this is "greed" rather that they are trying to get more money from their ips (which could range from a couple hundred to millions lost because of used games) and not doing so might actually mean a huge risk to said ip or developer. However, I do not believe doing such would gain much profit or interest due to people completely rejecting the idea look what is happening to the Xbox One before it even launches. This rejection is understandable for everyone can not afford games at straight retail, but the developers deserve money for the games they make and it is their GAME. Its their game and they have the right to drm it if they so please. I have seen comments everywhere that reject it without seemingly understanding the reasoning why. The Playstation route of the individual developer choosing DRM may be best.

[XxNightfallxX]

well i can understand wanting more profit from games but i figure a used game exists because the previous owner didn't want it anymore but before that person sold it off somewhere or traded it to gamestop, that person still paid full retail price for it which means that devs and publishers already made money off of it already.  And I don't know about anyone else but while the devs indeed are responsible of creating said game, once they sell it off to customers its not their property anymore.  I would like to think that the game belongs to the person who paid for it.

[Kokirii]

What other industry operates that way?  

 

Car companies also lose out on a sale whenever I buy a used car.  Furniture companies lose out on sales when I use Craigslist.  If I don't have a house built, but buy one that has already been lived in, I'm taking that money away from construction companies.  An incalculable number of industries operate under the reality that used purchases are normal and expected.  

 

Unless you can adjust your points to explain why video games should be different, I don't see how any of them apply, since they're just as valid for almost any other non-service industry.  Or maybe you also think it would be legitimate for car makers to put devices in their cars that make them breakdown if the title is transferred?  

Edited by kokirii, 16 June 2013 - 03:59 PM.

[Azure-Edge]

See, but that's not the consumers problem. I don't care what it is, but if you produce any sort of product to be sold on the market then there WILL be a used market for you product. Once someone has made a transaction with you for an item, it belongs to them. It is their property, and it is theirs to do with however they please. This is how the rest of the market works, why should the gaming market be any different? Why should developers be insulated from this? An even bigger question is why should gamers have to allow for this? This has to do with the concept of ownership. What the Xbone is trying to do is take away ownership from the consumer. It's not the consumer's job to care about the company. It's not the consumer's job to make sure they make a lot of money. The only thing a consumer should care about is themselves, where/how/what they choose to spend their money on, and then what they want to do with their property once they have purchased it. 

 

The bigger issue, the one that not only the gaming industry must now deal with is that their business model is antiquated and no longer works anymore. People don't have the money to spend $60 on a game that, most likely, is going to last them a relatively short amount of time. There is either very little replayability to the game because it's essentially one of these Hollywood style movies that's more flash the substance, OR it's a yearly release title that has very short shelf life because it's always being replaced by a newer version. Game sales are going down because people aren't interested in this anymore and they can't afford it anyways. Not to mention all of the BS such as DRM, Day-1 on disc DLC, etc. that a lot of people are simply sick of putting up with. The market has changed and developers are either going to have to adapt and change their ways to get with the times, or they will fall to the way-side. Either way, the burden shouldn't be put on the consumer to keep them afloat.

 

I think Reggie throws out a lot of BS PR talk, but I have to give him credit for what he said about used games. If you're worried about used games then make a better game. Make something so good that people won't want to get rid of it as soon as they've played it through one time. I mean, if your game isn't even worth someone to hang on to for at least a year, then was it really any good at all? 

[Nollog]

Sue gamestop for selling a license they don't own then, since technically the license doesn't transfer.

[TheUltimateWaddleDee]

What other industry operates that way?

Car companies also lose out on a sale whenever I buy a used car. Furniture companies lose out on sales when I use Craigslist. If I don't have a house built, but buy one that has already been lived in, I'm taking that money away from construction companies. An incalculable number of industries operate under the reality that used purchases are normal and expected.

Unless you can adjust your points to explain why video games should be different, I don't see how any of them apply, since they're just as valid for almost any other non-service industry. Or maybe you also think it would be legitimate for car makers to put devices in their cars that make them breakdown if the title is transferred?

Cars, furniture, and houses are all necessary, while video games are not. You also expect wear amd tear when you buy used cars amd such, while used video games are guaranteed to work just as well as new.

[Azure-Edge]

Sue gamestop for selling a license they don't own then, since technically the license doesn't transfer.

 

They didn't sell a 'license'. They sold a disc that someone sold to them. They've done nothing illegal. People should have the right to do whatever they want with their possessions. If they want to get bent over the table by gamestop then that's their business. 

[TheUltimateWaddleDee]

well i can understand wanting more profit from games but i figure a used game exists because the previous owner didn't want it anymore but before that person sold it off somewhere or traded it to gamestop, that person still paid full retail price for it which means that devs and publishers already made money off of it already. And I don't know about anyone else but while the devs indeed are responsible of creating said game, once they sell it off to customers its not their property anymore. I would like to think that the game belongs to the person who paid for it.

I agree with your earlier statement, and I'm not against used games, but the developer would only get the money from one sale, while multiple people experienced the full game.

[3Dude]

I have the same answer as nintendo. Make better games that people dont want to sell.

[Nintyfan86]

Let me give you the business side:

 

Assuming I am in charge of one of these companies; If someone comes to me with a project, I do a break-even analysis. If that number is unrealistic, I send it back to the drawing board. They come back, we run the analysis again, we green light the project, we make money. 

 

Nintendo did this with the Wii. Realizing that the results of this analysis were unrealistic, they knew that the means did not justify the ends for them (or the large number of studios that are no longer with us). We got the Wii and DS, which, were supposed to innovate rather than dramatically increase costs. 

 

This is why I do not understand forcing DRM. It is attempting to make the market adapt to a broken model instead of, you guessed it, maximizing customer utility through adapting to reality and actually innovating. Games are not movies, trying to make them become movies will kill the industry. 

[Nollog]

They didn't sell a 'license'. They sold a disc that someone sold to them. They've done nothing illegal. People should have the right to do whatever they want with their possessions. If they want to get bent over the table by gamestop then that's their business. 

Everything you buy to do with software is just a license to use the software, the physical disc is worth a fraction of a cent.

You can not sell your license to that software, read the fine print. Therefore, you can not sell the disc's contents, therefore, you can not sell the disc.

What gamestop are doing is piracy, it's just done by a huge company who also happens to make the software companies money.

[Dragon]

If they go after someone for the profit, it should be game stores like GameStop. They need to stop attacking consumers. Just take some profit from used game sales instead of this DRM crap.

[bornsupercharged]

Everything you buy to do with software is just a license to use the software, the physical disc is worth a fraction of a cent.

You can not sell your license to that software, read the fine print. Therefore, you can not sell the disc's contents, therefore, you can not sell the disc.

What gamestop are doing is piracy, it's just done by a huge company who also happens to make the software companies money.

Sorry but you are WRONG, WRONG, WRONG. 

 

Check the back of most any DS game's booklet. "Game & Accessory Warranty" - "Nintendo warrants to the original purchaser that the product (games and accessories)...".

Keywords: Original Purchaser; Games

 

Meaning I purchased the game - NOT a license to PLAY the game. I literally OWN my copy of the game. I OWN my physical product. They WARRANTY the product I received.

 

When you buy a game, you OWN the game. Period. End of discussion. 

[grahamf]

I'm perfectly fine with the DRM for Steam, but that's because a) when I use my computer, even when I bring it elsewhere, I will have internet and 30% of my games cost me $2.50, 30% cost me $5, 30% cost me $7.50, and I have not paid more than $30 on a game. Thus, it is not worth it to resell my games.

 

For my console games are $40-$60 and more likely to be $60, and I have picked up a few used games for $35 or so. Games I find I don't like or want anymore I can easily sell for $20, maybe $40, and recuperate most of the cost.

[xile6]

Understandable but that why I never got man about the $10-$15 online code for use games.

But paying a big fee for a use game is crazy.

And what if u wanna bring the game to your friends house and play? With the MS x one. You can't.

 

So imo that sucks.

I paid for the game out of pocket. I should be able to bring it to a friend's house, or sell it and make some cash.

It's like buying a car and not being able to change anything to sell it to anyone. Even tho u paid cash for it.

 

So that's just my view on it tho.

I

 Do understand that the game devs loss money because it's someone would of brought it new. But same for a car, house, tv, etc.... 

[Azure-Edge]

Everything you buy to do with software is just a license to use the software, the physical disc is worth a fraction of a cent.

You can not sell your license to that software, read the fine print. Therefore, you can not sell the disc's contents, therefore, you can not sell the disc.

What gamestop are doing is piracy, it's just done by a huge company who also happens to make the software companies money.

 

Okay, I'm just gonna stop you right there before you get your arm permanently stuck up your ass and have to go to the ER. IF what you were saying was even partially true, and what gamestop is doing counts as piracy then don't you think all of the developers would join together for a giant ass joint-action lawsuit against them? It's not like they're the only retailer around.

[Alex Wolfers]

But what if you have crappy internet or no internet? Besides I don't wan't to buy a system that will be useless years down the line. And what about Diablo and Simcity?!?!

Everything you buy to do with software is just a license to use the software, the physical disc is worth a fraction of a cent.

You can not sell your license to that software, read the fine print. Therefore, you can not sell the disc's contents, therefore, you can not sell the disc.

What gamestop are doing is piracy, it's just done by a huge company who also happens to make the software companies money.

That is bullcrap and you know it. Microtransactions are hurting the industry. PEOPLE YOUR WALLETS SPEAK TO THESE CORRUPT PRACTICES. Sorry to type caps but that is important.

[storabajskorven]

Cars, furniture, and houses are all necessary, while video games are not. You also expect wear amd tear when you buy used cars amd such, while used video games are guaranteed to work just as well as new.

 

So, you actually mean that only products that are considered "necessary" (by whom?) should be allowed to sell used...? What kind of logic is that?

[XxNightfallxX]

i'm just glad game publishers don't run the food industry or the liquor industry.  Its bad enough that they want to turn video game purchases into over glorified rentals, if they took over the food industry most of us would probably starve and if they ran the liquor business I would have to stay sober for the rest of my life since they seem hell bent on overcharging everything and then charging extra tax as well.

[MorbidGod]

I understand that completely. However, this happens in virtually every market. Ever heard of Garage Sales? Does the maker of the clothing you buy get any money then? What about those toy makers? I just sold my tablet I didn't want any more. Did HP get any money from that sale? What about used CD sales? Used movie sales? What about a store like goodwill, that sells all used items?

If you make something, it's going to get sold at some point. Assuming said item isn't digital (like downloading a game). Really, Microsoft could focus more on people buying digital games and the problem would be solved. If you buy a disc, it's yours. But if you buy digitally, then it's not able to be traded or sold. I would even make those digital games cheaper, and raise the cost of physical games.

That would be acceptable to me. But trying to change a paradigm that has been around for literally as long as ppl been selling product is just wrong.