Sony Is Taking This Online Pass Thing To Far

It'll only get worse in the future. That's what happens when a greedy American company takes advantage of the hard work of others..... gamestop.

[QUOTE="Mazoch"]

[QUOTE="ogvampire"]

whats the big deal?

there's a HUGE difference between these 2 issues:

they started including keys in PC games to fight PIRACY... an illegal act.

what hey are doing know is trying to fight the Used market... which is quite Legal

instead of making smart business moves to assimilate with the used market, they are trying to fight it (reminds me of when DD of music (napster) was just coming along and recording companies were fighting them instead of working with them like they do now)

ogvampire

It seems to me that they are doing exactly what you are suggesting by trying to assimilate with the used game market instead of fighting it. They are not trying to shut it down, they are not trying to stop people from trading used games, and instead they are trying to get a cut of the profits.

They are doing the opposite of what the music industry did with napster. This would be like the music industry telling napster: "keep sharing files, but for each song you download, you'll have to pay us $1 if you want to be able to listen to the song in high quality. If not, do your thing, you can still trade the song but the sound quality will be lower."

i dont know about that... the music industry assimilated with DD distribution NOT by charging consumers or double-charging certain customers, but by working WITH them... not trying to shut it down

we all know its MUCH too difficult for EA and other publishers to actually make their own Used game trade-in project, right?

and your analogy is wrong. napster was pretty much piracy, but if youre trying to use that as an analogy, a more fitting description would be:

"keep sharing albums, but you'll only get 8 out of the 12 songs in the album. if you want the other 4 songs you will have to pay us"

I have a hard time seeing the logic behind much of your post; it seems that in your mind, the way for a company to 'work with' someone is to accept that they'll get no part of the profits?

Why should EA start a different used game trading service, that doesn't really make any sense either, EA is a game publisher not a retail outlet. Any why would EA want to start a trade in service in the first place? Used games hold no value to EA, for them to pay for used games would appear to be really bad business.

I can appreciate that you want to be able to buy used games at a lower prices without loosing full access to the full game. But if you really think that EA should 'work with' the market, what would you suggest as a solution? Remember unless there's a profit in it for EA, then we're not talking about 'working with' anyone.

You could argue that the responsibility is on GameStops shoulders. If their used games do not offer all the features of a new game, they should lower their prices to compensate.

I used Napster as an example because you brought them up in your post, but sure your description works just as well. The point is the same, if you want it all, you have to pay full price, if you're willing to settle for less, you can get away with paying less. I still don't see why that's unreasonable.

whats going on in here

So if I buy a car, I can't sell it to someone else? A car company can't buy it from me, and then resell it to another person? Why is it only games that suffer this? Hell I bought music CD's all the time and sold them when I was finished with them, Music industry wasn't jumping down my throat because of it...I'm sure they wanted too but they didn't.

It'll only get worse in the future. That's what happens when a greedy American company takes advantage of the hard work of others..... gamestop.

edo-tensei

[QUOTE="ogvampire"]

[QUOTE="Mazoch"]

It seems to me that they are doing exactly what you are suggesting by trying to assimilate with the used game market instead of fighting it. They are not trying to shut it down, they are not trying to stop people from trading used games, and instead they are trying to get a cut of the profits.

They are doing the opposite of what the music industry did with napster. This would be like the music industry telling napster: "keep sharing files, but for each song you download, you'll have to pay us $1 if you want to be able to listen to the song in high quality. If not, do your thing, you can still trade the song but the sound quality will be lower."

Mazoch

i dont know about that... the music industry assimilated with DD distribution NOT by charging consumers or double-charging certain customers, but by working WITH them... not trying to shut it down

we all know its MUCH too difficult for EA and other publishers to actually make their own Used game trade-in project, right?

and your analogy is wrong. napster was pretty much piracy, but if youre trying to use that as an analogy, a more fitting description would be:

"keep sharing albums, but you'll only get 8 out of the 12 songs in the album. if you want the other 4 songs you will have to pay us"

I have a hard time seeing the logic behind much of your post; it seems that in your mind, the way for a company to 'work with' someone is to accept that they'll get no part of the profits?

i didnt outline a specific plan... so i dont know where youre getting that from

my point is that there are better ways for companies to deal with the revenue they MAY lose to the used market than these ridiculous 'projects'

Why should EA start a different used game trading service, that doesn't really make any sense either, EA is a game publisher not a retail outlet. Any why would EA want to start a trade in service in the first place? Used games hold no value to EA, for them to pay for used games would appear to be really bad business.

easy... just as much as EA thinks a person buying a used game takes away a NEW game sale... they might as well just make a program where you send in your old madden to EA and get a discount on a NEW madden...

I can appreciate that you want to be able to buy used games at a lower prices without loosing full access to the full game. But if you really think that EA should 'work with' the market, what would you suggest as a solution? Remember unless there's a profit in it for EA, then we're not talking about 'working with' anyone.

sure thing... as soon as EA pays me, i will come up with a better solution than this crap

You could argue that the responsibility is on GameStops shoulders. If their used games do not offer all the features of a new game, they should lower their prices to compensate.

I used Napster as an example because you brought them up in your post, but sure your description works just as well. The point is the same, if you want it all, you have to pay full price, if you're willing to settle for less, you can get away with paying less. I still don't see why that's unreasonable.

yup... its not unreasonable at all for them to charge my brother (or my friends) $10 to play a game (that i bought NEW and own) online with his (their) own gamertag

yeah... thats completely reasonable :roll:

dont gimme any of that... that is complete bs. these 'projects' dont just negatively affect gamestop...

youre gonna have to open your eyes a bit if you want to see the WHOLE picture

[QUOTE="Mazoch"]

[QUOTE="ogvampire"]

i dont know about that... the music industry assimilated with DD distribution NOT by charging consumers or double-charging certain customers, but by working WITH them... not trying to shut it down

we all know its MUCH too difficult for EA and other publishers to actually make their own Used game trade-in project, right?

and your analogy is wrong. napster was pretty much piracy, but if youre trying to use that as an analogy, a more fitting description would be:

"keep sharing albums, but you'll only get 8 out of the 12 songs in the album. if you want the other 4 songs you will have to pay us"

ogvampire

I have a hard time seeing the logic behind much of your post; it seems that in your mind, the way for a company to 'work with' someone is to accept that they'll get no part of the profits?

i didnt outline a specific plan... so i dont know where youre getting that from

my point is that there are better ways for companies to deal with the revenue they MAY lose to the used market than these ridiculous 'projects'

I got it from you claiming that they 'should work within' the used game market, while at the same time disagreeing with their attempt to ensure a profit while working within the used game market.

Why should EA start a different used game trading service, that doesn't really make any sense either, EA is a game publisher not a retail outlet. Any why would EA want to start a trade in service in the first place? Used games hold no value to EA, for them to pay for used games would appear to be really bad business.

easy... just as much as EA thinks a person buying a used game takes away a NEW game sale... they might as well just make a program where you send in your old madden to EA and get a discount on a NEW madden...

Again, all you're really saying is that EA should sell their games for less, which is after all the bottom line of what you're proposing. So, your idea is for EA to spend huge amounts of money to build up their own retail system in order to compete with the world's largest video game outlet so they can sell their product for less than they current do. That doesn't sound like a very good business plan to me.

I can appreciate that you want to be able to buy used games at a lower prices without loosing full access to the full game. But if you really think that EA should 'work with' the market, what would you suggest as a solution? Remember unless there's a profit in it for EA, then we're not talking about 'working with' anyone.

sure thing... as soon as EA pays me, i will come up with a better solution than this crap

I'm sorry but talk is cheap.

You could argue that the responsibility is on GameStops shoulders. If their used games do not offer all the features of a new game, they should lower their prices to compensate.

I used Napster as an example because you brought them up in your post, but sure your description works just as well. The point is the same, if you want it all, you have to pay full price, if you're willing to settle for less, you can get away with paying less. I still don't see why that's unreasonable.

yup... its not unreasonable at all for them to charge my brother (or my friends) $10 to play a game (that i bought NEW and own) online with his (their) own gamertag

yeah... thats completely reasonable :roll:

dont gimme any of that... that is complete bs. these 'projects' dont just negatively affect gamestop...

No they don't. They affect GameStop (and other used game retailers) and they affect the people who buy used games instead of new ones. It's also likely to affect EA, but in a positive manner since it's likely to either increase the sale of used games or give them a cut of the used game sales.

youre gonna have to open your eyes a bit if you want to see the WHOLE picture

My eyes are open; however I suspect that you're a little blinded by your own preference. I don't blame you for wanting to pay less for a full game, but that doesn't make it good business for EA. I don't fault you (or anyone else) for buying used since you get more game for less money that way. But I also don't fault EA for wanting a piece of the profits.

[QUOTE="ogvampire"]

[QUOTE="Mazoch"]

I have a hard time seeing the logic behind much of your post; it seems that in your mind, the way for a company to 'work with' someone is to accept that they'll get no part of the profits?

i didnt outline a specific plan... so i dont know where youre getting that from

my point is that there are better ways for companies to deal with the revenue they MAY lose to the used market than these ridiculous 'projects'

I got it from you claiming that they 'should work within' the used game market, while at the same time disagreeing with their attempt to ensure a profit while working within the used game market.

Why should EA start a different used game trading service, that doesn't really make any sense either, EA is a game publisher not a retail outlet. Any why would EA want to start a trade in service in the first place? Used games hold no value to EA, for them to pay for used games would appear to be really bad business.

easy... just as much as EA thinks a person buying a used game takes away a NEW game sale... they might as well just make a program where you send in your old madden to EA and get a discount on a NEW madden...

Again, all you're really saying is that EA should sell their games for less, which is after all the bottom line of what you're proposing. So, your idea is for EA to spend huge amounts of money to build up their own retail system in order to compete with the world's largest video game outlet so they can sell their product for less than they current do. That doesn't sound like a very good business plan to me.

I can appreciate that you want to be able to buy used games at a lower prices without loosing full access to the full game. But if you really think that EA should 'work with' the market, what would you suggest as a solution? Remember unless there's a profit in it for EA, then we're not talking about 'working with' anyone.

sure thing... as soon as EA pays me, i will come up with a better solution than this crap

I'm sorry but talk is cheap.

You could argue that the responsibility is on GameStops shoulders. If their used games do not offer all the features of a new game, they should lower their prices to compensate.

I used Napster as an example because you brought them up in your post, but sure your description works just as well. The point is the same, if you want it all, you have to pay full price, if you're willing to settle for less, you can get away with paying less. I still don't see why that's unreasonable.

yup... its not unreasonable at all for them to charge my brother (or my friends) $10 to play a game (that i bought NEW and own) online with his (their) own gamertag

yeah... thats completely reasonable :roll:

dont gimme any of that... that is complete bs. these 'projects' dont just negatively affect gamestop...

No they don't. They affect GameStop (and other used game retailers) and they affect the people who buy used games instead of new ones. It's also likely to affect EA, but in a positive manner since it's likely to either increase the sale of used games or give them a cut of the used game sales.

youre gonna have to open your eyes a bit if you want to see the WHOLE picture

My eyes are open; however I suspect that you're a little blinded by your own preference. I don't blame you for wanting to pay less for a full game, but that doesn't make it good business for EA. I don't fault you (or anyone else) for buying used since you get more game for less money that way. But I also don't fault EA for wanting a piece of the profits.

Mazoch

"dont gimme any of that... that is complete bs. these 'projects' dont just negatively affect gamestop...

No they don't. They affect GameStop (and other used game retailers) and they affect the people who buy used games instead of new ones, but in a positive manner"

lol!so not only do they NOT affect households with more than 1 gamertag or people who let their friends borrow games, but its also a positive thing?! wow...

no wonder you think its a good idea, you are so disconnected from the issue that its not even funny :|

it all makes sense now. no point in trying to make the blind see... so have a good day

[QUOTE="Mazoch"]

[QUOTE="ogvampire"]

ogvampire

"dont gimme any of that... that is complete bs. these 'projects' dont just negatively affect gamestop...

No they don't. They affect GameStop (and other used game retailers) and they affect the people who buy used games instead of new ones, but in a positive manner"

lol!so not only do they NOT affect households with more than 1 gamertag or people who let their friends borrow games, but its also a positive thing?! wow...

no wonder you think its a good idea, you are so disconnected from the issue that its not even funny :|

it all makes sense now. no point in trying to make the blind see... so have a good day

Uh.. read again. I'm agreeing that it doesn't just affect GameStop.

No they don't (just negatively affect GameStop). I continue to agree with you by stating that it affects GameStop, other used game retailers AND and people buying used games. Don't complain about my post if you are not going to bother reading what I wrote. I said they positively affect EA, I never said that they are a good or bad thing. I think that depends on who you are and what your preference is.

EDIT

As for me being 'disconnected', I'd (probably not surprisingly) have to disagree. I'm not the one thinks that EA 'working within the market' should mean that EA should not just accept their that the used game market is costing them potential revenue, they should also spend vast amounts of money to increase the potential loss.

[QUOTE="edo-tensei"]

It'll only get worse in the future. That's what happens when a greedy American company takes advantage of the hard work of others..... gamestop.

KittenWishes

[QUOTE="PSP107"][QUOTE="Pug-Nasty"]

The used game market, I.E. Gamestop, is not hurting game sales as much as helping. They constantly run pre order bonus incentives to buy new, always ask you to preorder crap when you're in there, and have stores all over the country, thereby making gaming accessible to old junkies and newcomers alike. Hate on gamestop, but it ishelping to expand the market. Pubs need to realize this, or they may lose the biggest asset/alley they have.

Awareness is all good and nice but it won't pay the bills. Piracy also 'expand awareness' of the game, that doesn't make it beneficial for the developer / publisher.

[QUOTE="Mazoch"]

[QUOTE="PSP107"] i also said used games actually expands the market. i mean the people who trade their games do it to buy new games. used games creates awarness.PSP107

Awareness is all good and nice but it won't pay the bills. Piracy also 'expand awareness' of the game, that doesn't make it beneficial for the developer / publisher.

I don't think it's the same. I think piracy is more damaging since it's not limited by the number of physical disks in circulation. In addition, unlike buying used games, piracy is illegal. However I do think the idea that used sales is good for the developer / publisher because it creates awareness is no more reasonable than claiming that piracy is beneficial because it creates awareness.

[QUOTE="Mazoch"]

[QUOTE="PSP107"] i also said used games actually expands the market. i mean the people who trade their games do it to buy new games. used games creates awarness.PSP107

Awareness is all good and nice but it won't pay the bills. Piracy also 'expand awareness' of the game, that doesn't make it beneficial for the developer / publisher.

Let's put it this way, If you started your own business making games or whatever and some Retailer came along like Game Stop making Trade-In deals and giving you free games or whatever Items basically for two things you trade in and that starts effecting your sales and it gets to the point where your not making any money or there is a huge decrease in your sales, then your gonna get mad and want to step your game up and do whatever you have to, like knocking out the competition and try to shut down game trade-in's altogether.

Well that's basically what they are doing because they are tired of people being cheap, so they are making part of the games useless to play for used buyers so they'll have to pay a little more then what they are actually paying for a used game to play that extra half of the game. Like I said you all deserve it. So go cry about it some more because it's only gonna get worse and I'm gonna be right here laughing my head off.

[QUOTE="Respawn-d"]

Yeah I dont like this at all. Devs need to stop complaining about used sales. Maybe if they made games that lasted more then 6 hours and werent so expensive (like the good ol days) then maybe more people would buy new.

W1NGMAN-

What good ol days are you referring to? As I recall games were super short and just as expensive in the "good ol days"

Yeah I dont like this at all. Devs need to stop complaining about used sales. Maybe if they made games that lasted more then 6 hours and werent so expensive (like the good ol days) then maybe more people would buy new.

Respawn-d

A million times this.

Most games are short and have no real replay value to speak off. So devs, dont come pissing and moaning to me because i sold/bought a used game.

[QUOTE="Respawn-d"]

Yeah I dont like this at all. Devs need to stop complaining about used sales. Maybe if they made games that lasted more then 6 hours and werent so expensive (like the good ol days) then maybe more people would buy new.

A million times this.

Most games are short and have no real replay value to speak off. So devs, dont come pissing and moaning to me because i sold/bought a used game.

The arguement about it being a developers fault that games get sold and purchased on the used market is redundant. Very few players are going to be happy having a game that they play avidly after a few years of gaming with on a current basis before something better comes out and they want to sell the more outdated or spent product.

I really don't see a problem with this. Developers deserve the money as far as I'm concerned. Obviously Gamestop will take a hit since they can no longer charge 95% full price for a used game which will mean less money in their pocket. Sucks for them, but oh well. I can see more companies following suite if it means increased revenue for gaming companies, which it will. Lets just move on to direct 2 drive for console games and poof, problem solved.

[QUOTE="Respawn-d"]

Yeah I dont like this at all. Devs need to stop complaining about used sales. Maybe if they made games that lasted more then 6 hours and werent so expensive (like the good ol days) then maybe more people would buy new.

W1NGMAN-

What good ol days are you referring to? As I recall games were super short and just as expensive in the "good ol days"

God of War 3 is $40 at Gamestop. y should ppl wait for Sony to officaly drop the prices. and the ppl who buy the used games aren't the target audience of the specific games.PSP107

Or you can buy it new from Amazon for $38 with free shipping. Gamestop is never the best deal around.

http://www.amazon.com/God-War-III-PlayStation-3/dp/B000ZK9QCS/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=videogames&qid=1276480590&sr=8-2

Buy it online.

I really don't see a problem with this. Developers deserve the money as far as I'm concerned. Obviously Gamestop will take a hit since they can no longer charge 95% full price for a used game which will mean less money in their pocket. Sucks for them, but oh well. I can see more companies following suite if it means increased revenue for gaming companies, which it will. Lets just move on to direct 2 drive for console games and poof, problem solved.

caseystryker

I have no problem with companies doing this. You have a choice to buy a new game or a used game. If you buy a used then you have to pay for online if you want to play. Servers cost money to run, if you want to play on THEIR servers then you have to pay them money either through a new purchase of a game or through a used.

People need to get over this entitlement that they should get everything for free.

CajunShooter

I agree.

[QUOTE="caseystryker"]

I really don't see a problem with this. Developers deserve the money as far as I'm concerned. Obviously Gamestop will take a hit since they can no longer charge 95% full price for a used game which will mean less money in their pocket. Sucks for them, but oh well. I can see more companies following suite if it means increased revenue for gaming companies, which it will. Lets just move on to direct 2 drive for console games and poof, problem solved.

PSP107

digital distribution

he wants console games to be as value-less as PC games

[QUOTE="ogvampire"]

[QUOTE="Mazoch"]

Mazoch

"dont gimme any of that... that is complete bs. these 'projects' dont just negatively affect gamestop...

No they don't. They affect GameStop (and other used game retailers) and they affect the people who buy used games instead of new ones, but in a positive manner"

lol!so not only do they NOT affect households with more than 1 gamertag or people who let their friends borrow games, but its also a positive thing?! wow...

no wonder you think its a good idea, you are so disconnected from the issue that its not even funny :|

it all makes sense now. no point in trying to make the blind see... so have a good day

Uh.. read again. I'm agreeing that it doesn't just affect GameStop.

No they don't (just negatively affect GameStop). I continue to agree with you by stating that it affects GameStop, other used game retailers AND and people buying used games. Don't complain about my post if you are not going to bother reading what I wrote. I said they positively affect EA, I never said that they are a good or bad thing. I think that depends on who you are and what your preference is.

EDIT

As for me being 'disconnected', I'd (probably not surprisingly) have to disagree. I'm not the one thinks that EA 'working within the market' should mean that EA should not just accept their that the used game market is costing them potential revenue, they should also spend vast amounts of money to increase the potential loss.

so how is making consumers pay for something that was already paid for a POSITIVE thing?

really doesn't surprise me. all of these companies, be it MS, Nintendo, or Sony are out to make money first and foremost.

[QUOTE="PSP107"][QUOTE="caseystryker"]

I really don't see a problem with this. Developers deserve the money as far as I'm concerned. Obviously Gamestop will take a hit since they can no longer charge 95% full price for a used game which will mean less money in their pocket. Sucks for them, but oh well. I can see more companies following suite if it means increased revenue for gaming companies, which it will. Lets just move on to direct 2 drive for console games and poof, problem solved.

digital distribution

he wants console games to be as value-less as PC games

Gamestop edge card is your best friend(pay even lesser for used games), plus you build up a points for each purchase towards getting free stuff. I recently bought UFC 10 used and an activation card for under the retail price instead of buying the game brand new. Just got to be smart when looking for deals.

[QUOTE="PSP107"][QUOTE="caseystryker"]

I really don't see a problem with this. Developers deserve the money as far as I'm concerned. Obviously Gamestop will take a hit since they can no longer charge 95% full price for a used game which will mean less money in their pocket. Sucks for them, but oh well. I can see more companies following suite if it means increased revenue for gaming companies, which it will. Lets just move on to direct 2 drive for console games and poof, problem solved.

ogvampire

digital distribution

he wants console games to be as value-less as PC games

Gamestop edge card is your best friend(pay even lesser for used games), plus you build up a points for each purchase towards getting free stuff. I recently bought UFC 10 used and an activation card for under the retail price instead of buying the game brand new. Just got to be smart when looking for deals.

BigBadBully

[QUOTE="ogvampire"]

[QUOTE="PSP107"] direct 2 drive?General_X

digital distribution

he wants console games to be as value-less as PC games

first of all, im talking about PC GAMES... not PC GAMERS

second, once i explain it, you will see how im right... and its not an opinion, im using facts here

once you buy and install a pc game, its useless and value-less to anyone else (cant resell it, cant have your friends borrow it, cant give it to your friends)

once you buy a console game, you can resell it, lend/give it to your friends... it STILL has value

do you have any 'facts' to counter this?

[QUOTE="General_X"][QUOTE="ogvampire"]

digital distribution

he wants console games to be as value-less as PC games

ogvampire

first of all, im talking about PC GAMES... not PC GAMERS

second, once i explain it, you will see how im right... and its not an opinion, im using facts here

once you buy and install a pc game, its useless and value-less to anyone else (cant resell it, cant have your friends borrow it, cant give it to your friends)

once you buy a console game, you can resell it, lend/give it to your friends... it STILL has value

do you have any 'facts' to counter this?

[QUOTE="ogvampire"]

[QUOTE="General_X"]I would like you to clarify your interpretation of PC gamers being valueless, because every conclusion I can draw from that statement just leads to the fact that you're wrong.General_X

first of all, im talking about PC GAMES... not PC GAMERS

second, once i explain it, you will see how im right... and its not an opinion, im using facts here

once you buy and install a pc game, its useless and value-less to anyone else (cant resell it, cant have your friends borrow it, cant give it to your friends)

once you buy a console game, you can resell it, lend/give it to your friends... it STILL has value

do you have any 'facts' to counter this?

by 'value-less', im taking about monetary and real world value... not personal value

once im done with a game, it holds no value to me... im not gonna be playing it again. i want to either give/lend it to my friends or sell it... its that simple

lol@ PC gamesPSP107

[QUOTE="Mazoch"]

[QUOTE="ogvampire"]

"dont gimme any of that... that is complete bs. these 'projects' dont just negatively affect gamestop...

No they don't. They affect GameStop (and other used game retailers) and they affect the people who buy used games instead of new ones, but in a positive manner"

lol!so not only do they NOT affect households with more than 1 gamertag or people who let their friends borrow games, but its also a positive thing?! wow...

no wonder you think its a good idea, you are so disconnected from the issue that its not even funny :|

it all makes sense now. no point in trying to make the blind see... so have a good day

ogvampire

Uh.. read again. I'm agreeing that it doesn't just affect GameStop.

No they don't (just negatively affect GameStop). I continue to agree with you by stating that it affects GameStop, other used game retailers AND and people buying used games. Don't complain about my post if you are not going to bother reading what I wrote. I said they positively affect EA, I never said that they are a good or bad thing. I think that depends on who you are and what your preference is.

EDIT

As for me being 'disconnected', I'd (probably not surprisingly) have to disagree. I'm not the one thinks that EA 'working within the market' should mean that EA should not just accept their that the used game market is costing them potential revenue, they should also spend vast amounts of money to increase the potential loss.

so how is making consumers pay for something that was already paid for a POSITIVE thing?

Read the post! I said it was a positive thing for EA. Do I really need to explain to you how it's a positive thing for EA?!

As I already stated, it does negatively affect people buying used games. But why should EA care about the fact that it's negatively affecting people who are buying used games? As far as I can tell EA has no responsibility, or reason, to ensure that people who decides to buy a used game gets the same product as someone who buys a new game.

[QUOTE="PSP107"]lol@ PC gamesGeneral_X

Used games mean either:

1. Product advertised was not what the customer got.

2. Game didn't offer anything to the customer after finishing it.

Example of 1 could be any kind of over9000 hype games (in my particular case GTA 4)

and example of 2 would totally be heavenly sword.

So if anything it's the developer/publisher fail when a person decides to sell their game, on most cases.

I always buy games new always have always will and this is every single game no exception. Now this new policy of theirs hurts me as well. If I want to sell some games to buy some new games I will get less in trade in bacause of this and won't be able to buy as many new games period. Thats bad for the industry. It means I will be buying far fewer games period. Thats bad for the industry. For all the sales they were losing to used games, they will now be losing them due to this policy. Then you have the poor casual saps who buy a used game that inforces this policy and have to pay more money to get the features they were promised on the box which means no doubt that these people will buy less games new or used in the future. Thats bad for the industry. I don't think this strategy is going to work out for them in the long run just my opinion I could be wrong.

Games are a luxury not a need, and in these hard economic times they need to be very consumer friendly not the other way around. I understand where they are comming from with this I really do but in the end I think its a very shortsighted money grab. You don't see Blizzard, Rockstar, Activision or Bungie complaining about used sales do you? Why is that I wonder. Maybe its because they put enough care and effort into their games that they sell through the roof at launch and as such used sales don't hurt them. Then you have a company like EA notorious for scamming people see advertising in full price games, dlc that gives players an advantage over others, full priced sports games no different from last year aside from a roster update and sometimes missing last years features etc.. and they wonder why they are going bankrupt. I really don't think it's a simple as some of you think meaning buying or selling used = piracy. After all for a game to be bought used it had to have been bought new in the first place. What happens when no one buys their games new or used? Seems like a really good way to crash the entire industry if you ask me but hey what do I know I havn't been running multimillion dollar corporations into the ground like these guys have.

[QUOTE="ogvampire"]

[QUOTE="Mazoch"]

Uh.. read again. I'm agreeing that it doesn't just affect GameStop.

No they don't (just negatively affect GameStop). I continue to agree with you by stating that it affects GameStop, other used game retailers AND and people buying used games. Don't complain about my post if you are not going to bother reading what I wrote. I said they positively affect EA, I never said that they are a good or bad thing. I think that depends on who you are and what your preference is.

EDIT

As for me being 'disconnected', I'd (probably not surprisingly) have to disagree. I'm not the one thinks that EA 'working within the market' should mean that EA should not just accept their that the used game market is costing them potential revenue, they should also spend vast amounts of money to increase the potential loss.

Mazoch

so how is making consumers pay for something that was already paid for a POSITIVE thing?

Read the post! I said it was a positive thing for EA. Do I really need to explain to you how it's a positive thing for EA?!

As I already stated, it does negatively affect people buying used games. But why should EA care about the fact that it's negatively affecting people who are buying used games? As far as I can tell EA has no responsibility, or reason, to ensure that people who decides to buy a used game gets the same product as someone who buys a new game.

its not only about USED games... it also affects households with multiple gamertags AND people who let their friends borrow games

if i buy a game, my brother or friends should be able to play it with their own gamertag without paying EA... cause you know, i ALREADY paid them

its just greed...

Used games mean either:

1. Product advertised was not what the customer got.

2. Game didn't offer anything to the customer after finishing it.

Example of 1 could be any kind of over9000 hype games (in my particular case GTA 4)

and example of 2 would totally be heavenly sword.

So if anything it's the developer/publisher fail when a person decides to sell their game, on most cases.

I foresee a day when companies will charge you the price of a used game to unlock ALL the content on the disk, like a one time use code or something. If you buy it new, the code is included. Once used, the code is invalid. If you sell the game and the next sap buys it used, he/she will need to purchase another code online before all the content on the disk is unlocked. That ist he only way to ensure no used game sales, which I guarantee will happen in the next few years or so. They have steadily been eroding the amount of content on disks, and putting it as "free" DLC. What's to stop them from locking the whole game?

I foresee a day when companies will charge you the price of a used game to unlock ALL the content on the disk, like a one time use code or something. If you buy it new, the code is included. Once used, the code is invalid. If you sell the game and the next sap buys it used, he/she will need to purchase another code online before all the content on the disk is unlocked. That ist he only way to ensure no used game sales, which I guarantee will happen in the next few years or so. They have steadily been eroding the amount of content on disks, and putting it as "free" DLC. What's to stop them from locking the whole game?

cantor2537