THQ: Buying used games is cheating

[QUOTE="PannicAtack"]What does this whole "buy new or you won't get all the content" mean when the game stops being actually made and you need the used games market in order to get the game at all?ActicEdge

Who cares, not there problem. Honestly, congrats to them for nickle and diming people, its fair game, but hey, at the same time if they feel I'm no better than a pirate, I might as well save me the coin and pirate the game then right? They don't see a difference.

Stunts like these are the reasons that piracy is becoming more rampant.

Except for Valve's "pay what you want" charity thing. That was disgusting and there is absolutely no justification imaginable.

Yeah, funny how no other industry has ever complained about this before.PannicAtack

What;s funny is that people choose to ignore the inconvenient truth. Games have server costs for online, which means that the company is actually losing money from your purchase. Buying a second-hand DVD doens't cost the production company a thing, buying a used car means that you'll have to pay the dealership for any spare parts you might need. The game industry is the only one that's forced to pay money in order to support a game that they've not recieved any money from. See the difference now?

[QUOTE="ActicEdge"]

[QUOTE="PannicAtack"]What does this whole "buy new or you won't get all the content" mean when the game stops being actually made and you need the used games market in order to get the game at all?PannicAtack

Who cares, not there problem. Honestly, congrats to them for nickle and diming people, its fair game, but hey, at the same time if they feel I'm no better than a pirate, I might as well save me the coin and pirate the game then right? They don't see a difference.

Stunts like these are the reasons that piracy is becoming more rampant.

Except for Valve's "pay what you want" charity thing. That was disgusting and there is absolutely no justification imaginable.

Good for the industry, I don't honestly care. Piracy is a problem because they make it a problem. If they have the balls to tell used is the same as piracy, then I should have the right to exercise that equality shouldn't I? they get no money either wa so why should it matter then? As for Valve's thing, paying what you want, I don't know enough about it to comment.

[QUOTE="PannicAtack"]Yeah, funny how no other industry has ever complained about this before.alexandros1313

What;s funny is that people choose to ignore the inconvenient truth. Games have server costs for online, which means that the company is actually losing money from your purchase. Buying a second-hand DVD doens't cost the production company a thing, buying a used car means that you'll have to pay the dealership for any spare parts you might need. The game industry is the only one that's forced to pay money in order to support a game that they've not recieved any money from. See the difference now?

Its not my problem to care about there bottom line if they don't have the deceny to care about mine. That's what people don't get.

[QUOTE="PannicAtack"]

[QUOTE="ActicEdge"]

Who cares, not there problem. Honestly, congrats to them for nickle and diming people, its fair game, but hey, at the same time if they feel I'm no better than a pirate, I might as well save me the coin and pirate the game then right? They don't see a difference.

ActicEdge

Stunts like these are the reasons that piracy is becoming more rampant.

Except for Valve's "pay what you want" charity thing. That was disgusting and there is absolutely no justification imaginable.

Good for the industry, I don't honestly care. Piracy is a problem because they make it a problem. If they have the balls to tell used is the same as piracy, then I should have the right to exercise that equality shouldn't I? they get no money either wa so why should it matter then? As for Valve's thing, paying what you want, I don't know enough about it to comment.

Buying used games is just as bad as piracy. No, scratch that: Buying used games is even worse than piracy! Sound far-fetched? Let's look at the facts:

-You pirate a game. The publisher gets 0$, the crack group that released the game also gets 0$. Plus, you can't really play online because they may ban your account, therefore your illegal copy doesn't put more strain on the company's servers.

-You buy a used game. The publisher gets 0$ again, but this time you've actually helped fund the system that deprives publishers of their share, thus keeping it alive and profitable. In addition to that, your copy includes online gameplay, which the publisher is obliged to provide (as well as support and patches), even though you've given them no money whatsoever!

So yeah, THQ may have said it bluntly, but they are 100% right. Any gamer who really cares about games should buy new, or else it's plain old stealing. If you can't afford the game at full price, just wait until the price drops. If you buy it used, you are even worse than the people who pirate it.

alexandros1313

Wow I can't even begin to fathom how people hold this view. With piracy one person buys the game (or not even), and then pirates it so millions of others can get it free as well. The publisher gets absolutely no money out of it, while millions of people get free games.

You're forgetting that with used games, someone already dished out the ridiculous $60 for the new game. So the publisher already has been paid. I don't understand why these publishers think that doing this kind of crap will make consumers choose to buy the game new... sure, gaming is important to me, but I'm not going to buy just any game for $60. I buy a lot of games new, but in some cases in no way am I going to pay $60 for it (example: Star Wars: The Force Unleashed). If consumers really want a game, they'll get it new. Otherwise, they just won't get the game if they can't get it used for a discounted price, and I don't know what makes these publishers think that they can get away with this.

And there's a big difference between piracy and buying used games. If I purchase a game, and I sell it, here's the thing - I don't have the game anymore. One copy was paid for, and one copy is now in someone's possession. If I purchase a game, take out all the files, and then put them on the internet, that's different. Many new copies are being generated, and only one was paid for.PannicAtack

Hey I think its wrong but if he feels it the same effect then why not go the already cheaper route? (and no people I will never pirate under any circumstance)

[QUOTE="PannicAtack"]Yeah, funny how no other industry has ever complained about this before.alexandros1313

What;s funny is that people choose to ignore the inconvenient truth. Games have server costs for online, which means that the company is actually losing money from your purchase. Buying a second-hand DVD doens't cost the production company a thing, buying a used car means that you'll have to pay the dealership for any spare parts you might need. The game industry is the only one that's forced to pay money in order to support a game that they've not recieved any money from. See the difference now?

[QUOTE="lordreaven"]

I'm goign to propose a far fetched idea here. what if..what if these game devs and publishers actually added replaability to their games, so people wouldn't want to trade them in? I know its crazy right?

timmy00

£40 for a game that can be completed in 8 hours or less. I mean that game is just asking to be traded in.

[QUOTE="PannicAtack"]And there's a big difference between piracy and buying used games. If I purchase a game, and I sell it, here's the thing - I don't have the game anymore. One copy was paid for, and one copy is now in someone's possession. If I purchase a game, take out all the files, and then put them on the internet, that's different. Many new copies are being generated, and only one was paid for.ActicEdge

Hey I think its wrong but if he feels it the same effect then why not go the already cheaper route? (and no people I will never pirate under any circumstance)

[QUOTE="ActicEdge"]

[QUOTE="PannicAtack"]I care. Games like Thief: The Dark Project and Planescape Torment are out of print, so to speak. You can't get them except for ebay or a lucky find at a used games store.

Stunts like these are the reasons that piracy is becoming more rampant.

Except for Valve's "pay what you want" charity thing. That was disgusting and there is absolutely no justification imaginable.

PannicAtack

Good for the industry, I don't honestly care. Piracy is a problem because they make it a problem. If they have the balls to tell used is the same as piracy, then I should have the right to exercise that equality shouldn't I? they get no money either wa so why should it matter then? As for Valve's thing, paying what you want, I don't know enough about it to comment.

[QUOTE="PannicAtack"][QUOTE="ActicEdge"]

Good for the industry, I don't honestly care. Piracy is a problem because they make it a problem. If they have the balls to tell used is the same as piracy, then I should have the right to exercise that equality shouldn't I? they get no money either wa so why should it matter then? As for Valve's thing, paying what you want, I don't know enough about it to comment.

DarkLink77

lol thats pretty damn hilarious.

[QUOTE="ActicEdge"]

[QUOTE="PannicAtack"]And there's a big difference between piracy and buying used games. If I purchase a game, and I sell it, here's the thing - I don't have the game anymore. One copy was paid for, and one copy is now in someone's possession. If I purchase a game, take out all the files, and then put them on the internet, that's different. Many new copies are being generated, and only one was paid for.PannicAtack

Hey I think its wrong but if he feels it the same effect then why not go the already cheaper route? (and no people I will never pirate under any circumstance)

If its charity why on earth should I have to contribute if I don't please. This is just silly to be extremely pissed about imo, it doesn't matter where the money is going.If you pirate you never have any intention of getting money into another peson's hands. The fact that its charity doesn't change anything at all.

You forget one thing, who is to say that I don't use the money I save from trading in and buying used to purchase more games I otherwise wouldn't? ActicEdge

The money you've saved are the ones that you've cheated out of the developer's pocket. In essense you're not giving him any money, just recycling the amount you've stolen from them.

I don't get a sandwhich frommy friend. I also don't get a sandwhich from the grocery store that makes and sells sandwhiches. Therefore, they are both equally bad because I don't get a sandwhich either way. that's essentially your logic.ActicEdge

A sandwich is perishable. A game is not, which means that the piblisher has to provide online services for you, even though you've not given a dime to them for the game. Does that sound fair to you?

And there's a big difference between piracy and buying used games. If I purchase a game, and I sell it, here's the thing - I don't have the game anymore. One copy was paid for, and one copy is now in someone's possession. If I purchase a game, take out all the files, and then put them on the internet, that's different. Many new copies are being generated, and only one was paid for.PannicAtack

You're talking from the side of the pirate, I'm talking about the consumer side. If you download a pirated game, you've cheated the publisher. If you buy a used game, you've cheated the publisher, funded the system that cheats the publisher and forced the publisher to provide online services for you. It really is worse than piracy.

[QUOTE="DarkLink77"][QUOTE="PannicAtack"] Valve was running a little thing where you could pay whatever you wanted, and you'd get five highly-rated indie titles. All proceeds go to charity. And a bunch of people pirate it anyway.markinthedark

lol thats pretty damn hilarious.

I don't find that funny at all. I find that pretty pathetic in my opinion, when some small indie developers (who aren't big-time publishers) try to band together and get some money for charity, and then a bunch of people go and pirate the game. Just makes me wonder what this industry (and what this world) is coming to...

Its not my problem to care about there bottom line if they don't have the deceny to care about mine. That's what people don't get.

ActicEdge

That's a line of thought straight out of the pirate's handbook: "We're doing it to punish corporate greed!". Yeah, keep telling yourself that.

[QUOTE="PannicAtack"]And there's a big difference between piracy and buying used games. If I purchase a game, and I sell it, here's the thing - I don't have the game anymore. One copy was paid for, and one copy is now in someone's possession. If I purchase a game, take out all the files, and then put them on the internet, that's different. Many new copies are being generated, and only one was paid for.alexandros1313

You're talking from the side of the pirate, I'm talking about the consumer side. If you download a pirated game, you've cheated the publisher. If you buy a used game, you've cheated the publisher, funded the system that cheats the publisher and forced the publisher to provide online services for you. It really is worse than piracy.

[QUOTE="ActicEdge"]

You forget one thing, who is to say that I don't use the money I save from trading in and buying used to purchase more games I otherwise wouldn't? alexandros1313

The money you've saved are the ones that you've cheated out of the developer's pocket. In essense you're not giving him any money, just recycling the amount you've stolen from them.

I don't get a sandwhich frommy friend. I also don't get a sandwhich from the grocery store that makes and sells sandwhiches. Therefore, they are both equally bad because I don't get a sandwhich either way. that's essentially your logic.ActicEdge

A sandwich is perishable. A game is not, which means that the piblisher has to provide online services for you, even though you've not given a dime to them for the game. Does that sound fair to you?

And there's a big difference between piracy and buying used games. If I purchase a game, and I sell it, here's the thing - I don't have the game anymore. One copy was paid for, and one copy is now in someone's possession. If I purchase a game, take out all the files, and then put them on the internet, that's different. Many new copies are being generated, and only one was paid for.PannicAtack

You're talking from the side of the pirate, I'm talking about the consumer side. If you download a pirated game, you've cheated the publisher. If you buy a used game, you've cheated the publisher, funded the system that cheats the publisher and forced the publisher to provide online services for you. It really is worse than piracy.

[QUOTE="ActicEdge"]

You forget one thing, who is to say that I don't use the money I save from trading in and buying used to purchase more games I otherwise wouldn't? alexandros1313

The money you've saved are the ones that you've cheated out of the developer's pocket. In essense you're not giving him any money, just recycling the amount you've stolen from them.

I don't get a sandwhich frommy friend. I also don't get a sandwhich from the grocery store that makes and sells sandwhiches. Therefore, they are both equally bad because I don't get a sandwhich either way. that's essentially your logic.ActicEdge

A sandwich is perishable. A game is not, which means that the piblisher has to provide online services for you, even though you've not given a dime to them for the game. Does that sound fair to you?

And there's a big difference between piracy and buying used games. If I purchase a game, and I sell it, here's the thing - I don't have the game anymore. One copy was paid for, and one copy is now in someone's possession. If I purchase a game, take out all the files, and then put them on the internet, that's different. Many new copies are being generated, and only one was paid for.PannicAtack

You're talking from the side of the pirate, I'm talking about the consumer side. If you download a pirated game, you've cheated the publisher. If you buy a used game, you've cheated the publisher, funded the system that cheats the publisher and forced the publisher to provide online services for you. It really is worse than piracy.

You say that under the assumption that everyone would buy new if they couldn't buy used, pretty much no one is going to do that. If they are buying used and trading in, they don't have unlimited money. As far as money cheated out of the devs pocket, tough world. I suspose I can't lend out my games now too, can't give em to charity, can't gift em because that's a lost sale too right? Please.

You missed the point, its not about the sandwhich, its about the fact that I don't get anything from either party. It could be anything and the effect is still the same, I am empty handed. Does that somehow make me cheated by both parties? Also, what online, P2P? Really? And even then, the fact of the matter is they offered online because no one would give a damn about there product if they didn't. If they could spend less money with no online and achieve the same sales they would. The online is not charity, its part of the overall product and assuming no one traded in their game they still would have the exact same server stress regardless. Please stop, this point is none sense.

Nooo, because if I purchase Super Smash Bros Brawl used, that's still fully paid for, because the person who originally purchased Super Smash Bros Brawl no longer has that game, and the same applies for any other console game. It's not forcing the company to provide new services, because no new services are being generated.PannicAtack

So if I buy the game, play it, copy it and sell it to you, but then throw my game away, I'm not a pirate? Really?

[QUOTE="ActicEdge"]

Its not my problem to care about there bottom line if they don't have the deceny to care about mine. That's what people don't get.

alexandros1313

That's a line of thought straight out of the pirate's handbook: "We're doing it to punish corporate greed!". Yeah, keep telling yourself that.

I'm not talking about corporate greed because the corporations can do what they want and I will still do what is required under the law meaning not pirating. That however is life, you can't expect me as a consumer to give 100% and you as a corporation to give me a nickle and dimed 25%. That just isn't happening.I don't buy used to punish anyone, I buy used because buying new is a waste of my money since the prices don't match the content and its buy used or don't buy at all. Basically a lose lose for THQ either way.Sorry, that's just reality, its not piracy or selfish, its life.

[QUOTE="PannicAtack"]Nooo, because if I purchase Super Smash Bros Brawl used, that's still fully paid for, because the person who originally purchased Super Smash Bros Brawl no longer has that game, and the same applies for any other console game. It's not forcing the company to provide new services, because no new services are being generated.alexandros1313

So if I buy the game, play it, copy it and sell it to you, but then throw my game away, I'm not a pirate? Really?

Out of a bargain bin at Comic-Con this year. I paid at half the price I would have paid if I got a copy off of Amazon or Borders.

Am I a pirate?

You say that under the assumption that everyone would buy new if they couldn't buy used, pretty much no one is going to do that. If they are buying used and trading in, they don't have unlimited money. As far as money cheated out of the devs pocket, tough world. I suspose I can't lend out my games now too, can't give em to charity, can't gift em because that's a lost sale too right? Please.

ActicEdge

Yes, if people didn't have the option to buy used, they would all buy new but at different price points. If I only had 30$ to buy a game and it cost 60$, I would have to wait until a price drop in order to get it. That's 30$ going to the developer and publisher, and rightfully so. If I buy it used for 30$, the developer and publisher get nothing and I've deprived them of 30$ that they deserve because they are the ones that made the game! Which one of these two options seem more fair to you? Why should the second0hand delaer get money that he did absolutely nothing to earn them, instead of the money goin to the people who actually deserve them?

I don't buy used to punish anyone, I buy used because buying new is a waste of my money since the prices don't match the content and its buy used or don't buy at all. Basically a lose lose for THQ either way.Sorry, that's just reality, its not piracy or selfish, its life.

ActicEdge

If you think 60$ is too much, then wait untile the price drops and buy it then. At least this way your money will go straight to the people who made and distributed the game. By buying used you give them nothing.

PannicAtack

Out of a bargain bin at Comic-Con this year. I paid at half the price I would have paid if I got a copy off of Amazon or Borders.

Am I a pirate?

No, you're not a pirate, just as the person who buys used isn't a pirate. You didn't give any money to the person who wrote the book though. If everyone did that, read the book and then sell it, then the writer would have managed to sell X amount of copies, while the people that read his book are actually Xx20. This man was deprived of a great deal of money because of this.

[QUOTE="ActicEdge"]

You say that under the assumption that everyone would buy new if they couldn't buy used, pretty much no one is going to do that. If they are buying used and trading in, they don't have unlimited money. As far as money cheated out of the devs pocket, tough world. I suspose I can't lend out my games now too, can't give em to charity, can't gift em because that's a lost sale too right? Please.

alexandros1313

Yes, if people didn't have the option to buy used, they would all buy new but at different price points. If I only had 30$ to buy a game and it cost 60$, I would have to wait until a price drop in order to get it. That's 30$ going to the developer and publisher, and rightfully so. If I buy it used for 30$, the developer and publisher get nothing and I've deprived them of 30$ that they deserve because they are the ones that made the game! Which one of these two options seem more fair to you? Why should the second0hand delaer get money that he did absolutely nothing to earn them, instead of the money goin to the people who actually deserve them?

Nope that is entirely false, if people can't buy new or refuse to pay full price for a productthey turn to alternatives. You are simply wrong for thinking 100% of people are going to buy the game but just wait for a price drop. Lol no, there is this thing called time and it continues to flow and new games get released, people forget about your product if they can't get it immeiatelyand old games get burried and you know what happens to old games that can't sell? The stock gets sent back to the publisher. and you know what? the majority of games in this industry will do 50%+ of total sales in their first month. then they might be fortunate enough to be sent to the bomba bin where they are reduced in price so much that they become worthless.

Also, here's a tip. The devs and pubs do not make $60 profit on every game sold, they make about 18 to 24 dollars. You know what happens when you hit the bomba bin? The retailer makes pretty much no money and that causes there trust in pubs ability to make products that move goes down and they order less next time. Price dropd are fine, they are for clearing a product which is no longer moving, prices bombs that are so common this gen are not good. As far as depriving them of money, they already go paid for selling the stock, you're depriving them of the oppurtunity of a second shipment. Is that bad? To me, I don't actually care, for you perhaps but they already got paid. As far as which one seems fair to me, don't bother you know my position, the side where I as a consumer can sell my property, Whoever becomes a victim of that isn't really my problem.

That doesn't hold up. For example, if you purchase a dvd and then watch it with your family, that's four people watching it for the price of 1. Or if you take the dvd to a party, how many people are at that party?

Heck, let's go back to comic books. Say you wanted to read Miracleman #15, from legendary writer Alan Moore, one of the most highly-acclaimed comics of the 80s.

Well, if you want to read Miracleman #15, one of the most highly-acclaimed comics of the 80s by legendary writer Alan Moore, you can't buy new, because it's been out of print for years due to conflicting copyright claims. So, the only way to get it at all is to pay a lot of money on a site like Ebay or Amazon or to be very lucky at a local comics convention, because despite any ideals of giving all due money to the publisher, that is quite simply impossible.

As for your specific example of selling a digital copy over the internet, that would be extraordinarily sketchy, and in any case, copying the game like that would be directly illegal.

Another example - used cars.

If you think 60$ is too much, then wait untile the price drops and buy it then. At least this way your money will go straight to the people who made and distributed the game. By buying used you give them nothing.

alexandros1313

If I don't think the game is worth $60 and I want to play it there are 2 options. I'll buy it used or I'll buy something that I do feel is worth my $60. There is no wait. I don't have time to bend to the markets taste, my time is limited, I'm not wasting it to please a dev who can't make a product worth my time and money. Why should I idiolize them?

What if I want to buy these?

Can't buy them new. Can't give money to the original creators, because the games are no longer being made. So the only way to buy them is to buy them used.

What if I want to buy these?

Can't buy them new. Can't give money to the original creators, because the games are no longer being made. So the only way to buy them is to buy them used.

PannicAtack

No one is going to care because there is no money to be lost off it it since the game is no longer in production. This isn't the issue at hand obviously.

[QUOTE="locopatho"][QUOTE="mo0ksi"]

I easily see where they're coming from. considering the ever-rising development costs. People think the online passes redeem this but that's considering every gamer bought the said game specifically for online use. A lot of people are here are saying they should make their games cheaper, when more than a decade ago games had cost up to $90.

Espada12

Actually it is.

Exactly. Gamers do at least 2 things that boost the prices of games, They demand that games have features that have to be licensed (or the more expensive route, developed by the developer themselves) like physics. They want little sparks flying off fires (particle acceleration in pyhsics) or bits and pieces of airplane breaking off of planes when dogfighting. Game engines themselves have to be licensed (again cheaper than having to develop one). Gamers want motion blur, and near photo realistic graphics and creating them all take time and money. Years ago, gameplay trumped graphics and since have done a complete 180 as gamers now want eye popping graphics instead of gameplay. That all costs money.

For many years. MP gaming was the sole domain of PC gamers (I don't count split screen gaming on a 27" TV as MP gaming, but I guess it could be classified as MP) who never paid for being able to connect to game servers even if owned by game companies. Along comes MS with the XBox and introduces XBox Live for console gamers and they ate it up with the yearly subscription price of at least a game (oh, developmental costs of console games is more expensive than PC games as multiple developmental consoles can cost $10,000 or so and development studios need more than one) to access the MS servers for friends lists and DLC (which was added again due to gamer requests/demands) and the Marketplace (added so MS could make more money off console gamers). As noted, MS added stuff to XBox Live as gamers kept buying into it.

Then MS tries to do the same thing with PC gamers by offering Games for Windows Live. It didn't offer anything new for gamers that they haven't already used for at least 10 years. Gamers didn't buy into it and MS was forced to make it free for use instead of a yearly pay to play plan like XBox Live is.

Gamers have the ability to affect changes. If you do not like how games are progressing such as losing features and getting shorter in game play hours (this complaint has surfaced in this thread) or any other reason a gamer can complain about, then it is up to the gamer to not buy any game. Stop buying games and companies will get your message, but the minute someone bought a current gen console game for $60, they publishers got their suckers and had no reason to drop the price of games.

The only entity that loses out when games hit the bargain bin is the retailer selling said games. The publisher has already received their money on the products. Now, if a retailer has to return any unsold product, they get a credit on it and are refunded the money they paid.

Again, if you buy something at a particular price and you are not happy about the price, you are at fault.

[QUOTE="PannicAtack"]

What if I want to buy these?

Can't buy them new. Can't give money to the original creators, because the games are no longer being made. So the only way to buy them is to buy them used.

ActicEdge

No one is going to care because there is no money to be lost off it it since the game is no longer in production. This isn't the issue at hand obviously.

[QUOTE="Espada12"]

[QUOTE="locopatho"] Let them get their costs under control then. Not our fault they spend a bazillion dollars on each game.WhiteKnight77

Actually it is.

Exactly. Gamers do at least 2 things that boost the prices of games, They demand that games have features that have to be licensed (or the more expensive route, developed by the developer themselves) like physics. They want little sparks flying off fires (particle acceleration in pyhsics) or bits and pieces of airplane breaking off of planes when dogfighting. Game engines themselves have to be licensed (again cheaper than having to develop one). Gamers want motion blur, and near photo realistic graphics and creating them all take time and money. Years ago, gameplay trumped graphics and since have done a complete 180 as gamers now want eye popping graphics instead of gameplay. That all costs money.

For many years. MP gaming was the sole domain of PC gamers (I don't count split screen gaming on a 27" TV as MP gaming, but I guess it could be classified as MP) who never paid for being able to connect to game servers even if owned by game companies. Along comes MS with the XBox and introduces XBox Live for console gamers and they ate it up with the yearly subscription price of at least a game (oh, developmental costs of console games is more expensive than PC games as multiple developmental consoles can cost $10,000 or so and development studios need more than one) to access the MS servers for friends lists and DLC (which was added again due to gamer requests/demands) and the Marketplace (added so MS could make more money off console gamers). As noted, MS added stuff to XBox Live as gamers kept buying into it.

Then MS tries to do the same thing with PC gamers by offering Games for Windows Live. It didn't offer anything new for gamers that they haven't already used for at least 10 years. Gamers didn't buy into it and MS was forced to make it free for use instead of a yearly pay to play plan like XBox Live is.

Gamers have the ability to affect changes. If you do not like how games are progressing such as losing features and getting shorter in game play hours (this complaint has surfaced in this thread) or any other reason a gamer can complain about, then it is up to the gamer to not buy any game. Stop buying games and companies will get your message, but the minute someone bought a current gen console game for $60, they publishers got their suckers and had no reason to drop the price of games.

The only entity that loses out when games hit the bargain bin is the retailer selling said games. The publisher has already received their money on the products. Now, if a retailer has to return any unsold product, they get a credit on it and are refunded the money they paid.

Again, if you buy something at a particular price and you are not happy about the price, you are at fault.

I don't demand any of that. I have a Wii and a DS and I buy games and play games with subpar graphics all the time. Devs simply give it to us. Notice how the Wiiis the best sellingconsole this gen yet it is the most neglected? Notice how the DS is pretty much void of any decent amount of quality western games? Do you actually have the nerve to say that gamers demanded graphics when the non HD last gen tech system kicked the HD systems ass in sales and the weakest system this gen is on its way to breaking sales records?? Devs and pubs dug their own damn hole, don't ever defend them and put that blame towards me as a consumer. That pisses me off.

Don't want us to buy used but then the companys charge like 10-15$$ on extra content which is sometimes even on the disk whos unfair.

It actually isn't. I don't have any say what so ever. If I had my way there would not be 3 resistance game, 5 COD games, 3 gears games, 4 battlefield games, 2 killzones, etc all in the same genre competing for the same persons money based off of huge budgets. I didn't make that decision, the one's in charge did, don't pretend like we get to actually choose the content we get.

ActicEdge

It is because that's what sells the most, basically the population is asking for more of it with their wallets.

Nope. Plenty of smaller companies out there making great games for much less than the insane budgets. Didn't "This Is Vegas" just get cancelled after 50 million spent on it? APB gone bust after 100 million spent on it? Crazy amounts, I have no sympathy for them.locopatho

Don't compare mmos to regular games. The average amount for a triple AAA game is still extremely expensive. Which is why most devs who go for triple A games play it fairly safe.

I don't demand any of that. I have a Wii and a DS and I buy games and play games with subpar graphics all the time. Devs simply give it to us. Notice how the Wiiis the best sellingconsole this gen yet it is the most neglected? Notice how the DS is pretty much void of any decent amount of quality western games? Do you actually have the nerve to say that gamers demanded graphics when the non HD last gen tech system kicked the HD systems ass in sales and the weakest system this gen is on its way to breaking sales records?? Devs and pubs dug their own damn hole, don't ever defend them and put that blame towards me as a consumer. That pisses me off.

ActicEdge

But gamers these days have had their standards raised and also expect certain things from games. A game doesn't have match making? Complaints. Sub par visuals on a HD console? Complaints. Not enough action? Complaints. Too complicated? Complaints. Too hard? Complaints. Too short? Complaints. No MP? Complaints. All this just adds up to the cost of making a game that will sell millions. At the end of the day this is still a business.

[QUOTE="WhiteKnight77"]

Exactly. Gamers do at least 2 things that boost the prices of games, They demand that games have features that have to be licensed (or the more expensive route, developed by the developer themselves) like physics. They want little sparks flying off fires (particle acceleration in pyhsics) or bits and pieces of airplane breaking off of planes when dogfighting. Game engines themselves have to be licensed (again cheaper than having to develop one). Gamers want motion blur, and near photo realistic graphics and creating them all take time and money. Years ago, gameplay trumped graphics and since have done a complete 180 as gamers now want eye popping graphics instead of gameplay. That all costs money.

For many years. MP gaming was the sole domain of PC gamers (I don't count split screen gaming on a 27" TV as MP gaming, but I guess it could be classified as MP) who never paid for being able to connect to game servers even if owned by game companies. Along comes MS with the XBox and introduces XBox Live for console gamers and they ate it up with the yearly subscription price of at least a game (oh, developmental costs of console games is more expensive than PC games as multiple developmental consoles can cost $10,000 or so and development studios need more than one) to access the MS servers for friends lists and DLC (which was added again due to gamer requests/demands) and the Marketplace (added so MS could make more money off console gamers). As noted, MS added stuff to XBox Live as gamers kept buying into it.

Then MS tries to do the same thing with PC gamers by offering Games for Windows Live. It didn't offer anything new for gamers that they haven't already used for at least 10 years. Gamers didn't buy into it and MS was forced to make it free for use instead of a yearly pay to play plan like XBox Live is.

Gamers have the ability to affect changes. If you do not like how games are progressing such as losing features and getting shorter in game play hours (this complaint has surfaced in this thread) or any other reason a gamer can complain about, then it is up to the gamer to not buy any game. Stop buying games and companies will get your message, but the minute someone bought a current gen console game for $60, they publishers got their suckers and had no reason to drop the price of games.

The only entity that loses out when games hit the bargain bin is the retailer selling said games. The publisher has already received their money on the products. Now, if a retailer has to return any unsold product, they get a credit on it and are refunded the money they paid.

Again, if you buy something at a particular price and you are not happy about the price, you are at fault.

ActicEdge

I don't demand any of that. I have a Wii and a DS and I buy games and play games with subpar graphics all the time. Devs simply give it to us. Notice how the Wiiis the best sellingconsole this gen yet it is the most neglected? Notice how the DS is pretty much void of any decent amount of quality western games? Do you actually have the nerve to say that gamers demanded graphics when the non HD last gen tech system kicked the HD systems ass in sales and the weakest system this gen is on its way to breaking sales records?? Devs and pubs dug their own damn hole, don't ever defend them and put that blame towards me as a consumer. That pisses me off.

I am not point the finger directly at you, but all gamers. Just look through these forums. Gamers all talking about how great a game looks, but rarely how well a game plays. If it is about how a game plays, it is in this manner, "This game is too hard, I keep getting killed and have barely started the level" (note, this is a general complaint and not one anyone specific made). Gamers are the reason why games lose features and gain others. Developers and publishers all look at forums, focus groups and their own displays at conventions such as E3 and take in the comments and it is how they develop the games. Now if hundreds of gamers all tell the devs that their games play great and look like crap, what do you think they will work on? If gamers keep saying they like the eye candy graphics, of course that is where they will develop.

The Wii is the oddity this go round, but it still has problems, one publisher makes lots of games for it, but is shunned by the consumer and thus they are cutting back on how many develop for it. From my readings around the web, gamers do like Wii games for their gameplay even if the games do not look so great. That is what I was talking about earlier and if you enjoy them, great. Still, look through these threads and what games do most people like playing? CoD, Halo, MW/2 and the like. They all pretty much play the same, but have great graphics. See where I am going? Publishers will give the gamers what they want. If gamers keep buying games like CoD or Halo, what do you think publishers will keep making?

Gamers keep complaining, yet the one thing they do not do is accept that they are the ones who buy what publishers put out the door. Sure, buying the game does give them the right to complain, but to affect changes, they need to do more than complain. If a gamer does not like paying $60 for a game, do not buy them. It really is simple, but that fact is lost on many.

*edit for spelling*

[QUOTE="ActicEdge"]

It actually isn't. I don't have any say what so ever. If I had my way there would not be 3 resistance game, 5 COD games, 3 gears games, 4 battlefield games, 2 killzones, etc all in the same genre competing for the same persons money based off of huge budgets. I didn't make that decision, the one's in charge did, don't pretend like we get to actually choose the content we get.

Espada12

It is because that's what sells the most, basically the population is asking for more of it with their wallets.

Nope. Plenty of smaller companies out there making great games for much less than the insane budgets. Didn't "This Is Vegas" just get cancelled after 50 million spent on it? APB gone bust after 100 million spent on it? Crazy amounts, I have no sympathy for them.locopatho

Don't compare mmos to regular games. The average amount for a triple AAA game is still extremely expensive. Which is why most devs who go for triple A games play it fairly safe.

They never gave me a choice in the first place. Those were the biggest budget most highly marketed games. Of course they are going to sell the most. The sales potential beyond those genres is more than enough to go in those directions but everyone heads down that same path. Then when ever a game under performs I have to hear complaining. Can we stop defending publisher ignorance, they ignored all the obvious markets for the PS3 and 360, they clearly went against consumer demand. CLEARLY.

[QUOTE="Espada12"]

[QUOTE="ActicEdge"]

It is because that's what sells the most, basically the population is asking for more of it with their wallets.

[QUOTE="locopatho"]

Nope. Plenty of smaller companies out there making great games for much less than the insane budgets. Didn't "This Is Vegas" just get cancelled after 50 million spent on it? APB gone bust after 100 million spent on it? Crazy amounts, I have no sympathy for them.ActicEdge

Don't compare mmos to regular games. The average amount for a triple AAA game is still extremely expensive. Which is why most devs who go for triple A games play it fairly safe.

They never gave me a choice in the first place. Those were the biggest budget most highly marketed games. Of course they are going to sell the most. The sales potential beyond those genres is more than enough to go in those directions but everyone heads down that same path. Then when ever a game under performs I have to hear complaining. Can we stop defending publisher ignorance, they ignored all the obvious markets for the PS3 and 360, they clearly went against consumer demand. CLEARLY.

Just because you or I dislike a game and do not buy them doesn't mean that the devs will stop making them, more gamers need to stop buying them. We do have the choice on whether or not we buy a particular game. If no one buys the games, the devs will stop making them, but as long as a million gamers buy such tripe, you and I will be subjected to it, but we have the ability to not buy it. When gamers as a whole demand more out of a game than what is currently sold, then the market will change. No, publishers are not ignorant, they know exactly what is selling due to what gamers are buying. As I said, as long as gamers buy such tripe and for specific platforms, with other types of games and platforms being ignored.

They never gave me a choice in the first place. Those were the biggest budget most highly marketed games. Of course they are going to sell the most. The sales potential beyond those genres is more than enough to go in those directions but everyone heads down that same path. Then when ever a game under performs I have to hear complaining. Can we stop defending publisher ignorance, they ignored all the obvious markets for the PS3 and 360, they clearly went against consumer demand. CLEARLY.

ActicEdge

I won't argue that, but it still doesn't change the fact that you go with what sells. Business is business, some publishers try something different only to see their games flop and cost more than they make. EA for instance with mirror's edge and I believe brutal legend and Sega with Alpha Protocol. I won't defend them when their generic cash in doesn't sell well but gamers are half to blame here. Alot of people cry for innovation and yet turn around and ignore innovative and different games for the run of the mill polished shooter.

Alot of people cry for innovation and yet turn around and ignore innovative and different games for the run of the mill polished shooter.

Espada12

This right here is the biggest reason why we get cookie cutter games and the tripe that is being marketed.

[QUOTE="Espada12"] Alot of people cry for innovation and yet turn around and ignore innovative and different games for the run of the mill polished shooter.

WhiteKnight77

This right here is the biggest reason why we get cookie cutter games and the tripe that is being marketed.

Innovation isn't a reason for me to spend $60 on a game. Its not hard to give me something new that also encourages me to keep it around. Its pure bull that I should support innovation if its inferior to a retread. sorry but this is my money and I expect innovation AND polish, not one or the other.

Charging $60 for every game you release is cheating. When publishers start charging less for less content then I will feel sorry for them.

There's no way a game with 6 hours of gameplay and no online should cost as much as a game with 25 hours of gameplay and online.

[QUOTE="WhiteKnight77"]

[QUOTE="Espada12"] Alot of people cry for innovation and yet turn around and ignore innovative and different games for the run of the mill polished shooter.

ActicEdge

This right here is the biggest reason why we get cookie cutter games and the tripe that is being marketed.

Innovation isn't a reason for me to spend $60 on a game. Its not hard to give me something new that also encourages me to keep it around. Its pure bull that I should support innovation if its inferior to a retread. sorry but this is my money and I expect innovation AND polish, not one or the other.

Exactly! I do as well but the polish part is where the extra costs come in.

Charging $60 for every game you release is cheating. When publishers start charging less for less content then I will feel sorry for them.

There's no way a game with 6 hours of gameplay and no online should cost as much as a game with 25 hours of gameplay and online.

coasterguy65

[QUOTE="coasterguy65"]

Charging $60 for every game you release is cheating. When publishers start charging less for less content then I will feel sorry for them.

There's no way a game with 6 hours of gameplay and no online should cost as much as a game with 25 hours of gameplay and online.

CajunShooter

that is just horrible planning on the more expensive games part. Devs that want to make single player only games should but don't like make it cost so much money. the quality of the game is irrelevant to whether the game will be traded in or no. 6 hours of gameplay simply cannot match 100 hours in a battle over the gamers wallet so why fight that losing battle?

[QUOTE="CajunShooter"][QUOTE="coasterguy65"]

Charging $60 for every game you release is cheating. When publishers start charging less for less content then I will feel sorry for them.

There's no way a game with 6 hours of gameplay and no online should cost as much as a game with 25 hours of gameplay and online.

ActicEdge

that is just horrible planning on the more expensive games part. Devs that want to make single player only games should but don't like make it cost so much money. the quality of the game is irrelevant to whether the game will be traded in or no. 6 hours of gameplay simply cannot match 100 hours in a battle over the gamers wallet so why fight that losing battle?

THe second part of your post is pure speculation, so let's stick to the first one. Please clarify: In the hypothetical case that used game sales were banned and you couldn't buy a game from any publisher unless it was new, what is this alternative you speak of? Would you quit gaming just because there are no used games? What I said stands: If there weren't any used games, 100% of the gamers would buy new but at at different price points.

Let's say that you want to play a game. You go down to the shop and you see Red Dead Redemption 2, but it costs 60$. You only have 30$. What do you do? 1. You buy another game that's been out for a while and the price has dropped or 2. you wait until there is a price drop for RDR 2.

[QUOTE="ActicEdge"]

If I don't think the game is worth $60 and I want to play it there are 2 options. I'll buy it used or I'll buy something that I do feel is worth my $60. There is no wait. I don't have time to bend to the markets taste, my time is limited, I'm not wasting it to please a dev who can't make a product worth my time and money. Why should I idiolize them?

ActicEdge

If you buy it used just because you can't wait a bit, you're just as bad as the people who pirate the game because they can't afford it at full price. In both cases, the publisher gets 0$ from both of you.

Don't want us to buy used but then the companys charge like 10-15$$ on extra content which is sometimes even on the disk whos unfair.

gamer4life85

The publisher offers a product, if you think it's overpriced or incomplte, don't buy it or wait for the GOTY edition. You're just rationalizing your actions in order to feel good about yourself, when the truth is that you're not paying the people who made the game the money that they've earned.

Charging $60 for every game you release is cheating. When publishers start charging less for less content then I will feel sorry for them.

There's no way a game with 6 hours of gameplay and no online should cost as much as a game with 25 hours of gameplay and online.

coasterguy65

No, it's not. They are offering a product and they can set the price at 1000$ if they want. If you, as a customer, think that the game isn't worth 60$, don't buy it until it drops to a point where you think you're getting value for money. Don't 'steal' it just because you can't wait a while.