TOUGH REALITY check about pre owned games business...

[QUOTE="tomarlyn"]

[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]

No they don't.. Because the vast majoirty of people out there are going to choose the cheaper price, meaning the used game.. Over the brand new game 8 out of 10 times.. There is no legitimate reason why a publisher or developer wants this.. ESPECIALLY when games are getting so short in length..

sSubZerOo

Then power to the people :P

But like I said if I hadn't got SoTC used I wouldn't give a damn about buying The Last Guardian new, a new copy of SoTC was nowhere to be found (price drop or not). Sony benefits this way from me. Its not in the best interest of the publisher to support used games, but it is a neccesary evil (from their perspective).

This was also a used special edition copy of SoTC for £12 (new games in the UK retail for around £40), very lucky find. If I had seen a regular copy in new condition for more money I would have been a complete idiot to buy that instead.

Your ancedotal evidence doesn't mean anything.. Companies will not use such flimsy logic and unlikely scenerios to why they should not attack this..

I've had my run-ins with EA customer support over their single use codes and won't be buying another thing from them after Mass Effect 3. For example, families that use their own profile on the same console all have to buy the same content individually to play it. Its greed, pure and simple and shouldn't be backed or defended.

[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]

[QUOTE="sonicmj1"]

You aren't. You're paying for a disk that only plays in a certain game device. You can play that disk on any machine you want. You can sell that right to any person you want to sell it to. That is your legal privilege, as it is for any other piece of media or any physical device.

No it isn't yet again.. The only reason why it hasn't been enforced yet is because of technology blocks, this is changing dramatically..

There's no reason to accept the reasoning of game companies that want to restrict your privileges.

Well then your in for a rude awakening, because this has been common practice for pc games well over 5 years..

Given that the disk can only be played on one machine at a time, there's no reason to use CD keys to enforce licenses.

That doesn't make a difference.. Your not paying them hourly or monthly to play your game.. You paid once for permission.. When you give it to a friend, yoru shorting them an extra copy.. You didn't buy the game, yo do not the own game.. You own a license in which only your self can use.

Games are currently distributed as they ought to be, and if game companies try to lock people out of reselling their retail goods, people will be upset, and it will be bad for those companies in the long run.

No it won't because if this happens to everything your choice is not to be a gamer. So have fun with that.

As Liquid pointed out, EULAs are not legally binding, as has been pointed out time and time again in courts of law. Why bend over to accept the whims of corporations whenver they try to steal your rights with legalese?

Its just in the EULA now because it can't be enforced well enough on consoles.. This will change next gen.. It has been that way for the PC for years.. World of Warcraft in its 12 million subscribers are a huge example of this.. In which they have the right to ban your account (which is the game bought) at their descrition including having people share account, and selling your account.

sonicmj1

You keep acting like this is inevitable. It isn't, because there are two sides to every sale: a corporation and a consumer.

Corporations would make more profit if all games were sold for $200. They'd make more profit if we had to pay them hourly to play singleplayer games. They'd make more profit if they didn't have to routinely invest in new technology. This didn't happen because consumers had choices, and they chose options that were cheaper and more friendly to them. It's why the EA Online Store, which sold 3 year rentals at full retail, failed, and why Steam, which sells games for life, allows you to redownload your games as often as you wish, and has frequent sales at low, low prices, succeeded. This is why games with lots of options and robust multiplayer modes tend to outsell linear, throwaway singleplayer-only adventures.

People can peddle the "license" theory as frequently as they wish, but it's not how people feel. I get angry when someone tells me I don't own something I paid money for and can hold in my hand. Yes I own it. It's mine. I can do what I want with it. I can sell it, I can give it to a friend, and it doesn't matter, because it's mine. If you take that right away from me, give me absolutely nothing in return, and expect me to still pay full price for games, you can go take a long walk off a short pier into whatever profiteering cesspool you came from.

This isn't a subscription we're discussing. They aren't providing me any service. This is an attempt to steal money from consumers without any incentive, and I won't stand for it. At least have the decency to pretend that you're offering me something, like those one-use codes that come with new games do.

Yeah you mean like those $15 DLC's people cry out that they are going boycott? Yet they are being sold by the boat load.. Or the huge angry mob who couldn't stand for L4D2 being made so early after the first and they said they are not going to buy it.. What happened? It sold huge amounts of copies, and many of the movement broke down and bought it... And yet again businesses don't see it that way... They see it as their intelectually property being stolen..

[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]

[QUOTE="FrozenLiquid"]

Yeah, and Karl Marx said that the proleteriat revolution was inevitable.

Still waiting on Marx. When his prediction comes true, I'll get back to you on used game sales.

FrozenLiquid

:| Your comparison falls flat on its face when it has already been in use for computers both software and games in general for years now..

No not really. The People's Republic of China and North Korea are two communist states which Marx talked about.

Actually no they are not.. Marx believed in a socialism that was ran by a Republic or democracy..These are niether.. The people do not have power in these systems.. Which Marx was all about, that every person had power..

However, they're not true communist states. PRC has a capitalist economy and everyone hates North Korea. A far cry from utopia.

The current trend to eliminate second hand game sales is like the PRC and North Korea. It's twisted ideals that will get people nowhere.

................. Yet again this has be again this has been in practice for YEARS with systems like STEAM..

Your ":|" faces aren't making your rebuttal any better either.

[QUOTE="sonicmj1"]

You keep acting like this is inevitable. It isn't, because there are two sides to every sale: a corporation and a consumer.

Corporations would make more profit if all games were sold for $200. They'd make more profit if we had to pay them hourly to play singleplayer games. They'd make more profit if they didn't have to routinely invest in new technology. This didn't happen because consumers had choices, and they chose options that were cheaper and more friendly to them. It's why the EA Online Store, which sold 3 year rentals at full retail, failed, and why Steam, which sells games for life, allows you to redownload your games as often as you wish, and has frequent sales at low, low prices, succeeded. This is why games with lots of options and robust multiplayer modes tend to outsell linear, throwaway singleplayer-only adventures.

People can peddle the "license" theory as frequently as they wish, but it's not how people feel. I get angry when someone tells me I don't own something I paid money for and can hold in my hand. Yes I own it. It's mine. I can do what I want with it. I can sell it, I can give it to a friend, and it doesn't matter, because it's mine. If you take that right away from me, give me absolutely nothing in return, and expect me to still pay full price for games, you can go take a long walk off a short pier into whatever profiteering cesspool you came from.

This isn't a subscription we're discussing. They aren't providing me any service. This is an attempt to steal money from consumers without any incentive, and I won't stand for it. At least have the decency to pretend that you're offering me something, like those one-use codes that come with new games do.

sSubZerOo

Yeah you mean like those $15 DLC's people cry out that they are going boycott? Yet they are being sold by the boat load.. Or the huge angry mob who couldn't stand for L4D2 being made so early after the first and they said they are not going to buy it.. What happened? It sold huge amounts of copies, and many of the movement broke down and bought it... And yet again businesses don't see it that way... They see it as their intelectually property being stolen..

I don't care how businesses see it. I am not a business. When EA makes more money, I get nothing. I don't have to be happy about this.

I buy things I want to buy, and I ignore things I don't want to buy. I don't buy DLC that I think is overpriced. I don't buy games that I think are rushed. And I don't buy into schemes that steal my rights from me so someone else can make money. It's very, very simple.

Their profits are not more important than my rights.

[QUOTE="PBSnipes"]

Difference: used game sales are legal.

True_Gamer_

[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]

[QUOTE="FrozenLiquid"]

Blizzard have always been stingy with their EULA. However, no one seemed to notice when people installed Warcraft 3 and Starcraft and WoW about a million times over on each other's PCs.

MMOs are rather different altogther, anyway.

FrozenLiquid

:| faceplam.. You can not play Starcraft 2 or WoW if you don't have an account with the registered games.. Installation is meaningless because you can't do anything with inless you havea account in which the games are activated..

As I said MMOs are a different beast altogether.

No they arn't.. WoW is infact the first mmo I have ever seen to enforce such strict policies..

If you look at Blizzard's WoW EULA anyway, it's one physical copy, one account or something.

Wrogn because you don't even need a physical copy anymore.. You can download direclty from their website FOR FREE.. You just need the cdkeys..

Itw as the same with Starcraft and Warcraft 3 - one computer, one physical copy.

Your basing this off of games released in 1999 and 2002? Convient that you completely ignored Starcraft 2 which is using this system as we speak..

Don't be facepalming. As logical as the elimination of second hand games sales is, trust me, it's not going to fly in the courts.

NO It is not because it has been enforced for years on the PC platform..

Unfortunately, most gamers will never understand this, as they most of them like to keep their heads in the clouds. If it were truly possible to do so, Activision, the most aggressively business-minded of all companies, would have done so unabashedly. They haven't. There's a reason for that.

Havnt you been listening to anything I have been saying? It has been done on the PC for years now because it has technologically advanced faster then the consoles when it comes to this type of system.. Just like direct download has taken off with the PC.. The consoles are going to follow this.. It will lead to more profits and many other advantages..

You are missing an important point though, once someone sells a game they no longer are able to play it, so it isn't like person X, Y, and Z can all play the game at the same time. In the day and age where downloadable content is also frequent, a publisher/developer may still make money from $10 to $30 from a person who did not purchase a game new.

[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]

[QUOTE="sonicmj1"]

You keep acting like this is inevitable. It isn't, because there are two sides to every sale: a corporation and a consumer.

Corporations would make more profit if all games were sold for $200. They'd make more profit if we had to pay them hourly to play singleplayer games. They'd make more profit if they didn't have to routinely invest in new technology. This didn't happen because consumers had choices, and they chose options that were cheaper and more friendly to them. It's why the EA Online Store, which sold 3 year rentals at full retail, failed, and why Steam, which sells games for life, allows you to redownload your games as often as you wish, and has frequent sales at low, low prices, succeeded. This is why games with lots of options and robust multiplayer modes tend to outsell linear, throwaway singleplayer-only adventures.

People can peddle the "license" theory as frequently as they wish, but it's not how people feel. I get angry when someone tells me I don't own something I paid money for and can hold in my hand. Yes I own it. It's mine. I can do what I want with it. I can sell it, I can give it to a friend, and it doesn't matter, because it's mine. If you take that right away from me, give me absolutely nothing in return, and expect me to still pay full price for games, you can go take a long walk off a short pier into whatever profiteering cesspool you came from.

This isn't a subscription we're discussing. They aren't providing me any service. This is an attempt to steal money from consumers without any incentive, and I won't stand for it. At least have the decency to pretend that you're offering me something, like those one-use codes that come with new games do.

sonicmj1

Yeah you mean like those $15 DLC's people cry out that they are going boycott? Yet they are being sold by the boat load.. Or the huge angry mob who couldn't stand for L4D2 being made so early after the first and they said they are not going to buy it.. What happened? It sold huge amounts of copies, and many of the movement broke down and bought it... And yet again businesses don't see it that way... They see it as their intelectually property being stolen..

I don't care how businesses see it. I am not a business. When EA makes more money, I get nothing. I don't have to be happy about this.

I buy things I want to buy, and I ignore things I don't want to buy. I don't buy DLC that I think is overpriced. I don't buy games that I think are rushed. And I don't buy into schemes that steal my rights from me so someone else can make money. It's very, very simple.

Their profits are not more important than my rights.

[QUOTE="FrozenLiquid"]

[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]

:| Your comparison falls flat on its face when it has already been in use for computers both software and games in general for years now..

sSubZerOo

No not really. The People's Republic of China and North Korea are two communist states which Marx talked about.

Actually no they are not.. Marx believed in a socialism that was ran by a Republic or democracy..These are niether.. The people do not have power in these systems.. Which Marx was all about, that every person had power..

However, they're not true communist states. PRC has a capitalist economy and everyone hates North Korea. A far cry from utopia.

The current trend to eliminate second hand game sales is like the PRC and North Korea. It's twisted ideals that will get people nowhere.

................. Yet again this has be again this has been in practice for YEARS with systems like STEAM..

Your ":|" faces aren't making your rebuttal any better either.

Sorry let me rephrase. The PRC and North Korea are two proleteriat revolutions Marx talked about. But I digress.

The fact of the matter was this:

You stated that the elimination of second hand game sales as inevitable. You said this as an absolute. I drew this comparison to Marx who stated that workers' revolution would bring about a workers' state according to his vision. It never happened.

Likewise, your suggestion that second hand game sales are going out the door is also probably never going to happen.

Steam, D2D etc will probably function like PRC and North Korea - a product of compulsion, but isolated in a wide frickin' ocean of reality.

You are missing an important point though, once someone sells a game they no longer are able to play it, so it isn't like person X, Y, and Z can all play the game at the same time. In the day and age where downloadable content is also frequent, a publisher/developer may still make money from $10 to $30 from a person who did not purchase a game new.

DarkGamer007

That doesn't make a difference.. They could care less if you play one hour of it or thousand hours of it.. You bought license.. When you give to some else, you are denying the publisher and developer the copy they would have gotten if you were not doing it.. Its ironic really.. People that make such a massive deal of piracy as well as demonize it, don't see why used games and the rental industry cause just as much damage alot of itmes.

[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]

[QUOTE="sonicmj1"]

You keep acting like this is inevitable. It isn't, because there are two sides to every sale: a corporation and a consumer.

Corporations would make more profit if all games were sold for $200. They'd make more profit if we had to pay them hourly to play singleplayer games. They'd make more profit if they didn't have to routinely invest in new technology. This didn't happen because consumers had choices, and they chose options that were cheaper and more friendly to them. It's why the EA Online Store, which sold 3 year rentals at full retail, failed, and why Steam, which sells games for life, allows you to redownload your games as often as you wish, and has frequent sales at low, low prices, succeeded. This is why games with lots of options and robust multiplayer modes tend to outsell linear, throwaway singleplayer-only adventures.

People can peddle the "license" theory as frequently as they wish, but it's not how people feel. I get angry when someone tells me I don't own something I paid money for and can hold in my hand. Yes I own it. It's mine. I can do what I want with it. I can sell it, I can give it to a friend, and it doesn't matter, because it's mine. If you take that right away from me, give me absolutely nothing in return, and expect me to still pay full price for games, you can go take a long walk off a short pier into whatever profiteering cesspool you came from.

This isn't a subscription we're discussing. They aren't providing me any service. This is an attempt to steal money from consumers without any incentive, and I won't stand for it. At least have the decency to pretend that you're offering me something, like those one-use codes that come with new games do.

sonicmj1

Yeah you mean like those $15 DLC's people cry out that they are going boycott? Yet they are being sold by the boat load.. Or the huge angry mob who couldn't stand for L4D2 being made so early after the first and they said they are not going to buy it.. What happened? It sold huge amounts of copies, and many of the movement broke down and bought it... And yet again businesses don't see it that way... They see it as their intelectually property being stolen..

I don't care how businesses see it. I am not a business. When EA makes more money, I get nothing. I don't have to be happy about this.

I buy things I want to buy, and I ignore things I don't want to buy. I don't buy DLC that I think is overpriced. I don't buy games that I think are rushed. And I don't buy into schemes that steal my rights from me so someone else can make money. It's very, very simple.

Their profits are not more important than my rights.

[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]

[QUOTE="FrozenLiquid"]

No not really. The People's Republic of China and North Korea are two communist states which Marx talked about.

Actually no they are not.. Marx believed in a socialism that was ran by a Republic or democracy..These are niether.. The people do not have power in these systems.. Which Marx was all about, that every person had power..

However, they're not true communist states. PRC has a capitalist economy and everyone hates North Korea. A far cry from utopia.

The current trend to eliminate second hand game sales is like the PRC and North Korea. It's twisted ideals that will get people nowhere.

................. Yet again this has be again this has been in practice for YEARS with systems like STEAM..

Your ":|" faces aren't making your rebuttal any better either.

FrozenLiquid

Sorry let me rephrase. The PRC and North Korea are two proleteriat revolutions Marx talked about. But I digress.

The fact of the matter was this:

You stated that the elimination of second hand game sales as inevitable. You said this as an absolute. I drew this comparison to Marx who stated that workers' revolution would bring about a workers' state according to his vision. It never happened.

Likewise, your suggestion that second hand game sales are going out the door is also probably never going to happen.

Steam, D2D etc will probably function like PRC and North Korea - a product of compulsion, but isolated in a wide frickin' ocean of reality.

.. Yeah you know with 15 million users, and WoW having 12 million subscribers.. Being a world wide craze.. That certainly sounds contained in a ocean of reality :roll:.. Do people realize you already do this with Direct Download games and Xbox live arcade>?

[QUOTE="sonicmj1"]

[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]

Yeah you mean like those $15 DLC's people cry out that they are going boycott? Yet they are being sold by the boat load.. Or the huge angry mob who couldn't stand for L4D2 being made so early after the first and they said they are not going to buy it.. What happened? It sold huge amounts of copies, and many of the movement broke down and bought it... And yet again businesses don't see it that way... They see it as their intelectually property being stolen..

Bigboi500

I don't care how businesses see it. I am not a business. When EA makes more money, I get nothing. I don't have to be happy about this.

I buy things I want to buy, and I ignore things I don't want to buy. I don't buy DLC that I think is overpriced. I don't buy games that I think are rushed. And I don't buy into schemes that steal my rights from me so someone else can make money. It's very, very simple.

Their profits are not more important than my rights.

Its funny really because you guys consistently try to blame the companies.. But it is the consumers who are willing to pay for this that continue this trend..

[QUOTE="Bigboi500"]

[QUOTE="sonicmj1"]

I don't care how businesses see it. I am not a business. When EA makes more money, I get nothing. I don't have to be happy about this.

I buy things I want to buy, and I ignore things I don't want to buy. I don't buy DLC that I think is overpriced. I don't buy games that I think are rushed. And I don't buy into schemes that steal my rights from me so someone else can make money. It's very, very simple.

Their profits are not more important than my rights.

sSubZerOo

Its funny really because you guys consistently try to blame the companies.. But it is the consumers who are willing to pay for this that continue this trend..

[QUOTE="FrozenLiquid"]

[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]

:| faceplam.. You can not play Starcraft 2 or WoW if you don't have an account with the registered games.. Installation is meaningless because you can't do anything with inless you havea account in which the games are activated..

sSubZerOo

As I said MMOs are a different beast altogether.

No they arn't.. WoW is infact the first mmo I have ever seen to enforce such strict policies..

If you look at Blizzard's WoW EULA anyway, it's one physical copy, one account or something.

Wrogn because you don't even need a physical copy anymore.. You can download direclty from their website FOR FREE.. You just need the cdkeys..

Itw as the same with Starcraft and Warcraft 3 - one computer, one physical copy.

Your basing this off of games released in 1999 and 2002? Convient that you completely ignored Starcraft 2 which is using this system as we speak..

Don't be facepalming. As logical as the elimination of second hand games sales is, trust me, it's not going to fly in the courts.

NO It is not because it has been enforced for years on the PC platform..

Unfortunately, most gamers will never understand this, as they most of them like to keep their heads in the clouds. If it were truly possible to do so, Activision, the most aggressively business-minded of all companies, would have done so unabashedly. They haven't. There's a reason for that.

Havnt you been listening to anything I have been saying? It has been done on the PC for years now because it has technologically advanced faster then the consoles when it comes to this type of system.. Just like direct download has taken off with the PC.. The consoles are going to follow this.. It will lead to more profits and many other advantages..

Could you not quote within a quote please. It's actually harder to read.

I didn't realize you could download the WoW client for free now. My bad. But MMOs have always been different because they require you to subscribe to the service. You don't resell MMOs like you do with other games. That's the difference.

Yes I am basing my arguemnt off old games simply because Blizzard have always been strict with their EULAs. Only now have they tried to enforce it through online methods. Fortunately for them, they are able to enforce it in such a way since PC gamers do everything through digital distribution nowadays. This is not the case with console gamers, and tenfold for casual gamers (unless they're on their iPhone).

The fact that digital distribution has been done for years on the platform means nothing when I say the prevention of second hand game sales will not fly in the courts. People will fight for it, and they will win.

[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]

[QUOTE="FrozenLiquid"]

As I said MMOs are a different beast altogether.

No they arn't.. WoW is infact the first mmo I have ever seen to enforce such strict policies..

If you look at Blizzard's WoW EULA anyway, it's one physical copy, one account or something.

Wrogn because you don't even need a physical copy anymore.. You can download direclty from their website FOR FREE.. You just need the cdkeys..

Itw as the same with Starcraft and Warcraft 3 - one computer, one physical copy.

Your basing this off of games released in 1999 and 2002? Convient that you completely ignored Starcraft 2 which is using this system as we speak..

Don't be facepalming. As logical as the elimination of second hand games sales is, trust me, it's not going to fly in the courts.

NO It is not because it has been enforced for years on the PC platform..

Unfortunately, most gamers will never understand this, as they most of them like to keep their heads in the clouds. If it were truly possible to do so, Activision, the most aggressively business-minded of all companies, would have done so unabashedly. They haven't. There's a reason for that.

Havnt you been listening to anything I have been saying? It has been done on the PC for years now because it has technologically advanced faster then the consoles when it comes to this type of system.. Just like direct download has taken off with the PC.. The consoles are going to follow this.. It will lead to more profits and many other advantages..

FrozenLiquid

Could you not quote within a quote please. It's actually harder to read.

I didn't realize you could download the WoW client for free now. My bad. But MMOs have always beendifferent because they require you to subscribe to the service. You don't resell MMOs like you do with other games. That's the difference.

Yes I am basing my arguemnt off old games simply because Blizzard have always been strict with their EULAs. Only now have they tried to enforce it through online methods. Fortunately for them, they are able to enforce it in such a way since PC gamers do everything through digital distribution nowadays. This is not the case with console gamers, and tenfold for casual gamers (unless they're on their iPhone).

The fact that digital distribution has been done for years on the platform means nothing when I say the prevention of second hand game sales will not fly in the courts. People will fight for it, and they will win.

1) thats in fact incorrect.. WoW is the first MMO I have seen that enforces the player not to have the right to sell their account.. Which is more or less the license to the game.. Monthly fees do no factor intot his..

2) Blizzards policy for Starcraft 2 has nothign to do with direct download services.. If you buy retail copy you still need to make an account.. Direct download has nothign to do with this.. Your not paying for the installiton of the game.. Your pay for the right use the license..

3) No they won't because what will happen is they will go down the same paths of Steam, Battle.net and other services to which to play the game you have to register a CD key to your account.. DLC's are already this way.. They are tailored to your account, and only work on your account.. And no courts will be able overturn this.. Becuase it has already been in practice for years.

Sub who do you work for? anyway it's funny that you suggest used game sales will go the way of the dodo when here in the UK ASDA have just started trading in used games and TESCO is going to follow suit, when you've got big ass supermarket chains getting involved in this market you can be pretty sure the markets not going anywhere.sonny2dap

I work for no one related to this subject.. This has already been in practice on the PC platform for years, no lawsuit as ever been able to overturn this..

Yes they will go some where when they begin to use cdkeys to tailor it to your account.. Making disc useless with out the cd key.. As I said earlier the only legitimate reason that seems why it isn't enforced yet is because consoles don't have hte infasturcture to do it.. But this will most certainly change next gen as consoles become pc like.

[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]

[QUOTE="Bigboi500"]Well said. Even if more people bought new games and supported companies like Activision, EA, and Ubisoft, they wouldn't treat the customers any better, and would just continue to feed them annual rehashes and end up charging MORE MONEY in the process because their wouldn't be anything stopping them from doing it.

Bigboi500

Its funny really because you guys consistently try to blame the companies.. But it is the consumers who are willing to pay for this that continue this trend..

They are not hurting the gaming industry, they are merely going down a path that you disagree with..

.. Yeah you know with 15 million users, and WoW having 12 million subscribers.. Being a world wide craze.. That certainly sounds contained in a ocean of reality :roll:.. Do people realize you already do this with Direct Download games and Xbox live arcade>?

sSubZerOo

You mean 12 million subscribers once WotLK rereleased in China under the Chinese subscription model? WoW is mega popular, sure, but if you mean it's a worldwide craze in China, then yes, it is a worldwide craze.

Halo has sold 34 million copies. It's a worldwide phenomenon.... in the USA. I'm pretty sure you can attest to the fact that it's not as popular in Europe.

FIFA and PES are worldwide phenomenons..... outside the USA. I hope you are catching my drift.

Unfortunately subzero, I have a biting feeling that you're playing with numbers and theoreticals when you could just walk out and smell the fresh air. Yes, digital distribution does work, but in small amounts. It won't happen en masse like you think it will because quite honestly, people are smarter and more selfish than you think.

[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]

.. Yeah you know with 15 million users, and WoW having 12 million subscribers.. Being a world wide craze.. That certainly sounds contained in a ocean of reality :roll:.. Do people realize you already do this with Direct Download games and Xbox live arcade>?

FrozenLiquid

You mean 12 million subscribers once WotLK rereleased in China under the Chinese subscription model? WoW is mega popular, sure, but if you mean it's a worldwide craze in China, then yes, it is a worldwide craze.

Halo has sold 34 million copies. It's a worldwide phenomenon.... in the USA. I'm pretty sure you can attest to the fact that it's not as popular in Europe.

FIFA and PES are worldwide phenomenons..... outside the USA. I hope you are catching my drift.

Unfortunately subzero, I have a biting feeling that you're playing with numbers and theoreticals when you could just walk out and smell the fresh air. Yes, digital distribution does work, but in small amounts. It won't happen en masse like you think it will because quite honestly, people are smarter and more selfish than you think.

Wait wait wait.. So you think its intelligent to compare a monthly fee game that has one installment with an entire game series? And the direct download industry isn't small, it has surpassed the PC in retail sales.. So yet again you can not claim that these are small events that will make nothing of it.. This is infact enforced ON ALL SOFTWARE (including non games) for the PC for crying out loud..

1) thats in fact incorrect.. WoW is the first MMO I have seen that enforces the player not to have the right to sell their account.. Which is more or less the license to the game.. Monthly fees do no factor intot his..

2) Blizzards policy for Starcraft 2 has nothign to do with direct download services.. If you buy retail copy you still need to make an account.. Direct download has nothign to do with this.. Your not paying for the installiton of the game.. Your pay for the right use the license..

3) No they won't because what will happen is they will go down the same paths of Steam, Battle.net and other services to which to play the game you have to register a CD key to your account.. DLC's are already this way.. They are tailored to your account, and only work on your account.. And no courts will be able overturn this.. Becuase it has already been in practice for years.

sSubZerOo

1) I did not say that it was illegal to resell your account in other MMOs. I'm saying that due to the nature of MMOs, it's different from reselling video games. MMO account reselling is in fact not for the casuals. It's more for the hardcore fanbase of that particular game. In any case, MMO reselling, gold farming, whatever business etc is much, much different from other games. I hope we can close the case on that.

2) I meant to convey that with people connected t the internet more than ever, Blizzard can have the ability to curb second hand sales simply by requiring an online account registration. That's all I said. While their EULA essentially remains the same as in their previous games, they couldn't do that before simply because it would be difficult to require people to connect their account online permanently.

3) Just because a practice hasn't been done for years doesn't mean the courts cannot overturn this. This is what makes me think you're arguing theoreticals. The reason the courts haven't done anything yet is simply because no one has brought it up. The moment someone brings it up is when the law will take a look at it and make it fair for both the company and consumer. This is why Activision is not aggressively marketing pay-per-hour gaming. Once they do that, they will get a whole lot of attention coming their way. And they will probably be asked to step down.

[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]

1) thats in fact incorrect.. WoW is the first MMO I have seen that enforces the player not to have the right to sell their account.. Which is more or less the license to the game.. Monthly fees do no factor intot his..

2) Blizzards policy for Starcraft 2 has nothign to do with direct download services.. If you buy retail copy you still need to make an account.. Direct download has nothign to do with this.. Your not paying for the installiton of the game.. Your pay for the right use the license..

3) No they won't because what will happen is they will go down the same paths of Steam, Battle.net and other services to which to play the game you have to register a CD key to your account.. DLC's are already this way.. They are tailored to your account, and only work on your account.. And no courts will be able overturn this.. Becuase it has already been in practice for years.

FrozenLiquid

1) I did not say that it was illegal to resell your account in other MMOs. I'm saying that due to the nature of MMOs, it's different from reselling video games. MMO account reselling is in fact not for the casuals. It's more for the hardcore fanbase of that particular game. In any case, MMO reselling, gold farming, whatever business etc is much, much different from other games. I hope we can close the case on that.

2) I meant to convey that with people connected t the internet more than ever, Blizzard can have the ability to curb second hand sales simply by requiring an online account registration. That's all I said. While their EULA essentially remains the same as in their previous games, they couldn't do that before simply because it would be difficult to require people to connect their account online permanently.

3) Just because a practice hasn't been done for years doesn't mean the courts cannot overturn this. This is what makes me think you're arguing theoreticals. The reason the courts haven't done anything yet is simply because no one has brought it up. The moment someone brings it up is when the law will take a look at it and make it fair for both the company and consumer. This is why Activision is not aggressively marketing pay-per-hour gaming. Once they do that, they will get a whole lot of attention coming their way. And they will probably be asked to step down.

So your saying out of the 12 million + subscribers, and 15 million + STeam accounts.. That not a single user has risen a lawsuit against this? Really?

Wait wait wait.. So you think its intelligent to compare a monthly fee game that has one installment with an entire game series? And the direct download industry isn't small, it has surpassed the PC in retail sales.. So yet again you can not claim that these are small events that will make nothing of it.. This is infact enforced ON ALL SOFTWARE (including non games) for the PC for crying out loud..

sSubZerOo

.... you're always going off in a different tangent. Always.

The point i'm trying to make is this: You can argue your point with "millions" of this and that all you want. It is but a blip on the radar, and it's not world-wide encompassing.

And oh yes, digital distribution on PC has eclipsed retail sales. You know why? It's called the Steam Christmas Sale (and many sales like it), where you can buy GTA IV for $5.00. That counts as one unit. That same unit costs $50.00 on the shelf. That is why, despite digital distribution moving more units, shelf stock still accounts for the majority of revenue.

I hope you don't think publishers will movewholly todigital distribution when they realize they're giving away games for less than the RRP. In fact, Frictional Games mentioned that their lukewarm commercial success might be hampered because people are waiting for sales like people always do when it comes to DD.

[QUOTE="Bigboi500"]

[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]

Its funny really because you guys consistently try to blame the companies.. But it is the consumers who are willing to pay for this that continue this trend..

sSubZerOo

They are not hurting the gaming industry, they are merely going down a path that you disagree with..

So your saying out of the 12 million + subscribers, and 15 million + STeam accounts.. That not a single user has risen a lawsuit against this? Really?

sSubZerOo

Yes.

Stop bringing up WoW, it is something entirely different, especially when a signifcant portion of the 12 million subscribers are using the Chinese subscription model.

As for Steam game sales, why should people take Valve to court? You can buy Medal of Honor on Steam, or you can buy Medal of Honor at the retail store. For practically all games on Steam, you can buy aphysical, boxed copy if you so wish. So what's there to go to court over when you can get exactly what you want?

You're not thinking this through mate.

[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]

So your saying out of the 12 million + subscribers, and 15 million + STeam accounts.. That not a single user has risen a lawsuit against this? Really?

FrozenLiquid

Yes.

Stop bringing up WoW, it is something entirely different, especially when a signifcant portion of the 12 million subscribers are using the Chinese subscription model.

As for Steam game sales, why should people take Valve to court? You can buy Medal of Honor on Steam, or you can buy Medal of Honor at the retail store. For practically all games on Steam, you can buy aphysical, boxed copy if you so wish. So what's there to go to court over when you can get exactly what you want?

You're not thinking this through mate.

Actually your not.. Because certain games now require you to get a steam account.. Relic's Dawn of War 2 is a example of this.. More and more games are going to this model..

[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]

[QUOTE="Bigboi500"]Actually I blame the gamers who buy that crap every year and don't realise that they're the ones who are really hurting the game industry the most.

Bigboi500

They are not hurting the gaming industry, they are merely going down a path that you disagree with..

And I can argue that console gamers are DOING JUST THAT.. Instead of supporting the pc, a open platform, they are doing this exact same thign.. See I can do that too :|

[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]

Wait wait wait.. So you think its intelligent to compare a monthly fee game that has one installment with an entire game series? And the direct download industry isn't small, it has surpassed the PC in retail sales.. So yet again you can not claim that these are small events that will make nothing of it.. This is infact enforced ON ALL SOFTWARE (including non games) for the PC for crying out loud..

FrozenLiquid

.... you're always going off in a different tangent. Always.

The point i'm trying to make is this: You can argue your point with "millions" of this and that all you want. It is but a blip on the radar, and it's not world-wide encompassing.

And oh yes, digital distribution on PC has eclipsed retail sales. You know why? It's called the Steam Christmas Sale (and many sales like it), where you can buy GTA IV for $5.00. That counts as one unit. That same unit costs $50.00 on the shelf. That is why, despite digital distribution moving more units, shelf stock still accounts for the majority of revenue.

I hope you don't think publishers will movewholly todigital distribution when they realize they're giving away games for less than the RRP. In fact, Frictional Games mentioned that their lukewarm commercial success might be hampered because people are waiting for sales like people always do when it comes to DD.

Yet again :| What difference does it make.... In fact sales is still more profit to the publisher and developer then the used game industry.. Which the publisher and dev do not recieve a cent direclty from it.. So your saying they should allow the used game industry becasue people wait for sales? This makes no sense.. Getting a game at a discount >>> More profit>>> Then a person getting a used game that doesn't profit them at all.

[QUOTE="FrozenLiquid"]

[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]

So your saying out of the 12 million + subscribers, and 15 million + STeam accounts.. That not a single user has risen a lawsuit against this? Really?

sSubZerOo

Yes.

Stop bringing up WoW, it is something entirely different, especially when a signifcant portion of the 12 million subscribers are using the Chinese subscription model.

As for Steam game sales, why should people take Valve to court? You can buy Medal of Honor on Steam, or you can buy Medal of Honor at the retail store. For practically all games on Steam, you can buy aphysical, boxed copy if you so wish. So what's there to go to court over when you can get exactly what you want?

You're not thinking this through mate.

Actually your not.. Because certain games now require you to get a steam account.. Relic's Dawn of War 2 is a example of this.. More and more games are going to this model..

You're bringing up straw man arguments. Dawn of War 2 is an exception, not the rule. How many games require a Steam account for activation?

But then again, you're dodging my argument entirely. Once again.

The original argument was: Second hand sales will be eliminated as it is inevitable (your argument)

Myanswer: No, it's highly unlikely it will.

That's about as far as we're going today.

-

In any case, if you're simply stating facts as you claim to be, then I hope you're on the side of the consumer. Whether you frown upon consumers or not, you should be standing up for your rights, not the companies you bend over for. Your ability to resell goods has greater effects on your consumership than you think it does, so best pray that the options we have now are still available.

[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]

[QUOTE="FrozenLiquid"]

Yes.

Stop bringing up WoW, it is something entirely different, especially when a signifcant portion of the 12 million subscribers are using the Chinese subscription model.

As for Steam game sales, why should people take Valve to court? You can buy Medal of Honor on Steam, or you can buy Medal of Honor at the retail store. For practically all games on Steam, you can buy aphysical, boxed copy if you so wish. So what's there to go to court over when you can get exactly what you want?

You're not thinking this through mate.

FrozenLiquid

Actually your not.. Because certain games now require you to get a steam account.. Relic's Dawn of War 2 is a example of this.. More and more games are going to this model..

You're bringing up straw man arguments. Dawn of War 2 is an exception, not the rule. How many games require a Steam account for activation?

But then again, you're dodging my argument entirely. Once again.

The original argument was: Second hand sales will be eliminated as it is inevitable (your argument)

Myanswer: No, it's highly unlikely it will.

That's about as far as we're going today.

-

In any case, if you're simply stating facts as you claim to be, then I hope you're on the side of the consumer. Whether you frown upon consumers or not, you should be standing up for your rights, not the companies you bend over for. Your ability to resell goods has greater effects on your consumership than you think it does, so best pray that the options we have now are still available.

No where did I ever state I am taking a side.. I am merely pointing out that this going to happen sooner or later.. Especially when broad band is so common.. And for me.. its not really going to effect me either way.. I am predominately a pc gamer and the console games I purchase are usually always new games.. And I don't mind waiting for games going down in price..

Yet again :| What difference does it make.... In fact sales is still more profit to the publisher and developer then the used game industry.. Which the publisher and dev do not recieve a cent direclty from it.. So your saying they should allow the used game industry becasue people wait for sales? This makes no sense.. Getting a game at a discount >>> More profit>>> Then a person getting a used game that doesn't profit them at all.

sSubZerOo

Your argument was that digital distribution would eliminate physical retail sales, at that point in time. It wasn't about second hand game sales.

A boxed copy at $50 vsa digital copy at $5. You don't make profits til you cover the cost. You gain a share of revenue from the $5 sale, but if everyone waited for that $5 sale, you're probably not going to make a profit.

Best to sell that $50 retail copy. Whether people resell that copy 70 times over doesn't matter. You got a greater share of revenue, and you'll probably reach your capital faster that way.

No where did I ever state I am taking a side.. I am merely pointing out that this going to happen sooner or later.. Especially when broad band is so common.. And for me.. its not really going to effect me either way.. I am predominately a pc gamer and the console games I purchase are usually always new games.. And I don't mind waiting for games going down in price..

sSubZerOo

English is not your first language is it? Where are you from?

I said that you stated you didn't take a side from the beginning. I said if you had to choose a side, I hope you choose the side of the consumer.

You're arguing video games. Pretty soon, you will need to argue music. Then you will need to argue movies. Then you will need to argue cars and houses.

But you won't, because they're not video games, a passion of yours. Neither will publishers argue the case for reselling on behalf of car manufacturers and architects. In fact, publishers will gladly buy second hand houses and cars, won't they?

[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]

No where did I ever state I am taking a side.. I am merely pointing out that this going to happen sooner or later.. Especially when broad band is so common.. And for me.. its not really going to effect me either way.. I am predominately a pc gamer and the console games I purchase are usually always new games.. And I don't mind waiting for games going down in price..

FrozenLiquid

English is not your first language is it? Where are you from?

It is.. I don't see what this has anything to do with what we are talking about.

I said that you stated you didn't take a side from the beginning. I said if you had to choose a side, I hope you choose the side of the consumer.

It goes with out saying seeing as I AM A CONSUMER.

You're arguing video games. Pretty soon, you will need to argue music. Then you will need to argue movies. Then you will need to argue cars and houses.

I have no idea what your talking about.. I am not here to argue for its own sake..

But you won't, because they're not video games, a passion of yours. Neither will publishers argue the case for reselling on behalf of car manufacturers and architects. In fact, publishers will gladly buy second hand houses and cars, won't they?

... They are not the same.. A house and its land, as well as cars are a physical property of resources.. A game is intellectual property.. And solely intellectual property.. When you buy a game your not paying for the physical disc.. Your paying for permission to by a license to use the software.. So I have no clue what your going on about..

[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]

Yet again :| What difference does it make.... In fact sales is still more profit to the publisher and developer then the used game industry.. Which the publisher and dev do not recieve a cent direclty from it.. So your saying they should allow the used game industry becasue people wait for sales? This makes no sense.. Getting a game at a discount >>> More profit>>> Then a person getting a used game that doesn't profit them at all.

FrozenLiquid

Your argument was that digital distribution would eliminate physical retail sales, at that point in time. It wasn't about second hand game sales.

It has always been about that.. The only reason why I brought up direct download is it has been the easiest way to enforce the policy..

A boxed copy at $50 vsa digital copy at $5.

I would like to see where your getting these figures.. Because I have never seen that dramatic of a difference EVER.. And the ones that come close are once a year, in which they see huge sale increases.

You don't make profits til you cover the cost.

And they do these deals because they figure that a greater amount of people who buy at a discounted price iwll net more profits then at its full price for a limited time..

You gain a share of revenue from the $5 sale, but if everyone waited for that $5 sale, you're probably not going to make a profit.

This is illogical because we don't have $5 sales from $50 games..

Best to sell that $50 retail copy. Whether people resell that copy 70 times over doesn't matter. You got a greater share of revenue, and you'll probably reach your capital faster that way.

That is incorrect.. Basic economy 101.. Price reduction doesn't matter if it increases the sales of the product.. If a Product thats originally $50 but goes on sale for $30 (but costs 15 per copy for development reasons).. Often times the $30 will surpass it because of the more copies net.. FURTHERMORE this makes NO SENSE.. 5 X 70 = $320.. $50 X 1 offiical purchase X 70 offhand purchase = (drum roll).. $50.. Your grasp of econ 101 is astounding.

Edit I forgot to add in a obsecure minus for DD for $30 bringing 5 x 70 down to 320.. Just for DD.. The point still stands (sorry if was unclear).. Lower prices = do not equal lost profits.. Infact it can increase profits by increasing overall sales.. Thats why deals like this happen every so often to spice up the charts and get people looking. While second hand stuff is a flat loss.. They don't gain any kind of profit from it.. Its as harmful as piracy and its far more trackable and measurable.. I expect to see this to start becoming popular amongst next gen.. Hell they have been talking about it ever sense.. Especially when games like MAss Effect 2 are releasing with dlc's that only benefit the legitimate purchaser and not the secondary one.. The only hick up I see is logistics.. Not court cases, because yet again this has been standard practice for software for ages now.. Not just pc games, but software in general.

[QUOTE="Pug-Nasty"]

[QUOTE="mkaliaz"]

Most gamers "budgets" are pretty much set. The only question is where those dollars get spent. Yes, the gamers might lose more in the end because they can buy less titles with their funds, but the reality of restricting used sales will be more money will go to people who actually make them instead of people who operate retail establishments.

mkaliaz

Yep, which means they will be rewarded for pumping out sub par, short games. I'm not saying this applies to all games, as it certainly doesn't. But this is how capitalism works, consumers show companies what their product is worth, and the price is adjusted accordingly. If a publisher sees their game being resold and their new units aren't moving, it's on them to adjust their price to attract buyers and compete with their own used product and, at the same time, learn a lesson for the next game.

If they don't do that, it is only their fault for bad sales. Pretty much the publisher of any game that you see sitting full price for a long time after launch has no business whining about sales, because they haven't even tried to make the system work for them.

I agree with pretty much your entire argument, but wouldnt you also agree that if the used sales was not an option that these games would not sell regardless? A lot of people will wait for reviews first. Also, I agree that pricing will drop NOW if the game stinks and its being resold at cheap prices, but I also believe that the games would be discounted equally as fast if the game just simply isn't selling on its own. Maybe this is less of an issue for me since I rarely pre-order games and usually wait to see at least a few reputable reviews before putting money down on a new game. I agree though, there isn't excuses for putting out poor products, but i dont think the used game market (or a lack of one) would change this from hurting the developer/publisher. Putting out gatbage titles will hurt them regardless of the used sale markets.

Well, I kind of see the price dropping as a result of reselling or just no sales as being equal. I mean, in the end all the publisher really knows as fact is that the game isn't selling. So, I see what you are saying, for a lot of sub par games the game just may not sell. I more or less see the used game market as filling a niche of those who want to play new games but don't have the money to by new, in which case I don't think they would be buying new if the used games weren't available.

I know a similar logic is oft often used in defense of piracy, but I find the two have little in common. I think without the used game market, people wouldn't be selling their games to buy new ones, newer, lower quality games wouldn't sell because there would be no way to recoup some money if you took a chance on them, and less games would be purchased overall.

I agree that putting out garbage titles should hurt the publisher, but some publishers just pump out so many games, they still profit, like Activision. It's a blitzkrieg of assy product and the strategy appears effective.

i got my ps3 in november last year and i have bought tons of ps3 games new and preowned but mostly preowned (apart from all the psn titles i buy)

i walk in a shop and can get 3 or 4 games for the price of one new game, its a no brainer what ill choose unless im after a specific full price game, and by doing that i have been introduced to a lot of game series that i will buy sequals for at full price.

[QUOTE="mkaliaz"]

[QUOTE="Pug-Nasty"]

Yep, which means they will be rewarded for pumping out sub par, short games. I'm not saying this applies to all games, as it certainly doesn't. But this is how capitalism works, consumers show companies what their product is worth, and the price is adjusted accordingly. If a publisher sees their game being resold and their new units aren't moving, it's on them to adjust their price to attract buyers and compete with their own used product and, at the same time, learn a lesson for the next game.

If they don't do that, it is only their fault for bad sales. Pretty much the publisher of any game that you see sitting full price for a long time after launch has no business whining about sales, because they haven't even tried to make the system work for them.

Pug-Nasty

I agree with pretty much your entire argument, but wouldnt you also agree that if the used sales was not an option that these games would not sell regardless? A lot of people will wait for reviews first. Also, I agree that pricing will drop NOW if the game stinks and its being resold at cheap prices, but I also believe that the games would be discounted equally as fast if the game just simply isn't selling on its own. Maybe this is less of an issue for me since I rarely pre-order games and usually wait to see at least a few reputable reviews before putting money down on a new game. I agree though, there isn't excuses for putting out poor products, but i dont think the used game market (or a lack of one) would change this from hurting the developer/publisher. Putting out gatbage titles will hurt them regardless of the used sale markets.

Well, I kind of see the price dropping as a result of reselling or just no sales as being equal. I mean, in the end all the publisher really knows as fact is that the game isn't selling. So, I see what you are saying, for a lot of sub par games the game just may not sell. I more or less see the used game market as filling a niche of those who want to play new games but don't have the money to by new, in which case I don't think they would be buying new if the used games weren't available.

I know a similar logic is oft often used in defense of piracy, but I find the two have little in common. I think without the used game market, people wouldn't be selling their games to buy new ones, newer, lower quality games wouldn't sell because there would be no way to recoup some money if you took a chance on them, and less games would be purchased overall.

I agree that putting out garbage titles should hurt the publisher, but some publishers just pump out so many games, they still profit, like Activision. It's a blitzkrieg of assy product and the strategy appears effective.

Uhh if anything the publishers and devs will be punished far more for releasing subpar games.. Because gamers have to be more mindful in what they get due to not being able to borrow it from a friend, rent it or get it used for a singificantly lower cost..

i got my ps3 in november last year and i have bought tons of ps3 games new and preowned but mostly preowned (apart from all the psn titles i buy)

i walk in a shop and can get 3 or 4 games for the price of one new game, its a no brainer what ill choose unless im after a specific full price game, and by doing that i have been introduced to a lot of game series that i will buy sequals for at full price.

Yrkoon99

The problem with this.. Is this same argument can be used for piracy.. Because it more or less has the same direct effect against publishers and devs.. They get nothing from their intellectual property in the transaction.

Legal =/= beneficialTrue_Gamer_

Not beneficial to whom? It benefits me to have full rights over my property. I could give a hoot what a company wants. I imagine car companies would like to prohibit used car sales too...

Always find it shocking to see so many consumers anxious to limit their own rights in hopes of benefiting multi-billion dollar corporations. You don't hear people fighting to ban other media resales and the effect on those industries is similar. The industry has survived a generation with the current business model, and shall continue to thrive no matter the business model. Let's quit trying to shove our consumer rights out the window.

[QUOTE="PBSnipes"]

Difference: used game sales are legal.

True_Gamer_

Has the RRP of games been changed to £50?

I never seen them go above £40.

toast_burner

[QUOTE="True_Gamer_"]Legal =/= beneficialsantoron

Not beneficial to whom? It benefits me to have full rights over my property. I could give a hoot what a company wants. I imagine car companies would like to prohibit used car sales too...

Always find it shocking to see so many consumers anxious to limit their own rights in hopes of benefiting multi-billion dollar corporations. You don't hear people fighting to ban other media resales and the effect on those industries is similar. The industry has survived a generation with the current business model, and shall continue to thrive no matter the business model. Let's quit trying to shove our consumer rights out the window.

Except you really don't.. You pay for the intellectual property of the product.. Certain violations for software can lead to having your copy banned.. The only reason why you see this on the PC the most, is its the most easily done right now.. The Wii, 360 and PS3 were never really designed with that system in mind yet.. But I am willing to bet we are going to see one in future...

[QUOTE="Yrkoon99"]

i got my ps3 in november last year and i have bought tons of ps3 games new and preowned but mostly preowned (apart from all the psn titles i buy)

i walk in a shop and can get 3 or 4 games for the price of one new game, its a no brainer what ill choose unless im after a specific full price game, and by doing that i have been introduced to a lot of game series that i will buy sequals for at full price.

sSubZerOo

The problem with this.. Is this same argument can be used for piracy.. Because it more or less has the same direct effect against publishers and devs.. They get nothing from their intellectual property in the transaction.

why should they? where is the problem? they got money for the person on the initial sale and that person loses the ability to play the game which i gain, with piracy they get the initial sale and then possibly lose tons through piracy while the guy uploading it still has the game, and the shops get 0 profit from piracy as well.

at the moment brick and mortar sales are still needed and if a shop doesnt make a profit thats one less place to buy stock from publishers.

edit : only the gaming industry can be so arrogant as to think it deserves to be paid constantly for the same product no matter how old or how new it is.

[QUOTE="santoron"]

[QUOTE="True_Gamer_"]Legal =/= beneficialsSubZerOo

Not beneficial to whom? It benefits me to have full rights over my property. I could give a hoot what a company wants. I imagine car companies would like to prohibit used car sales too...

Always find it shocking to see so many consumers anxious to limit their own rights in hopes of benefiting multi-billion dollar corporations. You don't hear people fighting to ban other media resales and the effect on those industries is similar. The industry has survived a generation with the current business model, and shall continue to thrive no matter the business model. Let's quit trying to shove our consumer rights out the window.

Except you really don't.. You pay for the intellectual property of the product.. Certain violations for software can lead to having your copy banned.. The only reason why you see this on the PC the most, is its the most easily done right now.. The Wii, 360 and PS3 were never really designed with that system in mind yet.. But I am willing to bet we are going to see one in future...

Which changes nothing. I can say I own Super Mario 2, and you can say "No. You own a license to play SM2." Since courts have repeatedly affirmed my rights to Sell, Trade, Gift, or otherwise transfer my license to another, conferring to them full rights, there is no difference.

Again, the same type of argument could be used in several other forms of media, which have dealt with these issues and lived alongside their respective resale industries longer than games have been in existence. We think of this issue as new and unique when it's neither. Other industries simply learned to stop crying about it and invent ways to live alongside resale. Gaming hasn't gotten to that point yet, and a youthful and often uniformed customer base is all too often receptive of the same arguments because of misplaced hero worship assigned to game publishers, developers, and hardware manufacturers.

Publishers and developers are only entitled to first sale. After that, the physical copy is solely the property of the consumer who bought it. Then when said consumer sells it back to the game store, the game store has sole ownership.

Just deal with it.