[QUOTE="GamerwillzPS"]

Welcome to System Wars, a place crawling with Xbox fanboys and morons.

Haters gonna hate.

fadersdream

"Android."

Hahahahahahaha! Gamers might as well just go to newsground.com instead, if they wish to play those flash games.

Mr_BillGates

Are you an apple fanboy? I'm j/c.

Apple is so good at turning people into Apple product craving, mindless drones that it's practically an art. Apple stuff is pretty cool (but over-priced) but I don't understand how some people (not referring to you) get so obsessive it's products. I think a "Phone Wars" forum might be even more crazy (and entertaining) than our System Wars.

Notice Atari hasn't posted anything after the OP. lol

50 hour AAA+ epic games = day one sales = turn a profit

gimmicks, pre-order deals, drm, dlc and short 10-20 hour games kill sales and force people to buy used games. - no replay value and get raped by dlc that makes games cost a small fortune which not many people can afford = death for game sales/near complete rejection from people WHO BUY the games

if they stop selling us gimmicks and BS and they'll turn a profit.

buccomatic

[QUOTE="Duke_51"]

[QUOTE="persianlink"]You don't really think blocking use games will help the small developer, do you? Whom it really helps are the companies with a big fat share of the market, whose games are sold and available as used games in much higher numbers. I can easily see how a Call of Duty would profit from an anti-used game policy. Whereas a small developer, who struggles to get known and sell games at all, won't be much affected of that. EIther the people really have faith in the developer and want to buy his game at full retail price, or they are one of those who would try out something new if they can get a good deal. The former would buy the game either way and support the developer with money, the latter would either buy the game used then not at all, thus in neither way providing the developer with money. Plus, if ALL games are to be sold at full retail price, people would have less budget to spend trying something new and rather stick to what they knew has been entertaining for years. Yes, it does work this way round, too. :P After all, I think it's better for the small developers to have the used game market, so there are more people who can try their games without spending to much money and there's a chance they get interested in the developer and buy the next game in retail.buccomatic

I predict that if used games are blocked, we'll see more and more people buying CoD's and Battlefield's every year because it's safe. People know what they're buying into with these types of products, and when everything is priced at $60 they'll gravitate towards what they're familiar with.

the game makers just don't understand that $60.00 a game is a small fortune to alot of people who buy games. if the game doesn't live up to standards of past epic games like fallout 3, legend of zelda link, RDR, ME2, Skyrim etc... then people will just flat out reject those overpriced/overhyped games, they just can't afford it.

[QUOTE="TTDog"]

This sort of post is what BLOGs are for.

MrNuttyboh

He said it was a long read... dont click on it if you dont wanna read it?

Thank you, kind sir. :)

You don't really think blocking use games will help the small developer, do you? Whom it really helps are the companies with a big fat share of the market, whose games are sold and available as used games in much higher numbers. I can easily see how a Call of Duty would profit from an anti-used game policy. Whereas a small developer, who struggles to get known and sell games at all, won't be much affected of that. EIther the people really have faith in the developer and want to buy his game at full retail price, or they are one of those who would try out something new if they can get a good deal. The former would buy the game either way and support the developer with money, the latter would either buy the game used then not at all, thus in neither way providing the developer with money. Plus, if ALL games are to be sold at full retail price, people would have less budget to spend trying something new and rather stick to what they knew has been entertaining for years. Yes, it does work this way round, too. :P After all, I think it's better for the small developers to have the used game market, so there are more people who can try their games without spending to much money and there's a chance they get interested in the developer and buy the next game in retail.persianlink

I understand what you're saying, but I still think the idea of RESTRICTING second hand game sales would be beneficial to devlopers, big AND small. The used game market is seriously hurting the game industry as a whole. You're right, if a new/small dev creates and new or unique game, and people buy the game USED, then the dev receives no money at all. But that's why MOST unproven games get demos on XBL, PSN, or the internet for PC. Or people could rent them. (Which does allow devs/pubs to make money)

And who says new or unique games from small or unproven games needs to be sold at the full $60 retail? Without the danger of losing massive amounts of money because of the used game market, a dev/pub MIGHT attempt to sell such a game at a lower price. In my OP, I mentioned that I've seen people saying games should cost less BECAUSE (if it even happens) of the rumors of nextgen consoles restricting or blocking used games.

Sure, huge developers and publishers would also profit from a restriction system. In fact, a lot of them are ALREADY trying to implement a system to get people to buy new games, by using online passes and the like. But this could be a good thing. They might feel more comfortable trying something new instead of same old proven to sell games we see today. (Keep in mind, I don't expect this from ALL devs/pubs. Like Activision. lol)

For an example, this March God of War and Twisted Metal creator David Jaffe said he wasn't looking forward to the nextgen consoles. He said that the new generation of consoles will make game development more difficult for "ambitious" projects. Another quote from him: "I'm no longer that excited about next-gen technology; it means budgets go up." And he's not the only person in the game industry to say things like that. And if you thoroughly read my OP, then you know how expensive it is to create modern games, and how often those games make a profit. But if a GOOD restriction system was put in place, then maybe devs would be making the money to try something new, or at least put extra effort into their games.

what i think about used games/ blocking used games/ online passes

~ when a dev makes a bad game and sucks. Now i am srewed out of 60 bucks opr what ever the cost is.

~only one account can play the game. What if family member wants to play? what if friend comes over wants to play with his account? ect Why should i have to buy 2 copies of game or online passes to work in same dang house

~ i don't have biog deal with online passes to people trading/sales used games because but when it interferes with a family member in the same house can't play because of it. now that's a issue.

~if they going block used games they need service like steam or just sign a contract with steam to take over stupid games on demand. Why are prices seem higher then retail copies? never good sales. ect

games need come with a return policy... When a game sucks. or i just keep what i do and claim it defective...

k2theswiss

If a dev makes a bad game, you buy it, and then feel you got screwed out of $60 bucks... Well... Unfortunately that's your problem. Buyer beware. That's why there are websites and magazines that review games. It's up to the consumer to inform themselves about a product before they pay. And if you're unsure if you'll like a game... Well, you could always try a demo of the game or rent it. (Remember, I am in favor of RESTRICTING second hand game sales, not BLOCKING them.)

Games will NEVER have a return policy. (Except for unopened games, of course) If opened games had a return policy, even a very short one (let's say 5 days), people would go buy a game, beat it or at least enjoy it for that 5 days, then return it without actually spending a dime.

All of your other issues have been addressed in my OP. You didn't ead it thoroughly. I don't WANT next gen consoles to BLOCK used games. I favor RESTRICTION, so a game doesn't end up being traded into gamestop (or best buy, a pawn shop, or any other place that receives used games to sell them again. But I'll refer to Gamestop from now on), then sold back to a customer, then traded back to gamestop, then sold back to the customer, then traded back to gamestop, and so on, meanwhile the dev/pub only get's the money from the FIRST time that game was sold.

A properly and well thought out RESTRICTION system would allow your friends and family to play the game you bought without requiring you to buy additional copies.

Sorry guys, I had to go to work shortly after posting this. lol Now I'll try to reply to the the people that have posted in this thread.

I remember that game selling for $79.99 at Walmart when it came out. lol

And I BOUGHT it, too!