@maxwell97 No. It's not.

You are trying to insinuate selling physical games doesn't cost more then selling online, and you are wrong.

@maxwell97 They haven't figured it out. Some of them charge 60$ not because it's worth 60$ but because people will pay 60$ and they have no reason to charge less.

If the digital version of a game is worth 60$ then how much is the physical copy worth and how much are they losing on it?

Value is determined (at least) partially by what it costs to make. This would suggest the digital version is worth the least so you're paying for the property and your paying for the data. The property is just a name, but it's their profit. You buy it because of what it is. The data costs only what they need to recoup from producing it.

So, all I'm saying is. Digital is not worth what physical is. It's still worth a lot, it costs a lot to just make a game, but it costs even more to physically sell it (producing the discs, or the box you put the game in, or manuals in fewer and fewer cases these days, or stocking fees, or shipping to retail, etc. etc.).

@Jpr1zm I think the amount of both amazing and long standing names in the industry disappearing over the course of the last few years tells us that this is completely untrue.

@perfect_chao how do you put a price on data? It doesnt age. Other then the code.

It doesn't lose value. It continues to be what it is. What is sold. So is relevance the determining factor in that?

What would be the difference between buying your used digital only copy of a game the person could also buy normally? Other than yours being cheaper?

I'm not saying your wrong, but digital media is still in it's infancy and corporations still don't seem to know how to value what they are selling (which is basically just data- no physical medium- and of course the property itself). So how do you value someone else's who just doesn't want it anymore?

I think this is an interesting thing to think about even though its not being discussed mainly because it's a complicated thing to determine. I can see Valve letting you do this at the same price they are selling at if valve gets a cut of the sale. That's the only thing that would make sense in a sale like this to me. Would be similar to a refund, but there's still profit involved. I am no economist though, so this is more than likely a terrible, not well thought out, idea.

Weird. Thought this happened already.

""... That said, we understand the complaint is somehow regarding the transferability of Steam accounts, despite the fact that this issue has already been ruled upon favorably to Valve in a prior case between Valve and the VZBV by the German supreme court. For now, we are continuing to extend the Steam services to gamers in Germany and around the world."

The VZBV's prior legal entanglement with Valve went all the way to the German Federal Court of Justice. A judge ruled in 2010 that Valve's prohibition of user account transfers did not violate German law."

Oh... it did. I guess 2 years later they found some kind of ammo. Something that says steam is somehow bad and wah wah and stuff.

This complaint was dumb in 2010 and its still dumb.

@Psycold Indeed. I think I played this more then Half Life or Half Life 2, and I've played those a lot as well. This game is just so well balanced (with the scare moments and then action back and forth) its still a lot of fun to play.

Still love this game. So good. This and Half life are still unmatched in their believable AIs.

Shame not even monolith could match it with a sequel (even valve had a hard time with Half life 2 AI being as believable). F.E.A.R 2 is ok, but with the reliance on Mechs and lack luster story (and that stupid ending... well my opinion) it wasn't quite as good as the first.

I still play the first F.E.A.R every once in a while. What a fun game!

I was going to make a joke about FPS', but it's actually just depressing.

Edit: Oh, I forgot to add: didn't this game get, like, a seal of approval from John Carpenter? I remember at the time reading about them having him play it (because it's partially an homage to John Carpenter among other horror tropes) and he really liked what he saw of it.

Why hasn't anyone blown the band wagon up yet?

Sorry, my questions was false courage I got from a video game.

Disregard my momentary insanity caused by the video game industry.

It's really weird, but I've been reading David's blogs on Giantbomb about this game which initially was just fascinating because I work in internet Tech Support, but then it became about this guy seeing a modicum of success with what little he had. Always feels good to read stuff like that.

Hang in there, David. Your first outing is not your last. I'm sure you'll find other ideas and with them comes other stuff too. I cant pretend to say you'll be successful, but I do hope for the best for everybody.

Its actually surprising how long the name has been around. Ya people hold reverence for it, but only for the games it did, not the games it is currently making. The last big thing I can think of the Atari name being attached to was the attempt at rebooting Alone in the Dark and that game was awful.

People will always hold reverence for Atari for the shaping of the game industry it did, but there have been no games from them worth buying in decades and even their attempts at modernizing old ideas hold no sway (of course by this point it's not even really Atari, it's Infogrames or WB Interactive; only one of which says it is Atari).

So, I guess what I am saying is, Atari is a little long in the tooth and will be remembered but it's not quite as sad if it goes away as the name hasn't been able to keep up with the times and has done nothing to stay relevant. People will always look back on it fondly but they have done nothing worth investing in past that nostalgia.