Hazerd wrote:i cant see anyone who actually goes on gaming forums buying this, maybe the hardcore resident evil fan, or un-informed parents buying for there kids.
ill admit, i use a R4 card on my DS-Lite, but only because i hate buying DS games to never finish them, i dont see any harm done, shouldnt a game only be worth its full price for actually beating it?
Still waiting for the day someone takes them to court over this. This is so unconstitutional it's going to be very funny to see them trying to make a case out of this. At least in most European countries.Droid party wrote: And this is where the fun of game companies telling you that the cartridge is yours but the game on it is their ip and there for you only hold a licence to play the game while they allow you to do so and selling it to someone else is an offence akin to theft, a drum that Nintendo has been banging on for a long time now.
"You don't own the game, you're only licensed to play it while we let you."
BoneSnapDeez wrote:The success of a console is determined by how much I enjoy it.
I'd love to read an article like that.Gamerforlife wrote: Then you fast forward and look at the iconic characters they created last gen with Snake and Dante. I think it'd be fascinated to read an article just comparing the two companies and their histories as I've always kind of viewed both companies as mirror images of eachother in a lot of ways, except Konami has never shown me the amount of corporate greed I always saw in Capcom
Again, the problem isn't the used game market itself. The problem is that Gamestop has turned the used game market into something as big as the new game market. The only other market I can think of that has as many used sales is the car industry, but with a car you pay a heavy price for buying used. There's more wear and tear and you're at the higher maintenance cost area of the car's total lifespan. With video games there generally isn't a downside to buying used. Case and manual being missing tends to be the only thing, and that doesn't affect your ability to play and fully enjoy a game. So companies are looking into things like this or the online pass system to make a clear distinction between a new copy and a used copy.General_Norris wrote:This is simple. I buy a commodity. Since it's mine, I can sell it. If I sell it, I no longuer have the commodity, the number of commodities stays the same. Why should the developer get money from a second sale? It's not theirs anymore, it's mine because I bought it. You don't pay a fee to the furniture company if you decide to sell a chair.MrPopo wrote:It is. With regular piracy you have a non-paying customer. With used games you have a paying customer who doesn't pay the people who made the game.
The used market doesn't create more commodities, it only allows the legitimate owner of a commodity to fulfill their right to sell what they own. Basic rights of property and ownership, no more, no less.
This is true. I'd argue that this is much, much less frequent then people buying used copies (and I'm not including the guy who raids Gamestop at the end of a console generation to get cheap PS2 titles). As I said above, the issue isn't used sales per say, it's the volume of used sales.A. If 2 players buy a new game together, that is good for the industry. You don't go and say they should each buy a game instead, for all we know they are going to buy 2 games together because they buy games together or whatever. The point is they are buying the game.
Unconstitutional? Maybe it's illegal if you look at the laws of any particular country close enough, but I doubt it's unconstitutional anywhere.Still waiting for the day someone takes them to court over this. This is so unconstitutional it's going to be very funny to see them trying to make a case out of this. At least in most European countries.
If you have hundreds of games that were purchased at $10-20 each, you could instead have 25-75 games purchased at $50-60 each.I'm a pretty broke-ass college gamer, I rarely, if ever, buy games new. I have hundreds of games, and I've probably bought maybe a dozen or so new, and most of those were specific games that I'd waited years for (StarCraft II, etc.). If it weren't for used gamed, honestly I probably would hardly be into videogames, because I couldn't afford it.
I fail to see why that is a problem at all. Many people want to sell what they own and many people are willing to buy it from them to become the new owners of the commodity. Nothing special.MrPopo wrote:As I said above, the issue isn't used sales per say, it's the volume of used sales.
Yes, from a strict perspective of goods this is nothing special. But it does cut in to the sales of new titles in a dramatic fashion. It's potentially at a point where some games are considered failures by the publisher when actually if the same monetary amount of used sales in those first 6 months was applied to new sales it'd be a rousing success. I'm not trying to stop you from selling your games or buying used games. I'm simply stating that there IS an economic impact on the content producers and that I sympathize with them trying to get you to purchase new.General_Norris wrote:I fail to see why that is a problem at all. Many people want to sell what they own and many people are willing to buy it from them to become the new owners of the commodity. Nothing special.MrPopo wrote:As I said above, the issue isn't used sales per say, it's the volume of used sales.
I almost forgot to respond to this post. You're ignoring a VERY key distinction between pirates and used game customers. The vast majority of people who pirate a game do so because they didn't want to pay for it. The vast majority of people who buy used games want to pay for it, they just don't want to pay quite so much. With used games there is money being exchanged for the game, but instead of going to the developer it's going to a third party. That's a lost sale. Most piracy is not lost sales because the people involved weren't going to purchase it any way. The decision was between not playing the game and playing the game for free.KDub wrote:This piracy is better than reselling argument....really? There is no doubt that the industry takes a hit. Unlike movies there is no point when the public can go play the game at a theater or something and pay a retarded fee for a an hour and a half viewing. But to say reselling games is worse than piracy makes little to no sense. Crunch whatever numbers you want that you feel makes up the average but one person buying the game and that game getting passed of as used once (maybe twice) during the peak selling point for that game compared to one guy paying nothing then passing it off to 6 of his friends who also pay nothing....
so in other words...MrPopo wrote: Again, the problem isn't the used game market itself. The problem is that Gamestop has turned the used game market into something as big as the new game market.
