Post by trashcanman on Jul 4, 2011 20:52:49 GMT 2
xbox360.ign.com/articles/118/1180458p1.html
It's kind of odd that the used game debate is suddenly coming to a head since the used music debate died down decades ago (although replaced by the more urgent file-sharing) and I don't ever recall used DVD's being an issue with publishers. I suppose that since the legality is on the seller's side in these cases, the focus has been on gaming since the advent of DLC and online gaming now allows the corporations to "punish" people who buy used games. So do you think certain content or privileges should be limited to first-time buyers of a new game only without an additional charge or are gaming companies being greedy, spiteful bastards?
Personally, I find that the used game market is ridiculous. You buy a game for $60. A few weeks later, you sell it back for $40 tops. The store sells it again for $55. If you wait a few months before selling the game back, they will likely pay $20 (if that) and -if the price of the new game hasn't dropped- sell it again for $45-$55. And if you wait an entire year? Some game they will literally pay you $1 for it, but possibly as much as $10. Then they'll sell it for $20-40$. Oh, and most of these places do not give you cash. Just store credit. Why are people doing this again? At least on Ebay, you can get 3/4 of a game's current worth IN CASH (so to speak). But anyways, gamer stupidity aside, the issue is should game publishers restrict content? The surprising answer is I don't care. Most of the time, the content can be purchased as DLC and I see pre-orer incentives as a way to get for free what other people will have to pay for. When a game I really want comes out, I pre-order anyways so the bonus is exactly that to me. People want to wait two weeks or whatever to pay $5 less and buy the game used sans bonuses and miss out on as much as $15 worth of free content (or have to pay $10 to play online)?
"The world's smallest violin, playing just for them"
I know that gaming is the most lucrative media there is right now and EA and the like have more than enough money already, but nonetheless, it's up to us to keep it that way and more importantly, support the brands and games that we personally enjoy. Buying used does not do this. I'm not against buying old games used to save some bucks at all, but this tribe of gamers who are determined to never buy anything but used games are seriously dumb. I almost never trade in and when I buy used, I don't whine if the previous owner didn't think to save all of his one-time use DLC for me to use in his stead. It's part of the deal when buying used, and honestly, it's not that stupefying to think that the publishers who invest millions into making these games would want a cut of the profits of a million-selling game rather than having the same 1000 sold copies passed around 1000 times.
How about you guys? You buy or sell used? What's your take on this debate?
It's kind of odd that the used game debate is suddenly coming to a head since the used music debate died down decades ago (although replaced by the more urgent file-sharing) and I don't ever recall used DVD's being an issue with publishers. I suppose that since the legality is on the seller's side in these cases, the focus has been on gaming since the advent of DLC and online gaming now allows the corporations to "punish" people who buy used games. So do you think certain content or privileges should be limited to first-time buyers of a new game only without an additional charge or are gaming companies being greedy, spiteful bastards?
Personally, I find that the used game market is ridiculous. You buy a game for $60. A few weeks later, you sell it back for $40 tops. The store sells it again for $55. If you wait a few months before selling the game back, they will likely pay $20 (if that) and -if the price of the new game hasn't dropped- sell it again for $45-$55. And if you wait an entire year? Some game they will literally pay you $1 for it, but possibly as much as $10. Then they'll sell it for $20-40$. Oh, and most of these places do not give you cash. Just store credit. Why are people doing this again? At least on Ebay, you can get 3/4 of a game's current worth IN CASH (so to speak). But anyways, gamer stupidity aside, the issue is should game publishers restrict content? The surprising answer is I don't care. Most of the time, the content can be purchased as DLC and I see pre-orer incentives as a way to get for free what other people will have to pay for. When a game I really want comes out, I pre-order anyways so the bonus is exactly that to me. People want to wait two weeks or whatever to pay $5 less and buy the game used sans bonuses and miss out on as much as $15 worth of free content (or have to pay $10 to play online)?
"The world's smallest violin, playing just for them"I know that gaming is the most lucrative media there is right now and EA and the like have more than enough money already, but nonetheless, it's up to us to keep it that way and more importantly, support the brands and games that we personally enjoy. Buying used does not do this. I'm not against buying old games used to save some bucks at all, but this tribe of gamers who are determined to never buy anything but used games are seriously dumb. I almost never trade in and when I buy used, I don't whine if the previous owner didn't think to save all of his one-time use DLC for me to use in his stead. It's part of the deal when buying used, and honestly, it's not that stupefying to think that the publishers who invest millions into making these games would want a cut of the profits of a million-selling game rather than having the same 1000 sold copies passed around 1000 times.
How about you guys? You buy or sell used? What's your take on this debate?
