Ridge
New Member
As long as you're admitting it's the dark side..
-
Welcome to PS6Forums - The #1 PlayStation Forum. Why not take a minute to register for your own free account now? Registration is completely free and will enable the use of all site features including the ability to join in or create your own discussions.
The Used Game Debate
- Thread starter Ridge
- Start date
Derri
, , Darkness, ,
Its not the dark side. Its consumer logic.
EDIT: Now I also thought of something quite interesting. What about games that are no longer supported and or have their online features turned off?
I know EA has turned off many servers while their games are still making money e.g. the game is still on the PSN store and can be bought or it is still available for £20 in shops, brand new. I also know for example Call of Duty that after the initial year of a games life cycle e.g. when its not the current CoD they stop patching it or fixing it. The only recent game to break this would be Call of Duty: Black Ops 2 but EVEN then they don't fix anything, they just did an update to add their own micro transactions in. Previous series have become overly hacked and developers don't fix it. Yet I know for a fact that many stores for up to two years still retail the game at full price and money therefore still goes to the devs.
Last edited:
Ridge
New Member
And some games never get patched at all, up until last gen patching didn't even exist in console games. I'm not sure what your getting at here...
Are you saying developers and publishers shouldn't get residuals for a game just because they stopped working kn it at some point?
Derri
, , Darkness, ,
Well obviously this is a newer thing, patching.
However I am saying that games are still listed full price but they could be buggy as hell. Like Elder Scrolls Oblivion for PS3, that was very buggy and was full price for quite a long time after its launch but apart from an initial patch or two was completely abandoned. And therefore many of those bugs still exist today but for a long time this wasstill full price game. What I am saying is I don't care really who gets my money. However it does annoy me to see a game, pay full price for it and then find out the devs aren't working on it and there are still numerous bugs. I mean back in 2012 Modern Warfare 2 was still listed as full price a by a large amount of retailers and if you went on Multiplayer back then all you'd find was hackers and therefore you've paid full price or near full price for a game that was abandoned.
I don't understand why you dislike used games. Your only argument thus far has been that developers loose out on potential revenue but even when multiple people have given the pros to this, you seem to only focused on one particular negative.
Ridge
New Member
I will openly admit that is the only negative. But it contributes to an overall feeling of entitlement we see a lot of online that I can't stand.
"I want to play this new release game, if I can save $5-$10 and cut out the people who worked on it I will"
That just seems so wrong to me. Wait for a sale if you can't afford/don't want to pay full price. You don't need something right now regardless of the consequences.
Also when you buy used you are throwing out your vote in a sense. Picture a group of three friends who essentially share their games. One will by something and beat it, then trade it to the other friend for a game they have played, then repeat the process. Let's say all 3 people in that group absolutely love a game, and would love a sequel. As far as the people who make the game are concerned the threw of you only bought one copy, even of three of you enjoy it. So every E3 after the conferences these three guys will go online and whine and complain that the sequel they want isn't being made, when 2 out of the 3 of them haven't done anything to actually make it happen.
RobDaCool
New Member
As a Chef, Are YOU saying that if someone takes home a doggie bag from my restaurant and gives the food to their pet, kid, uncle, talking alligator, I should get money? If not what makes game developers more important then I am? Or more important then some guy who works for Ford or Dodge whom don't get a dime from the sale of a used car? What makes game developers more important then anyone trying to feed their kids and/or pay bills?
Ridge
New Member
Not more important. I never said they were more important. The industries work differently.
I've gone into used cars earlier in this thread, I'm not typing it all out again. Long story short cars are sold initially with a profit per unit cost; where as with video games it is insanely difficult to assign a per unit cost. Since you are starting potentially millions of dollars in the hole and are climbing your way out.
With food the cost per unit thing still applies, but production cycles are the biggest differentiating factor. Afyer you make a cheeseburger, you just move onto the next cheeseburger and the money is coming in minute by minute to match your output. Where as with video games it could take years to make the next product. If the only games being sold in that period are used, these games can't continue to be made.
Also there is the whole games are an experience, not a product I also mentioned earlier.
I'm getting tired of repeating myself. Long story short every industry works different..
Derri
, , Darkness, ,
And that's consumer logic. If I could pay £30 for a game, instead of paying £50 for the exact same thing. I will. Now usually used games aren't discounted that much these days but I have seen it happen and I have bought them.
Also gaming for me is a social thing so waiting long period of time 6+ months usually isn't ideal for me. I do feel sorry that I am not giving devs money but I can't say I'll lose any sleep over it. Also by the sounds of it you're saying that you don't support the use of giving games to friends to play.
So we should all be selfish and go 'Okay Jimmy I have Sniper Elite 3, completed it, will never play it again....but you can't have it because you aren't supporting the developers!!!!!'
