Top
90°

Why I’m pro used game restrictions

Metro - People are still up in arms over the ‘outrageous’ idea of restrictions on pre-owned games. Personally, and I guess controversially, I am pro-restrictions – but on the basis that a reselling company takes the hit not a consumer.

The story is too old to be commented.
mrmarx1838d ago

Don Mattrick is this you?

SilentNegotiator1838d ago

The only people that are pro-restrictions are corporate whores, idiots that think a closed platform could ever be like Steam, and people that thought Xbone was going to have 10-person FULL game sharing (which would have probably been worse than used anyway, b/c people would have formed efficient share groups online).

T21837d ago

"why im a corporate shill and nerd who pulls down my pants for the bully so as not to inconvenience them"

MikeyDucati11838d ago

lol the first comment on that page use the ol car sales analogy. I'm half and half. I do like the idea that the prices would lower. And I don't like how Gamestop robs players majorly. There is no such thing as power to the players besides the power to relinquish your power.

SilentNegotiator1838d ago

Prices would have been the same. They still wouldn't have competition as a closed platform.

MikeyDucati11838d ago (Edited 1838d ago )

And how do you know that exactly?

To whomever who disagreed, how do we know that the prices wouldn't change? I'm seriously curious.

MikeyDucati11838d ago

That's not an explanation. How do you know that exactly? Anybody can say business 101...

T21837d ago

@mikey - business 101 - never devalue a product consumers have proven they will buy ... No way ms lowered price ... And gamestop is irrelevant dont go there if you dont like it... They saw a niche and filled it you can easily sell on ebay

+ Show (1) more replyLast reply 1837d ago
Hicken1838d ago

People use the analogy because it works.

Gamestop doesn't force anybody to trade in. Folks choose to trade their games in for whatever little credit they get. And while I agree that people should get more, it's not as if they're the only option.

MikeyDucati11838d ago (Edited 1838d ago )

No the analogy doesn't work. But it takes to much typing to explain how it doesn't. And I thought it goes without saying that people decide to trade their games at GS. Yeah, its not their only option but the majority of gamers have it as their only option. Go figure.

dennett3161838d ago

Microsoft flat out stated that their games would cost $60 for the One. And this was before they reversed their restrictions. They would NOT have reduced prices because of these restrictions, people thinking otherwise are living in a feverish fantasy land because they had dreams of Steam-like sales dancing in their tiny minds. That was NEVER on the cards, by MS' own admission.

As for used games, publishers and developers have no right to any cut of games sold or traded in...none. They made their product, they sold that product. Done...they've made their money. They keep whining about not getting enough to cover their costs, but it's their own fault for their ridiculous budgeting that sees a game like Tomb Raider sell 3 million copies in a month and only just about break even. They have DLC with which to make extra money, they have the Far Cry 3 approach, which sees a budget game getting a release that re-uses the assets of the main game. They have game soundtracks, various merchandising deals, movie deals, book tie ins etc. If they're willing to put the effort in and not treat customers like idiots, there's plenty of money to be made, and plenty of ways to be profitable.
Dark Souls sells 2 million, is a decent success and made money. Why? Because they did something different, appealed to an audience that wasn't being catered to, and budgeted sensibly in order to ensure a profit. If a relatively small outfit can get it right, why can't the likes of Square Enix? Simple...greed. They want Call of Duty sales, and think that throwing money and huge teams of people into creating the most generic games imaginable is the way to do it....THAT'S their big problem, not used games or piracy. It's their own unbelievable incompetence and arrogance in assuming that just because they develop a game, that they have a divine right to our money and loyalty.

The restrictions were terribly anti-consumer, and the trade off was nowhere near good enough in terms of giving up our rights of first sale.

MikeyDucati11838d ago

Yea I got dreams, so what? Steam didn't start off cheap either, if you think about it. It took Steam some time to get where its at now. You gotta start somewhere and the inception is never easy. I thought that's common knowledge. No I didn't expect a price point change but no doubt it would come down the pipeline.

And Dark Souls sold greatly based on word of mouth and developer. Just to think, companies spend big bucks on advertising to get you to buy their games because, my god, it's a business. Big budgets for advertising is just standard. Most money in any business goes to getting product awareness. So it's not incompetence or arrogance. It's the way of business.

And what was "unethical" about Xbox One's requirements again? Because I don't see how it could be considered anti consumer unless the product was unethical.

Hicken1838d ago

The analogy does work, actually. The analogy to any other industry with a used market works.

And if GameStop isn't their only option, then it's not their only option. What you meant to say... maybe... is that people CHOOSE it as their first option. Thing is: it's their choice.

C'mon, man.

+ Show (1) more replyLast reply 1837d ago
SilentNegotiator1838d ago

"Sir! We aren't serving that flavor of Koolaid anymore! It was giving people herpes!"

"GIMME! I want it! You said it was delicious!"

"Get off me! HELP! HEEEEEEELP!!!"

Gridloc1838d ago

It's an easy fix. If your pro DRM, buy all your games digitally. If not buy the disk. Having a choice is always a good thing....

Show all comments (30)
The story is too old to be commented.