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.
Don Mattrick is this you?
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).
Writer is an idiot.
"why im a corporate shill and nerd who pulls down my pants for the bully so as not to inconvenience them"
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.
Prices would have been the same. They still wouldn't have competition as a closed platform.
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.
That's not an explanation. How do you know that exactly? Anybody can say business 101...
@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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
"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!!!"
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....
Gotta get me some of that. Anyone know this guy's drug dealer?
Yeah, what you want?
Ah. Just rang him and he's got nothin. Douche who wrote this hit his whole stash in one burn.
I dont mind the system as long as prices reflect it. It's one of the reasons I like steam. I didn't like the checkin every 24 hours approach with the XBone. I understand Microsoft and Sony have to have a relationship with retail, but that didn't stop the video industry from moving forward. You either change with the times or get left behind EX: Blockbuster Video. Even retail purchased PC games have DRM. They are physical copies are they not? Now DRM like Sim City is stupid and it proved it, like I said, I hate the online check in, but I have no problem with code authentication. I really liked the fact that I could purchase the console disc game and install it completely, then leave the box/case up for display. It's the same thing we did with our pc games back in the day. You get the advantage of a disc purchase but with the digital features. But I see no point in buying console games digitally if you do not get the price benefit. No price benefit, no digital purchasing or DRM. That is my stance anyway.
Steam has a lot of competition from other vendors, other services like Origin and Uplay, and tons of competition that try to undercut each other, even when selling Steam codes. MS would have had no such competition on their closed system. If you seriously thought you'd be seeing reduced pricing and Steam sales on Xbox One...well I don't know what to tell you other than MS confirmed that prices for their One games would be $60. With reduced options in terms of selling, renting and lending your games, then MS could set the prices to their (and other publishers') advantage and people would have had to like it, or lump it.
You obviously didn't read because I didn't "think" anything. I stated my opinions on a certain practice and the things I would like about the approach and the things I dont like. I said nothing about what I thought they would do at all.
please remove the safety pin from a frag grenade and count to 5.
Please you can't tell me a developer doesn't get a piece of the pie. They make money on the game when the title is bought brand new throw in DLC and addons there's another piece of the pie. Then when the game has ran its course it changes hands and becomes a used title. The developer makes money off that same title again with an online pass to play online. Then throw in the DLC and the addons again there is another piece of pie. How much pie can a person eat. If Microsofts stupid policy did take effect on used games. It would hurt the developers in the long run and hurt Microsoft as well. All it takes is a nerd to rip apart an XboxOne to see what makes it tick. Then they will eventually find away to get around the feature that blocks used games. Then when that XboxOne game is only for that system the developers loose the extra coin from the online pass, DLC and addons from that used game.
i stopped reading at the fourth paragraph. the 100$ profit line is a sure sign the writer doesn't know what they're talking about and is just regurgitating the industry propaganda. the only stores that make 100% profit on preowned games are charity shops, because people donate their stuff to charity shops so the money from the sales all goes to charity. are they evil now? people don't donate games to the likes of Game and Gamestop, they get something in return. that means it's not 100% profit you frakking tool. and you know why they trade games in? most often to buy new. i have no doubt the rest of the article tells how stores are greedy, not giving enough and charging too much, sacrificing children to their pagan gods and conducting weird sexual ceremonies in their secretive societies filled with drug lords, politicians, lawyers and peadophiles. plotting the theft of food from the poor publishers children's mouths. for all their faults, games stores don't need to violate my rights to make a profit, that makes them the, much, lesser of two evils.
N4G is a community of gamers posting and discussing the latest game news. It’s part of NewsBoiler, a network of social news sites covering today’s pop culture.