@Blur_Fan: Is the xbox version of Dirt 3 using dedicated servers? If no, then exactly what servers is Codemasters running? Far as I know, matches are hosted by the players themselves, and stats, match making and stuff like that go through MS servers (hence the monthly fee for xbox live)Servers and Xbox live is irrelevant. They(the devs) are locking off a certain portion of the game(that they made) to people who don't give them any money. If the people who rent or buy used want to access this, they give the devs a small amount of money. Seems fair to me. If you buy games new is 100% a non-issue.
DiRT 3
Game » consists of 12 releases. Released May 24, 2011
Dirt 3 is the latest installment in Codemasters' long-running Colin McRae Rally franchise. The game returns to the series' rally roots with dynamic weather, a career focusing on team-based racing, as well as introducing the freestyle event: Gymkhana.
Well, this blows.
I just want to take a second to thank elsuperdonut and the rest of the Giant Bomb community for being grown-ups when it comes to these debates & discussions. It's why I came to this site a few years ago....well, that and the kick ass video content. But, Giant Bomb has an amazingly passionate community that is open to discussing games and respecting people's opinions. We just saw a clear example of that on this thread. We both have different opinions on the issue, and we were allowed to discuss them without someone being an immature ass and hiding behind internet anonymity.
So, I just want to say thanks to all of you for solidifying the reason I'm a paid member to this community!
I don't mind them doing it with the used games but there should be a free week or even just a free couple of days that you can play before the online pass is required so that renters can check the game out.
@Kazona said:So what you're basically saying is that you are ok with consumers getting the shaft for something that is the retailer's fault.@Blur_Fan: Is the xbox version of Dirt 3 using dedicated servers? If no, then exactly what servers is Codemasters running? Far as I know, matches are hosted by the players themselves, and stats, match making and stuff like that go through MS servers (hence the monthly fee for xbox live)Servers and Xbox live is irrelevant. They(the devs) are locking off a certain portion of the game(that they made) to people who don't give them any money. If the people who rent or buy used want to access this, they give the devs a small amount of money. Seems fair to me. If you buy games new is 100% a non-issue.
Actually, I take that back. It's the publisher's fault for not having the balls to call for an arrangement with the retailer. Right now publishers have to stay in the good grace of places like Gamestop, or they will simply stop stocking their product. So instead of getting mad at retailers, publishers choose the easy way out, and go after hard working consumers instead.
And really, where are you going to draw the line? Do you think that if you buy a used car, the manufacturer sees a dime of that money? Are you going to accept having to pay $100 or $500 extra to Toyota to get an unlock code so your engine will start or your radio will work?
The whole idea behind the used sales business is that the customer who buys your product used today, is more likely to come back and buy another one of your products new at a later time--if said product is actually good.
And just to be clear, I buy all my games new because I can afford to. If that wasn't the case, however, and I had to pick and choose the games I buy new, I sure as hell wouldn't be buying a game from the company that tried to screw me by forcing me to buy a muliplayer pass for games where my machine is going to be used as a host. Perhaps if the game runs on dedicated servers provided by the publisher/developer, I might be more understanding. But as it stands, the majority of developers don't lose a dime when someone buys a game used.
And that's the problem right there. Publishers have everyone believing that the developer is losing money when Fred buys a used game, when the truth is that they aren't losing a penny on that sale. Why? Because Fred buying that game used is the same as Fred not buying the game at all. In case of the former, however, Fred will be more likely to buy the developer's next game new. In the latter case, Fred will probably not even pay attention to the developer's next game, let alone buy it.
I am all for developers being paid for their hard work, but if they could, they would sell you a game for $60 that would only be playable if you buy a code off their website for another $60.
@xSUFFOKATEx: I just emailed Codemasters asking them if they had a trial, they said no. VIP pass is required to play online. Fuck these guys.YEAH YOU TELL EM!
I'm sure they really give a shit if you rent their game or not. Ohhh the profit loss of $0.00 is really going to stick it to them. They put this in place to stop people from renting the game or buying it used. They just won.
It's a valid concern and it's a shitty system (even though most games have it now). But don't act like you're helping by boycotting a rental.
You should learn to read pal.@elsuperdonut said:
@xSUFFOKATEx: I just emailed Codemasters asking them if they had a trial, they said no. VIP pass is required to play online. Fuck these guys.YEAH YOU TELL EM!
I'm sure they really give a shit if you rent their game or not. Ohhh the profit loss of $0.00 is really going to stick it to them. They put this in place to stop people from renting the game or buying it used. They just won. It's a valid concern and it's a shitty system (even though most games have it now). But don't act like you're helping by boycotting a rental.
@xSUFFOKATEx
said:You quoted the wrong guy.No you don't get a trial for online with Dirt 3. So fucking stupid.
There are a lot of reasons the vehicle market is a really bad comparison for the games market (cars cost 10k+, games 60 bucks. The majority of 16 year olds could never afford to own a car new but could for a game. Many societies in the world require workers to have access to a car to be able to work, but owning a video game doesn't qualify you to directly contribute to society in any meaningful way...)And really, where are you going to draw the line? Do you think that if you buy a used car, the manufacturer sees a dime of that money? Are you going to accept having to pay $100 or $500 extra to Toyota to get an unlock code so your engine will start or your radio will work?
But, Toyota absolutely sees money from used car sales through maintenance and parts. When a Toyota breaks down, the parts come from Toyota regardless of if the purchaser got the car directly from Toyota or from a third party.
You're better off trying to draw comparisons with books or music, which are low cost entertainment products that have an existing used market, then going to cars, which are high cost utility products.
Not sure where you heard this, but the primary argument from economists as to why the secondary market for games is meaningful is that the guy who sells the game uses the money gained from that sale to purchase other games. So the money gets from the used purchase to some developer (not necessarily the one who made that game, though) in a round-about sort of way. This argument is very difficult to prove either way, though, so most people just have their own opinion on the whole deal. There is no strong evidence to suggest that used game sales fuel new game sales. (There is neither evidence to suggest it doesn't.)The whole idea behind the used sales business is that the customer who buys your product used today, is more likely to come back and buy another one of your products new at a later time--if said product is actually good.
The counter argument is that if someone buys 3 games a year used at $40, that person would most likely buy 2 games a year new at $60. It's pretty hard to assert that most consumers would just abandon gaming if they could only play 2/3rds of the games they otherwise could if a used market existed. This is generally the stance developers are taking.
You might for sure, but I'd wager good money over 99% of the world wouldn't care. If I buy all my games new, why would I care what happens to someone who buys used? So long as the developers/publishers don't punish me for buying games new it means nothing.And just to be clear, I buy all my games new because I can afford to. If that wasn't the case, however, and I had to pick and choose the games I buy new, I sure as hell wouldn't be buying a game from the company that tried to screw me by forcing me to buy a muliplayer pass for games where my machine is going to be used as a host.
As stated above, the argument is that if Fred could no longer buy 3 games a year used he would buy 2 games a year new. In fact, the statement "Fred buying that games used is the same as Fred not buying the game at all" is exactly why developers have taken this stance. If even 10% of the Freds out there would have bought the game new (because they want to drive some sick cars) instead of used (because it's cheaper) is all profit to them.Perhaps if the game runs on dedicated servers provided by the publisher/developer, I might be more understanding. But as it stands, the majority of developers don't lose a dime when someone buys a game used. And that's the problem right there. Publishers have everyone believing that the developer is losing money when Fred buys a used game, when the truth is that they aren't losing a penny on that sale. Why? Because Fred buying that game used is the same as Fred not buying the game at all. In case of the former, however, Fred will be more likely to buy the developer's next game new. In the latter case, Fred will probably not even pay attention to the developer's next game, let alone buy it.
Hell, if they could they'd sell the game for $1,000,000. That's the nature of business.
I am all for developers being paid for their hard work, but if they could, they would sell you a game for $60 that would only be playable if you buy a code off their website for another $60.
@Kazona said:
There are a lot of reasons the vehicle market is a really bad comparison for the games market (cars cost 10k+, games 60 bucks. The majority of 16 year olds could never afford to own a car new but could for a game. Many societies in the world require workers to have access to a car to be able to work, but owning a video game doesn't qualify you to directly contribute to society in any meaningful way...)And really, where are you going to draw the line? Do you think that if you buy a used car, the manufacturer sees a dime of that money? Are you going to accept having to pay $100 or $500 extra to Toyota to get an unlock code so your engine will start or your radio will work?
But, Toyota absolutely sees money from used car sales through maintenance and parts. When a Toyota breaks down, the parts come from Toyota regardless of if the purchaser got the car directly from Toyota or from a third party.
You're better off trying to draw comparisons with books or music, which are low cost entertainment products that have an existing used market, then going to cars, which are high cost utility products.Not sure where you heard this, but the primary argument from economists as to why the secondary market for games is meaningful is that the guy who sells the game uses the money gained from that sale to purchase other games. So the money gets from the used purchase to some developer (not necessarily the one who made that game, though) in a round-about sort of way. This argument is very difficult to prove either way, though, so most people just have their own opinion on the whole deal. There is no strong evidence to suggest that used game sales fuel new game sales. (There is neither evidence to suggest it doesn't.)The whole idea behind the used sales business is that the customer who buys your product used today, is more likely to come back and buy another one of your products new at a later time--if said product is actually good.
The counter argument is that if someone buys 3 games a year used at $40, that person would most likely buy 2 games a year new at $60. It's pretty hard to assert that most consumers would just abandon gaming if they could only play 2/3rds of the games they otherwise could if a used market existed. This is generally the stance developers are taking.You might for sure, but I'd wager good money over 99% of the world wouldn't care. If I buy all my games new, why would I care what happens to someone who buys used? So long as the developers/publishers don't punish me for buying games new it means nothing.And just to be clear, I buy all my games new because I can afford to. If that wasn't the case, however, and I had to pick and choose the games I buy new, I sure as hell wouldn't be buying a game from the company that tried to screw me by forcing me to buy a muliplayer pass for games where my machine is going to be used as a host.
As stated above, the argument is that if Fred could no longer buy 3 games a year used he would buy 2 games a year new. In fact, the statement "Fred buying that games used is the same as Fred not buying the game at all" is exactly why developers have taken this stance. If even 10% of the Freds out there would have bought the game new (because they want to drive some sick cars) instead of used (because it's cheaper) is all profit to them.Perhaps if the game runs on dedicated servers provided by the publisher/developer, I might be more understanding. But as it stands, the majority of developers don't lose a dime when someone buys a game used. And that's the problem right there. Publishers have everyone believing that the developer is losing money when Fred buys a used game, when the truth is that they aren't losing a penny on that sale. Why? Because Fred buying that game used is the same as Fred not buying the game at all. In case of the former, however, Fred will be more likely to buy the developer's next game new. In the latter case, Fred will probably not even pay attention to the developer's next game, let alone buy it.
Hell, if they could they'd sell the game for $1,000,000. That's the nature of business.
I am all for developers being paid for their hard work, but if they could, they would sell you a game for $60 that would only be playable if you buy a code off their website for another $60.
1. The OP of this thread is renting the game because he can't afford to buy it new; and from what I can tell he's not an out of work 16 year old. You'd be surprised how many working people can't afford to buy new games.
Also, Toyota might make money on used car sale in parts, but there is absolutely no guarantee they always will because their are plenty of aftermarket parts which aren't made by them. In fact, my dad had a Nissan Patrol, and when I had a close encounter with a tree, none of the replacements part were from Nissan.
And it really makes no difference whether I make the comparison with cars, books, movies, or any other consumer product; the comparison still stands.
2. That basically comes down to the same thing. Either a) the consumer sells his game, and uses that to buy a new game, or b) the consumer buys a used game from a developer now, and the next one new (because he thinks they're worth the extra money).
And I never said that someone would abandon gaming entirely. I'm saying that the consumer will choose a game where he doesn't feel like he's getting screwed over.
3. Just because you don't care what happens to another consumer doesn't make it right. (And more frequently even the consumer who buys their games new gets punished in one way or another).
4. To me that response reads almost like, "Hey, Fred isn't buying our latest game. Let's make him buy the game!"
5. To be more exact, the nature of the business is that there are too many idiots out there who willingly let themselves get shafted, and then shout in unison, "thank you, sir, may I have another!" And just because there are so many who do that, doesn't make it right.
The comparison is meaningless. You could write down the number of similarities between the automobile industry and the games industry on a post-it note and still have room for your grocery list. Trying to emotionally persuade people by positing this alternate universe where used cars have unlock fees it up there with telling us to hate the developers of Dirt 3 because they might just beat up our moms someday.
The real question here is "how, as a person whom only buys new games, am I getting screwed?" though. You're telling me that I'm getting screwed for buying Dirt 3 new because someone else can't rent it and play it online. How?
Please Log In to post.
This edit will also create new pages on Giant Bomb for:
Beware, you are proposing to add brand new pages to the wiki along with your edits. Make sure this is what you intended. This will likely increase the time it takes for your changes to go live.Comment and Save
Until you earn 1000 points all your submissions need to be vetted by other Giant Bomb users. This process takes no more than a few hours and we'll send you an email once approved.
Log in to comment