@Kidavenger said:
@TehPickle said:
@Kidavenger said:
This is absolutely mindblowing; while it seems like a good thing for consumers, we'll just end up paying for it in a different way.
The people that make the games and distribute them have to make money, if they have to start competing with used game sales I can't help but see the cost of new games going up and the big discount sales completely disappearing.
While Greenman gaming has been doing this for awhile, it's really just a trade in service with set prices aka Gamestop, having an open market free for all is insane.
Games designers/publishers HAVE been competing with used sales since the beginning. The fact that this ruling / recommendation could now impact on their online distributions margins merely brings that whole domain onto the same playing field as physical sales. I cannot see how this could cause some form of price hike in any way. If any of the big publishers are fool enough to say "Oh this digital second hand copy shenanigans is forcing up to increase prices," gamers would be the bigger fools to actually believe it.
For my money, this decision is most certainly the right thing to do and I for one welcome it. I'll be interested to see where things go from here.
I put this real simple for you, there is no difference at all between a used or a new copy of a digital game, used games will be cheaper, used games will reduce the number of sales a new game gets, this hurts the developer.
In a climate where EA, THQ, Nintendo are losing money hand over fist, developers are shutting down, and investors are pulling out the games industry, the last thing these people need is this judgement.
I like video games, but seriously, fuck cheap ass gamers.
I'm not sure why you feel the need to be so agressive about it, especially with such an elitist I'm Mr Moneybags So Screw Everyone That Can't Afford attitude.
There is no difference between a new and used digital game, true. But that's taking only the physical condition of the product into the account. Of course, there is no physical condition subject to wear and tear, so by this rule the prices would be the same? Logically yes, but from a more humanistic angle, the original purchaser originally paid "asking price" for the product, so it's reasonable for the next purchaser of that product to want to pay less than the original price, irrespective of it's condition.
I guess the difference in our opinions - which are both correct depending on how you chose to percieve the physicality of a string of zeros and ones - is wether digital and physical games are the same thing. They're not, of course, but that doesn't stop companies like the ones you named (EA in particular) trying to sell "new" digital games for the same price (or more in many cases) than their physical counterparts. I'm merely following a bartering ruleset that these companies themselves have established. If they want me to pay those prices, then I expect alternatives.
In this respect, I take off my hat to Valve. They have absolutely nailed it.
Full digital distribution is coming, and there's no avoiding it. On an idealisic level, these rules HAVE to be established globally, lest game companies have us by the balls forevermore.
If EA see fit to spend all the money making games that need to sell unrealistic numbers to turn even so much as turn a profit, then that's their problem. They're doing bad business, and they need to address that internally, rather than blaming their own consumers.
On a final note, this has nothing to do with "cheap ass gamers" as you so eloquently put it. I rather foolhardily spend about 25% of my monthly salary on (new) games, so "expecting something for nothing" is not the angle I'm coming from. It's this: When the day comes that everyone buys digitally, the notion of a free market has the potential to go out of the window without these sorts of rulings, and the games industry stands only to damage itself in the process.
Log in to comment