deusdigit's forum posts

#1 Posted by deusdigit (572 posts) -
@Tennmuerti said:

@deusdigit said:

@GreggD said:

@deusdigit said:

@DVombatus: If @DVombatus said:
If you buy used games, you are no longer any game publishers customer. They get no money from you. Why should you get to use their online services?
If that was the case, then they wouldn't need your $5 dollars to use their service. That would make you a customer and a consumer if you paid that online fee to play their product they intended for everyone to play and enjoy. Also, this is nothing like piracy. If you buy that game from someone, the physical copy disappears from that persons hands and they get their money back and you lose money and it appears into your hands. if everyone had the money to buy the game new, i am sure they would.

MAKE SOME SENSE, MAN

Plenty of it was already made clear, sorry you can't use your mind to wrap your head around that concept. :)

If you buy a used game you are indeed not their consumer. If you buy a used game then get the online code then you are and you are getting all the features.

Sorry you can't wrap your mind around that simple concept.

Then i should not possess a used copy of the game at all, and this is going to dictate how i purchase things. Especially if this is the physical copy of the game. It's not like i pirated it. You guys should be more formal and less immature when you make responses. Be clear and precise.
#2 Posted by deusdigit (572 posts) -
@GreggD said:

@deusdigit: It really didn't make any sense. It's unclear. You're contradicting yourself, too. My original point stands.

And yet this is only foreseeable in your mind since you fail to make a clear stance to anyone else. Once again, you can't leave the reader hanging.
#3 Posted by deusdigit (572 posts) -
@Tennmuerti said:

@deusdigit said:

What if retailers need to get rid of a crippled copy of the video game and need to rotate the games fast? They may slash the prices so low, that consumers will buy the used copy instead of the brand new one.

Sounds like a good deal to the consumers to me. Buy a super cheap used game, then get a $10 online pass. You pay less money. Publisher still gets theirs.

@deusdigit said:

this in turn may force the retail giants to lower the price of the sealed copy as well
  1. Once again sounds like a good thing for the consumer, since it would finally move publishers away from the bullshit $60 price for every retail game. If this scenario you are speculating about even did happen.
  2. This isn't going to happen in any foreseeable future, as even now retail games already get price drops all the time according to the game demand/shelf space/and copy supply.

@deusdigit said:

Some people may argue this is why you don't see used PC games laying around. Well for one, PC Games are usually $10 less then their console counter part and having a steam account for the last three years doesn't seem to bother me one bit. I haven't had to buy any silly passes and i can install the game as many times as i want. Don't get me wrong, i love console gaming. But i have never seen so much greed in the console gaming market!
  1. PC games are less $10 simply due to not having to pay platform tax. 
  2. All your Steam games are original purchases not used or rentals, so this has 0 bearing on the argument.
  3. There are almost no used PC sales since piracy effectively killed off that niche market. You either have the $ and want developer to get it so by the game new, and if you don't piracy is easier then used games or rent.

@deusdigit said:

It's just me sounding off on my displeasure in why Game publishers are always punishing their consumers, instead of rewarding them. with these senseless fees and holding back on features that should of already been implemented in the game.
  1. You are not the game publishers consumer when buying a used game. If you buy used and get the code, you are their consumer and you get all the features.
  2. The features that are held back are indeed already in the game.

There are plenty of arguments that can be made for and against online passes, but the above ain't them.

1. You are quite the consumer if you decide to buy DLC Content from them. regardless of a used copy, it helps drive revenue and profits. 
2.The only time retailers will drop the price on a video game, is if enough of that game was in demand to begin with and it sold so much that it's already widely in circulation and its already catered to the audience it was intended for. Supply and demand are apart of basic economics.  However, this is not quite how it worked with the Call of Duty games, because modern warfare 2 was still pretty expensive even when black ops came out.
3. The point i should have made about steam, is that maybe publishers should distribute their content threw digital distribution so they can't complain about the used game market. Then this would force people to buy the game new. 
#4 Posted by deusdigit (572 posts) -
@GreggD said:

@deusdigit said:

@DVombatus: If @DVombatus said:
If you buy used games, you are no longer any game publishers customer. They get no money from you. Why should you get to use their online services?
If that was the case, then they wouldn't need your $5 dollars to use their service. That would make you a customer and a consumer if you paid that online fee to play their product they intended for everyone to play and enjoy. Also, this is nothing like piracy. If you buy that game from someone, the physical copy disappears from that persons hands and they get their money back and you lose money and it appears into your hands. if everyone had the money to buy the game new, i am sure they would.

MAKE SOME SENSE, MAN

Plenty of it was already made clear, sorry you can't use your mind to wrap your head around that concept. :)
#5 Posted by deusdigit (572 posts) -
@MEATBALL said:

A lot of the op is rather nonsensical.

How so? can't leave the reader clueless about what you are saying :P
#6 Posted by deusdigit (572 posts) -
@DVombatus: If @DVombatus said:
If you buy used games, you are no longer any game publishers customer.  They get no money from you.  Why should you get to use their online services?
If that was the case, then they wouldn't need your $5 dollars to use their service. That would make you a customer and a consumer if you paid that online fee to play their product they intended for everyone to play and enjoy. Also, this is nothing like piracy. If you buy that game from someone, the physical copy disappears from that persons hands and they get their money back and you lose money and it appears into your hands. if everyone had the money to buy the game new, i am sure they would.
#7 Edited by deusdigit (572 posts) -
@Spoonman671 said:

Servers cost money.

They may cost money, But not only if it does it justify a reason to cripple the online portion, that one time only fee isn't going to last forever to pay for their server costs. If they continue this, You are going to end up seeing ghost towns instead of active online participation. and it doesn't help ether that ISPs are capping bandwidth usage.
#8 Edited by deusdigit (572 posts) -

I've been buying brand new and used video games for quite a long time now. But i must say that this is going to be unfavorable among consumers who don't always have the money to purchase a new game. especially if they have not been anticipating the release of it! this practice is nonsense and it's a obvious money grab to cripple the consumers purchasing power. What i am talking about are online passes that are required in order to play your used copy of a game you may have bought from gamestop, or one you simply borrowed from a friend to justify the purchase this game in the near future. 
 
When you are in the market of video games, You have a certain amount of money to spend on average. Who knows if you only have enough money to buy one game, that may be the only game you get to play for the whole year! Crippling the online portion of the game will have consequences not only on the consumer, but the game publishers and retailers as well. What if retailers need to get rid of a crippled copy of the video game and need to rotate the games fast? They may slash the prices so low, that consumers will buy the used copy instead of the brand new one. because they get punished with a silly key code ether way. this in turn may force the retail giants to lower the price of the sealed copy as well.  This also hurts the publisher from selling copies of the game. 
 
Some people may argue this is why you don't see used PC games laying around. Well for one, PC Games are usually $10 less then their console counter part and having a steam account for the last three years doesn't seem to bother me one bit. I haven't had to buy any silly passes and i can install the game as many times as i want. Don't get me wrong, i love console gaming. But i have never seen so much greed in the console gaming market! 
 
In turn, this wasn't meant to be a really professional forum post or anything. It's just me sounding off on my displeasure in why Game publishers are always punishing their consumers, instead of rewarding them. with these senseless fees and holding back on features that should of already been implemented in the game.

#9 Posted by deusdigit (572 posts) -
@Hailinel said:

@TwoOneFive said:

@Hailinel: i was asking you to answer the question. which you didn't. i already know where he stands.

Yeah, on shaky ground given that his preferred economic school has little to nothing to do with mathematics or statistical analysis and is mostly based on antiquated concepts that the larger school of economic theory gave up in the 1930s. What would you like? A thesis?

Not that you'd listen to me either way.

Ron Paul did give a really great speech about the economy, this is on youtube somewhere. its more recent after the GOP debate. the federal reserve is corrupt. we definitely need a sound currency, and it doesn't make much sense that our own government couldn't of manufactured its own currency, instead of allowing the Federal reserve to produce all this fiat currency, hyper inflate and basically rob people of retirement money.
#10 Posted by deusdigit (572 posts) -

I did not see any recent forum posts in correspondence to this. 
 
There is apparently an article from Ron Paul somewhere on google also talking extensively about this subject/issue.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0611/57032.html
 
Does president Obama have such authority to attack Libya? i actually get a little confused about the laws. But if he really did violate the constitution in any form, then this is definitely a legitimate attempt to see something is being done about it. It might not be the progress we are looking for, but its nice to see ron paul and other congressmen on display to actually talk and act upon an issue like this.