QuistisTrepe's forum posts

Avatar image for quististrepe
QuistisTrepe

633

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

7

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#1  Edited By QuistisTrepe

@Video_Game_King said:

The more I play survival horror games, the more I realize how few of them are actually worth playing.

I'm starting to feel the same way. The ones that stand out such as Silent Hill and Fatal Frame were excellent because they were distinguished gaming experiences instead of Resident Evil clones which later became Silent Hill clones, which then became cliche post-apocalyptic nonsense.

I'm not really sure that I get the fighting game genre. I feel like it was more of a 90s gimmick than a true gaming genre but somehow it has lasted till now, they're as pointless as MMOs.

Avatar image for quististrepe
QuistisTrepe

633

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

7

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Avatar image for quististrepe
QuistisTrepe

633

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

7

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#3  Edited By QuistisTrepe

@Marcsman said:

@TooWalrus said:

Personally, iPod and 320kb/s mp3 is good enough for me.

There's a guy at work who (claims to be) an audiophile, and he'll tell you that you need to rip everything as FLAC, and that the Creative Zen is the Pinnacle of mp3 players. I don't trust him.

FLAC suck. As for Creative Zen I used to own one, they are complete garbage compared to any iPod. Their software is atrocious and super glitchy. Plus the damn things hooks up to nothing and if you use audio jacks to connect them to a stereo your Zen's outputs will be shot in 6 months. Zen's totally fucking blow.

Blasting Creative Zen compared to the iPod, oh man. **triple facepalm**

Avatar image for quististrepe
QuistisTrepe

633

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

7

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#4  Edited By QuistisTrepe

King, you're being a little too rough on Galerians. The game had an outstanding premise, but was just missing the depth needed to make it more distinguished. Yes it was rough around the edges, but the gameplay wasn't THAT bad. It was a more sci-fi version of the original RE in terms of gameplay.

Avatar image for quististrepe
QuistisTrepe

633

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

7

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#5  Edited By QuistisTrepe

Write-in: A do-over of RE5 and RE6 with an apology to their dwindling fan base.

Avatar image for quististrepe
QuistisTrepe

633

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

7

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#6  Edited By QuistisTrepe

@believer258 said:

The rest of the Megami Tensei games.

This I would agree with. If you're really looking for something out of this world, try Nocturne. You'll never look at a JRPG the same way ever again.

Avatar image for quististrepe
QuistisTrepe

633

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

7

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#7  Edited By QuistisTrepe

Mass Effect 3 by far. I've been playing the multiplayer for months now and I haven't even finished the game yet. I suppose Civ V Gods and Kings would be a distant second.

Avatar image for quististrepe
QuistisTrepe

633

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

7

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#8  Edited By QuistisTrepe

@believer258 said:

STOP BEING A FUCKING CUNT.

You didn't demolish his argument. You threw out some motherfucking words that are full of unverifiable bullshit.

"Yeah, but... but... people who buy used games then turn around and sell them to get brand new ones!" What are you, naive or just stupid? People who will spend $55 on a game instead of $60 might trade in their old games for another one, but they're trading it in for another used one. Those people rarely buy new games.

Now, I'm not against used games so I feel like I'm playing something of a devil's advocate here, but stop spewing bullshit. You just look like an ass.

FUD and ad-hominems, I see the white flag has been raised as you don't appear to have any further argument to offer. Oh, and how exactly am I spewing bullshit? If I were wrong, then why do millions of new games still get sold every year? Console game sales are still putting up around $8 billion year-to-date in a recession, even as we near the end of this console generation to boot. It's pretty difficult to see used games as hurting developers with numbers like that. You're grasping at straws just for the sake of keeping an argument going and it shows.

I'm not being a cunt just because you cannot seem to grasp such a simple concept as used games cannot be available without having been purchased new at some point. The business model as it stands works and it benefits both the consumers and the game industry.

Avatar image for quististrepe
QuistisTrepe

633

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

7

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#9  Edited By QuistisTrepe

@TyCobb said:

@QuistisTrepe said:

@TyCobb said:

@QuistisTrepe said:

@TyCobb said:

I'll say it again. Used games are just as bad a piracy.

That has got to be the most insanely idiotic claim I have ever read on any message board anywhere. I'm genuinely unsure if you're merely trolling. I've rarely encountered a premise so intellectually bankrupt as that one. I'm troubled somewhat that there are those who would be so willing to sacrifice their own property rights for some corporation that couldn't give a shit about them.

Really? That opinion is "intellectually bankrupt"? First off, what property rights are you talking about? You do not own the game when you buy it from a store. You merely own the plastic case and the plastic that was used to make the disc. You do not own the data on the disc. Game companies have said it many times before that you don't. On disc DLC ring any bells? I am sorry, but there is something wrong when a company can purchase a game for a few dollars and then undercut the new one by just a few dollars. They made money selling it new, buying it back for a couple of dollars, selling it at practically new price, then possibly doing the same process all over again with the same game. I honestly don't see why that should be allowed when you don't own the data.

Let's make a quick scenario and you tell me where I am wrong in the fact that used games don't put some sort of dent. Of course these numbers arbitrary, but probably a fair estimate.

  • WEEK 1
  • New game is released for $60. GameStop buys for $45 a unit. Made up number, but probably about right for their size. (Mom and Pop Shop probably would pay $50-55)
  • It sells 1,000,000 copies in the first week.
  • $60,000,000 went into the system.
  • Publisher @ $45,000,000 / GameStop @ $15,000,000
  • WEEK 2
  • Let's say 50,000 units are sold back to GameStop for $30. (Not going into the whole cash vs in-store credit. Too low level for this.)
  • GameStop @ $13,500,000
  • Week stats are in: 500,000 games sold and the 50,000 used units were also sold at $55.
  • Publisher @ $67,500,000 / GameStop @ $23,750,000 - The publisher has already lost an estimated 50,000 sales because GameStop was cheaper by $5. That's a possible $2,250,000 they didn't get in the first week.
  • This time a total of 80,000 copies were sold back to GameStop since the game has been out for 2 weeks and more on the market.
  • GameStop @ $21,350,000
  • WEEK 3
  • Third and final example week. Game sold 300,000 units. GameStop sold another 80,000 used units.
  • Publisher @ $81,000,000 / GameStop @ $30,250,000 - Another $4,400,000 possible loss.
  • The publisher in 3 weeks just lost an estimated 180,000 units for a possible total of $6,650,000.

Now I am sure I will get lots of shit for how wrong this is, but honestly, I don't think I am far off. Yes, these numbers are arbitrary and only act as if GameStop is the sole retailer, but can you honestly tell me with a straight face that over the course of a game still being produced and shipped to retailers, that they aren't hurt by used game sales? Well then I say bullshit to you sir/madam and I want you to show me how they are not. A game still having new copies available on the shelf over a 1 year period definitely gets screwed by used game sales. Especially when we are talking about games that may not have all that much replay value. Sure it had a 15 hour+ campaign, but if there's nothing more than that and a possible requirement of it to sell X copies in order for a sequel to be funded. I am not saying you shouldn't be able to sell used games to people, but on a massive scale for a new game it hurts.

And you conveniently left out that the store credit handed out by the retailer is typically used towards another copy of a new title. But this would undercut your entire argument, so I can see why you leave this out. Your examples also assume that 100% of the copies published would have been sold if used games weren't an option and this is never the case, making your examples pretty much DOA as far as this discussion goes. A new game that goes unsold isn't a loss for the developer, especially when the developer/publisher already got paid when those copies got shipped to the retailer.

The property rights I was referring is the Doctrine of First Sale, which I'm pretty sure you have used at some point.

Oh by the way tiger, you still haven't explained how used games are just as bad as piracy. So let me see if I've got this straight, purchasing a new game and then reselling it to someone to use that money towards a copy of another new game is as bad as someone downloading an .iso file to play on a modded console and are in fact that same thing? Wow, that's just.............extraordinary.

I specifically noted I wasn't going to go into in-store credit vs cash. This was a high level overview and I said I wasn't going to get into low level details. This works just fine as a basis of a single game. I don't see you actually proving me wrong anywhere. Like I said, prove me wrong.

The reason why used games hurt just as bad a piracy is this -- the game bought and sold above directly resulted in loss of sales. Piracy on the other hand cannot always result in loss of sales and is impossible to even begin to calculate what kind of damage it really does to the industry. Many people download stuff just because they can. You cannot say that someone who downloaded a game resulted in a loss of sale. You can say that 90% of the time someone who bought a used game over a new copy did result in a loss. When a used game is just a few dollars less than the original, it is safe to say that the person would have spent the extra money had a used copy not been available.

I gave my examples and you are now just being an ass. Prove me wrong or just stop replying. You have your opinion and I have my mine. The only difference is I showed why I believe it negatively affects the industry.

LMFAO

Prove you wrong? I demolished your entire argument. You didn't even have a valid premise from which to build any kind of credible argument in the first place. Your examples consisted of numbers and bullshit metrics built upon baseless assumptions for the reasons that I've already pointed out.

Your claim that legitimate business transactions that benefit all parties involved (also cited earlier) have the same effect as pirating content is so improbably idiotic.

I see now that it is impossible to have an intellectual discussion with you.

Avatar image for quististrepe
QuistisTrepe

633

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

7

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#10  Edited By QuistisTrepe

@TyCobb said:

@QuistisTrepe said:

@TyCobb said:

I'll say it again. Used games are just as bad a piracy.

That has got to be the most insanely idiotic claim I have ever read on any message board anywhere. I'm genuinely unsure if you're merely trolling. I've rarely encountered a premise so intellectually bankrupt as that one. I'm troubled somewhat that there are those who would be so willing to sacrifice their own property rights for some corporation that couldn't give a shit about them.

Really? That opinion is "intellectually bankrupt"? First off, what property rights are you talking about? You do not own the game when you buy it from a store. You merely own the plastic case and the plastic that was used to make the disc. You do not own the data on the disc. Game companies have said it many times before that you don't. On disc DLC ring any bells? I am sorry, but there is something wrong when a company can purchase a game for a few dollars and then undercut the new one by just a few dollars. They made money selling it new, buying it back for a couple of dollars, selling it at practically new price, then possibly doing the same process all over again with the same game. I honestly don't see why that should be allowed when you don't own the data.

Let's make a quick scenario and you tell me where I am wrong in the fact that used games don't put some sort of dent. Of course these numbers arbitrary, but probably a fair estimate.

  • WEEK 1
  • New game is released for $60. GameStop buys for $45 a unit. Made up number, but probably about right for their size. (Mom and Pop Shop probably would pay $50-55)
  • It sells 1,000,000 copies in the first week.
  • $60,000,000 went into the system.
  • Publisher @ $45,000,000 / GameStop @ $15,000,000
  • WEEK 2
  • Let's say 50,000 units are sold back to GameStop for $30. (Not going into the whole cash vs in-store credit. Too low level for this.)
  • GameStop @ $13,500,000
  • Week stats are in: 500,000 games sold and the 50,000 used units were also sold at $55.
  • Publisher @ $67,500,000 / GameStop @ $23,750,000 - The publisher has already lost an estimated 50,000 sales because GameStop was cheaper by $5. That's a possible $2,250,000 they didn't get in the first week.
  • This time a total of 80,000 copies were sold back to GameStop since the game has been out for 2 weeks and more on the market.
  • GameStop @ $21,350,000
  • WEEK 3
  • Third and final example week. Game sold 300,000 units. GameStop sold another 80,000 used units.
  • Publisher @ $81,000,000 / GameStop @ $30,250,000 - Another $4,400,000 possible loss.
  • The publisher in 3 weeks just lost an estimated 180,000 units for a possible total of $6,650,000.

Now I am sure I will get lots of shit for how wrong this is, but honestly, I don't think I am far off. Yes, these numbers are arbitrary and only act as if GameStop is the sole retailer, but can you honestly tell me with a straight face that over the course of a game still being produced and shipped to retailers, that they aren't hurt by used game sales? Well then I say bullshit to you sir/madam and I want you to show me how they are not. A game still having new copies available on the shelf over a 1 year period definitely gets screwed by used game sales. Especially when we are talking about games that may not have all that much replay value. Sure it had a 15 hour+ campaign, but if there's nothing more than that and a possible requirement of it to sell X copies in order for a sequel to be funded. I am not saying you shouldn't be able to sell used games to people, but on a massive scale for a new game it hurts.

And you conveniently left out that the store credit handed out by the retailer is typically used towards another copy of a new title. But this would undercut your entire argument, so I can see why you leave this out. Your examples also assume that 100% of the copies published would have been sold if used games weren't an option and this is never the case, making your examples pretty much DOA as far as this discussion goes. A new game that goes unsold isn't a loss for the developer, especially when the developer/publisher already got paid when those copies got shipped to the retailer.

The property rights I was referring to is the Doctrine of First Sale, which I'm pretty sure you have used at some point.

Oh by the way tiger, you still haven't explained how used games are just as bad as piracy. So let me see if I've got this straight, purchasing a new game and then reselling it to someone to use that money towards a copy of another new game is as bad as someone downloading an .iso file to play on a modded console and are in fact that same thing? Wow, that's just.............extraordinary.