54 replies to this topic

[asponge]

Reaperman, on Mon Feb 6, 2012 10:13 PM, said:

It would be a good idea, except that it would require work, while destroying resale value is nearly free and much easier.

Maybe you're right.  It just seems like a bad business model to me.  Implementing some sort of draconian DRM system via the XBOX live network (sorry if I don't have the terminology correct) takes planning and software developers.  Neither of which are cheap.  Not to mention the fallout from the users of putting the plan into action.

Frankly, I think that the game producers* really have their business model wrong if they're complaining about secondary sales.  If you're not making the money you need off of initial game sales then you're doing it wrong.  There's no other industry that says, "hey why don't I get a cut if my product gets sold a second time."  It's ridiculous.  It's greed.  Period.

*I don't like to lump developers into this category because generally the developers (the people who actually do the work creating the game) get paid irrespective to publisher sales.

[Reaperman]

Maybe a good way to generate income and keep the lobbies full would be to regularly offer low-cost tournament codes.  Maybe monthly or quarterly.  Then interested customers (new/used game purchasers) could cough up $2-5, and enter the thing for ranking and prizes.

[ninjarabbit]

Starscream, on Tue Feb 7, 2012 12:13 AM, said:

I'm not gonna be popular, but, I agree with the devs.

Books - Not too much money involved in creating, publishing and fairly inexpensive to purchase.
Music - Concerts, merchandise, fees to use music on the radio, etc all generate good income on top of the sale of the cd or song
Movies - 1 showing at a theater has many paying customers, rentals, fee for HBO and the like Netflix, etc, retail sales, networks eventually showing them in prime time. Some serious bank can be made for years
Games - may cost quite a bit up front to make, sell it, no additional income can be generated with the exception of rentals but I haven't seen anything suggesting the publisher directly supplies rental companies, in some cases servers need to be maintained
Cars - Because I know someone will try to make them seem the same, they aren't and won't ever be so no need to get into that.

The system will be changing for sure. Remember when we only wanted to buy 1 song from an album and couldn't? They tried cd singles, but way too much $$$ then Napster came along and changed the system. Apple provided a perfect legal vehicle and the music industry, as far as sales go, is changed forever.

These devs, they work hard even if the game sucks. All of them for the most part are really trying to provide some good stuff with all that's available now like 3d, online, dlc, achievments ,etc. Alot is new to them too, so growing pains are expected. Once that game is sold, they can't make another dime from it unlike other industries that everyone wants to keep comparing them to. DLC? Sure, but how much? I think Online pass is a great solution. Online rentals thru the respective system would be great. 1 week rental, $15, beat the game and no worries. Cheaper than new or used, no shelf space needed, good value for everyone.

I know everyone is used to the idea that you bought, own it, can do what you want. None of us would be on this site if it wasn't for used games. But I don't see the problem with that changing.

And that's why game companies shouldn't charging $60 (plus DLC, online passes, etc) for their games.

And quite frankly the game companies need to understand that there's cheaper forms of entertainment than many people will go to instead if things get too expensive, especially if it's mon and dad buying or some minimum wage making 16-25 year old buying. I remember being in my early 20s and picking the PS1 over the N64 and one of the main reasons because was the costs of the games. Hell I couldn't afford to keep up with gaming today if it wasn't for used gaming because I have other monetary priorities.

Say what you want about the movie and music industries but at least their product is fairly affordable and doesn't require a huge upfront investment to enjoy unlike consoles (especially with next gen consoles probably being $400+)

[Mord]

Starscream, on Tue Feb 7, 2012 12:13 AM, said:

These devs, they work hard even if the game sucks.

Unfortunately for them, it doesn't matter how hard they worked if their game sucked. Society doesn't owe them a thing and as such if they fail to produce something society wants, there's no reason for us to feel sorry or help prop them up so they can do it again. Or are you saying we should be buying every piece of shovelware produced?

Quote

I know everyone is used to the idea that you bought, own it, can do what you want. None of us would be on this site if it wasn't for used games. But I don't see the problem with that changing.

That's fine for you. That's your opinion. Those of us who find that aspect important will allow it to affect our buying purchases and habits so the game industry had better take that into consideration while trying to put their fingers even deeper into our wallets.

[doubleminor]

Random Terrain, on Mon Feb 6, 2012 8:40 PM, said:

Similar to what others have said, if game companies would sell their new games for around 20 bucks, more people would buy new games and since GameFlop sells used games for that price or more, it would probably put them out of business because they wouldn't be able to gouge customers anymore. Could GameFlop stay in business selling mostly 10 dollar used games?

In 2004, 2K sports sold NFL2K5 for a mere $20 (and arguably the superior game) while EA's Madden was $50 (full price at the time). Needless to say, Madden was outsold by a large margin and EA was forced to drop the price to $30. After that, EA signed the exclusive rights contract with the NFL and the price went back up.

There are more things like this which make companies ruin the business of video games, but yet they point fingers at everyone else.

[SoulBlazer]

Really good posts so far, folks.  For anyone who cares ( ) heres my 2 cents:

Used gaming has defentily gotten me into some franchies, like someone else said.  Consider the game I'm loving right now, Skyrim.  Morrowind I got used shortly after it came out cause a friend really enjoyed it and said I'd like it.  Betheseda got me to buy the two expansions for Morrowind brand new at full price.  Same with Oblvion.  Same with the expansions for that.  Same for Skyrim.  On release day, I was more then happy to plunk down money for the game full price, as well as the guide, so with tax I spent about $90.  And I certinaly can't say I'm not getting my money's worth out of it!

Besides, Gamestop is only the tip of the iceburg.  What about Amazon?  EBay?  Craigslist?  Other gaming stores?  Mom-and-pop operations?  Thrifts and garage sales?  How far do they want to go?

There does seem to be a lot of crap games out this generation, but I would argue that the ratio of good-to-bad games is the same now as it always was.  The difference?  We (consumers) are more educated and have more options.  Back in the Atari 2600 and NES days, you had little information available to help you decide to buy a $50 game, and places that rented were few and far between.  How many of us spent a lot of money on a game only to find it sucked and we were stuck with it?  Nowdays, we have all kinds of information available as well as options for the game -- buy new, buy used, buy a digital copy, rent it, and so on.  As a results, publishers are seeing less money and they are making a big stink out of it.

I think the new game price is fair -- I saw a breakdown once explaining where all that money goes to -- and I do understand that developers can feel cheated from all the hard work they put into it.  I'm reminded of the problems back in the day with pirating computer games -- in some cases 9 out of 10 copies of a game was pirated.  But if the gaming companies want to do something about this, they need to look at other industries that have adapated and changed like the movie and music industries and change with the times.

Everything else we buy we have the legal right to do with as we want and sell if we choose to, with a few exceptions.  The publishers need to realize this, suck it up, and do something ELSE about it.  I like the idea of them offering used games themselves, or perhaps paying a $5 'licence' to register or play the game -- that seems fair.  

Or how about actually making the digital version of the game cheaper then what we can buy it used for?  I like the convience factor of downloading a game, and I think a lot of folks would do impulse shopping that way -- especily if we could print off a manual and a CD cover.  What happened to the idea that digital versions were susposed to be cheaper?

Gamestop is getting picked on cause they are the easiest form of the so-called 'problem'.  Us consumers are who they are REALLY wanting to go after.  This is a another trend of big business and companies these days -- the struggle each year to increase profits by X ammount while reducing the workforce by Y ammount and expand the customer base by Z.

Edited by SoulBlazer, Tue Feb 7, 2012 1:11 PM.

[Mord]

SoulBlazer, on Tue Feb 7, 2012 12:44 PM, said:

What happened to the diea that digital versions were susposed to be cheaper?

It really should be. But those people that bought into the idea that it would be the case are the same people who probably bought into the idea that CD/DVDs are cheaper to produce so a switch from bulky expensive cartridges would make games cheaper - instead of 10+ dollars more expensive. I guess the lie people let themselves get confused by is that it'll be cheaper for the company who will keep the savings for themselves, rather than cheaper for the gamer. Even still, people just have to vote with their wallet and refuse to buy digital for 50-60 dollars. A sale would have to happen or the company can go under.

[onlysublime]

ninjarabbit, on Tue Feb 7, 2012 9:13 AM, said:

Say what you want about the movie and music industries but at least their product is fairly affordable and doesn't require a huge upfront investment to enjoy unlike consoles (especially with next gen consoles probably being $400+)

huh?  go on a date with your girlfriend or wife to a 3D or IMAX movie and that's $40+ gone in less than 3 hours.  Heck, even matinee prices are no longer cheap.

I remember an article in the Los Angeles Times talking about how recession-resistant the gaming industry is because of the value of gaming.  People pulled back on going to restaurants and movies, but increased their purchases of games.  In hard times, people pull back on discretionary purchases and go for what they consider to be more bang for the buck where you buy a game and it can be enjoyed by multiple people and for longer periods of time than 3 hours.

[Starscream]

xg4bx, on Tue Feb 7, 2012 1:00 AM, said:

"All of them for the most part are really trying to provide some good stuff with all that's available now like 3d, online, dlc, achievments ,etc."

i see your point but i don't remember telling them to put that stuff in the game and allow me to pay $60 for the privilege....

maybe game developers should stop spending film budgets on their dippy games and stop telling customers what they want. nobody gives a crap about 3d, there isn't even a market for it. unless your name is call of duty or battlefield don't even bother setting up an online network, your game will be a ghost town in 3 days. dlc: negligible, achievements: unnecessary.

want people to stop buying used? lower your prices, and make a demo available for EVERY game.

developers, stop pissing away money that could go towards development on movie licenses and licensed music (i'm sure harry potter and spiderman don't come cheap) and stop thinking your games graphics/sound have to have the development costs of avatar (9/10 times the best games out there don't have the best graphics). maybe you'll start rolling in more profits.

Not specifically talking to you but...

What kind of arguement is that? I didn't ask for speed rated tires, supporting welfare leechers that can only produce more kids to get more of my money so they can do crack, I didn't ask for a bad economy, and I certainly didn't ask for a low rez system with crappy motion controls and an exercise game. There's tons of stuff I didn't ask for.

I do expect evolution and revolution in tech driven stuff. Sure I can go buy an ipad and get 1 speaker built in, like most devices had for 8 or so decades, or I can realistically expect that a tech driven device should be up to par give or take 2 years. Better graphics are an evolution, achievments are a revolution and both fit very well for technology segment that they are part of. Buy a wii, it will provide you with everything you want. No 3d, no online, very little if any dlc, cheap budget games without good graphics. See? What you want is available right now.

But if I was to guess, that wouldn't make you happy either. Understandably btw. So you are kinda bitching without any real substance to bitch. Prices too high for new games? Not if you ask me. The value that dollar amount gives to each customer will vary, but a slim increase of roughly $20 in 3 decades is insignificant for how much more the games have evolved in those 3 decades. Being cheap isn't justification for claiming things aren't worth their cost.

So we covered price and features, all that's left is greed I suppose. These devs see money sitting on the table that somebody else is helping themselves to. Nobody is at fault for this, but good business sense says let's take another look. Why should a brick and mortar flea market make money multiple times on the same game, but the creator can't?
Stop and let that sink in.

In every industry everyone keeps trying to compare this to, the creator CAN make money multiple times. Games, not yet. So you wanna compare, fine let the devs stop used sales or charge for online passes. If not, then don't compare because there isn't a common ground to do so.

The cheap and collector in everyone here is breeding this reasoning why this is so evil of the devs, take that mentality out and you can see a different picture. I don't collect, I'm not cheap, and I have a business. Only fools would leave money on the table for someone else. Fools don't make a business grow. Fools don't succeed. There isn't one of you that would pass up a pay raise even if you didn't work harder for it. You would never pay me to be a middleman to go get your games. Not one of you would leave any money sitting on the table. Don't be so judgemental with this corporate greed BS that is the internet sensation. Making money isn't dirty and evil, making lots of money is cool. These guys aren't greedy for wanting to make more money without raising game prices. What's greedy is wanting cheap games because you're a miser, all the bells and whistles for free, the entitlement that YOU deserve what you want and everyone else has enough and can make do, while you totally are worth way more than you get paid.

[Emehr]

Starscream, on Tue Feb 7, 2012 1:29 PM, said:

Why should a brick and mortar flea market make money multiple times on the same game, but the creator can't?

Why shouldn't brick and mortar stores make money multiple times on a single product? They are in the business of selling used goods, regardless of what the product is or how many of a specific item they have. The creator puts their product out there and the market decides how successful it is. They sink or swim on the quality of their marketing, product integrity, and price point. The gaming industry doesn't deserve any special consideration compared to other industries just because they feel entitled to profits from the resale of their product.

If the creator wants to make money multiple times on the same game, I suggest they get in the used games business. Or plead with their publishers about some form of buy-back program. Otherwise, maybe they should try the things I mentioned in an earlier post. Maybe, just maybe, it's not a matter of consumers "wanting something for free", "being miserly", or feeling "entitled". Maybe it's the publisher's business model, their budget, and their price points that need some serious reconsideration.

Consider this:
- There is no data that suggests a used game sale would have equated to a new game sale had the used product not been available. I don't know anyone who buys a new used game at GameStop just to save $5 (maybe we should conduct a poll?).

- More and more people may drop out of the hobby if used sales are stopped. Those people that used to buy used games are now buying no games at all. Do you know what publishers will do after that? Whine about how piracy is killing their sales when there is no evidence of that, either. They will never own up to their own mistakes when there's a perfectly good army of strawmen out there. Once they eradicate used games and piracy, they will probably whine about how mobile devices are stealing money from them and that they deserve a piece of that. But that's for tomorrow's headlines.

[godslabrat]

Starscream, on Tue Feb 7, 2012 1:29 PM, said:

Not specifically talking to you but...

FWIW, I disagree completely with everything you just said.  I don't have a problem with ANYONE in the gaming industry making money, but as their customer, that money comes from me, and as me, I have the right to decide how I'm going to part with it.  The issue in the past few years hasn't been "entitlement from the gamers, thinking the industry owes them games for no money", rather, it's been "entitlement from the producers, thinking the gamers owe them profits, for no effort."  Time and time again, we've been hearing execs and other company mouthpieces say "this is they way it is, and they'll have to get used to it" every time they raise prices, or remove features, or in other ways take away from us the choices we've had for decades.

Yes, they have a right to try and do it... but NO, we don't have to take it, and deciding that we reject their new business model doesn't make us misers.

Sure, in a business, you don't want to leave money on the table... but in a SMART business, you know what money will cost you more to gain than it'd be worth.  Could the game companies shut down used game stores?  Sure... but I'd suggest that the cost of shutting them down, combined with the damage from the bad PR, would end up showing them a very negative return.  The money they spent shutting down Gamestop could be better spent... oh, I dunno, MAKING BETTER GAMES!

Finally, if you think the video game industry is lacking in ways to make new money on the same old product... I might ask where you've been lately, and have you heard of this awesome new game called "Pac-Man"?

[yell0w_lantern]

So let's say that they somehow prevent resale for video games. Where does it stop? A code for your car, toaster oven or other appliance?Surely, George Foreman worked hard to produce the most advanced fat removing indoor grill ever so shouldn't he be allowed to make money on the same grill multiple times?

[Starscream]

Emehr, on Tue Feb 7, 2012 2:46 PM, said:

Starscream, on Tue Feb 7, 2012 1:29 PM, said:

Why should a brick and mortar flea market make money multiple times on the same game, but the creator can't?

Why shouldn't brick and mortar stores make money multiple times on a single product? They are in the business of selling used goods, regardless of what the product is or how many of a specific item they have. The creator puts their product out there and the market decides how successful it is. They sink or swim on the quality of their marketing, product integrity, and price point. The gaming industry doesn't deserve any special consideration compared to other industries just because they feel entitled to profits from the resale of their product.

If the creator wants to make money multiple times on the same game, I suggest they get in the used games business. Or plead with their publishers about some form of buy-back program. Otherwise, maybe they should try the things I mentioned in an earlier post. Maybe, just maybe, it's not a matter of consumers "wanting something for free", "being miserly", or feeling "entitled". Maybe it's the publisher's business model, their budget, and their price points that need some serious reconsideration.

Consider this:
- There is no data that suggests a used game sale would have equated to a new game sale had the used product not been available. I don't know anyone who buys a new used game at GameStop just to save $5 (maybe we should conduct a poll?).

- More and more people may drop out of the hobby if used sales are stopped. Those people that used to buy used games are now buying no games at all. Do you know what publishers will do after that? Whine about how piracy is killing their sales when there is no evidence of that, either. They will never own up to their own mistakes when there's a perfectly good army of strawmen out there. Once they eradicate used games and piracy, they will probably whine about how mobile devices are stealing money from them and that they deserve a piece of that. But that's for tomorrow's headlines.

You actually bring up good points. I don't have any idea if used games or piracy hurt intial sales. Do you know if DLC was removed from a game just to be sold later on at an additional cost? In the gamer community, the answer to the first part is no, yes to the second part. I don't think either can easily be determined.

There is nothing wrong at all with Gamestop as a business doing what they do - sell used merchandise. What is fundementally wrong with the devs eliminating that step and making sure they receive all profits from sales? Nothing at all. Same practice, no middle man. As I pointed out, the game industry as it is, generates one sale, one chance at profits. If they can change that profit margin,without asking more money for their product, they should. How is that a special consideration. You still think they are just like every other industry?

godslabrat, on Tue Feb 7, 2012 3:15 PM, said:

Starscream, on Tue Feb 7, 2012 1:29 PM, said:

Not specifically talking to you but...

FWIW, I disagree completely with everything you just said.  I don't have a problem with ANYONE in the gaming industry making money, but as their customer, that money comes from me, and as me, I have the right to decide how I'm going to part with it.  The issue in the past few years hasn't been "entitlement from the gamers, thinking the industry owes them games for no money", rather, it's been "entitlement from the producers, thinking the gamers owe them profits, for no effort."  Time and time again, we've been hearing execs and other company mouthpieces say "this is they way it is, and they'll have to get used to it" every time they raise prices, or remove features, or in other ways take away from us the choices we've had for decades.

Yes, they have a right to try and do it... but NO, we don't have to take it, and deciding that we reject their new business model doesn't make us misers.

Sure, in a business, you don't want to leave money on the table... but in a SMART business, you know what money will cost you more to gain than it'd be worth.  Could the game companies shut down used game stores?  Sure... but I'd suggest that the cost of shutting them down, combined with the damage from the bad PR, would end up showing them a very negative return.  The money they spent shutting down Gamestop could be better spent... oh, I dunno, MAKING BETTER GAMES!

Finally, if you think the video game industry is lacking in ways to make new money on the same old product... I might ask where you've been lately, and have you heard of this awesome new game called "Pac-Man"?

The industry is booming, online gaming is growing and growing, and games are becoming bigger. So if sales are booming, who then, doesn't like what's being done? This makes no sense. Kinda like GM had problems because they built stuff nobody wanted but were the global sales leader in the auto industry for decades. How exactly do you sell the most and not make what people want? This argument just simply does not work.Game sales are up, but it's forced against everones will? How?! If anyone wanted to shut down Gamestop, then why would they give them exclustivity to in game items/DLC? When was the LAST price increase on games? When the 360 came out. Before that? Maybe 1990 games became $50. Where are you guys coming up with these constant increases? They haven't happened. What "no effort"? Not including the wii, how many current gen games have been total and utter crap? I'll say 50%. Maybe some are too ambitious and fall short, maybe some are overhyped, maybe some just miss the mark. If every game was 100% perfect, I could STILL come here and see complaining. Does someone who makes $100,000.00 a year work better and harder than someone who makes $15000.00? Who gives less effort? I need to know.

I'm not against anything anyone has said in here. Everyone has good points. I also don't think I am right. But I have yet to see valid and realistic arguements. I think the devs have the most reasonable arguements.

Gamestop can make multiple sales. Devs shouldn't.
Why?

Increasing costs of games, enough is enough.
When did this happen?

Paying too much as it is  
Why and to what standard?

Games suck now  
Why are sales increasing? ( could also search this forum and see the identical complaints from 10 years ago, yet  sales keep increasing)

Collectors don't like this.
Since when do a group of people who find a secondary reason to make a purchase of a product become the standard?

I own it, I can do what I want with it.
Very true. If that comes to an end, will you adapt?

I should make money, everyone else already makes enough.
Why? Who determines?

Game budgets are too big  
Huh?

I just like to complain and have conversation
Ok, I am totally with everyone on this

Edited by Starscream, Tue Feb 7, 2012 4:11 PM.

[HatefulGravey]

Make a game people want to keep and this will all go away. Keep making trash and suffer. If the last game you made was trash and the game before that was trash, I have to assume the new game is trash. If I can't pick it up at a discount I might never know you got better. I could write off entire companies right now and be better for it anyway, give me one more reason to forget you are still making games, please give me one more reason.

All this leaves out the main reason I buy used games when I do. Most often I missed a game, and when I get the chance to play it new copies aren't around anymore.

[Starscream]

HatefulGravey, on Tue Feb 7, 2012 4:11 PM, said:

Make a game people want to keep and this will all go away. Keep making trash and suffer. If the last game you made was trash and the game before that was trash, I have to assume the new game is trash. If I can't pick it up at a discount I might never know you got better. I could write off entire companies right now and be better for it anyway, give me one more reason to forget you are still making games, please give me one more reason.

All this leaves out the main reason I buy used games when I do. Most often I missed a game, and when I get the chance to play it new copies aren't around anymore.

This is a good thought. As it is, games have an unlimited lifespan. No used games could actually limit that lifespan. Something I didn't consider.

[godslabrat]

Starscream, on Tue Feb 7, 2012 4:07 PM, said:

The industry is booming, online gaming is growing and growing, and games are becoming bigger. So if sales are booming, who then, doesn't like what's being done?

I wouldn't say the industry is shot, but to say it's "booming" is something of an overstatement. Nintendo and Sony are posting losses, Microsoft is only profitable if you pretty much forget everything that happened before last year. There *are* problems in the industry.

Starscream, on Tue Feb 7, 2012 4:07 PM, said:

If anyone wanted to shut down Gamestop, then why would they give them exclustivity to in game items/DLC?

Because money is money, and what's the harm in working a deal with Gamestop, even if you ultimately want them to die?

Starscream, on Tue Feb 7, 2012 4:07 PM, said:

When was the LAST price increase on games? When the 360 came out. Before that? Maybe 1990 games became $50. Where are you guys coming up with these constant increases? They haven't happened.

Bottom line is that the prices shouldn't have increased at all! The prices should have gone down when games got cheaper to make in the move to discs, and cheaper still with the move to downloads. Yet $60 price tags are the norm, and $70 price tags aren't unheard of. Even factoring in inflation, the prices should have stayed at about the same level throughout the last two decades.

In addition, you now have to factor in DLC into the total cost of ownership, which wasn't an issue before. Also, the price of a console now starts over $500 (except Nintendo) and gradually trickles down to maybe $200. It wasn't that long ago that $200 was the upper end of the hardware pricing tier.

Being a gamer has gotten more expensive, especially in the last 10 years.

Starscream, on Tue Feb 7, 2012 4:07 PM, said:

I'm not against anything anyone has said in here. Everyone has good points. I also don't think I am right. But I have yet to see valid and realistic arguements. I think the devs have the most reasonable arguements.

It's cool. :-) I might take objection to what you're saying, but I'm glad you're asking for better arguments.

Starscream, on Tue Feb 7, 2012 4:07 PM, said:

Gamestop can make multiple sales. Devs shouldn't. Why?

I don't have a problem with devs trying to get more money off an existing title, but I think their methods are off-base. If they want to start their own resale program, I'm cool with that. If they want to start a budget-label program, I'm cool with that too. But trying to say that used games are bad because the only place you should EVER be able to buy a game is from the publisher... screw that.

Starscream, on Tue Feb 7, 2012 4:07 PM, said:

Increasing costs of games, enough is enough. When did this happen?

This is debatable, but the introduction of the first Playstation is generally thought to be when games were expected to have Hollywood movie-class effects, marketing campaigns, and budgets. It's simply been a steady growth since then, and the rate is unsustainable.

Starscream, on Tue Feb 7, 2012 4:07 PM, said:

Paying too much as it is Why and to what standard?

I'm "paying too much" because I'm paying for things I don't really want. I don't want a megamarketing blitzkrieg... some of the best games I've found completely by accident. I don't want tons of swag and widgets.

There are also games which remain high in price, despite NOT selling, due to the manufacturer's ego. Witness the lack of budget-line Nintendo Wii games. Lots of games go OOP before Nintendo will mark them down by so much as $5.

Starscream, on Tue Feb 7, 2012 4:07 PM, said:

I own it, I can do what I want with it. Very true. If that comes to an end, will you adapt?

No. I'm ready to walk.

Starscream, on Tue Feb 7, 2012 4:07 PM, said:

I just like to complain and have conversation Ok, I am totally with everyone on this

HTH =)

[Bilnick]

I would argue gaming is more affordable this generation compared to previous generations.

The price of current AAA titles is $60, the same or less than I paid for similiar titles during the SNES and Genesis days (Star Fox, SF2 or Virtua Racing anyone??).

If I want I can visit the PSN store or Xbox Live marketplace and buy 100s (maybe thousands) of games that cost $5 - $20 on the day they were released. No waiting for the game to get older and drop in price, or wait for a greatest hits version to be released.

A gamer on a budget has more choices than ever this generation.

[HatefulGravey]

Imagine collecting for a system that requires you find all your old games NIB. Think about wanting to collect for the 2600, but it wont play used games (probably through a unique CD key or something), if you want to play any game at all you have to find a copy that has never been played. Simple enough for a few games, but most of us would never get to play many 2600 games.

[Nuclear Pacman]

HatefulGravey, on Tue Feb 7, 2012 5:16 PM, said:

Imagine collecting for a system that requires you find all your old games NIB. Think about wanting to collect for the 2600, but it wont play used games (probably through a unique CD key or something), if you want to play any game at all you have to find a copy that has never been played. Simple enough for a few games, but most of us would never get to play many 2600 games.

Yes, that's something that I was thinking about today at work. Do I want people who are kids now, in 20 years to be able to revisit their old video games when they get the nostalgia bug? hell yes they should have that opportunity. Personally, I could be content with collecting classic systems for the rest of my life, there's so much I don't have I'm sure I could keep entertained endlessly. However, kids right now don't have interest for the most part in collecting and playing classics, their 'classics' will be Xbox 360 and the Xbox 720 generations, and game companies want to take away that privilege we enjoy, away from future gaming generations.

Of course game companies don't care about that, and why should they I guess, I mean they REALLY don't make money off collectors 20 years down the road. But still people who collect and play old games is part of the culture, and that continued interest in old games has been what's kept modern game series like Castlevania to continue to see new titles being sold. It's foolish to think we're insignificant in the grand scheme of things, we certainly have an impact.

I was having this topic discussion in another forum, and one person states that we may own the physical disc, but we don't own the data on the disc, and that all of us are only being granted a license of use the data. After a bit of thought, I guess that's correct and it put a different perspective to me.  I guess if game companies want to really flex their legal muscle, they can change our usage rights at any time by calling in a marker on the license agreement. You know all media always says we cannot 'sell, distribute or copy without permission' the contents of these games, or CDs and DVD's.

Game companies can probably right now say it's illegal for us to sell our games, if they don't give us permission to do so. By doing so we may violate the license agreement?

[Random Terrain]

Nuclear Pacman, on Tue Feb 7, 2012 5:33 PM, said:

Game companies can probably right now say it's illegal for us to sell our games, if they don't give us permission to do so. By doing so we may violate the license agreement?

That's the way game companies have always wanted it. You're not really buying a game, you're buying a license to play the game for a limited amount of time. If you want to get all retro, buy their emulated retro package and play it on the Xbox 6000. The game you want to play isn't in the package? Too bad. Suck it up, Susy.

[ninjarabbit]

Bilnick, on Tue Feb 7, 2012 4:54 PM, said:

I would argue gaming is more affordable this generation compared to previous generations.

The price of current AAA titles is $60, the same or less than I paid for similiar titles during the SNES and Genesis days (Star Fox, SF2 or Virtua Racing anyone??).

If I want I can visit the PSN store or Xbox Live marketplace and buy 100s (maybe thousands) of games that cost $5 - $20 on the day they were released. No waiting for the game to get older and drop in price, or wait for a greatest hits version to be released.

A gamer on a budget has more choices than ever this generation.

The difference is that in the 70s, 80s, and 90s the costs were mostly due to cart costs and packaging costs, nowadays costs are due to marketing, insanely high development costs, celebrity voiceovers, CEO salaries, etc. We gamers shouldn't be punished because game companies don't know how to keep a reasonable budget.

Not to sound overdramatic but I really do see another crash or at least mini-crash happening soon. Game development budgets are getting unsubstainable and gaming companies are becoming increasing anti-consumer in an era of increasingly cheaper entertainment.

[godslabrat]

Nuclear Pacman, on Tue Feb 7, 2012 5:33 PM, said:

I was having this topic discussion in another forum, and one person states that we may own the physical disc, but we don't own the data on the disc, and that all of us are only being granted a license of use the data. After a bit of thought, I guess that's correct and it put a different perspective to me.  I guess if game companies want to really flex their legal muscle, they can change our usage rights at any time by calling in a marker on the license agreement. You know all media always says we cannot 'sell, distribute or copy without permission' the contents of these games, or CDs and DVD's.

Game companies can probably right now say it's illegal for us to sell our games, if they don't give us permission to do so. By doing so we may violate the license agreement?

There is no license agreement with classic games, period.  The ones that would appear in manuals were just scare tactics.  Bottom line is, you didn't agree to never resell the game when you bought it, so you aren't bound by what's written in the back of a manual.  The Click-Through "I Agree" notifications in newer games aren't much better, since you've already completed the sale long before you ever see one.  Just because it's in an EULA doesn't mean it's enforcable.

The one area where this carries some weight is in PC games, and the newer console games that really do have a serial key and stuff.  That actually gives the publisher the power to shut off your disc if they want.  Even still, it's just a matter of finally being able to put some teeth into an EULA, it doesn't legitimize the agreement in the first place.  From what I can tell, EULAs have had a very schizophrenic record in the court system.

[Mord]

Nuclear Pacman, on Tue Feb 7, 2012 5:33 PM, said:

Game companies can probably right now say it's illegal for us to sell our games, if they don't give us permission to do so. By doing so we may violate the license agreement?

When game companies successfully take Gamestop to court over selling games used and win, I'll consider it. I'll also stop buying new games period. If their eula and software licenses that state we can't sell the game was enforceable in a court of law they would have already gone through the courts years ago. This is why they're doing all the other anti-consumer tactics to ruin the value of their own product to the secondhand user. (And in various cases, their firsthand user.)

[yell0w_lantern]

Starscream, on Tue Feb 7, 2012 4:07 PM, said:

Does someone who makes $100,000.00 a year work better and harder than someone who makes $15000.00? Who gives less effort? I need to know.

More typically, I think you are looking at larger gaps in pay but, yes, this does happen in the real world. Not only is there inequity between people who work but also there are people with gobs of money who do no real work at all. And did you know that there are people in the United States who make millions of dollars every year playing a game and that the people who own the teams (who incidentally do none of the work) make even more money off of the people playing a game?

Edited by yell0w_lantern, Wed Feb 8, 2012 8:24 AM.

[Keatah]

Starscream, on Tue Feb 7, 2012 12:13 AM, said:

I know everyone is used to the idea that you bought, own it, can do what you want. None of us would be on this site if it wasn't for used games. But I don't see the problem with that changing.

Huh?? I visit Atariage, not to look at the latest used games, but to enjoy the nostalgia and aura surrounding classic systems.