Boooooo..... Hissssssss

[+atari2600land]

SM3DL is definitely not what I'd call a hard game. It even has a built-in 'cheat', where it gives you an invincible tanooki suit if you die 5 times on the same level. Not really sure how much more help you need.

An invincible tanooki suit isn't going to help if your problem is plummeting to your death.

[Metal Ghost]

First off, the cost of a game today is basically the same as it was 20 years ago. With inflation, that's really saying something.

 

No, it isn't. At least whatever you might think it's saying is wrong.

 

If you're going to compare the price of merchandise from 20 years ago with todays' price, and then "take into account inflation", you better make damned sure you also take into account inflation's effect on people's salaries.

 

If I were to take into account inflation with my yearly salary, and compare it to a similar salary of 20 years ago, I'm making a lot LESS than someone making the same amount of money from 20 years ago. What this means is that the price of something from 20 years ago, that might have been reasonable to the average joe (And I'm nowhere near as well off as some of the gents on here.) in 1980-1990 is not exactly reasonable for that same joe if he wasn't making more money every year to stave off the effect of inflation.

 

Couldn't disagree more with your theory. Generally, at least until very recently (i.e. mid-2008), people had more disposable income today than they did 20 years ago. Which is why millions of people can afford monthly cell phone plans and iPads, because they have more disposable income.

[Atariboy]

You're assuming things like Torrents won't be around if we go all Cloud. I just don't see that as practical. One thing you can always count on is Piracy.

 

Of course I'm assuming that if we go to an all streaming model. Short of a leak from inside the company or hacking your way into their servers, there's going to be no way for us to ever get a game that was only made available for streaming.

 

It's a pretty safe assumption to make if you have some understanding of how something like OnLive actually works. You still seem to be under the mistaken impression that a service like OnLive is distributing more than just a video stream into the homes of gamers.

Edited December 21, 2011 by Atariboy

[pocketmego]

You're assuming things like Torrents won't be around if we go all Cloud. I just don't see that as practical. One thing you can always count on is Piracy.

 

Of course I'm assuming that if we go to an all streaming model. Short of a leak from inside the company or hacking your way into their servers, there's going to be no way for us to ever get a game that was only made available for streaming.

 

It's a pretty safe assumption to make if you have some understanding of how something like OnLive actually works. You still seem to be under the mistaken impression that a service like OnLive is distributing more than just a video stream into the homes of gamers.

 

No I'm not. But, I also don't see an all encompassing cloud future. I think the majority will be streaming services. But, there will always be a small amount of downloadable material available for those that want it,

 

If not, the Cloud will provide us with services that have classic games collections and modern games collections and whatever else we want to play. And when games start to get older they will be shunted over to the classic games area or older games area. Much like ONLIVE does for several older games that have been out for a while. They move them over to the playpack and those who have the playpack for 10 dollars a month can play them unlimited as we please.

 

And chances are if we already bought the game, we either got it so cheap or have had it so long, when it moves into the playpack, nobody cares.

 

So even if everything goes Cloud (and I'm OK with that) there will still be older games available. The fear people have with Cloud gaming is that the game will one day vanish from the service. There has been NO indication that this is true and even if it does happen to one or two games here and there, it certainly won't happen to them all.

 

So yes, I know that the games live on ONLINE's servers and I play them long distance from my controller to their server and back with NOTHING happening locally on my hard drive and now downloading on my end. And it will make piracy virtually impossible (which is a selling point actually, because I'd rather play games legally). But, I don't see any of that as negative.

 

Older games will be available, just not gathering dust in people hordes (collections) they will be available to anyone who wants to play them on the cloud.

 

Not that I have anything at all against collectors, I have already said I have a big collection of classic consoles (especially Sega stuff). Many of my friends are collectors.

 

But, at the same time being able to game on ANY supported device I choose and virtually anywhere with the recent phone and tablet apps available, and not having to wory about constantly upgrading a computer to play games on (which I can't do anyway, with a Laptop), not to mention the ridiculously cheap prices I get my games for now, TRUMPS any and all concerns I have for "owning" my games.

 

Which, I still believe is a load of crap in modern and future gaming. Anyone who thinks you own a modern game or game that is likely to come out anytime soon, because you have it on a disk is utterly delusional. Don't believe me...try playing a recent multiplayer game used without an "online Passcode", or any recent Ubisoft PC game without an always connected internet connection. Try to play the same copy of a playstation 3 game on more than 2 PS3s.

 

Those things I mentioned are RAPIDLY becoming the norm and standard of the game industry.

 

Sony just announced that if you want to play the games you BOUGHT on the PSP on your Vita, you'll be paying a fee to re-download them (if you register them ahead of time). Yeah, people sure do own their old PSP games on those shiny UMD disks. But, you say, I'll just keep playing them on my PSP and not worry about it. Yeah, until the no longer in production PSP breaks down. And even if that doesn't bother you, who the hell wants to carry around more than ONE handheld when traveling?\

 

A future in the cloud might seem unappealing to some people. But, I find a future of this crap even more repulsive.

[Metal Ghost]

Just to put something out there, as a frame of reference:

 

Music- both digital downloads and streaming services have been available for quite some time (iTunes store launched over 8 1/2 years ago). Digital downloads have even surpassed physical copies as consumer's preferred method of getting their music needs served, if I remember correctly (based on #downloads vs. CDs purchased).

 

And yet, I can walk into any big-box retailer in America and purchase a good'ol fashioned CD. I can walk into one of many specialty stores and buy a CD. Heck, I can even still purchase many albums on vinyl!

 

Draw parallels or poke holes where you'd like.

 

To me it's about choice. I want to download, great. I want a box on the shelf, great. I can't see the sky falling anywhere.

 

Different issue, but same type of mentality....I remember when it was anounced that not every 360 would ship with a hard drive. You'd have thought that the sky was falling then too. But no, it simply gave customers choice, and still today the world turns even though you don't have to purchase a HDD with your 360.

[madmax2069]

I didn't read the whole thread, so I'm just responding to the OP. The way I see it, used video games are no better than piracy. You can pay $55 for a used game at Gamestop, or you can download the game from some torrent site. Either way, the developer and publisher see nothing out of it. Wen you go to Gamestop to buy a game, they pressure you to buy used instead of new. You think that doesn't piss off publishers? I feel comfortable saying that most people who pirate games wouldn't have bought the game if piracy wasn't an option. I can't say the same about used game sales. I think that publishers see that as more of a threat than illegal downloads. The ubiquity of Gamestop is bad enough, but now Best Buy, Walmart, Overstock.com, and Amazon are getting in on the used game market. Then you have GameFly, who rents games and then sells the used copies, so that's like a double-whammy against publishers. There's always eBay and Craigslist, too. Companies enabling gamers to not buy new games (and therefore not give the devs/pubs ANY money) are much more of a problem than piracy ever was.

 

Why should the publishers and developers see a dime of used game sales, they do not offer the service for anyone to buy a used game, The game stores do and thats who should be getting all the money for used game sales. Plus if that game is used then it has already served its purpose. The Publishers and developers get their money as soon as the store makes a order for the game to put on their shelves. The used game market is not hurting new game sales one bit.

 

In no way shape or form is used game sales the same as piracy. Hell even piracy isnt as bad as what they make it out to be. If they wasnt making money they would have been under a long time ago, and they are no where close to it. Its the econmey thats causing more of a negitive impact to them then what used game sales and piracy is combind. Just about any corperation or company will not say that the econmy is the fault of slow sales or low earnings, They try to make up excuses to avoid the real fact.

 

Hell even the rential places pay for the game to be on the shelves or in their warehouse to be sent out, the publishers and developors dont offer this service either, why should they see a dime of it, Its not effecting them as much as they want you to beleve. again the publisher/developer sees the money when the service orders their product to stock.

 

These companies want you to think they are not making a profit due to the above reason. Thats a down right lie. They want to make more money any way they can, and they will use any damn excuse they want to justify their motives.

Edited December 21, 2011 by madmax2069

[+Gemintronic]

I'd have to respectfully disagree with Jibbajaba. Following that line of thinking, selling a used car is the same as grand theft auto. If no used game bins existed I wouldn't even try some games. Those games I don't try don't get me excited about buying a new game from that publisher. With used and rental games plus the Internet publishers can't get away with cranking out a dud anymore.

[CGQuarterly]

You're both either intentionally misinterpreting my arguments to bolster your own, or you have reading comprehension problems.

 

Chris

[iswitt]

@ Jibbajaba:

 

As an employee of a library, I have to say your argument essentially sweeps libraries and their patrons into the "piracy" bin. After all, allowing someone else to borrow any type of media would be no better than buying used or pirating in your eyes. However, I completely respect your opinion and am glad there is at least someone on this thread with an opinion other than, "If this happens I will stop buying games."

 

That being said, if games go all digital, I, too, will probably stop buying games. I have a good collection of older games to keep me occupied for a while and feel no need to spend on money on new games that I have no control over. Here are my reasons:

 

1: I like to be able to trade, borrow, copy for my own purposes, destroy, lend or resell the property that I purchased with my own money. If I paid for it, I can do what I please with it. The developer already got their money off that unit with its original sale, so there is no reason for them to be bitching.

 

2: Space considerations apply. My HDD is only so large and I don't want to buy another. Nor do I want to use the Cloud (as cool as it is) becuase that essentially means all games (online components or no) will have the "online tether."

 

3: Currently DRM is abusive to honest buyers. This is rampant in video gaming, but it also exists in ebooks, music and movies. Until they address this crucial aspect, I will continue to avoid e-content. Also, the more they attempt to restrict consumers' habits, the more piracy and hacking we will see.

 

4: EULAs essentially waive all of your rights. With the recent change to both Sony's and Microsoft's terms of use, you can't even sue them!

 

5: Downloadable content has been abused to the other end of the galaxy and back, and we haven't seen the end of it. It used to be only for patches or fun, free content. Now it is a way to make more money. While I'm not opposed to the free market and a developer's decision to attempt to make more profit off of their product, it's just gotten crazy.

 

6: I don't hear clothing makers crying about consignment sales or auto makers freaking out over Joe's Used Car Lot. This whole IP thing has gotten way out of hand and all I see are content creators shitting bricks about their ability to control content.

 

7: I still like the novelty of having a physical item in my hands (or on my shelf).

 

8: Many games, years from now, will essentially be broken. Take Batman: Arkham City for example. Buying used = not being able to access Catwoman's story line (which is single-player content, mind you) and if you don't currently have Internet access, you simply don't get to play those missions. Years from now, when current-gen becomes last-gen or even vintage, the servers will be taken offline to save money and you will never to be able to access that content again. These current DLC ridden games will be completely worthless unless all that content is released on discs or someone starts uploading online themselves.

 

I rest my case.

Edited December 21, 2011 by iswitt

[CGQuarterly]

The library does allow people the opportunity to read books without buying them, and therefore probably costs publishers some sales. However, the fact that libraries are non-profit entities is an extremely important distinction. The entire point of a library is that people should be able to have access to printed media (and by extension, information) of all types regardless of whether or not they can afford to pay. Additionally, libraries preserve documents, like books, magazines, and newspapers so that they can be enjoyed by future generations. To not allow people access to these items independent of their ability to pay for them would be to flirt with a first amendment violation, and would certainly run counter to the principles on which this country was founded. This is a far cry from what places like Gamestop do and why they do it.

 

You might go to the library, check out a book, and decide that you like it so much that you'd like to own it. Maybe it's a handy how-to book that you'll use regularly and don't want to have to keep checking out, or maybe it's a gripping work of fiction that you see yourself reading through several times over the course of your lifetime. No one ever bought a game at Gamestop and then decided that they liked it so much that they'd go buy a new copy. There would be no point.

 

Outlets that sell used games exist and and profit by selling you someone's work by convincing you not to give any money to the people who did that very work. What libraries do is not similar to that in any way whatsoever.

 

That being said, I appreciate your thoughts.

 

Chris

[Atariboy]

pocketmego, I'll spare the forum another long reply. But you didn't say anything that allays my concerns for an all digital forum. Optimism that piracy will still exist so things won't be lost to us in the future even if companies withdraw the product from distribution (Which will most assuredely be happening with regularity, it already has almost since day 1 in the realm of digital distribution), that a new distribution system will somehow reinvent this industry that you claim just releases junk (You're in for a shock, unless all it takes is to be a download instead of a disc for you to enjoy a game...), and that companies like OnLive won't be going anywhere and won't ever be withdrawing games from their portfolio hardly persuades me to embrace it when the traditional model of the past 40 years on game consoles has guaranteed me full control over my retail purchases. A bunch of what if's and maybe's, with defenses even including emulation and piracy, is a lousy exchange for what we've had.

 

And the Sony fee makes perfect sense since they can't just be giving away any content from 3rd party publishers and such on PSN. The fee to convert a UMD game to a download is what these publishers, that you're so crazy about protecting, have demanded in order for Vita gamers to convert their UMD's to PSN downloads, the format you're so crazy about.

 

The library does allow people the opportunity to read books without buying them, and therefore probably costs publishers some sales. However, the fact that libraries are non-profit entities is an extremely important distinction.

 

Outlets that sell used games exist and and profit by selling you someone's work by convincing you not to give any money to the people who did that very work. What libraries do is not similar to that in any way whatsoever.

 

I trimmed your post to the most relevant parts that I'm replying in regards to. I simply don't understand your logic here. One is okay because it's non profit? How come? And I really doubt many people are so impressed with a book that they checked out of a public library that it ends up being converting to a new sale for the publisher. A library is doing the exact same thing that GameStop does. It's not different just because you want it to be different.

 

You've been pressed on it and seem to be really stretching for an explanation on why what GameStop does is tantamount to piracy yet it's perfectly fine with other things, including other forms of entertainment, that basically do exactly what you claim GameStop does.

Edited December 22, 2011 by Atariboy

[madmax2069]

I trimmed your post to the most relevant parts that I'm replying in regards to. I simply don't understand your logic here. One is okay because it's non profit?

 

Just to add to your post

 

The whole reason a library is non profit is because of government funding and donations. if it wasnt for that they would probably charge a fee to check out anything. They could not remain in operation if it wasnt for the above.

[CGQuarterly]

I'm not going to get pulled into an idiotic debate about how the library is the same thing as Gamestop. Video games are not even close to comparable to the contents of the public library. Anyone who tries to claim anything more than a passing similarity between the two is an uneducated idiot. Sorry.

 

Chris

[Atariboy]

They're two forms of entertainment being made available to additional people after the initial point of sale, with no additional benefit to the original publisher for each subsequent individual that derives entertainment from that specific item.

 

Yeah, it's so idiotic to draw comparisons between the two.

 

Your argument for why used game sales are wrong and hurt the industry is summarized below.

-Game developers and publishers see nothing from secondary sales of games.

-The entities that focus on used game sales are costing the industry money.

-When you purchase a game, you aren't purchasing the physical item. You're paying for the rights to access the IP contained on the disc and shouldn't have the right to transfer those rights to anyone else.

-A used game plays exactly the same as a new game.

 

Well all those can also apply to the public library system. Yet your entire argument for why it's completely different is that public libraries are doing this without an eye towards profit? What's the significance of that?

 

You state that the GameStop model is tantamount to piracy. See how far you get with your defense that you did something with no intention of profiting off it when being tried for violating intellectual property rights in the court system. The courts don't make such a distinction. So I fail to see why we should be applying that logic to other forms of entertainment that also are guilty of what you claim a company like GameStop is guilty of.

 

I fail to see why gamers should take a dim view towards used game sales or that it equals piracy. It's just like something like the public library system. Heck, it's even better for videogame publishers than it is for book publishers. Money derived from secondary game sales often go into purchasing new games, their online passes that they're implimenting now that require you to pay when buying used to gain access to servers, etc. That's a heck of a lot more gain than the occasional person that loves a book so much that they go out and purchase a new copy after reading it at a public library.

Edited December 22, 2011 by Atariboy

[pocketmego]

 

that you're so crazy about protecting, have demanded in order for Vita gamers to convert their UMD's to PSN downloads, the format you're so crazy about.

 

 

 

What can I say, I'm a fool in love. ;p

[Emehr]

I'm not going to get pulled into an idiotic debate about how the library is the same thing as Gamestop. Video games are not even close to comparable to the contents of the public library. Anyone who tries to claim anything more than a passing similarity between the two is an uneducated idiot. Sorry.

 

Here goes:

 

Consumable media is consumable media. It can exist in digital or tangible format.

 

Let's take a look at the basic building blocks of consumable media:

 

text is the basis of a book

audio is the basis for music

pictures are the basis for video

rules are the basis for game-play

 

Each one tickles our senses. Mix up any of these (or take them separately) and you have pretty much every iteration of consumable media:

 

text = book

audio = music

text + audio + picture = movie

text + audio + picture + rules = video game

text + rules = Choose Your Own Adventure or Mad Libs

text + audio = Books On Tape/CD

etc.

 

All of these can exist as a tangible product or can be represented digitally. It's also perfectly conceivable for a library to loan out any tangible version of these media types (movies? yes). A library loaning out books (no matter how they're funded, it's irrelevant) is not much different than a store selling used goods. In both cases, the content is being consumed and the original author is not seeing additional revenue from the merchandise which has already been paid for. So if it's okay for a library to loan out movies, it's not much of a stretch for them to loan out video games. Just because something contains "game play" does not give it some special exemption.

 

Now here is why I think video game publishers are getting their panties in a bunch about stores that sell used product. Unlike books, music, movies, and Mad Libs, which are essentially timeless and are continuously produced throughout the decades, video games have short shelf lives. They exist for a short window of time, usually five or six years, and are replaced by video games from subsequent consoles. Publishers want to get the maximum amount of revenue from their product. And they get one shot until the newness wears off. They have no long-term confidence in their product and expect no longevity. They spend movie-industry sums of money on a product with a five-year shelf life. The movie industry spends movie-industry sums of money on a product that spans decades. See the problem yet?

 

How long does it take for a AAA title to hit the $20-and-under bin? Not long. Their game falls off the radar and it's off to the next thing. So what do they do if they don't make what they expected? They demonize used game stores, which is utterly ridiculous. It's a straw man. What could they do instead? Take a cue from the movie/book/music industry: keep their games in circulation.

 

In a way, many of them are doing just that by releasing disk compilations or as downloadable content but output is inconsistent. Sure, we've had ports of Pac-Man on pretty much every console since the Atari 2600, but that's because it's a popular title. We're pretty satiated when it come to ole Pac. However, there are no guarantees that we will be able to play Burgertime, for example, on every console that comes out in the future. And this is why a download-only future looks bleak: only the popular, money-making titles will see re-issues. Even though it would cost practically nothing to have entire libraries of games available, popular or not.

 

Video game publishers, by making all past games available at all times on all consoles that are manufactured, could be banking on this stuff. Even if they charged fifty cents or a dollar per game. They'd be raking it in in volume alone. Who wouldn't pay a dollar to play NES Contra on their PS3? With this model, the publisher's tiny window of opportunity to maximize profits on a game gets blown wide open. Make what they can in stores when the game is fresh (like a movie in theaters). Then, when the next generation of consoles comes out, release it indefinitely as a downloadable (like a movie being released on VHS/DVD/Blu-Ray).

 

In the mean-time, hackers, pirates, and emulator authors are preserving our video game past and the publishers aren't seeing a dime on it. Instead, they choose to blame their financial woes on a used game store. Go figure.

Edited December 22, 2011 by Emehr

[Atariboy]

that you're so crazy about protecting, have demanded in order for Vita gamers to convert their UMD's to PSN downloads, the format you're so crazy about.

 

 

 

What can I say, I'm a fool in love. ;p

 

I can certainly see some nice benefits to digital downloads. The convenience factor, the lower cost of publishing that makes projects possible that otherwise wouldn't of been (Such as the vast majority of the XBLA library), the lower hardware cost for PC gamers with something such as the OnLive model, etc. I've embraced digital gaming (I've easily spent $500 on it over the past few years, and probably much more if I carefully started adding things up) and it certainly has its place.

 

But that doesn't mean we can't also be cognizant of the many pitfalls it also has, especially in an all digital future like many feel like we're facing. That's basically been why I've been so talkative in this thread. It's a very mixed future we're facing in an all digital future, particularly for the classic gamers of the future.

Edited December 22, 2011 by Atariboy

[CGQuarterly]

Since you're selectively quoting my post:

 

The entire point of a library is that people should be able to have access to printed media (and by extension, information) of all types regardless of whether or not they can afford to pay. Additionally, libraries preserve documents, like books, magazines, and newspapers so that they can be enjoyed by future generations. To not allow people access to these items independent of their ability to pay for them would be to flirt with a first amendment violation, and would certainly run counter to the principles on which this country was founded. This is a far cry from what places like Gamestop do and why they do it.

 

A library exists so that an individual's access to information and education is not dependent on their financial means. This is why it is supported by the government and is non-profit, just like public schools. To deny those who can not afford to pay for access to books, newspapers, and educational magazines is undemocratic, as it would be to disallow "poor kids" from attending school. One's ability to better oneself should never be dependent on one's ability to pay for it. A library gives anyone access to enough material to give themselves a world-class education on almost any subject, so that no one ever has any excuse for being the mouth-breathing idiot that most people are. It is not simply a venue for reading the latest Danielle Steele novel. To say that both a used game store and a library are "two forms of entertainment being made available to additional people after the initial point of sale, with no additional benefit to the original publisher for each subsequent individual that derives entertainment from that specific item." is to look at them both only in the most superficial of terms, and once again, is an idiotic comparison to make. It was not my intent for this to sink to the level of ad hominem attacks, but I don't know what else to say. I'm really not sure if you're undervaluing the importance of public libraries or overestimating the role that video games play in society, but either way it's pointless for us to continue this debate because our points of view are so far removed from one another.

 

Chris

[Atariboy]

I fail to see why there being greater possible good resulting from a library doing it is a defense of your opinion that they're two completely different things. It simply demonstrates that a library is more important in the big scheme of things than a videogame store. A sentiment most at this site would share, I'd hope.

 

The exact same argument could be made about something like pirating the latest version of Microsoft Office by a college student. That doesn't make it right and the purposes it will be used for doesn't somehow make it different than the person that just ripped off a $60 videogame by downloading it off a torrent site.

[+Gemintronic]

You're both either intentionally misinterpreting my arguments to bolster your own, or you have reading comprehension problems.

 

Chris

 

No, I'm just saying you have a point - just not one that makes sense to me. Again, repectfully disagreeing. No need to put my reading comprehension down because of it. Tough talk doesn't help people listen to your viewpoint.

[CGQuarterly]

You're both either intentionally misinterpreting my arguments to bolster your own, or you have reading comprehension problems.

 

Chris

 

No, I'm just saying you have a point - just not one that makes sense to me. Again, repectfully disagreeing. No need to put my reading comprehension down because of it. Tough talk doesn't help people listen to your viewpoint.

 

You said that according to my logic, selling a used car was tantamount to grand theft auto. I specifically addressed the difference between intellectual property and material goods in a previous post. Also, someone else quoted my post and then said something to the effect of "I Don't see why game companies should profit from used game sales." Except that I never stated or suggested that. That was the reason for my "reading comprehension" comment. It's not about being a tough-guy. It's about not wanting to argue with people who are going to either twist my words or ignore portions of my posts to make their points seem more valid.

 

This is my last post in this thread. I'm not here to make enemies and argue with people. I feel the way I feel, and think that I've brought up valid points to back up my opinions, If you don't feel that way - good for you because I don't give a rip, and that's what America is all about. None of it matters anyway because the industry is going to do what it's going to.

 

Chris

 

Edit: I just want to make it clear that I don't have a problem with used game sales. And I agree - I take advantage of cheap used games to try out titles that I otherwise would not have. What annoys me is people who get up on their high horse about piracy (flaming someone for selling a Sega Saturn with a few burned games, for instance) but then have no problem with used games. Fundamentally, there is no difference between buying a used game at Gamestop and pirating that game. The only entity you are supporting by buying the game at Gamestop is Gamestop. So when you "pirate" a game, are you stealing from the developer, or Gamestop? I guess it depends on whether or not you intended to buy the game new or used.

 

My whole point in posting in this thread was not to argue with anyone, but to both point out the hypocrisy in the system and to explain why things are going the way that they are. There's a reason why places like Gamestop are causing developers to re-think their distribution model, but places like the library aren't having the same effect on book publishers.

Edited December 22, 2011 by Jibbajaba

[pocketmego]

that you're so crazy about protecting, have demanded in order for Vita gamers to convert their UMD's to PSN downloads, the format you're so crazy about.

 

 

 

What can I say, I'm a fool in love. ;p

 

I can certainly see some nice benefits to digital downloads. The convenience factor, the lower cost of publishing that makes projects possible that otherwise wouldn't of been (Such as the vast majority of the XBLA library), the lower hardware cost for PC gamers with something such as the OnLive model, etc. I've embraced digital gaming (I've easily spent $500 on it over the past few years, and probably much more if I carefully started adding things up) and it certainly has its place.

 

But that doesn't mean we can't also be cognizant of the many pitfalls it also has, especially in an all digital future like many feel like we're facing. That's basically been why I've been so talkative in this thread. It's a very mixed future we're facing in an all digital future, particularly for the classic gamers of the future.

 

But, see, I never disagreed that the future is a very mixed bag. I am not 100% thrilled where things are going. But, if we must head in that direction, I've gone a head and thrown in my lot early.

[iswitt]

The library does allow people the opportunity to read books without buying them, and therefore probably costs publishers some sales. However, the fact that libraries are non-profit entities is an extremely important distinction.

 

Outlets that sell used games exist and and profit by selling you someone's work by convincing you not to give any money to the people who did that very work. What libraries do is not similar to that in any way whatsoever.

 

I trimmed your post to the most relevant parts that I'm replying in regards to. I simply don't understand your logic here. One is okay because it's non profit? How come? And I really doubt many people are so impressed with a book that they checked out of a public library that it ends up being converting to a new sale for the publisher. A library is doing the exact same thing that GameStop does. It's not different just because you want it to be different.

 

You've been pressed on it and seem to be really stretching for an explanation on why what GameStop does is tantamount to piracy yet it's perfectly fine with other things, including other forms of entertainment, that basically do exactly what you claim GameStop does.

 

Actually, a recent study proves that library patrons turn into regular media consumers: http://www.publisher...-customers.html.

 

I'm not going to get pulled into an idiotic debate about how the library is the same thing as Gamestop. Video games are not even close to comparable to the contents of the public library. Anyone who tries to claim anything more than a passing similarity between the two is an uneducated idiot. Sorry.

 

Chris

 

Many libraries carry video games now (like mine) and the checkout statistics are fantastic. Just saying. We have Xbox 360, Playstation 2 &3 and Wii games.

 

/LoveBeingALibrarian

Edited December 22, 2011 by iswitt

[madmax2069]

Many libraries carry video games now (like mine) and the checkout statistics are fantastic. Just saying. We have Xbox 360, Playstation 2 &3 and Wii games.

 

/LoveBeingALibrarian

 

I think he missed that little factoid in my post, because mine does the same. and almost all of it was donated to them, they didnt buy them new, they didnt buy them used.

[Atariboy]

Actually, a recent study proves that library patrons turn into regular media consumers: http://www.publisher...-customers.html.

 

I don't doubt that people that heavily rely on their public library also regularly buy books (Heck, that fits me to a tee). That doesn't change the point I was making.