Why would you want a console to fail?

#31Thewinner14Posted 5/17/2014 10:01:44 AM
They were going to allow resale through authorized resellers only. No one actually cares about GameStop, but rather I couldn't sell a copy on eBay, or a tag sale, etc (which is a right of mine to do via First Sale Doctrine)

And no, the wholesaler sells way more than 1 copy per person, because of how retailers order. If I'm a wholesaler and I sell 10 copies of X and only 1 sells at the store, I still got paid for 10. The problem comes when I have 100000 sitting in the warehouse and can't ship them.

Video games especially have a narrow window of when sales are going to be at their max, used game returns are an incredibly low percentage anyway, even more so in that 1-2 month window of peak sales.

No publisher projects based on slow steady long term sales*. They want to ship as many as they can at and immediately after release, have the retailer chuck leftovers in the bargain bin, and put the next game on the shelf in its place.

*unless they're selling an MMO that's expected to be supported for a few years. For the most part in this age of the yearly sequel, there's no money in long term sales.
---
"Let your Kingdom come" - Matthew 6:10
#32kyncaniPosted 5/17/2014 10:09:31 AM
SythisTaru posted...
kyncani posted...
Mi1itant posted...
Lightdays posted...
Mi1itant posted...

my wife bought me a PS4 as a reward for stopping my smoking habit.

Whoa, Holy cow your wife did that for you.. Sweet @_@


380 is not bad for saving my life....


No way around it. Not smoking is much better than smoking.

And pretty much any other game console is better than the original Xbox One.


Reported.


Well good luck with that :D
#33Mi1itant(Topic Creator)Posted 5/17/2014 10:20:29 AM
InfinityOver0 posted...
if it werent for sony, ms would have pulled thru on all of it's terrible, terrible anti consumer practices. they only pulled a series of 180's because they could not compete with sony, NOT because they genuinely changed their minds and saw the error of their ways., this means ms could go back to any of that at any time. i would rather see them out of industry than to see any of that ridiculous crap come to light


but its either or....if there was no Xbox, Sony would have probably done it themselves. The reason sony went down that path in the first place because they knew it was going to make MS look bad, and it did..it worked according to plan. This only took place because each company needs to be weary of each other aswell as the consumer
#34InfinityOver0Posted 5/17/2014 10:25:15 AM
Mi1itant posted...
The reason sony went down that path in the first place because they knew it was going to make MS look bad,


thats pure speculation on your part
---
"People have been more satisfied with the Xbox 360 than the PS3, so have less of a need to upgrade" - Yusuf Mehdi, Marketing, MS
#35Mi1itant(Topic Creator)Posted 5/17/2014 10:31:55 AM
yes it is but if you look at all of the tech sony was patenting before the ps4 was released its pretty obvious that it was something they were looking at. speculation yes, but not pure...
#36kyncaniPosted 5/17/2014 10:37:11 AM
The whole tech patenting is part of getting weapons for patent wars. It has nothing to do with actual products.

And I am glad the original Xbox One with Kinect died.
The new Xbox One is much better (assuming Microsoft actually pulls through).
#37MixorzPosted 5/17/2014 10:51:56 AM
The reason is because console fanboys are basically the same as a die hard sports fan. Their team is awesome, they do no wrong, and every fan and player of a rival team deserves to die, unless a player from that team gets traded or signs with their team, then they are awesome.
---
XBox Live GT: Mixorz
Currently Playing: Titanfall, Killer Instinct, Dark Souls II
#38IroncondorzPosted 5/17/2014 11:02:26 AM
Thewinner14 posted...
They were going to allow resale through authorized resellers only. No one actually cares about GameStop, but rather I couldn't sell a copy on eBay, or a tag sale, etc (which is a right of mine to do via First Sale Doctrine)

And no, the wholesaler sells way more than 1 copy per person, because of how retailers order. If I'm a wholesaler and I sell 10 copies of X and only 1 sells at the store, I still got paid for 10. The problem comes when I have 100000 sitting in the warehouse and can't ship them.

Video games especially have a narrow window of when sales are going to be at their max, used game returns are an incredibly low percentage anyway, even more so in that 1-2 month window of peak sales.

No publisher projects based on slow steady long term sales*. They want to ship as many as they can at and immediately after release, have the retailer chuck leftovers in the bargain bin, and put the next game on the shelf in its place.

*unless they're selling an MMO that's expected to be supported for a few years. For the most part in this age of the yearly sequel, there's no money in long term sales.


Well yes a wholesaler sells more than one copy per person but they also buy more than one copy per person, it is done so there is stock for future sales. There is still only one copy available per individual. Gamestop will take one "unique" copy and sell it multiple times, that is completely different. Now these are games and not perishable items so the physical disks aren't really the issue. It's the fact that Gamestop can take "one" from the supply chain and make it into infinity without having anything to do with the costs of making the game, nor do they pay anything back through that supply chain. This how they can operate like 7,000 stores even with multiple locations in the same exact mall.

Devs/Pubs don't rely on steady sales because they can't. They have to use the immediate sale model because the used game market takes over long term. It does cost money to store and ship these things and they can't compete with Gamestop who simply sources games from the local community and resells them.

Now not being able to re-sell something you bought on ebay or wherever is a much deeper debate because games and other media are unique in that they are not goods that are perishable or break. It is really fair to be able to buy a used game, get all of the enjoyment out of it and not give anything back to the ones that created the game?

If you value a game's worth at $30 you should pay the developer $30. You shouldn't pay $60 and have to expect the make $30 back by selling it, nor should you pay $30 to some store/person for a used copy where the developer gets nothing. Now I don't really have a problem with used games, but something does need to change.
#39Thewinner14Posted 5/17/2014 11:20:40 AM
So should we close down all used bookstores, video stores, music stores, and car dealerships too?

Quite frankly the industry made the mess themselves because the crap they churn out has a replay value of around 0, and they obsolete multiplayer in a year anyway.

And to answer your question, yes it is fair to buy a used copy because they made their money when it was sold as new. They are entitled to the money from the sale of the new copy. If I want to resell my copy and someone wants to buy it (for any price we agree on) that's fair.

Like I said, I only buy new and very rarely will I resell, but the used game industry rhetoric is bull, and serves solely to shift blame.
---
"Let your Kingdom come" - Matthew 6:10
#40robert_rangersuPosted 5/17/2014 11:22:57 AM
tl;dr
---
Couldn't care less = you don't care one single bit.
Could care less = you do care, at least a little.