This is a split board - You can return to the Split List for other boards.

Gamefaqs Poll results. Really???

#371BlackWizardMagusPosted 2/8/2013 10:45:43 PM
Only read the first page, but here's my view; I buy alot of used games for various reasons. I'll try a game I didn't think I'd like, for example. Or I can't find it new. Or the game isn't worth the price of new. But it's not just purchased used games that are a problem; my brother and I game, so why can't I play his games and he play mine? I borrow his car, I borrow his movies, I borrow his music, I've even borrowed his boots; why should games be a special, unique exception? The only argument FOR blocking used games is purely hypothetical; that devs would get more money. But, really? Since when is the argument "I want to change things so the corporations make more" the voice of the people? And it's not even proven that it would help. Like I said, games I'm not sure about, I buy used. I've gotten into new series because of this, buying, new, several games from a developer that I otherwise never would have touched. And because of used games, I've gotten to play old, discontinued games, which often deepens my love for a series or developer and encourages me to buy more. Blocking used games would lead alot of people to simply get fewer games, to pirate more, to jailbreak their hardware, or to switch to PC gaming and get everything from Steam (real smart move, Sony). And all that so EA can get another million bucks to not spend on their QA testers, or to buy and destroy another small studio? Because the money sure as hell is not going into the hands of the literal developers.

Just an example to close; if I remember correctly, Borderlands 2 sold WAY better than Borderlands 1, right off the bat. Now, why is that? The game is very similar to the first; it wasn't some drastic alteration. It got good reviews but not GOTY-level or anything. So why did so many more people go out and buy, new, BL2 over the first one? Used gaming! People bought the first one used, or borrowed a friend's, or rented it. And they loved it, and went out and bought the second new. So please tell me how it helps the devs to prevent these kinds of successes.
---
"The black wind howls. One among you will shortly perish"
Magus
#372odcrl001Posted 2/8/2013 10:52:16 PM
The new world order enough said. This is how is starts.
---
GT: GalahadHK
#373WinternovaPosted 2/8/2013 11:17:30 PM
asher1611 posted...
Banana_Mana posted...
RubMyDucky posted...
There are many things wrong with blocking used games and I'm pretty sure it violates customer rights.


Ah, yes the random legal knowledge of the random internet browser.

I'm a million percent sure that you are right.

As someone with actual legal knowledge, I'll just post this:

As a general rule, MS is a private company and can sell and distribute games however it wants.

If it wants to use always on DRM it will likely do so through its xbox live service, and to use that consumers have to agree to the TOS.

Thus, if you're using Live, and you've agreed to the contract, you have consented to being denied use of used games.

It cannot be an unfair and deceptive trade practice when you, as a consumer, agree to the practice itself. There is no violation of consumer rights. Anti-trust? That's another matter entirely, but I doubt it.


As a licensed attorney, I can tell you that you're a bit off. What the customer agrees to may not have any bearing - if it's a sale it could fall under the First Sale Doctrine and the block would be illegal. If the software purchase is the customer buying a license, then what you said would be perfectly correct, apart from the anti-trust part of the equation. It all depends on what a purchase of software is - a sale or a license - and there's no uniform decision on that subject; 2 Circuit Courts have held software is licensed, 1 is mixed, and the others say sold.

I don't think people will like the decision that comes down if it's challenged in court and SCOTUS has to decide. It is entirely possible that they fall on the side of a sale, which would destroy the used game block. They could also fall somewhere in-between. It's definitely not cut-and-dried right now.
---
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pMKUUUvjjzo
Fan of: Steelers(6-time Champions), Red Wings(11-time Champions)
#374WinternovaPosted 2/8/2013 11:20:29 PM
odcrl001 posted...
The new world order enough said. This is how is starts.


No, the NWO started when Hulk Hogan turned on WCW and joined with The Outsiders (Kevin Nash and Scott Hall).
---
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pMKUUUvjjzo
Fan of: Steelers(6-time Champions), Red Wings(11-time Champions)
#375WinternovaPosted 2/8/2013 11:24:46 PM
Nairodmatic posted...
I'm not a business man. I don't understand that stuff. I didn't read it all. But if I'm EA, and I tell you that I expect to make 800 million next year (for the sake of my example), but only make 700, how did I lose?

I never had it to begin with.

But regardless, you made 700 million! How does a loss per share equate to being justified in attempting to "ensure" your millions or billions in profit by eliminate a valid form of commerce? That sounds like trying to collect more than you need. Or earned for that matter.


The point is that with a loss per share they are spending more money than they are bringing in. They didn't make ANYTHING in the past year. They've lost $18-81 million - it's not that they're expecting less profit, they're expecting to be in the red. They lost money this past year, no profit at all. That's what a loss per share represents. When there's "earnings per share", that shows how much they made in profit divided by the number of shares outstanding. When there's "loss per share", that's how much the business lost divided by the number of shares outstanding. EA has about 300 million shares outstanding.
---
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pMKUUUvjjzo
Fan of: Steelers(6-time Champions), Red Wings(11-time Champions)
#376Krio Lv3Posted 2/8/2013 11:48:19 PM
I'd only go for it if every older game was released digitally, and i mean every game, so I can collect them. There are a lot of games you can't get easily anymore. Xenoblade for example, disappeared once the WiiU came out, you can't find it anymore where I live.
---
Taylor Lautner - Giving me strength since the New Moon
#377memphis12Posted 2/9/2013 12:02:00 AM
lanmanna posted...
memphis12 posted...
I can't remember the last time I bought a used game. I would rather completely support the developer than partially through used games.

People will get over it. Apple seem to be doing just fine & I don't see to many people complaining who purchase games through Steam.

PEOPLE ARE ALWAYS GOING TO FIND THINGS TO MOAN ABOUT.


Because Steam games are DOWNLOADS. That's a little bit different than physical games.


No s**t! That was my point 0.o (assuming Xbox will be Digital
Download)
---
'I wrestled with an alligator,I tussled with a whale,only last week I murdered a rock, injured a stone, hospitalized a brick. I'm so mean I make medicine sick.'
#378DanteSInferno84Posted 2/9/2013 5:25:26 AM
I hate the idea of blocked used games, but I found a way for them to do this and get away with it legally. They just simply say "Oh, we don't sell games anymore. BUT, we do offer a one time payment that lets you have a lifetime rental on the game"
#379Spartan_VicePosted 2/9/2013 11:30:30 AM
People also fail to realize that physical copies are still merely purchasing a license. If you own a DVD of a movie or a physical copy of a game, you don't own rights to that game, you merely own a license of use that can be revoked at any time the owning company deems necessary. It's always been that way, it's still that way with digital purchases, it will always be that way. They plan for things like this to happen.
---
http://i.imgur.com/Pzq4j.gif
#380ILikesCheesePosted 2/9/2013 2:15:12 PM
dudultimateness posted...
"FC3 new online = 27.99... Used in store = 24.99 Plus all the complaining people do about lack of booklets, scratches etc... Makes me wonder why anyone cares."

That's exactly my point. You hardly ever save more than $10 dollars (at least that's normally the case for me). Meanwhile, Gamestop will buy your completely new game for $10 and sell it back for $55 and we're not supposed to be disgusted by their profits?


I can't take this post seriously when you spout "facts" the same way that FOX NEWS does.

First, I have never bought a used game that was in any less than "near mint" condition, so I don't know what all this talk of "scratches" and the like is about. Also, I could give a flying fig fart about instruction booklets. They were cool when I was 10 back in the 80's, not so much nowadays.

Secondly, Gamestop does NOT give you just $10 for a game that is currently selling for $55. If a game is going for that price, it is either very new or very popular. The going exchange rate will be closer to $25 for those games.

Lastly, most of the time the disparity between what a game is selling for in the Targets and Block Busters and Walmarts is vastly higher than what a used copy would go for at Gamespot. Or used on Amazon too for that matter.

Unless a game has multiplayer aspects, when I'm done with it, I'm usually done. There is no point in having "Dishonored" or "Game of Thrones" or "FF 13 Part 2" sitting on my shelf. Much better to turn them all in and basically get a new game for free. (And don't start with the "But I like to collect and keep the games I purchase..." crap. If that's what you like, fine and dandy, but it has nothing to do with how I live my life and the purchasing decisions I make.)

The people who are in the "Used Games Must Die!" camp are extremely short sighted, and yes, that includes developers and publishers as well. The annihilation of the used game / rental businesses as well as having the "always online" set-up will backfire, hurting the gaming industry as a whole. It is an argument that has gone round and round, but is way too involved to go into again here on Gamefaqs where most people don't listen to logic or common sense anyway.
---
If you're omnipotent and all-powerful...why would you need to REST? On the 7th or ANY day?