Starscream

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

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.

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

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:

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

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

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.

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.

It makes no sense. MS isn't really hurt by used game sales ( first party but not too many of those) so I see no benefit whatsoever for them to impliment something like this.