Print

[micro23]

QUOTE(NYCXBOX @ May 11 2010, 04:30 PM)

If EA is locking out Players of PC titles from playing used copied that is fine. The PC does not have a platform based one time paid game system like live or psnetwork.  Each game is open to it own online servers and such wich carries a per game cost to EA.  I can understand this move on the part of EA for PC titles.  AGAIN I can understand it but still I don;t think it is right.
 
If they are locking out Xbox live players with gold subscriptions that is a violation of contract.  A gold membership gives me the right to play ANY GAME on xbox live.   I don't think there is a SINGLE GAME ON 360 that has an additional fee like the original xbox did with Fantasy star online.  Microsoft moved away from EXTRA subscriptions for online game play and while certain games such as World of War-craft, City of XXXXX, D&D online, Ultima, did ever come to the 360 - chances of customers accepting a small monthly fee on top of their gold membership might be acceptable.  But to charge a Fee to play online for games like the ones mentioned - that just defeats the whole purpose of the gold membership.  Microsoft knows that Xbox live has players on it's service playing games that they bought at $60 per title and at $20 a title used.  They know that people share games, trade games and they don't care - as long as people are buying the gold memberships and the marketplace points for DLC - Microsoft is happy.  If it is a orignal Disc (not pirated) it plays on Xbox live if you have a Gold membership - plain and simple.

If EA is allowed to set this precedent for any new game - this can be the downfall of xbox live.  Players buying any EA game will be plagued with having to enter a code to even get online (a step that most players hate) the Idea behind xbox live is simple. Buy the game - Pop it into your 360, Log into live and play.  IF every player has to VALIDATE their game first - this becomes another messy step that Microsoft wanted to avoid with Xbox live and idea behind how the gold membership worked.  As for the precedent I was talking about, if EA is allowed to make their games so they have to be verified on Xbox live so "that they are FIRST PURCHASED TITLE" and not second hand used title then every other game company is going to follow.  This is going to OBLITERATE Xbox live - Forget about game-stop.  What about trading with your friend?  Selling on Craigslist? eBay?  All American Ideas that will be forget crushed.

IN essence Xbox live's gold membership is going to mean nothing.  You can still buy and use second hand titles by shelling out an extra membership fee to get onto a service you already paid for - for a single title.  I don't know about you guys but I personally buy and play about 12 USED GAMES a year (about one a month - sometimes more - some months none at all) Still I pay $50 a year to use Xbox live.  Now to play those 12 games I buy - is going to cost me $120 Dollars?  I also purchase new games - I buy maybe 4 or 5 of them per year.  That is another $240-$300 I am spending on Games.  Those I can play with no issue.  They are hurting Xbox live ideology and they are going to decimate the USED market.   Also that $120 in extra fees is going to cut into my NEW GAME purchases not my used game purchases.  SO that's another 2 games a year less I am buying.  

Lets touch on PlayStation network for a second.  How is this not going to hurt them as well?  They offer FREE ONLINE for every game.  Now EA is going to ask that they validate their game with them before PS network allows it to play?  If it is second hand - EA get the entire $10 fee and then the game is allowed on the PlayStation Network, a free netowrk and SOny gets nothing from that $10 fee?  This is not right.  Both Xbox live and PS network are run by Sony and Microsoft, that mens their rules not EA's.  EA licenses the ability to be able to use those networks for their games.  Microsoft has REQUIREMENTS about Xbox live before a game can even come out for 360 that it must fit - certain live features and such.  One of those features is the game plays on all gold memberships online for FREE.  Now EA thinks it is going to change the licensing terms?  This could get messy.

If I were Microsoft and or Sony.  I would not allow for a UNIQUE code validation system of a new game in order for it to access it's online features and online play.  We already pay for those features and if I buy the game from someone else I am entitled to those features.  The person who originally bought the game is entitled to every feature including the online feature when it paid for the game.  IF he sells it to me for $1 or $60 it was his/her choice to part with it and I paid for entire CONTENT of the game.  I should not be limited to what he got when he bought it just because I bought it from him.  It is just a transfer from him to me with monitory reimbursement for doing so.  If I buy a movie and sell it to a friend - how would that person feel if they had to re-validate just to watch the movie and by doing so they lost the special features, or the behind the scenes reels or the game demo that might be on there.  What If I sold a CD to a friend and they lost 1/2 the tracks for buying it second hand?   What If GM took away use of the Radio and air-conditioning when i bought a used car?  What if I lost the ability of my DVD drive if I bought a used Laptop?  This is the same thing - EA is taking away something it was already paid for.  

WITH THE EXCEPTION OF THE PC,  I understand EA's idea here when it comes to PC games.  EA runs it own server PER GAME for PC titles.  IF their games includes a License for the original purchaser to get on the EA servers for free - that is fine. If that game is sold to someone else I can understand them wanting a small fee for the new owner to get on.  There are fees involved with the people who have to set up the new account (account server costs) and such for the PC so those additional cost's to EA does warrant them charging people with second hand games to have them pay a small fee.  You don't have that kind of overhead with Xbox or PS3 - accounts are already established, there is no cost in a title changing hands.  If I have an Xbox live account - I can play any game - no need for extra cost's for each new / used game I add to my collection that I am to use on Xbox live.  The $50 a year covers all the cost's to Microsoft no matter how many games I buy and play on live.  My system is already registered to me as well as my gold account.  I am good to go.  SO this makes no sense.  Also Microsoft Knows that when a 3rd Party releases a new game how many of them are going to be out there.  When COD came out Microsoft knew to expect over 1 million games sold in one day.  It adjusted it's servers to handle the load.  If there are only 3 million copies of call of duty or any game for that matter, Microsoft know how many games from that 3rd parts are pressed and sold and every single one of them is allowed on live with a gold membership.  Changing hands from one gold member to another does not increase any cost to Microsoft - or to EA for that matter, they knew that many titles are out these and that is how many can be on Xbox live with a gold membership.  Get my point here?  My gold and your gold membership sharing the same title is no big deal as only one membership can play it at a time with one $60 copy of the game.  Even if we are sharking a $10 used copy - only one of us can play it and that disc's license to play on live is already paid for anyways.

Microsoft and Sony need to make sure this EA validation thing for second hand games does not invade their online services.  I honestly feel, with Xbox live, this scheme is a violation of my contract with Microsoft and my gold subscription. For 5 years any game I ever bought I could play on live - now all of a sudden I have to buy it new or pay more to play my used title?  I don't see that in my LIVE terms of service.  Microsoft and Sony need to make sure that any game bought stays free to play online (with proper membership levels).  This is a recipe for the downfall of online gaming and for the explosive growth that both companies have achieved when it comes to their online services.  This also opens up a can of worms on how licensing agreements work with putting 3rd party games on the first party game systems.  

Xbox and Sony do need EA - but they don't EA - EA would be VERY VERY hurt if the big 2 would just tell them - your games (first, second, third hand) remain free to play on our online services or you cannot release any more titles for out system.  If both Sony and M$ do this together - EA will have but no choice to squash this crazy idea at least on the game console services.

Is this fair? Nope (but life isn't fair)
Is it legal? Perhaps - on the PC side I can see more reasons for why EA might get away with this - But I wouldn't be surprised if EA, SONY, Microsoft and more were hit with classactions over this on the paid for services.
Is it going to hurt the Console online gaming? Absolutely (and I didn't forget about wii - I am sure nintendo will follow Sony and Microsoft's lead)

EA - Resist the urge to be evil and greedy.  

Besides EA don;t make games worthy of extra fees - it the same rehashed stuff over and over.  I give you $60 for a new title and that is enough.

Best forum post of all time. Forwarding to Major Nelson.

[LtDan313]

Looks like it's 2K Franchise FTW! EA can lick my stinky ball sack! Madden is getting repetitive anyways.

[xc1234]

QUOTE(rwcottrell @ May 11 2010, 09:46 PM)

after seeing gameplay from madden 11 yesterday on x-play

you were able to find a video game related show playing on G4?! I thought they only played the video game shows at night when no one was awake, the other 23 hours a day they show cops re runs. that channel really has gone straight to hell.

[rwcottrell]

QUOTE(xc1234 @ May 11 2010, 03:58 PM)

you were able to find a video game related show playing on G4?! I thought they only played the video game shows at night when no one was awake, the other 23 hours a day they show cops re runs. that channel really has gone straight to hell.

lol let me tell ya bro finding a gaming show on g4 wasnt easy.i first had to watch 5 repeats of lost.an episode of cops from 1989 ,cheaters,a roger moore movie from 1979 called moonraker[4 those interested they r replaying it tonight im dead serious look it up ]  and a marathon of human wrecking ball.anyone remember how awesome they were and i stress the word WERE

[NYCXBOX]

In American - there is a thing called capitalism.

EA and every other company sell their games. They are paid for every single title that gets pressed.

They deserve no compensation at all from used sales. AT ALL - read on to see why.

American has had a second hand economy since it was founded, And going back centuries in the rest of the world.

If you want to buy it new you buy it new and pay full price.

If you wait for a deal (sale perhaps) - you might not be able to enjoy the latest and greatest right away, but you do get it eventually.

Then there is the Second hand sale.  

Every single copy of a game that leaves one customers hands and enters another - either through eBay, Craigslist, Gamestop (any mom and pop shop), forum traders, gamefly, blockbuster,goodwill, donations, ect... has already put it's money in the pocket of the developer.

Second hand markets thrive in this country because an item that has lost appeal, use, or just gets plain boring and might be fresh, new and exciting to someone else.   There is also a very huge gap in the budgets of gamers.   There are many gamers that NEVER buy new.  They just cannot afford to.  They wait till someone is willing to sell it USED for a price they can afford.  They save their money only for the big things, like the console or the Live subscription)

Don't give me any shit about EULA's and TERMS OF SERVICE - If I own a copy of anything I have the right to sell it - and the US supreme court has ruled on this already.  If I sell my physical disc to gamestop for $10 dollars credit - then gamestop is the new owner they have EVERY RIGHT to mark it up as high as they want to resell it.  It is called capitalism and being in business.  I personally don't like gamestop policy's - but that has no bearing on their right to resell what they own.  Businesses like gamestop also do more good than bad in the resale of software. How many other places can you buy USED software and a portion of the revenue gets paid in taxes.  I will guarantee you that not a single used sale from person to person using any means (eBay, Online AD, Craigslist, Forum post, newspaper classified, ect..) has ever sold their software to someone else and paid or even reported the sale on their taxes.  Corporations like gamestop at years end pay a huge part of that marked up used price in taxes.

Take any other USED business model in this country.  Do they cry foul?  Is any Car company crying to anyone over not seeing a dime from a used car sale?  More Used cars are sold in America in a year than new cars.  Do appliance companies cry about used appliances sales because they don't get anything?  Does Microsoft Cry when you sell a PC with the INTACT license of the OS on that computer?  Does Apple Cry over used mac book or ipod sales?  Does Calvin Klein or LEE or Levi's cry over thrift shops or goodwill selling used clothing? NO - they already made their money from the initial sale.  

The other thing to take into account is why used sales are good for any company.   It keeps them relevant.   If I buy a used Chevy and it breaks - I am going to go to my local mechanic or directly to Chevy and get Chevy parts to fix my used car.  If my LG fridge breaks - I am going to get LG parts to fix it.  If my local thrift shop is selling the latest in last seasons fashions - it keeps the brand makers relevant - as the people who could not afford the name brand at full price have the chance to feel in style while keeping that brand maker in the spot light and encourage others, perhaps those who do have money for a NEW name brand article, to go out and buy it.

How does this relate to video games and online play and such?  Well like I said earlier - I can understand PC version requiring a small fee for the second hand owner to get online because of maintenance cost of the servers and account maintenance and such per game.  Though when it comes to Xbox live and PS network I have already ranted on why this is not a valid  business model and perhaps a breach of Contract with existing gold users or even a breach with Sony /Microsoft in general.  Remember they are games on their (Sony and Microsoft's)services' and part of the requirements to put out a game on that systems platform is online play.   Anyways, so how does used sales help the developers?  Well - we are in full swing of digital content purchases and digital content economys are thriving.  There is always something EXTRA out there to buy to enhance your game.  If I buy a used copy of Madden - I get the line up on the disc.  Perhaps there is a more up to date line up - I have to buy it.  If there is new stadiums or a dream team download - I have to buy it.  So EA - you are double greedy.  If I bought madden 11 NEW - and say spent $20 on Down-loadable content - then sold my game to a friend for $40 and he spends $20 on the same DLC since I cannot transfer it to him (legitimately - no Jtag / hack talk please) - EA just made $40 on DLC because someone else now owns that game and wants the best experience.  Now I know you devils advocates are gonna say - if he bought it new he would have bought the DLC anyways?  Well not true.  If John only had $60 to spend - to buy for $40 and spend $20 on DLC rather than blowing it all on just the NEW game and not having the money he needs to buy the DLC.   There is more money in the DLC than the game sale for EA - as the content does not have the overhead cost of sale as DLC then as a physical disc. Hence EA makes more money becuase of the Used game sale.


So their argument about the amount of money to be made in the used market, and their sob story about how they see no part of that sale is all just a big temper tantrum.  Perhaps EA needs a TIME OUT - to rethink it's greedy behavior and play fairly with consumers.

[NYCXBOX]

@Craz3d

Why should video game developer be the only people who get more money on a used sale when not a single company in the world gets a dime from a used sale.  It is used. It's been paid for already.  That is it you made your money on it.  You want to make more money - offer a better price as the game gets older to compete with used sale.  What you propose is monopolistic and greedy and out right wrong.  

Used sales also helps weed out bad games.  perhaps if a new title don't sell so well for $60 is because it is not worth spending $60 on.  How many people read a review or see a trailer and say - that movie looks shitty - I am not giving $9 to go see it - I rather wait for Cable or rental.  Put out a crappy product and you get thrift worthy people exercising their wallets when they feel the price is right.

UGH - learn to read fully before you quote me.  Now my turn to rip you apart since you didn't read and think first.

I already pointed out how USED car sales are HELPFUL to the car maker. So it is now flawed - and I equated it to how a software developer can make money on a used sale as well.

Xbox live for the past 5 years has given me the RIGHT with a gold membership to play any game that has online features Online!  To say my membership is invalid because I was Thrift worthy in buying my used title is the same as not having the central live network at all.  The Idea behind xbox is a central network that incorporates a seamless integration of all the features on a single system (the Xbox 360).  If my $50 says I get to play online - then i get to play online - if they are going to change their parameters about how my purchases effect my gold membership - then might as well run individual servers for every game that comes out just like a PC.  Remember Microsoft wanted to streamline the PC model of online network play and revolutionize it - this is a step backwards into making live just like PC gaming.

This isn't a privilege anymore - it is becoming a domant feature in the homes of kids and adults across the USA.  Games aren't for kids anymore.  They have been around 35 years now and they are big business.  Big business mean they are not niche anymore.  Everyone gets involved in one way or another.   If I own a game console - I have the RIGHT to play on it anything I buy for that console.  What I pay for it is not up to EA or anyone else - it is up to what I want to pay for it who I can find to supply it to me at that price.

As for not having the RIGHT to cheap games.  Sure I do - Everyone has the right to spend what they feel an item is worth.  That is the whole point behind the USA and capitalism.  I have the right to say what something is worth by how much I spend on it.  If the Shitty madden game is sitting used on the shelf for $30 and I decide to buy it - then I have the right to that game at that price.  Plain and simple.  Everything that comes on that disc by default weather new or used should be on there when I buy it.

[Exobex]

QUOTE(amexie @ May 11 2010, 05:00 PM)

well you could alwasy sell the codes if you aint going to play online

Yeah, and watch eBay cancel the listings when EA come up with some bollocks about it being "illegal" to sell the codes online.

[NYCXBOX]

QUOTE(craz3d @ May 11 2010, 06:40 PM)

With video games, aside from the packaging, the used copy is identical to the new copy.  Video games don't 'wear out' in the same sense that a car's engine would.  I think it is illogical to compare resale of video games (basically, IDEAS) 1:1 with the resale of other products.  The process is not the same.

Wrong.  A used copy and a new copy are not the same.  The physical disc can be scratched.  The instructions might be missing.  Remember gamers want a physical representation of their game too - that is part of owning the game.  The case dented or ripped.  When you put it in the console it is not the same as a new game.   If I go out and buy forza 3 or halo or call of duty used.  The experience is not the same used as it is new.  There are many people who bought it new and are tired of it or not online anymore, or too good for me to have with.   So by not buying it new the experience is different for me.  If I bought a game like project Gotham racing for $10 used and go online with it - there is probibly only like 4 people playing it - it makes my $10 purchase just that - limited.  My online is limited who I can play with.

As for your second quote about providing incentives such as online play.  I have no issues with codes for bonus maps or bonus content - but a FULL FEATURE of the game - online play - is not bonus content.  If it was then there should be a SKu with no online content at all.  GUESS WHAT that will never happen. Because there are rules developers have to follow when putting games on PS network and Xbox live.  Xbox live requires online play to be FREE when you buy the game.   If you don't put an actual online feature in the game - it still must contain online components - game-score posts, live chat and invites - ect..  But if you sell a game that allows you to race against someone on Xbox live - it is part of the game - Microsoft live services rules dictate that - there is no EXTRA (code based or buy in based) to get on the online portion of the game.   It is a violation of the development procedures to get on live.  If I have have to pay to get on xbox live for any game after paying for my gold membership - then I want my money back for my membership it is supposed to be ALL INCLUSIVE.

I need to add this. - Further Revenue for a manufacturer is not a right.  You sell your product - it is not yours anymore - if the owner wants to resell it to someone else - they have every right to.  The content owner does not have ANY RIGHTS TO MONEY FROM THAT SALE - only the Govt does for taxes.. but we all know that 99.9% of used games sales never pay them.

[craz3d]

QUOTE(NYCXBOX @ May 11 2010, 05:51 PM)

Wrong.  A used copy and a new copy are not the same.  The physical disc can be scratched.  The instructions might be missing.  Remember gamers want a physical representation of their game too - that is part of owning the game.  The case dented or ripped.  When you put it in the console it is not the same as a new game.   If I go out and buy forza 3 or halo or call of duty used.  The experience is not the same used as it is new.  There are many people who bought it new and are tired of it or not online anymore, or too good for me to have with.   So by not buying it new the experience is different for me.  If I bought a game like project Gotham racing for $10 used and go online with it - there is probibly only like 4 people playing it - it makes my $10 purchase just that - limited.  My online is limited who I can play with.

You are very good at sensationalizing this issue, I'll give you that.  I mentioned that yes, a used copy of a game isn't 100% identical, but the part that counts, THE ACTUAL GAME, is the same.  I, too, am very particular about the physical conditions of my games, but when you boil it down to what's really important, I play games because they are fun, not because they take up space on my shelves and look nice.  Very nice work, picking a small detail and blowing it out of proportion.  Your point on buying an old used game and having less players to compete against is valid, but it is also valid for buying that same game new.  That's just how gaming audiences react to older games.  They grow tired of them and stop playing.

QUOTE(NYCXBOX @ May 11 2010, 05:51 PM)

As for your second quote about providing incentives such as online play.  I have no issues with codes for bonus maps or bonus content - but a FULL FEATURE of the game - online play - is not bonus content.  If it was then there should be a SKu with no online content at all.  GUESS WHAT that will never happen. Because there are rules developers have to follow when putting games on PS network and Xbox live.  Xbox live requires online play to be FREE when you buy the game.   If you don't put an actual online feature in the game - it still must contain online components - game-score posts, live chat and invites - ect..  But if you sell a game that allows you to race against someone on Xbox live - it is part of the game - Microsoft live services rules dictate that - there is no EXTRA (code based or buy in based) to get on the online portion of the game.   It is a violation of the development procedures to get on live.  If I have have to pay to get on xbox live for any game after paying for my gold membership - then I want my money back for my membership it is supposed to be ALL INCLUSIVE.

XBOX Live requires online play to be free when you buy the game, and if you buy a game new, you won't be affected.  You won't have to purchase extra codes if you buy the game new.  I haven't read the EULA, but   I'm certain there's no stipulation regarding used game sales.  As used   game sales are not regulated by Microsoft or the game publishers, you   aren't protected by the rule you mentioned.  Your problem instead lies with GameStop.  If you've never heard of the term hidden cost, you will   now if you buy used EA Sports games.

QUOTE(NYCXBOX @ May 11 2010, 05:51 PM)

I need to add this. - Further Revenue for a manufacturer is not a right.  You sell your product - it is not yours anymore - if the owner wants to resell it to someone else - they have every right to.  The content owner does not have ANY RIGHTS TO MONEY FROM THAT SALE - only the Govt does for taxes.. but we all know that 99.9% of used games sales never pay them.

I didn't say they have a right to revenues from used sales, just that they have the right to be compensated for their work.  If they want to add restrictions to their game based upon if it was purchased new, that's their decision.  As a customer, you know you can get the game cheaper second hand, but if you want the full experience you'll have to give the publishers some money so that they can continue to make games.  What's so wrong about this?

The publisher makes the game and they can decide what a copy of their game will have and what it doesn't have.  I'm sorry if you've subscribed to a static idea of the videogame market, but it is actually evolving as publishers and developers have to find new ways to be compensated from their work as the traditional business plan isn't working anymore (due to the second hand market).  As I stated in my first post, PC Games have required serial numbers for years, many of them locking you down to one email account.  If the makers of consoles wish to do this as well, more power to them.  Its up to the publisher to decide what is included in a used-copy and what isn't.  If we see this become more commonplace, you'll simply have to get used to the fact that a used-copy now has less value than it did before.  You are not entitled to get a game for less money with the full feature set just because that is how it has been for you in the past.  Sorry.

[NYCXBOX]

I don't think you understand the differences between the two platforms.

Madden on PC is run by EA when it comes to online.

Madden on Xbox live is Microsoft - their central servers eliminate a per game server model - bringing cost down and making one inclusive network.

If I own a 360 and a gold membership and buy a game anywhere from anyone - if it has an online component - live dictates I can play it.  A code to get onto xbox live - is just a greedy way for the publisher to subvert the centralistic value and purpose of Xbox live.

You must be a developer or work in the industry or are just drinking the socialistic kool aid - as you think these people are entitles to make more money off the sale of something they already sold.

Boils down to this.  You spend 10 million to make a game. you spend 2 million to press and distribute it. that is 12 million invested.  If you press 1 million copies and sell them at 60 dollars that is 60 million dollars.   If you sell 500k for full price you already doubled your money back. even if you discount the other 500k copies to 30 each that is another 15 million. They already made their money back. and a profit on that game that makes the effort worth putting it out.  That's it!  they sold their copies! they made their money! move on to develop a new game.

Now 2 months after it is out,  200k used copies sell for $20 each - why should they be entitled to any revenue? They shouldn't!  Used sales is a used sale.  That is it.

Read my first post - it covers the finer points.

Stop trying to rationalize that any developer is entitled to anything from a used sale - because they aren't.

[HotKnife420]

QUOTE(craz3d @ May 11 2010, 11:40 PM)

With video games, aside from the packaging, the used copy is identical to the new copy.  Video games don't 'wear out' in the same sense that a car's engine would.  I think it is illogical to compare resale of video games (basically, IDEAS) 1:1 with the resale of other products.  The process is not the same.

 A disc can be scratched and tarnished in ways that affect readability. Additionally, are you claiming that because a videogame doesn't suffer a performance loss due to age that the manufacturer can claim any and all obtainable profits from said object? That's retarded.

 Some people take better care of their games than others. I've seen used copies of games that don't work anywhere near as well as a new one would, and some that you couldn't tell the difference between. Nonetheless, they were all used, and the profit from the sale(s) of each physical disc had already been collected by the manufacturer, publisher, and retailer already.

 The only valid arguement here is that EA provides their own servers, and this is a business model proposed to help them maintain the costs of those servers. This arguement looses it's weight with XBL, however, as a gold membership is advertised as 'all you need' for your online gaming needs.

[craz3d]

QUOTE(HotKnife420 @ May 11 2010, 06:36 PM)

A disc can be scratched and tarnished in ways that affect readability. Additionally, are you claiming that because a videogame doesn't suffer a performance loss due to age that the manufacturer can claim any and all obtainable profits from said object? That's retarded.

 Some people take better care of their games than others. I've seen used copies of games that don't work anywhere near as well as a new one would, and some that you couldn't tell the difference between. Nonetheless, they were all used, and the profit from the sale(s) of each physical disc had already been collected by the manufacturer, publisher, and retailer already.

 The only valid arguement here is that EA provides their own servers, and this is a business model proposed to help them maintain the costs of those servers. This arguement looses it's weight with XBL, however, as a gold membership is advertised as 'all you need' for your online gaming needs.

I was hesitant about bringing about that point because I knew the issue at hand would be avoided.  I will acknowledge that you can find used games in bad shape, but as long as a disc can be read, the gaming experience is identical.  If the disc is so scratched that it can't be played, that is an entirely separate matter.  I was merely trying to illustrate that the second hand market for software is not 100% equivalent to the second hand market for other tangible goods.  When you buy a game, you're paying for the ideas of someone else.  You're paying for the experience they created.  The fact that this game happens to be in the physical form of the disc is merely a side effect of the requirement for a way to transfer these ideas to the customer.

Software sales is a relatively new concept in the timeline of human economy.  We're still working out the bugs, but we know that the same rules that apply to tangible objects don't necessarily work as well for the sale and transfer of ideas.  There are entire schools of thought and classes you can take in college devoting to studying this new economy.  It is a complex problem, but rigidly adhering to old paradigms is not the solution.

[capboy210]

I'm a long time xbox fan, but the PS3 is entirely free to go online, why should i have to pay more money on top of my already expensive subscription. I'm done with xbox live, especially since M$ decided to cut the Xbox 1 offline.

Goodbye Microsoft and EA

[craz3d]

If $4 per month is putting a strain on your budget, maybe you should consider a less expensive hobby.  However, I do respect your right to decide to cut your losses and jump ship.

[HotKnife420]

QUOTE(craz3d @ May 12 2010, 01:19 AM)

I was hesitant about bringing about that point because I knew the issue at hand would be avoided.  I will acknowledge that you can find used games in bad shape, but as long as a disc can be read, the gaming experience is identical.  If the disc is so scratched that it can't be played, that is an entirely separate matter.  I was merely trying to illustrate that the second hand market for software is not 100% equivalent to the second hand market for other tangible goods.  When you buy a game, you're paying for the ideas of someone else.  You're paying for the experience they created.  The fact that this game happens to be in the physical form of the disc is merely a side effect of the requirement for a way to transfer these ideas to the customer.

Software sales is a relatively new concept in the timeline of human economy.  We're still working out the bugs, but we know that the same rules that apply to tangible objects don't necessarily work as well for the sale and transfer of ideas.  There are entire schools of thought and classes you can take in college devoting to studying this new economy.  It is a complex problem, but rigidly adhering to old paradigms is not the solution.

 But by that argument, nobody has the right to play a game unless they pay full MSRP for it. All I'm saying, is that if person A bought the "right to play" a particular game, why can't they then sell that "right to play" to someone else (relinquishing their own "right to play" in the process)?

 I also can't help but notice that this seems like something the music industry WISHES they could do (movie industry, too). What's better than telling someone that they have to buy their product? Tell them they have to buy it ONLY from you. Crack dealers don't even do that anymore

QUOTE(craz3d @ May 12 2010, 01:25 AM)

If $4 per month is putting a strain on your budget, maybe you should consider a less expensive hobby.  However, I do respect your right to decide to cut your losses and jump ship.

 I'm so sick of this argument - it's like people saying "PS3 doesn't have games, though" - really old, and an outdated way of looking at the real problem people are attempting to describe.

 I've been complaining about XBL's subscription fees since I've been a member for over 3 years, now. Has that stopped me from paying? No, because I can afford the "$4 per month" (actually, I tend to buy 1 month cards a lot, so it's more like $8 a month). I was never complaining that I don't have this elusive $4, but rather that the cost is unjustified.

 Every time someone expresses their discontent for MS's LIVE service and says that they're going to PS3, someone always points out that they still need to buy their games (or start buying, as the case may be), and that if they "can't afford $4" they won't be playing anything, but nobody considers the following:

 Let's say I've purchased a PS3 or received it as a gift. I've got a game or games that I enjoy playing, and do not need to buy every flagship title as it's released. If I want to play the games I already own online at any given time, I can - there's no fee I must pay to use the bandwidth I've already purchased from my ISP.

 Now let's look at me, personally, right now. I own both a 360 and a PS3. If I haven't played either system online in a while (let's say I've been working a lot and haven't had time for games, up until now), and I decided I want to play a game online, then I'm faced with a) pay an additional fee to MS and play my 360 online, or turn the PS3 on and begin gaming.

 Essentially what I'm getting at is that the PS3 doesn't have a recurring cost to enjoy games that you've already purchased. Whether it's 4 cents or 4 billion dollars, there's NO ADDITIONAL CHARGE.