Bhruic wrote on Feb 3, 2012, 13:29:

The main problem is that GameStop has little reason to want to sell a New copy of a game over a Used version of the game. If they reduce their prices, they will reduce the amount they give on trade, thus will still make make the same margin on the sale of Used games. So nothing changes.

Ok, but what I'm trying to find out is if you are against the idea of selling used games in general, or just have an issue with the way Gamestop does it? The second half of your post leads me to believe the former, but I'd like to be sure.

Verno wrote on Feb 3, 2012, 13:19:

Krovven wrote on Feb 3, 2012, 13:17:

Verno wrote on Feb 3, 2012, 13:12:
Those are not aspects of the game though, that's packaging.

And none of those things effect value?

Those are not aspects of the game though, that's packaging.

There's nothing wrong with the behavior, its done the world over in other industries. Heck it's a protected right in many countries.

Bhruic wrote on Feb 3, 2012, 13:12:
So would you be less annoyed by Gamestop if they were selling the used game for less? Or should they be making more on new copies, to give them more incentive to push those?

Verno wrote on Feb 3, 2012, 13:12:
Those are not aspects of the game though, that's packaging.

Prez wrote on Feb 3, 2012, 12:10:

Scratches, damage to the discs, inserts (DLC codes) removed, box broken, instructions missing (assuming there were some), etc.

It may be a small distinction but the things you are mentioning are the media, not the game itself. To put it another way, assuming that scratched disc allows the game to be installed, the game that ends up on your machine is identical to a new game. If not, Gamestop will surely refund it.

Beamer wrote on Feb 3, 2012, 11:52:

Mashiki Amiketo wrote on Feb 3, 2012, 11:40:

Prez wrote on Feb 3, 2012, 11:33:
I also think his points on why online passes are bad are extremely weak and his nerd rage extremely lame.

So...when you buy a used car, or fridge, or hell even clothes from someone else, they should be making money off you for the convenience buying used? I agree the guy does rant, and rant wildly. But the point of them double dipping on a sale is valid.

When you buy a used car or used fridge and a part dies, who manufactures the replacement?

But, again, you can't really use cars or fridges or clothes as a proxy. Would you want to wear used clothing? Would you say a used car is as nice as a new car? No way.

But a used game is identical to a new game.

elefunk wrote on Feb 2, 2012, 19:46:

Krovven wrote on Feb 2, 2012, 19:42:
And for all those saying this isn't Pay To Win.

If you can pay additional money to gain a benefit over players that do not pay the extra cash, it's P2W.

Tribes Ascend, can you pay an extra fee to gain XP and Tokens faster and purchase Gold to unlock more classes? Yes. It's P2W.

So once again, you've never played Tribes Ascend, have you?

Nothing you can buy in Tribes Ascend is better than anything else. The stuff you buy is *DIFFERENT*, not *BETTER*.

Same holds true for perks in the game. You can't outright buy perks. You have to earn them by playing the game. You could spend every single penny you own on this game if you want, and you'd have 0 advantage over someone who paid nothing.

Jerykk wrote on Feb 2, 2012, 16:23:
Not that I disagree with your original point or anything. I just find it humorous that you condemn microtransactions while admitting to paying for CoD.

Hellbinder wrote on Feb 2, 2012, 15:24:
imo, your opinions are completely retarded.

Esoteric wrote on Feb 2, 2012, 14:46:
"Playing: ...MW3"

/facepalm

For never having played the game and not knowing anything about it, you certainly have a lot of unjustified criticism.

Verno wrote on Feb 2, 2012, 13:23:
Some people like that style of grindy stuff and I don't begrudge them it.

Roachmojo wrote on Feb 2, 2012, 14:31:
I've dumped $45 into the beta already and consider it money well spent.

Overon wrote on Feb 2, 2012, 13:41:

Krovven wrote on Feb 2, 2012, 11:35:
You two are hilarious. "What about my unlocks *cry*". It's beta. Be prepared to lose everything at any moment. If you are worried about losing stuff, then don't play beta'.

Oh come on. Even though I understand what you say and agree with you (up to a point), why can't I complain about it? Would it harm you if I got what I wanted and was made happy by it instead?

Esoteric wrote on Feb 2, 2012, 12:50:
Yep, F2P/P2W, just like that horrible game Team Fortress 2.

$8 (10 days) & $15 (30 days) Boosters double the base XP and Tokens you receive inside of the game as you play, allowing you to unlock classes, skills and perks at a faster rate.

Esoteric wrote on Feb 2, 2012, 12:39:
It doesn't even cost 8, you can play for free and do well. The 2 free classes previous to this patch are actually some of the best ones (ranger and solider). It's definitely not pay to win (so far). Playing/paying more just gives you more options, not better options.

With this patch you get 3 free classes: Pathfinder (good/great), Soldier (great), and Juggernaut (okay).

Esoteric wrote on Feb 2, 2012, 11:41:
[AND they've been accepting money for gold and boosters which people have been using to gain this progress.

MajorD wrote on Feb 2, 2012, 10:44:
Are you sure? The majority seems to think otherwise.

Prez wrote on Feb 2, 2012, 11:05:
It's weird that you say that, because I played the game almost exclusively in SP for dozens of hours and never really got bored.