 |
| 62. |
Re: There is no longevity with unlock codes. |
Feb 6, 2012, 00:39 |
Jerykk |
|
|
So if there's only a $5-10 and your assumption that people will normally pop the difference for the new one, why are online passes even necessary then? Doesn't it sound just a little bit illogical? People will always go for the cheapest option. If they can choose between a new copy at $60 or a used copy at $55, they will go for the used copy unless there's incentive to buy the new one. Online passes provide that incentive. Seems pretty logical to me.
Gamers who are used to waiting a while to buy games at a substantial discount are not likely willing to shell out the full price. This is true. However, I don't think it applies to the majority of people who buy used games. I believe the majority of used game buyers buy their games a week or so after release. That's about as long as it takes for GameStop to start getting a relatively constant supply of used copies. At that point, the used copies will only be $5 less than new copies.
In addition to stifling the used market, online passes will help reduce rentals. Publishers only tolerate rentals because they still make some money from it, which is better than the non-existent profit they see from used sales.
I like giving my money to developers as well, but it's not my goal in life, and I have bills to pay. If I can buy a game for less with no substantial difference than all the better. That used game now has a home and someone with more money can buy the shiny new version. This is not some shady, back alley deals we're talking about here people, and there's no sense in demonizing the used market. Used games are bought just like regular ones-they don't appear out of no where and I doubt they travel back and forth enough from owner to reseller and back to cause as much loss as publishers claim. The morality of used sales is pretty subjective (as morality tends to be). In effect, it's the same as piracy in that you are getting a copy of the game without paying anything to the publisher or developer. Sure, you're giving your money to GameStop or some other seller, but none of that money makes its way to the people actually responsible for creating the game. Now, you can (and many do) argue that the money consumers save from used sales goes towards new sales that otherwise wouldn't have happened, but this logic fails to acknowledge that publishers and developers are not part of one, homogenous entity. Buying a used copy of Psychonauts, selling it and then using that money towards a new copy of CoD 2012 does not help Double Fine at all. You might as well have stolen a copy of Psychonauts because Double Fine didn't see any money from your transactions either way. |
|
 |
|
|
|
 |
|
| |
| |
|
Date |
Subject |
Author |
| |
1. |
Feb 3, 11:17 |
Re: Op Ed |
Cutter |
| |
2. |
Feb 3, 11:33 |
Re: Op Ed |
Prez |
| |
3. |
Feb 3, 11:40 |
Re: Op Ed |
Mashiki Amiketo |
| |
4. |
Feb 3, 11:49 |
Re: Op Ed |
Creston |
| |
5. |
Feb 3, 11:52 |
Re: Op Ed |
Prez |
| |
7. |
Feb 3, 12:02 |
Re: Op Ed |
Prez |
| |
6. |
Feb 3, 11:52 |
Re: Op Ed |
Beamer |
| |
8. |
Feb 3, 12:02 |
Re: Op Ed |
Krovven |
| |
9. |
Feb 3, 12:10 |
Re: Op Ed |
Prez |
| |
10. |
Feb 3, 12:31 |
Re: Op Ed |
DrEvil |
| |
25. |
Feb 3, 13:40 |
Re: Op Ed |
Beamer |
| |
52. |
Feb 3, 19:35 |
There is no longevity with unlock codes. |
hb3d |
| |
57. |
Feb 4, 13:59 |
Re: There is no longevity with unlock codes. |
Razumen |
| |
58. |
Feb 4, 14:35 |
Re: There is no longevity with unlock codes. |
[VG]Reagle |
| |
61. |
Feb 5, 05:35 |
Re: There is no longevity with unlock codes. |
Razumen |
| >> |
62. |
Feb 6, 00:39 |
Re: There is no longevity with unlock codes. |
Jerykk |
| |
63. |
Feb 6, 00:48 |
Re: There is no longevity with unlock codes. |
Sepharo |
| |
60. |
Feb 4, 23:42 |
Re: There is no longevity with unlock codes. |
Jerykk |
| |
12. |
Feb 3, 12:55 |
Re: Op Ed |
Krovven |
| |
22. |
Feb 3, 13:33 |
Re: Op Ed |
Prez |
| |
11. |
Feb 3, 12:53 |
Re: Op Ed |
Bhruic |
| |
13. |
Feb 3, 13:07 |
Re: Op Ed |
Krovven |
| |
14. |
Feb 3, 13:12 |
Re: Op Ed |
Bhruic |
| |
18. |
Feb 3, 13:25 |
Re: Op Ed |
Krovven |
| |
19. |
Feb 3, 13:29 |
Re: Op Ed |
Bhruic |
| |
21. |
Feb 3, 13:31 |
Re: Op Ed |
Krovven |
| |
24. |
Feb 3, 13:36 |
Re: Op Ed |
Bhruic |
| |
26. |
Feb 3, 13:41 |
Re: Op Ed |
Krovven |
| |
27. |
Feb 3, 13:44 |
Re: Op Ed |
PHJF |
| |
37. |
Feb 3, 14:57 |
Re: Op Ed |
Bhruic |
| |
39. |
Feb 3, 15:41 |
Re: Op Ed |
Awesome Spume |
| |
41. |
Feb 3, 16:34 |
Re: Op Ed |
Cutter |
| |
43. |
Feb 3, 16:43 |
Re: Op Ed |
PHJF |
| |
44. |
Feb 3, 16:56 |
Re: Op Ed |
Beamer |
| |
49. |
Feb 3, 17:54 |
Re: Op Ed |
Dades |
| |
50. |
Feb 3, 18:08 |
Re: Op Ed |
Bhruic |
| |
51. |
Feb 3, 19:05 |
Re: Op Ed |
Mashiki Amiketo |
| |
15. |
Feb 3, 13:12 |
Re: Op Ed |
Verno |
| |
16. |
Feb 3, 13:17 |
Re: Op Ed |
Krovven |
| |
17. |
Feb 3, 13:19 |
Re: Op Ed |
Verno |
| |
20. |
Feb 3, 13:29 |
Re: Op Ed |
Krovven |
| |
28. |
Feb 3, 13:51 |
Re: Op Ed |
Verno |
| |
29. |
Feb 3, 14:01 |
Re: Op Ed |
Beamer |
| |
35. |
Feb 3, 14:52 |
Re: Op Ed |
Krovven |
| |
36. |
Feb 3, 14:56 |
Re: Op Ed |
Beamer |
| |
38. |
Feb 3, 15:13 |
Re: Op Ed |
Verno |
| |
40. |
Feb 3, 16:17 |
Re: Op Ed |
Krovven |
| |
47. |
Feb 3, 17:43 |
Re: Op Ed |
Verno |
| |
23. |
Feb 3, 13:35 |
Re: Op Ed |
briktal |
| |
30. |
Feb 3, 14:09 |
Re: Op Ed |
Verno |
| |
31. |
Feb 3, 14:11 |
Re: Op Ed |
Beamer |
| |
32. |
Feb 3, 14:17 |
Re: Op Ed |
avianflu |
| |
33. |
Feb 3, 14:27 |
Re: Op Ed |
Verno |
| |
34. |
Feb 3, 14:35 |
Re: Op Ed |
Beamer |
| |
59. |
Feb 4, 15:57 |
Re: Op Ed |
Jensen |
| |
55. |
Feb 3, 20:49 |
Re: Op Ed |
Prez |
| |
56. |
Feb 4, 07:05 |
Re: Op Ed |
Mordecai Walfish |
| |
42. |
Feb 3, 16:40 |
Re: Op Ed |
Wraith |
| |
45. |
Feb 3, 17:23 |
Re: Op Ed |
jdreyer |
| |
46. |
Feb 3, 17:29 |
Re: Op Ed |
Cutter |
| |
48. |
Feb 3, 17:48 |
UNACCEPTABLE BEHAVIOR |
space captain |
| |
53. |
Feb 3, 19:48 |
Re: Op Ed |
Gocows |
| |
54. |
Feb 3, 20:09 |
Re: Op Ed |
Dades |
|
|