Printable View
Quote:
Originally Posted by J2d
Thats a good point. A lot of people buy new games with the intention of selling them back later, and if a second hand market didn't exist then they wouldn't be buying the games to begin with. But I don't think that really changes the fact that buying a used game doesn't bring the company any revenue. So i guess they DO profit from it in the long run, just not directly.
The "extra effort" entails adding a functionality that did not exist in the original game. SNK would have to hire programmers who specialize in writing and optimizing network code for online multiplayer games, and I suggested a higher price to offset this new development cost.Quote:
Originally Posted by diffusionx
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cowdisease
Quote:
Originally Posted by diffusionx
Because to ignore the used market scenario makes the whole discussion worthless. When there are three options and you only discuss two, it's like not having a discussion at all.Quote:
Originally Posted by rezo
I pretty much completely agree with this, I just don't equate used games to piracy on the company's end.Quote:
Tupac's argument about piracy of classic games makes sense, honestly. I got annoyed when Namco released that classic collection for PS2 with 10 games. That were all previously released on their PSX collection (which could've all been put on one disc). The entire thing took up what, 5 megs?
Gamers tend to be too, erm, pro-corporate. Like, all the numbers they throw at us about piracy are exaggerated lies. They don't deserve our money just because they bundle rotten games on a disc and sell it for $20 ($20 is a lot of money!). Movie buffs don't love Miramax or WB.
That's not to say piracy is good, I (generally) don't support it. But Namco (or SNK) doesn't automatically deserve our cash because they throw us a shitty, overpriced collection 2x a year. All SNK's games on XBLA - worth $5 at most. Whoever said online play should be worth $10 because of the extra effort - prices of goods are not tied into effort expended into them. Commie.
The only thing I have to contribute to this thread is that I paid over $200 for MSX and MS3 for Neo Geo, and I ripped SNK off by buying these games.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but if you're buying used from a store, doesn't that at least help the industry in some form or fashion? That revenue goes to the store. Publishers use stores as a vehicle to sell and market their titles by purchasing space, shelving, and windows.
P.S. I'm not in any way, shape or form in support of outrageous used games prices, so don't bring that into the discussion.
I don't think this is like japan when they used to take a percent off from second-hand sales. Ours is pretty much down to the folks behind the counter and nothing else.
Anyways, I never get into buying games over $35 unless it's too hard to come by. The price of entertainment in this day and age isn't work what I bust my ass for.
Well it keeps retailers alive and afaik retailers don't make a lot of money from new games and are definitely bullied by the first parties.Quote:
Originally Posted by Brisco Bold
I dont think anyone seriously thinks publishers should get a cut of used sales. Because it's such an idiotic notion. They get their payment from the first sale, a sale that is designed for them to cover their costs and make some cash on the side. The person that buys the media should be allowed to do what they want with it, and that includes reselling. Trading in a game is just selling it to the store, and the store in turn resells it to someone else.
The copyright cartel is trying to outlaw transfers of ownership, and make money each time someone does, and we rightfully scorn them for it.