SimonG: Without "account based" games services like GOG or Steam wouldn't be possible.

timppu: GOG games are not "account based games", period.

SimonG: Ever tried selling a GOG game?

SimonG: Ever tried selling a GOG game?

timppu: No, but there are technical restrictions trying to prevent that. Only moral and legal.

Ever tried selling any of your Steam games? Please do, and Steam will ban you from all your Steam games.

bevinator: That isn't really the issue. The issue is that Steam is an intermediary between you and your game every single time you run the game. If Steam's servers are down and your game doesn't have a working offline mode, you can't play your game. If Steam bans your account, you can't play your game. If GOG's servers go down or you get banned, what happens? Nothing.

SimonG: The point is, GOG is account based. The difference between GOG and Steam is that GOG simply doesn't enforce it.

(Well, there are plenty of other differences, but within this point I mean)

SimonG: BUT this means they need to drastically drop their prices.

SimonG: Rentals usually run on a whole different licence than retail games, so putting "special rental editions" out for those shouldn't be a problem.

Roman5: When I said in another thread that "This generation is filled with Lazy developers and Clueless publishers/companies" this is what I meant

The whole thing was painful to read, this entire generation it seems like These people/companies have been doing nothing but crying like babies, thinking they have more rights/privileges than other industries and constantly making excuses for everything

jepsen1977: ....

orcishgamer: Best quote of his article: "In the end, I fully believe that we have to do something about these issues or our industry is going to fall apart."

LMFAO, sure man, your industry is just fucking crumbling to dust. Higher profits than Hollywood with increasing revenue year after year? Yeah, you guys are doing shitty!

MichaelPalin: I'll just leave this here and prepare some pop corn. I don't know how much this guy is paid for saying this, but it better worths him to start fresh in some other place.

Fomalhaut30: However, there is only so much growth an industry can reasonably expect before they begin cannibalizing within that industry.

Coelocanth: And why should they? They already got paid for that copy of the game. And where does that $20 the customer got for trading in the game go? In the vast majority of cases, into the purchase of a new game, which the devs/publishers profit from - a game sale that may very well not be made if customer A couldn't trade in his game.


As far as this new console that won't play used games goes: I really think it may end up biting them in the ass. Most buyers are probably not going to realize they can't play used games on it. Once they find out, I imagine the shit's going to hit the fan. I hope so, at any rate.

Fomalhaut30: Add in the fact that the store takes on the risk of that product not selling, the cost involved in their business (rent, employees, utilities, etc), and myriad and sundry other costs that the developers in no way contribute to, and the idea that the developers should receive a stipend becomes even more ridiculous.

That also doesn't touch on the fact that if developers want a cut of used sales, they should offer a buyback program and basically "recertify" that game. Replace the case if necessary, remove scratches from the disc, replace the manual, etc. If they were willing to do that, then I could see them getting something for it.

But sitting there with their hands out expecting to profit off of one item without any further work on their part? That's insane and something that virtually no other industry gets. Why do they think they are special enough to warrant that treatment?

orcishgamer: Not in the US they don't. Netflix only started using "Rental Copy" discs when they started getting sweetheart deals on the cost. You're free to rent out anything you buy at Walmart in the US with no extra fees. That's how Redbox operated for at least the first year they were in business. Kiosk owners would go buy a stack of the latest release at retail on release day and go stock their Kiosks before Joe Sixpack drove by on the way home from work. I have to say I strongly disagree with you here. PC gamers tend to have more money than console gamers simply because being a PC gamer require a more expensive system and often PC gamers are older and have a more secure income and console gamers tend to be younger ie. teenagers that don't have as much money and hence have to rely on reselling their games in order to be able to buy new ones (new here doesn't mean "new" but can also mean used). There have never been a strong marked for used games on PC anyway - atleast not here in Denmark but there are plenty of used games on consoles. Console games tend to be short and flashy and usually not the type of game you want to play 5 years from now ergo you can sell it once you beat it. On PC however I love that I can take out my old copy of Starcraft or Baldurs Gate and just play it because they were quality titles.

Look, the reason why I object to second-hand sales are because it is organized to prevent the sale of new titles and instead replace them with used ones and this all happend on pretty much day1. What publishers want is to stop second-hand sales within the first 6-9 months of release because it is there that most games make a profit before huge discounts/sales. After about 9 months or so noone really cares about second hand sales. Higher prices on console games have nothing to do with reselling them but has to do with license rights etc. Are publishers some greedy dirtbags that are often wrong? Yes absolutely but there are times when I wish we gamers would stop thinking about only ourselves and also consider that game companies also need to be taken care off.