Bye Bye Used Games???

"IF" this were to come about as the norm, I personally would buy less games a year. I do count on getting some cash back for games that I no longer play or end up being craptastic or are broken a launch.

If MS and Sony go this route, they better make a priority of guaranteeing a game (as far as being the publisher, they would need this in the contract with the dev) is finished at launch and not broken. It is now common practice to launch a game title prematurely and "promise" a patch is being worked on to fix the bug, which sometimes does not come out for over a month or longer.

I would also suggest that they insist on having beta's for all the games they are publishing that have all the features promised in games. They can do this by putting a play time limit on the beta (30 minutes or an hour).

I fot one do not want to risk 60 bucks a pop on a game that has not guarantee of being complete/working as intended without the chance to at least try it out or have a chance to recoup some of my loss.

The only reason I can play so many games in a year is because selling/trading games i'm done with funds the purchase of a new one.  Going all download distribution or putting a onet ime use key on the disc that locks it to a single account prevents me from getting money back otu of the game to buy a new one.  So basically i'll just buy like six games a year and that'll be it and I know i'm not alone in this so basically microsoft /sony is going to downsize the indsutry.

Besides that, I'll go take advantage of sale events and pickup games I wouldn't play otherwise.  And when I go and buy these games used, sure the publisher/dev doesn't get any of my money but the DO get my money when i go and buy DLC content.  They wouldn't get shit if i couldn't buy this game used because I wasn't interseted in the game at the $60 price tag.

So whatever, go ahead an make it impossible to play used games, instead of buying 12-16 games a year i'll be extremly picky on the games i buy and I'lle xpect those games to deliver a much longer experience.  If you try and sell me a 12 hour game for 60 bucks i won't be buying your shit.  I think i'll convert to playing RPGs and Sandboxers only , games that can give me 100 hours of gameplay.

Yeah................what Tank said

buckeye75 wrote:

Yeah................what Tank said

+1

I wouldn’t have Borderlands 2 preordered if I hadn’t played BL1 used.

If their policy means I can only afford 4-5 games worth of entertainment per year, why would I even spend hundreds of dollars on their new console to begin with?

meh no effect on me.

One thing that I have yet to see addressed in any of the rumors flying around is what happens when there are multiple users on a console?  If the game is locked to one user account but other users in the same household want to play the game, they will either have to purchase a second copy of the game, purchase a second lincense similar to the multiplayer licenses for used games already in effect, or play the game on a single account.  The first option is right out in almost every instance unless there are multiple consoles and you need multiple copies for multiplayer games.  The second just adds an additional cost onto an already expensive purchase. And I believe the third will drive away players because really, who wants to play on somebody elses account and give them achievements that you earned?

After all the shitty, buggy games that has come out in the last few years (remember Homefront), I only buy AAA titles at launch.  The rest I wait until they are discounted.  I've picked up so many titles for around 15 bucks.  I also don't trade anything in.  I hate Gamestop and out of principle refuse to do business with them.

Agreed with LaLa. Too many buggy games. I don't remember so many bugs or issues back in the day.

There are way too many crap games/updated versions, now with restrictions on online play and now we are going to kill off bargian bin used games, I will simply buy less or not at all.

There was a time where you would buy only the very best, most anticipated titles. You could gaurentee a quality product back in the day from certian companies.

As an RPG fan, I can buy one game, then play it for months and months. However, if I buy one total crap game in that series or have the game with a "game breaking" bug then I won't ever forgive the maker of the game because I can't trade it back recovering even a little of the loss.

Games like KoA:Reconing would be completly off the scope with clipping in the demo like it had. Mass Effect is another one that would be off the scope because I hate space RPG games. The combination of a used, bargin bin ME1 and a smooth multiplayer demo, prompted a release day purchase.

I would like to note one final thing. As an MMO player, I technicaly could retreat back to my pay to play game and buy NO new games at all without seeing them played at a friends house first. Hey, none of us are kids any more, would you like to geuss how often this happens? So, with the death of the used game market and the rental market, perhaps instead of a "try it out and maybe you buy" approach, now there are only 2 scores you give a game:

Thumbs up, safe buy.

or

I would not piss on it if it caught fire.

I'd also be done with buying as many games as I do. I count on trading in games to get enough credits to buy a few new releases each year. The rest of my games I bought used. If I can't do that, or have to pay a full price, I'll just buy fewer games altogether since I know I can't get any credit for trading them in when I'm done. I'm also not going to buy games on a whim or just to take a chance on since I know there's no returning it to recoup the loss.

EA and a few other devs ,as we all know, have already started this precident and have prevented me from buying their more recenly released games used. I refuse to but most games new with AAA titles as the exception.. Wanted to buy Uncharted 3 used...Naughty Dog has an online code that you'd need to purchase to play online so will need to buy new for full experience. Wanted to buy Kingdoms of Amalur used...guess what, EA is the publisher and the game needs to be activated to play(there's not even an online portion to that game). Battlefield 3....EA again...online pass(although is AAA title) . IMO it's only a matter of time before MS and Sony and the large publishers make the pass system the industry standard. GS and other used outlets will become less of an entity in the gamining industry but I also tend to think that this model will ultimately hurt the gaming industry on the revenue side unless they are willing to start reducing the price of games. As some have already mentioned most of us dont have unlimited funds to spend on gaming, that damn mortgage needs to be paid again...damn you Chase Bank... so it's going to hurt us , the gamers, the most in the end. I understand the loss of revenue issue as far as devs and publishers go but I also believe the used market does ultimately lead to some new sales when people like what they have tried used, they may tend to buy the next title from that dev new especially if it's a series, COD, Halo, Gears, etc...

It's not going to hurt gamers at all, it's going to kill game companies though. The only games I buy full price are the big titles that I know a lot of my friends are going to get so for stuff like Halo or Gears this wouldn't effect me at all. But then there's games like The First Templar or Venetica. If I can't get them super cheap and then trade them after I'm done, I'm just not going to get them at all.

It might not be so bad if they do what Steam does though. They're always having sales and discounts and free weekends for stuff. Or they could do what Playstation Plus does and offer a few new games free every month. Anything's better than the stupid Games on Demand Microsoft is doing now.

What it'll do is kill new IP development and stiffle innovation.  If gamers at large buy half as many games because they can't re-sell their used ones, then competition for those dollars goes way up.  Developers won't be able to afford to take risks and miss or they're done.  Granted they don't get any $ now from the used game sale but they at least get something if they have an on-line pass or dlc that they wouldn't get otherwise.

I feel like the game industry is transforming like everything that becomes uber successful into the persuit of money rather than producing great innovative products.

the more and more I read about rumors like this (if turned out to be true)

 the more I have this feeling that it will be a repeat of the gaming crash of 83

So if MS decides to go this route does it mean that I wont have to insert a disc every time that I want to play a game thats installed on my harddrive?

At least that would be a plus for my lazy ass.

While this is simply a guess it's likely that the profit percentage that GS gets per trade in would decrease, they'd have to sell their games cheaper to stay in business. BUT they will make up that difference in selling you those activation codes. I doubt that the publishers will have a set price for them in the first place, but obviously I could be wrong.  What's sad about that scenario is that the developers will not profit from those code sales when used games are purchased by consumers. Most likely that will require a price increase for the purchase of a new game..

This kinda stuff really pisses me off. The Online pass thing has me already buying less and less games. I have 3 kids that also game and I will not buy 4 copies just so everyone can play. Thats bullshit. What good does 1 copy and 4 online passes get me other than a headache.  The online pass already has me down from Buying multiable copies when a game is released to only buying 3 or 4 games a year. I basically just dont play because of this shit anymore. IF they do something like this I wont buy any fucking games. I will go do yard work and the kids will only get games for christmas/birthdays.......If that

Used games arent killing thier profit, Flooding the market with shitty games and greed is.....

Just thinking out loud...

Your console is now your media streaming device, your " social networking " hub, and it will probably cook your dinner after another update.

My point being that revenue for games consoles doesn't rely wholly on games.

The hardware has become more than it was originally purchased for, and many people have invested a significant amount to have it central to their entertainment experience.

Games will become more expensive, but no more innovative or longer because you have no choice.

You have the hardware and you're stuck with it, ( unless you want to shell out for another system..but if the software companies NOT the hardware companies are unilateral in their no- second -hand policies, you're screwed ).

So it's a no win situation. Gamers could protest. They're good at whining, but better at apathy.

My point being....I have no point. I really think this one is out of the consumers' control.

Again I could be wrong, but until the advent of another major player in the hardware market, you will buy what you're given , at the price The Companies decide.

Ultimately, killing second hand game sales is greed. It will put people out of business and jobs and reduce your fun.

We know its a dumb move, but your opinion isn't as loud as $$$$$$$$$.