• darkraichu34 - February 6, 2012 6:56 p.m.

    As a collector, who still purchases and plays Gamecube and NES games, this concerns me. What about years after the game comes out?
  • r200reviews - February 6, 2012 7:30 p.m.

    That's what concerns me as well. Considering just how difficult it is to find a new copy of any game released before 1995 at this point, I'm worried for kids like me in the future who will look back and want to play the games that will be classic games at that point, but won't be able to because the console itself won't let them. That could lead to a whole generation ahead of us not being able to play years of great games, which would certainly make me sad in the future.
  • Hidab - February 6, 2012 9:53 p.m.

    Screw the kids; in the future I want to be able to buy a copy of The Last of Us, when The Last of Us In Space 3: Revengeance comes out so that I can experience the story from the beginning.
  • Scoob - February 6, 2012 6:53 p.m.

    No one is forcing them to not make much of a profit. Scale down the graphics a little, lay off the unimportant things that take time like turning the game into a story (pretty sure writing, voice acting, and cinematics are killer on the budget). Give me a guy with a sword, great gameplay, engaging monsters,an ingenious dungeon to crawl and/or world to explore and I'm happy enough. I've steered the world away from certain doom so many times that I don't even care anymore. I don't know what it is about the used game market that gets to people so much. Maybe it's because those of you who are against it haven't struck out on your own yet. But when you do, you'll understand how great the used market is. Chances are, your first place will have used everything, from couches, to beds, coffee tables, kitchen, etc. Then when you have your first child, you're going to have plenty of used clothing, used buggy, used toys, used crib, and so on. How is that so different than buying a used video game? Are we expected to tell new parents that they can't have our unneeded stuff because it wouldn't be fair to Fisher Price if nobody is buying their toys brand new? Yeah, I don't buy used games at all, but I know way too many poor people to find it in me to blast the used goods market. More often than not, when I step into EB Games, people are trading their old stuff for new stuff anyway.
  • RoxasorSora - February 6, 2012 6:46 p.m.

    If only used games could give a profit to the developers.
  • aj27 - February 6, 2012 6:43 p.m.

    This is ridiculous, if they ban the sale of used games, what would the retailers do, sure the developers need to make money but the stores who sell their games do too and used game sis one of their main source of income the last thing i would want is to see Gamestop go down the drain and be forced to hope that walmart somehow has a copy of big releases left when i get to the store to buy a copy
  • ScrEAMaPiLLar - February 6, 2012 11:44 p.m.

    Uh, buy it off of Amazon or get it off one of the networks. That is the future. The industry has to change, to adjust to the times. Digital distribution will win out and in the long run will be cheaper for us gamers. Just look at the Steam Calculator on your account.
  • MasterBhater - February 6, 2012 6:40 p.m.

    Well, I'm not wasting my money on a game from these guys then
  • mackshizzle - February 6, 2012 6:35 p.m.

    Sometimes you just can't afford to pay 60 dollars for a game.
  • ScrEAMaPiLLar - February 6, 2012 11:52 p.m.

    Or you save your money like a real adult or buy things when on sale. Tis capitalism girls and boys.
  • christian-shaffer - February 6, 2012 6:29 p.m.

    This is my biggest problem with it. Say you just purchased a brand new $60 game and you put it in and finish it. After finishing it, you realize that it was fun, but either possibly not worth the $60 or you just don't think it will have much replay value. Now you're stuck with a game that you have enjoyed and beaten and you have no choice but to either hold on to it or throw it away. There would be absolutely no resale value whatsoever, which, in my opinion, would cause you to buy significantly fewer games. If they do go forward with this, I may honestly consider not playing video games anymore due to the fact that it wouldn't be affordable. Corporations complain that they don't make enough money, but in most cases, they are still making significantly more than the average gamer. Why screw over the consumer? It just doesn't make sense. Want to sell games? Make it affordable. It's that simple.
  • christian-shaffer - February 6, 2012 6:49 p.m.

    Having said this, I still don't think that the next Xbox, or any console in the foreseeable future will have this technology built in. I think the online backlash to the rumor alone has shown that it would be an incredibly poor decision on Microsoft's part. I know I will never purchase a gaming system that doesn't allow me the freedom to use the content I purchased as I see fit.
  • ChaosEternal - February 6, 2012 6:27 p.m.

    “We put [games] on the shelves for only $60,” “[games] for only $60,” “only $60,” I see the problem here... While I certainly want the publishers to get the money they need and would hopefully get after working hard to make a good game, $60 is quite a bit of money. While it may not be too much if you have money to throw around, or rarely buy games, but if you buy multiple games within a relatively short time period, the cost adds up. Nobody wants to be paying so much money half a year or longer afterwards. Either they need to cut production costs, lower prices in large amounts sooner, or try something like Steam. I have 71 games on Steam many of which I got pretty cheap. That is likely money the developers likely would have never gotten out of me. It can work, but I am just restating points many others have given before. ^.^
  • Julian94 - February 7, 2012 2:32 a.m.

    Are you guys seriously complaining about a new game costing just 60$? Here in Norway a new game costs ~103$, and after a year it might, MIGHT, be down to 60$. So please stop complaining about a new game costing 60$.
  • chrisat928 - February 6, 2012 6:24 p.m.

    Do people not understand that developers and publishers need to make money in order to keep those games coming out? Look at THQ, they have a few decent series' that are enjoyable to play, but if they can't survive, those series will go away.
  • SumthingStupid - February 6, 2012 6:20 p.m.

    what if i want to buy a game that is like 7 years old, how will i find a new copy unless i can buy it digitally, and you cant even bring a game over to a friends house or let anybody borrow a game, so this is like super shitty drm
  • celticwhisper - February 6, 2012 6:16 p.m.

    “Even though the consumers would be up in arms about it at first...they will grow to understand why [the measure's being implemented] and that it won’t kill them.” You're right. Used-game lockouts won't kill consumers. However, the boycotts resulting from consumer OUTRAGE at your blatant money-grab and attempted end-run around First Sale Doctrine very well may kill your business. See you at the poorhouse, Durall. And I won't have one whit of sympathy for you.
  • MadMan - February 6, 2012 6:10 p.m.

  • GR HollanderCooper - February 6, 2012 5:56 p.m.

    *walks into the comment section* *looks around* *slowly backs out*
  • bass88 - February 6, 2012 6:29 p.m.

    No, you don't. Get back here! There is no escape.
  • profile0000 - February 6, 2012 6:51 p.m.

    Coop and bass88, both of you officially made my day. Please pat yourselves (or each other) on the back.

Showing 61-80 of 105 comments

Join the Discussion
Add a comment (HTML tags are not allowed.)
Characters remaining: 5000


Connect with Facebook

Log in using Facebook to share comments, games, status update and other activity easily with your Facebook feed.