Google+

We Recommend

106 comments

  • 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.
  • BladedFalcon - February 6, 2012 7:11 p.m.

    HE AGREES WITH THE GREEDY CORPORATIONS! GET HIM! *Brings out his torch and pitchfork* Seriously though, are we that scary? :P
  • ScrEAMaPiLLar - February 6, 2012 11:56 p.m.

    I <3 you Coop
  • majormoses117 - February 6, 2012 5:51 p.m.

    Instead of locking used games, why don't they just make legislature that allows devs to get some profit from used sales? Seems like it would be a lot simpler to just make retailers pay devs a certain percentage for a used game rather than f*ck their fans over by forcing people to buy new. And make it illegal for a small business (family owned, pawn shop etc.) to sell videogames without registering with a certain company (whether it's the company that made the game, or a new entity that would manage the sales of all used games for the videogames industry). Also, gamers aren't going to be the only ones "up in arms" about locking used games. Retailers are going to take a major hit, too. I bet places like Gamestop get most of their profit off of used games. Stores like that are sure as hell not going to give up without some sort of fight. I understand why devs are upset, and I think there is some middle ground here where devs and gamers can compromise, but I think it is greedy and selfish to force people to buy your game new for more money.
  • Fhiend - February 6, 2012 5:45 p.m.

    Why dont the developers just buy/sell used games themselves?
  • BladedFalcon - February 6, 2012 5:34 p.m.

    Me and my brother both have PS3s, we live in different houses. We both buy most of our games new BUT, we do share them with each other when the other is interested in playing it. There's no sin in this, there's no profit stolen. And there is absolutely no logical reason as to why one of us should buy the same game again for the same console, it's a waste. What developers advocating the use of only allowing new games to be played don't realize, is that they are destroying not only the sales of used games. But also a logical use and commodity of being able to carry your game wherever and lend it or share it with friends. Developers keep on bitching about people buying used games and getting no profit from that. But why would that be? Do they seriously think 60 dollars is a small money that you can just go and hand over on a whim? You want to make more profit from your product? then make it more affordable, use digital distribution, for example. As others here have suggested. But don't punish people for not wanting to waste money on extra copies because you decided to lock down a game on a single console.
  • Shazamin - February 6, 2012 6:18 p.m.

    Well if you're saying you're only worried about you and your brother sharing Playstation games you should read the article again because Microsoft is the only one's talking about implimenting this rule, you would have nothing to worry about. Like you said, "the universe created smart asses like myself to keep you guys in check." So GTFO troll.
  • christian-shaffer - February 6, 2012 6:33 p.m.

    No need to be a dick. He was pointing out a flaw in the idea as a whole. Just because the rumors are about Microsoft, doesn't mean the same couldn't hold true for Sony in the future.
  • BladedFalcon - February 6, 2012 6:40 p.m.

    No worries. In his eagerness to insult me, he left himself wide open to be shut up and corrected, so in a sense, he did me a favor :P Still, thanks for the help ^^
  • BladedFalcon - February 6, 2012 6:36 p.m.

    Yes, because trends that are used with one console have no risk of later being implemented in others. *eyerolls* First of all, you are incorrectly assuming that because i only own a PS3 console for now, I would not consider or be interested in getting the next Console for Microsoft. Before i had a PS3 two years ago, I first owned a 360 for the first 4 years of this generation. So, purely as a potential customer of MS's next console, this news is STILL worrisome to me. Secondly, like I pointed above, jsut because Microsoft started the trend, it doesn't mean Sony or Nintendo wouldn't follow suit later. Just like Nintendo started the motion control trend. So even if I DID only plan to own the next Sony platform, this still is a measure that concerns me. So, nice try to prove yourself smarter, but by assuming to know me (Which you don't) You've stupidly dug yourself into a corner. My concern and complaint about this is still very valid, and thus, I have no reason GTFO. Also, please learn the proper definition of trolling before stupidly applying it into the wrong situations ;)
  • garnsr - February 6, 2012 7:02 p.m.

    This is my problem with increasing digital product. It's getting to be only the very first person gets to use it, you can't pass it along to brothers or parents or anything, or you have to buy another copy.
  • lrem - February 6, 2012 5:29 p.m.

    I buy used games because I can't afford to pay $60 per game. If a game is great, I know the developer, and I've been waiting for it, then yeah, it's a day one purchase at full price for me. If it's not so great, I wait until I can get a cheaper used copy. So really, if they block used sales, I'll just end up getting fewer games, only the great ones. Which is a shame, because I've discovered some great games through used purchases, and since I tend to follow developers with their new games, they'll really only be hurting themselves. The only way I can see this route working at all is if the price of games goes way down (which it won't), or they have price cuts on new games really fast (which tends to happen for games that aren't so great), either way, it seems to be a no-win situation.
  • StrongPillow - February 6, 2012 5:28 p.m.

    Omg. The "I don't have $60" excuse is getting sooo old. Entertainment costs money. Think about it as a per hour senario like most entertainment is charged. Even with a short game you get 6-7 hours worth of entertainment. That is $10 bucks an hour which is pretty average. Then you get the same entitled cry babies wanting endless gameplay, realistic graphics, 60fps yet they can not afford to pay for it. Yes everyone knows YOU are special and YOU should get things for less because YOU can't afford it! I have a system that works for every other sort of entertainment!! SAVE UP FOR IT!! I am going to Cuba in March and guess what, no sort of bitching and moaning got them to cut the ticket prices because I could not afford to go. Use common sense. You want everything for nothing....Well with the way the game industry works we may see nothing. They need your support if you want to continue to see more games with all of the things YOU think you deserve. Suck it up or just don't play games there are cheaper forms of entertainment. Get an iphone.
  • majormoses117 - February 6, 2012 5:46 p.m.

    Ok what you're saying about supporting the devs makes sense, but use some common sense of your own. Higher prices on games means less sales. Less sales means less profit. Less profit means less money to use to make more games. Also, you don't need to bitch and moan to the airlines to get lower prices. Just use whatever brainpower you have and plan your trips in advance. Save a ton of money.
  • Kyo - February 6, 2012 6:02 p.m.

    Wow honestly you couldn't have sounded more like a.. well I don't know the rules for the site too well but I'm sure people will know what I mean.. You actually sit there and type that holier than thou BS about people thinking they're "special" because they can't always afford the full price for games, even games that we all know DAMN WELL are not worth 60 dollars? Really? lol Listen, person, the world isn't that simple not everybody is able to afford 60 dollars for even the most mediocre of games. If devs want us to pay full price then maybe they shouldn't shove crap in our faces half of the time and only give us great AAA games some of the time. Anyway, I'm getting off track, my entire point is... you're defending the greed.. the horrible horrible greed, of the gaming industry as if YOU worked for it.. and if you do? Then you're just part of the problem. I for one like to rent the games that I know for a fact are not worth full price. I'll do it tomorrow infact, with the darkness, 65 bucks for a 6 hour game is Not my idea of smart spending. Now, Kingdoms of Amalur, with 100-200 hours worth of gameplay That is worth 65 bucks. I'm not saying ALL games have to be ridiculously long, but I love RPG's so I'm the kind of person that buys not just for quality but for content. tl;dr You talk as if you're the purest gamer in the world and everyone should look to you for the right way in life. LOL You're not that damn important dude Not everyone has that kind of money to spend on even mediocre games.
  • ca0656 - February 7, 2012 12:41 p.m.

    When you were getting your plane ticket, did you shop around for the cheapest fare, or did you go for the most expansive one? All buying used games is, is shopping around for the cheapest price for the same experance. Get off your soapbox.
  • fullmetallegend - February 6, 2012 5:25 p.m.

    What the developers don't realize, is that a lot of people who buy their games used, wouldn't buy them if they had to pay $60. $60 is not a fair price for someone uncertain about a game to pay. This is just like PC developers counting every pirated copy of a game as a lost sale. 70% of those pirates wouldn't have bought your game and 10% of them bought it anyways. It's pretty much the same for people buying used games. If anything, someone is going to pick up your game used, love it, and then buy the sequel new.
  • DevonOO7 - February 6, 2012 5:17 p.m.

    This is not the way to fight used game sales. Why not have it so people that buy the game new get a code that gives them the first DLC for free(like BF3 did). Then people will be obligated to keep the game and wait for the DLC. No splicing out content or locking people out of multiplayer. Also I doubt Microsoft is stupid enough to block used games on the next Xbox.
  • TheIronMaiden - February 6, 2012 5:16 p.m.

    “I think what most consumers don’t realize,” says Volition's Jameson Durall, “is that every time they buy a used game... all of those profits are going directly to the re-seller.” I think most consumers definitely do realize that the profits go to the re-seller...thats how they stay in business! GameStop makes little to no profit on new sales of games or accessories (was a gamestop manager). I think the used game industry is great as it gives people who can't afford a $60 game a chance to play other games for a cheaper price. Not to mention most places offer returns on used games that you do not like allowing you to pick something else out for a one time exchange. I understand devs lose profit over this, but gamers also take a huge hit on the wallet and in my opinion it would be a change for the worse. I really hope this doesn't become the new trend because gamers will definitely be "up in arms" for quite some time.
  • cubine - February 6, 2012 5:16 p.m.

    I would probably have to stop playing games if every game I bought was $60. I buy basically all of my games used and 1-2 years late at this point because I just can't afford new games (excluding cheap indie titles). I only made two exceptions in the last year: Deus Ex and Skyrim. Otherwise, my purchases for the past year year have all been used and older: Mass Effect 2, AC Brotherhood, Halo Reach, etc.

Showing 81-100 of 106 comments

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

OR…

Connect with Facebook

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