+1 i agree
Just the same as almost everything that gets sold secondhand....
Example.. someone buys your GPU card off you and nvidia/ATI get nothing..
Last edited:
EA Blocks Multiplayer Mode on secondhand Console Games
- Thread starter chaparral
- Start date
Just the same as almost everything that gets sold secondhand....
Example.. someone buys your GPU card off you and nvidia/ATI get nothing..
Who is to say that the first company will make 500,000 sales at £30?
It's been proven that the lower the price, the more the sales go up, exponentially. It's not a linear scale, I think that's where so many people get mixed up, they seem to apply a linear scale to the sales of games at reduced rates.
A game that sells 100,000 at £20 doesn't sell another 100,000 when it's been reduced by 50%, see what Tefal said with the 1000% increase.
Knock 50% off and a 1000% increase would mean 1 million sales, not 200,000.
That means they've made more money than they would have ever made keeping it at the original price.
No it won't. Some people will always prefer hard copies of games to digital copies. Some games can offer things like comics and maps and manuals and fancy CE boxes in a hard copy that can't be given in a digital edition.
ISPs from what i've seen frequently bitch about people paying for unlimited bandwidth and actually using it, remember the whole thing about BBC iPlayer?
Not to mention you'd have to combat the entire industry like HMV and Game. So they'd just have to deal with selling DVDs/Bluray? Well why couldn't you just do digital downloads with those 2? That'd be a pretty big fight from that industry who'd effectively be put out of business or be reduced to selling t-shirts
The second hand market will eventually be made unfeasible i have no doubt. I guess the only bright point about all this is that EA finally had the balls to admit all this anti-piracy bull**** is because they wanted to screw over second hand buyers. But it won't be for any other reason than the companies want more money and are too single minded to do it without screwing everyone over.
Even though I hate crappy DRM, Piracy blaming etc etc I personally don't mind this, second hand sales don't see any money go the publishers/developers. Yeh it sucks, I remember buying second hand snes game (those were the days). All in all buying second hand games has the same affect as piracy for game makers, and thus a problem.
Can you explain to me why I should? If I create a product and sell it, I've got my money for that product.
And why do you think it's down to you to decide that? You buy a second hand graphics card, you're still getting the full product, if I bought a second hand graphics card and it didn't work as it should, I'd be sending it back, that's not an excuse at all.
I myself would be annoyed too if I didn't work in game dev but doing so has open up my eyes to the other side of the fence.
End of day it's life so get on with it!
No it hasn't opened up your eyes to the "Other side of the fence" you're simply being greedy, you've sold your product once, under no circumstances should you expect payment a second time around for the product you've already sold, it doesn't work like that.
Games developers are simply being greedy, they can see people making money on their products, after they've been sold retail, and are now trying to devise a way of getting their greedy hands on some of that money.
I seriously can't understand why anyone would even suggest that this is fair and reasonable.
It's ridiculous and quite plainly obvious what the companies are up to.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 13 May 2003
- Posts
- 34,561
- Location
- Warwickshire
Tefal's link is crap, an idiot could see that.
I will accept I'm wrong when EA backtrack on their scheme, citing a serious drop in game profits.
Why SHOULD they see any money? People who think they should must be living in some fairytale land or something.
Do you see Volkswagen hissyfitting that they're not getting any money from the sale of second hand cars? No, because they know full well it's none of their business.
It doesn't belong to them anyone once they've sold it the first time.
All I can see this doing is ultimately lowering all sales for EA, not just secondhand sales.
You seem to have a stinky brown ring around your neck, you might want to clean that off.
Are you just playing the stereotypical ignorant ******* card here?
Caporegime
- Joined
- 13 May 2003
- Posts
- 34,561
- Location
- Warwickshire
I love all you hard-done-by gamer geek hippies citing unfairness. Pay, or don't pay. Just shut up about it, please?
Hard done by?
What are you talking about? Additionally, do you understand the point of a discussion forum?
Caporegime
- Joined
- 13 May 2003
- Posts
- 34,561
- Location
- Warwickshire
Hard done by?
Figure it out.
No, that's why I've been discussing the issue for the whole day.
Figure it out.
No, that's why I've been discussing the issue for the whole day.
You haven't been discussing, you've effectively been repeating the phrase "you have no say in the matter, now go out and pay for it so i can get back to sticking my head up EA's arse".
Figure it out.
No, that's why I've been discussing the issue for the whole day.
Hahahaha, what a foolish person.
Associate
- Joined
- 26 Jan 2009
- Posts
- 894
Ok maybe not zilch but not as much as you could have because some 3rd party company earns most their profit on trade ins just just aint right.
So would I because I would have bought that graphics card in good faith as working condition, where as in this case I would be aware of the missing content before purchase, so I don't see your point here
Nah I don't work for EA and if I did I wouldn't be making them decisions, I myself aint being greedy.
It's none of your business if the third party company earns money on your product because you've already made the sale for that one product.
According to your logic, suppliers should get another sum of money when a retailer sells a product that they got from the supplier.
So would I because I would have bought that graphics card in good faith as working condition, where as in this case I would be aware of the missing content before purchase, so I don't see your point here
You don't see my point? Well up until now, any game any one ever bought second hand, they expect a fully working product. You're acting like this is standard practise when it isn't, why do you think people are so bothered by it? It's completely against the norm and rather irrational that EA expects to be paid multiple times for a single item, simply because it changes ownership.
The behaviour exhibited is greedy. I don't understand how anyone can argue for a company making money multiple times on a single product.
It's a business model that EA are trying to invent because they're greedy. They've realised that complaining about piracy no longer works, so they need another method to make more money rather than by simply selling products that they make.
You've made your sale, that item no longer belongs to you, you do not expect to continually make money on that particular item because some one chooses to sell it on.
I guess I see your point, my feelings were more towards the smaller developers that need all the in-come they can get, but I can understand it being another form of a money spin for the much bigger company's like Activition etc. I guess thats why we see a lot more DLC content, pay and free for fresh retail sold games to act as a incentive.
It's only ever the large devs that would ever do this. Small indie devs are generally down to earth, additionally, the prices they sell their games at is so low that there's no real need for people to sell them on secondhand.
That's why a lot of indie devs have done away with all forms of DRM, it's clear to them that DRM is pointless, it'll ALWAYS be compromised, and when it does, the only people suffering from it are those that have bought it, which isn't what should be happening.
There's a very good reason that it's EA doing this and not some one like Introversion.
EA are known for being greedy.