Second?
This could be very bad news for used games!
- Thread starter biron_w
- Start date
Second?
that would work out, but yet again greed is focus of these companys, so it wont happen
If I buy a used car, the original manufacturers never get any of the cash and they don't seem to mind
(HA. FIRST PAGE.)
Glad I didn't put money on it
Associate
Simple fact
If there wasnt a 2nd hand market for ps3 games.. i wouldnt use the ps3 for gaming. I never pay £40 for a game (unless i really really REALLLLLLY want it E.g mgs4) I'm not alone. Im sure all the 10yo's i see in the game shop every saturday, counting their pocket money, trying to scrape up enough to buy fifa 10 for £9.99 will agree. I know you could say "well they'll be in the same position as they are now." true, but i wouldnt even buy the console + the add'ons online. If every one did this, ps4 would soon be the next Dreamcast.
Im a pc gamer, and i LOVE steam. Cheap games + no boxes = adam a very happy boy
When it comes to consoles, id HATE to see sony in charge of a ps3 version of steam. You can guarentee you wont get sales unless its an 'indy' game or a ps1 game.
If there wasnt a 2nd hand market for ps3 games.. i wouldnt use the ps3 for gaming. I never pay £40 for a game (unless i really really REALLLLLLY want it E.g mgs4) I'm not alone. Im sure all the 10yo's i see in the game shop every saturday, counting their pocket money, trying to scrape up enough to buy fifa 10 for £9.99 will agree. I know you could say "well they'll be in the same position as they are now." true, but i wouldnt even buy the console + the add'ons online. If every one did this, ps4 would soon be the next Dreamcast.
Im a pc gamer, and i LOVE steam. Cheap games + no boxes = adam a very happy boy
When it comes to consoles, id HATE to see sony in charge of a ps3 version of steam. You can guarentee you wont get sales unless its an 'indy' game or a ps1 game.
Last edited:
Caporegime
if that did happen, then competition for game sales dies, prices arent £25 supermarket launch day bonanza. sony and microsoft become monopolistic entities selling the hardware and being hte only people who also distribute the games and content via theier online systems:/
whilst that may be true, the profit is made from servicing the car. from selling parts that are bespoke made and only available through the manufacturer themselves, like... a toyota master cylinder. or other bits.
so over the life cycle of a car sale, the initial sell and profit made is only a fraction of what is to be expected over the next 5-10 years.
when you sell a game, you sella game, theres no additional revenue to come from it unless its via dlc.
Last edited:
Associate
But the point is they're losing money by people buying used games rather then new ones. The question is though, which would cost them more?
Caporegime
They aren't losing money. They're just not making it. The two are not the same.
Soldato
there would have to be a big improvement in internet speeds globally before a download only console is a viable option.
i dread to think how long it would take me to download a top end PS3 game (i.e MGS4) let alone a next gen game which will no doubt be 50-100Gb minimum and i definatly wouldnt want to have to stream HD FMV's or if it would even be possible with current speeds to stream HD3D FMV's which no doubt will be available in the next gen of consoles from the go.
one side of me though makes me think it would be quite humourus having the dodgy dvd and cd stalls being replaced with the same people selling genuinne copys of console games yet still being closed down by the cops.
personally i dont think it will happen in this or the next generation of consoles as it may seem viable i think it will limit sales as although i work in a decent paid fulltime job i have a family to support and games come second and i generally only get what i want preowned or trade in my current games towards it, unless its a game i must have.
i dread to think how long it would take me to download a top end PS3 game (i.e MGS4) let alone a next gen game which will no doubt be 50-100Gb minimum and i definatly wouldnt want to have to stream HD FMV's or if it would even be possible with current speeds to stream HD3D FMV's which no doubt will be available in the next gen of consoles from the go.
one side of me though makes me think it would be quite humourus having the dodgy dvd and cd stalls being replaced with the same people selling genuinne copys of console games yet still being closed down by the cops.
personally i dont think it will happen in this or the next generation of consoles as it may seem viable i think it will limit sales as although i work in a decent paid fulltime job i have a family to support and games come second and i generally only get what i want preowned or trade in my current games towards it, unless its a game i must have.
Soldato
It wouldn't be that bad. What internet connection do you have today and what did you have 5 years ago?
Next gen games have no reason to be that big though, far superior looking PC games aren't anywhere near 50-100Gb. Metro 2033 is way ahead of current console visuals for example. (PC version obviously)
Only reason games on PS3 take up so much space is they can just put uncompressed stuff on the disc and not worry about space or how long it'd take to download.
Also, the judge's assertion craps all over the long-established first sale doctrine..
I think the car analogy is quite apt. I don't see how it is any different. Should we ban the sale of all second hand goods such as TVs, PCs and fridges?
I think the idea of including extra content for those buying brand new is probably the best approach. Having to pay extra for it if you buy the game second hand (like ME2 etc) seems a good. I don't think it should be aspects of the game such as online play though.
Caporegime
Aye, it does if applied to all sales. What he says is fine for the restrictive licenses in the specific case that he is dealing with, but it can't possibly be applied to all sales of software.
Have to disagree on that. Maybe they should only charge when you download content from their server and stop asking for money when the content is already on the disc.
Therefore people who download the DLC more than once are charged for it since this apparently is the "ongoing" cost. If it's on the disc and you own the disc, why can they charge you? That falls foul under what this topic is about, publishers' amount of control over the consumer.
Got to remember that EA are already cashing in on the secondhand games market with their Game Pass which features in newer titles like Madden 11 and Tiger Woods 11. You get a code with the game which allows you to access the online features and play online etc, or you can activate a 7 day trial. If you sell the game, the purchaser has to pay £10 for a new Game Pass which then lets them access the game.
So they get the money from the initial sale which includes the Game Pass, following that each subsequent sale of the initial game nets them £10 each rather than jack squitt as it currently does.
It won't be long before other companies follow suit, mark my words!
So they get the money from the initial sale which includes the Game Pass, following that each subsequent sale of the initial game nets them £10 each rather than jack squitt as it currently does.
It won't be long before other companies follow suit, mark my words!
Associate
the court ruling is for autocad software that costs thousands of pounds so people using second hand copies are making work and making money without buying a license from the company which means there losing a lot of money i dont think this will move down to games
You think because of the cost of the software itself gives the publisher the right to withhold second hand sales?
In that case, I'm going to build a house and in the sale agreement, make it impossible for it to be sold on or passed on to someone else.
There is a reason that software companies produce new products, they don't make profit of software that they haven't iterated on.