A game's longevity is based on the gamer's interest in it, not the physical condition of the game itself.

But the physical condition of the game itself certainly can be compromised as much as for a car. How well you take care of either one makes a drastic difference in how long you can use it. However, unlike a car that will run on the same roads for the entirety of the foreseeable future, my PS2 games are useless now that my PS2 has broken and my PS3 can't run them.

The game either works fine or it doesn't at all. If it doesn't work, it's faulty and shouldn't be sold.
Your car fall somewhere between "Good as new" and "Scrap", while media doesn't do that.
Again, that's really beyond the scope of what I'm saying, which is: Online passes.
As for your PS2 being broken, that's really not relevant, is it? Why would you buy a new or used game for a broken console? A broken console fucks both, regardless of the game's condition.
An unusable road also fucks new and old cars.

But again, we're talking online passes here.

Blackjack wrote:

collegestudent22 wrote:But the gap isn't closed at all, really. All the money that is spent on used games comes, eventually, back into new games. Like I said, Crackdown 2 was only a big success because of the used sales for Crackdown. I, and many other gamers like myself, commonly trade in games to purchase brand new ones - and that has become harder to do.

It had nothing to do with the massive marketing it had to back it? Or even the fact that everyone who bought it got into the Halo 3 MP beta (Cocaine, essentially)?

The Halo 3 beta drove sales of the original - and caused the extraordinarily high percentage of used sales for the original (due to people trading it in after the beta was done). But the used sales of the original drove much of the success of the sequel.

Are you entitled a "try before you buy" scheme now? It's a sensible idea, convenient too. Publishers disagree.

Entitled to? No - and I'm not saying that publishers don't have a right to, essentially, package a multiplayer in with the game new and sell the multiplayer separately used. I'm saying it is a stupid idea. I'm not entitled to a beta, either, but I would still recommend publishers release them for untested IPs.

If you happily bought Fifa 11 preowned, what's to stop you from buying Fifa 12 preowned too?

I probably will. And EA will see not a dime of that sale - which is my point here.

These games last a year, don't they? Are publishers to simply take your word for it? Let you try the first one for, as far as the publisher sees, free before you decide if it's worthing giving them money for their merchandise?

If the alternative is to not have the proceeds from the sale in the future, then it seems worth it, especially since someone else had to buy my copy originally. Plus, it's only a small part of the game, anyway.

My point being that plenty of people do buy PC games, and trading in doesn't even cross their minds.

Some people don't care about cost all that much, either. Does that mean it doesn't matter to anyone?

Yes, because publishers don't deserve their due unless every single game they make is game of the year.

Publishers get "their due" from new sales. Again, many things are sold used, without the original creator getting paid - cars, books, movies, etc. Are all of them not getting "their due"?

Because only crap games no-one wants to buy get traded in?

The better the game, the fewer copies get traded in. If a game is really bad, more copies of it end up on the shelf - both used and new.

A scratch on the disc will not effect the media experience in any way. If it does: Firstly, what the hell are you doing to your discs? Secondly, it's broken, not simply "used". I buy used media myself, don't get me wrong. Only on a rare occassion has there even been noticable scratches on it.
My point is, that media is very much a Works/Broken deal, whereas cars are a more gradual degradation that, in turn, lowers it's value.

The car drops in value significantly the moment it comes off the lot - is it still suffering from "gradual degradation"?

I think part of the problem the publishers had was that gaming stores had moved to a position of encouraging used sales over new; to the point where bringing a new copy to the counter would see the cashier asking if you'd prefer a used copy — this is not something I've seen over here (though I do see a lot of "trade in this two-week old game to get this new one for half price" or "trade in 4 games and get this new one for £5" giving the store a nearly new copy of a game that's still in the charts with a significant mark-up opportunity) but I'm led to believe Gamestop became somewhat notorious for doing this.

I wouldn't buy used games simply because of how shitty the deals tend to be unless the game is less than a few months old — especially if you're trading in for cash rather than store credit.

While Gamestop does that, they also heavily push preorders of new games. And those deals here tend to be "trade in recent used games for extra credit toward new game X", so it kind of balances out.

BtEO wrote:I wouldn't buy used games simply because of how shitty the deals tend to be unless the game is less than a few months old — especially if you're trading in for cash rather than store credit.

Shitty deals? They can only be shitty when comparing them to something else - like selling used yourself on Craigslist or something. Otherwise, the alternative is a game that you never play collecting dust on your shelf (or just being thrown out) and you are out that $20 or so that you could have had. That seems like the shitty deal to me.

And why would you trade in games for cash at Gamestop? It doesn't seem like selling your used games is something that you would expect to help a whole lot if you are tight on cash.

Most games on my shelf I'd be lucky to get £2 for — in credit. I don't know if Gamestop is better in that regard, but generally here you'd be very lucky to see more than £5 6 months after release for anything but the most popular titles.

collegestudent22 wrote:The Halo 3 beta drove sales of the original - and caused the extraordinarily high percentage of used sales for the original (due to people trading it in after the beta was done). But the used sales of the original drove much of the success of the sequel.

Please read that again. Really think about it this time.

Entitled to? No - and I'm not saying that publishers don't have a right to, essentially, package a multiplayer in with the game new and sell the multiplayer separately used. I'm saying it is a stupid idea. I'm not entitled to a beta, either, but I would still recommend publishers release them for untested IPs.

Agree/disagree. I don't think it's a stupid idea, just an inconvenient one.
I'd also like to see more betas for games, however I don't believe that it's either a good or bad idea, depends on the title I suppose.

I probably will. And EA will see not a dime of that sale - which is my point here.

And that's exacty why EA wants to make you buy an online pass. They financed the game and they want to see the money for it. Is that unfair?

If the alternative is to not have the proceeds from the sale in the future, then it seems worth it, especially since someone else had to buy my copy originally. Plus, it's only a small part of the game, anyway.

Saying "I'll buy it new next time" is quite a weak argument, isn't it? You could easily say the same that next time too.

Some people don't care about cost all that much, either. Does that mean it doesn't matter to anyone?

Does that mean it matters to everyone?
My point was that PC gamers don't care about trade-ins, and are largely completely unaffected by this system. Why did we bring them up again?

Publishers get "their due" from new sales. Again, many things are sold used, without the original creator getting paid - cars, books, movies, etc. Are all of them not getting "their due"?

Technically, yes. They aren't. We're just lucky enough that they can't really do anything about it.
I still think the car one is a poor example, however.

The better the game, the fewer copies get traded in. If a game is really bad, more copies of it end up on the shelf - both used and new.

You just told me that used-game sales were what were making sequels succeses. Are people trading in and buying good games or not?

The car drops in value significantly the moment it comes off the lot - is it still suffering from "gradual degradation"?

Yes.
I'm sorry, what's your point here?

Blackjack wrote:And that's exacty why EA wants to make you buy an online pass. They financed the game and they want to see the money for it. Is that unfair?

What is "fair" is a pretty poor argument when it comes to the free enterprise on a massive scale, even if the concept of "fair" weren't so subjective. Some would say that it's "fair" to charge you money based on time spent playing instead of the one-time purchase of a perpetual license, and that the charge should be based on how much you're willing to pay to see a 90-minute movie. If you'd be elated to pay only $6 to go see a 90-minute movie, then why wouldn't they just charge you $4/hr for this massively more complex, interactive production? You don't even have to buy wildly expensive popcorn and sodas, and you can play in the comfort of your own home! Sounds like a great deal! So you spent, let's see, maybe 40 hours on the campaign between the initial pass through and then on the really hard difficulty level, plus you spend a couple hours a day on multiplayer, so they'll send you a bill of $216 for the first two weeks. Surely you can't say that's unfair.

In reality, the bottom line question is not whether it's fair but whether it works. If it's a hit and people play it anyway, then it's something the market will bear. And if all games producers collude to implement this plan for every game, then you won't have a choice, so you can just go get bent.

Personally, I think it's fair that a publisher charges you for an online pass when all that online pass does is allow you to play the multiplayer.
On their servers.
Using their bandwidth.

But hey, no, giving anyone who wants it a free ride is good, too.

Do I have the option to run my own servers, or do they force me to use theirs? Do I have their guarantee that they will always have their servers up and running tomorrow, next month, next year, next decade, and that they won't go out of business and shut everything down next week? What if I only want to play against my family and friends directly instead of some random 12-year-old troll?

It's like you're calling me selfish and thoughtless for using the resources they require me to use. It's as though I grumble about the government outlawing private vehicle ownership and your retort is, "Hey, the filthy bus you're forced to ride is free, you jerk."

Blackjack wrote:

I probably will. And EA will see not a dime of that sale - which is my point here.

And that's exacty why EA wants to make you buy an online pass. They financed the game and they want to see the money for it. Is that unfair?

Fairness is irrelevant - nothing should be based on what's fair. They financed the game and they want to see some of the money for it - yeah, that makes sense. And I'm sure that Chevy would like to see some of the money for used cars that get sold at dealers.

The real question is two-fold. Can they get some of the money back? Yes, this is what the Online Pass does. The other part is whether it is good business sense to do so. I am arguing here that it is bad business sense - that the result is actually going to be less money in the long run. Telling me that it is totally reasonable for them to try to make money back on used games is irrelevant to that point.

If the alternative is to not have the proceeds from the sale in the future, then it seems worth it, especially since someone else had to buy my copy originally. Plus, it's only a small part of the game, anyway.

Saying "I'll buy it new next time" is quite a weak argument, isn't it? You could easily say the same that next time too.

The argument has to be based on what is happening, not what could happen. And what is happening, in my estimation, is that people that really like a game they bought used tend to buy the sequels new. Thus, every year CoD sells more new copies. Thus, new AAA franchises are born - such as Assassin's Creed.

Some people don't care about cost all that much, either. Does that mean it doesn't matter to anyone?

Does that mean it matters to everyone?
My point was that PC gamers don't care about trade-ins, and are largely completely unaffected by this system. Why did we bring them up again?

My point was that they were in the minority. Something about "PC gaming being dead" that circles around every few years. It obviously isn't, but neither is it the thriving community of innovative, creative and numerous games that it once was. Now, it's mostly multi-platform titles and RTS games. Also, WoW and its thousand MMO clones.

The better the game, the fewer copies get traded in. If a game is really bad, more copies of it end up on the shelf - both used and new.

You just told me that used-game sales were what were making sequels succeses. Are people trading in and buying good games or not?

They trade them in, but not quickly. For example, I didn't get into the Halo series until I played the first one. I didn't actually play the first one until 2004, after it had been out for three years. I bought it for $10 used. And have bought every single Halo game released since, brand new, including Halo 2.

The car drops in value significantly the moment it comes off the lot - is it still suffering from "gradual degradation"?

Yes.
I'm sorry, what's your point here?

My point is that driving off the lot, and then immediately back on, doesn't change the condition of the car one iota. It is identical both used and new, in this situation. If the value was derived solely from its condition, as you seem to assume games should be, then there should be no such significant drop in value.

Deacon wrote:Do I have the option to run my own servers, or do they force me to use theirs? Do I have their guarantee that they will always have their servers up and running tomorrow, next month, next year, next decade, and that they won't go out of business and shut everything down next week? What if I only want to play against my family and friends directly instead of some random 12-year-old troll?

You're using a console. Not being able to run your own servers is part of console culture. Whether that's good or bad (bad), it's besides the point. The pass lets you use their[ servers. If that happens to be the only option, chalk that up as a flaw in the game, but the point stand that the pass let's you hang in their house.
Garauntee? No, of course not, but generally they give notice before shutting things down forever. If you deem the time between notice and shut down is worth it, go for it; if not, don't bother.
If you use their servers to play your family and friends, it makes no difference to playing that random 12 year old. The lack of alterior options is a game problem, not a server problem.

It's like you're calling me selfish and thoughtless for using the resources they require me to use. It's as though I grumble about the government outlawing private vehicle ownership and your retort is, "Hey, the filthy bus you're forced to ride is free, you jerk."

Actually, no, my retort is not like that, "you jerk". [Deacon, why do I feel like I want this conversation to become petty when it's between us? =p]
It's like, if your private car was PC (dedicated servers) and the bus was console.
I'm telling you to pay for the bus if you use it.

collegestudent22 wrote:Fairness is irrelevant - nothing should be based on what's fair. They financed the game and they want to see some of the money for it - yeah, that makes sense. And I'm sure that Chevy would like to see some of the money for used cars that get sold at dealers.

Well, seeing as my initial point, back at the start of the thread, was that "Online passes sound fair enough to me.", I'd say that fairness in totally relevant.

The real question is two-fold. Can they get some of the money back? Yes, this is what the Online Pass does. The other part is whether it is good business sense to do so. I am arguing here that it is bad business sense - that the result is actually going to be less money in the long run. Telling me that it is totally reasonable for them to try to make money back on used games is irrelevant to that point.

Firstly then, I disagree. It's not bad business sense, and I say it helps sustain developers in the long run.
That's my opinion at least, I havn't the numbers to hand, I'm afraid.

And what is happening, in my estimation, is that people that really like a game they bought used tend to buy the sequels new. Thus, every year CoD sells more new copies. Thus, new AAA franchises are born - such as Assassin's Creed.

I agree. I've done the same myself, actually.

My point was that they were in the minority. Something about "PC gaming being dead" that circles around every few years. It obviously isn't, but neither is it the thriving community of innovative, creative and numerous games that it once was. Now, it's mostly multi-platform titles and RTS games. Also, WoW and its thousand MMO clones.

I could not disagree more. I'll grant you that PC games don't sell as much as consoles (though I believe the gap is not as large as people believe). However, PCs are easily the more innovated, creative and numerously.... gamed (Ah, words, how I control thee) platform. Indie developers all learn to get their feet on PCs, creativity can be safely explored without dangers so easily on the PC. I mean, hell, Minecraft goes to show how creative and innovative and successful someone can be on the PC.
I also disagree that it's mostly multi-platform titles and RTS games. Sure, most RTS are on PC because consoles don't suit them, and multi-platform games are on... well multiple platforms, but the PC has so much more going for it. PC-only FPS games, RPGs, non-Wow clones (Tera online, anyone?)

They trade them in, but not quickly. For example, I didn't get into the Halo series until I played the first one. I didn't actually play the first one until 2004, after it had been out for three years. I bought it for $10 used. And have bought every single Halo game released since, brand new, including Halo 2.

Gaming has exploded since Halo 1 (which, btw, didn't have online multiplayer). Personally, I don't find it's very long at all until I can find hit games on the second hand shelf after release. With so many people gaming these days, so many people are also trading them back in on completion.
But that's just my experience.

My point is that driving off the lot, and then immediately back on, doesn't change the condition of the car one iota. It is identical both used and new, in this situation. If the value was derived solely from its condition, as you seem to assume games should be, then there should be no such significant drop in value.

No, I don't think games should be valued on their condition. In fact, quite the opposite. I've been opposed to that idea from the beginning of this analogy.
Games are valued on the content of the disc. The condition of the disc is completely and utterly irrelevant, until the condition of the disc has degraded to the point where it no longer runs correctly.
If it does not run correctly, it should not be sold.

Blackjack wrote:Well, seeing as my initial point, back at the start of the thread, was that "Online passes sound fair enough to me.", I'd say that fairness in totally relevant.

Please tell me you did not just take an idiomatic turn of phrase and try to later parse it literally to fit your argument. Now that is Fugglian.

What's most interesting to me is that this whole thing isn't interesting to me. I just don't play console games much anymore. I barely play PC games, and those are generally just the crown jewels available through Steam, such as most recently Portal 2 and Left 4 Dead. I'm perfectly willing to let the already massively profitable record labels movie studios game distributors like EA continue to shoot themselves in the foot, fighting users, not letting them pay for and enjoy the content in the manner of their choosing, forcing them to do it there way in order to squeeze as much blood from that turnip as possible and being surprised when their finicky systems upset their consumer. EA already has a long-standing track record of repeatedly punching their customers and then crapping in the wound, so this kind of treatment doesn't surprise me.

Blackjack wrote:

collegestudent22 wrote:Fairness is irrelevant - nothing should be based on what's fair. They financed the game and they want to see some of the money for it - yeah, that makes sense. And I'm sure that Chevy would like to see some of the money for used cars that get sold at dealers.

Well, seeing as my initial point, back at the start of the thread, was that "Online passes sound fair enough to me.", I'd say that fairness in totally relevant.

I'd say that just makes your initial point irrelevant, because it has no bearing on whether the statements I made in starting this point were true or not. I never said that online passes were "unfair" - I said they were bad, which I meant in both a "this is really annoying" sense for consumers, and a "this will cause publishers and retailers to actually lose money". Now, I think we can agree that having to purchase an extra thing - instead of both at the same time - is somewhat annoying. The only debate is about whether they will make money or not - and since one cannot really put forth statistics for might-have-beens, we are kind of at an impasse.

"Fairness", though, is really irrelevant for just about everything. The world doesn't run on what is "fair", it runs on logic and reason. Trying to run it on subjective, vague, emotional concepts like "fairness" will only cause the logical basis of the world to crumble, and lead to senseless chaos and needless suffering.

My point was that they were in the minority. Something about "PC gaming being dead" that circles around every few years. It obviously isn't, but neither is it the thriving community of innovative, creative and numerous games that it once was. Now, it's mostly multi-platform titles and RTS games. Also, WoW and its thousand MMO clones.

I could not disagree more. I'll grant you that PC games don't sell as much as consoles (though I believe the gap is not as large as people believe). However, PCs are easily the more innovated, creative and numerously.... gamed (Ah, words, how I control thee) platform.

Well, if it isn't as large as people believe, that could be proven with statistics. If, you know, PC publishers and retailers - like Valve - would release sales data. The fact that high sales data could be a good marketing tool, yet is not released, implies a bit, IMO.

Indie developers all learn to get their feet on PCs, creativity can be safely explored without dangers so easily on the PC. I mean, hell, Minecraft goes to show how creative and innovative and successful someone can be on the PC.

Minecraft is an aberration - an exception - in the modern gaming industry. Most indie developers (and I say this as an aspiring indie developer) don't make money, or even become really successful. The majority of them just end up with a "portfolio" that could assist them in showing potential developers that they have the skills to work there.

Also, I would say that the biggest reason that they develop PC games first is merely because you need a PC to program the game. Requiring other machinery for testing is an additional cost that most indie developers cannot afford - especially given the annual subscription required to use a standard console for that purpose.

PC-only FPS games

Like, what? Crysis? Oh, wait, that's coming out on consoles soon (and it was only really "good" for graphic-philes - yeah, not a word, so what?). The last decent PC-only FPS game I can name was Half-Life 2, and that was ported to consoles the next year.

RPGs

Out of pure curiousity - other than Diablo III in the works, what are these PC-only RPGs? All the ones I have seen have been multi-platform, like The Witcher 2.

non-Wow clones (Tera online, anyone?)

I'm assuming you mean MMOs that aren't very close to WoW, here. I'd grant you that MMOs are suited much better for the PC, mostly due to proprietary networking nonsense with Xbox Live and PSN, but the vast majority of them really feel like different graphical and animation skins on the same game.