Silicon Knights "Second-hand games 'threaten the industry'"

[KingOfSentinels]

I am just irresistible to both woman and men, it seems. Thanks God, you douche!

[darren]

Lol. .. /hands kings some more lube/

[Drunken Savior]

Originally Posted by KingOfSentinels

I am just irresistible to both woman and men, it seems. Thanks God, you douche!

Hey, come check out this Normandy Engine. Yeah, the one deep in there. You have to bend over to see it, Shep.

[rape]

5 minutes later....

[/rape]

[stroopwafel]

Who needs gameplay when you can have ass play?

[justin_credible]

GameStop Will Warn Consumers About Online Fees
Used games lawsuit forces retailer to post signs in California outlets.
April 10, 2012

by Colin Campbell
Games buyers visiting GameStop stores in California will soon see signs warning them of the likelihood of additional publisher fees for downloadable content for used games.

Today, a class settlement was reached forcing the retailer to post signs in its California stores for the next two years. GameStop is also required to reimburse certain consumers who paid for used games without realizing there would be extra fees for online play.

The lawsuit was instigated in March 2010, soon after a gamer, James Collins, bought a used copy of Dragon Age: Origins from a GameStop store in Hayward, California. Collins paid $55 for the game, $5 less than a brand new copy, only to realize he had to pay more to access online features which would have come as standard with a new game.


Mark Pifko, Baron and Budd attorney and counsel in the lawsuit said, "We are pleased that as a result of this lawsuit, we were able to obtain complete restitution for consumers, with actual money paid out to people who were harmed by GameStop's conduct."

He added, "The in-store and online warnings are an important benefit under the settlement as well, because if GameStop discloses the truth to consumers, it is unlikely that they will be able to continue selling used copies of certain games for only $5 less than the price of a new copy. In fact, we already know that not long after the lawsuit was filed, GameStop lowered prices for used copies of many of the game titles identified in the lawsuit."

IGN has contacted GameStop for comment, specifically on whether or not the company plans to post signs in its retail outlets outside California.

LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL. Fuck Gamestop.

[Sinful Sam]

It's about time! Also those people who don't notice it's only five dollars cheaper for a new copy are idiots for buying it.

[Alucard]

Sometimes if they have lots of used copies they stop ordering in normal copies too so people are forced to get the used one. I've noticed that a few times here. Especially with games over 6months or ones that arent super duper popular old etc. This still makes me lol.

[KingOfSentinels]

Yup. It costs developers millions them doing that, and it's pretty appalling. The only time we see any noticeable spike in sales are during Steam sales nowadays.

[Escaflowne2001]

Can't say I blame them for doing it though as it's business in the end how can people be stupid enough to buy them.

[KingOfSentinels]

Yeah you're right, it's all about maximising earnings and profit. From a business perspective, it's sound. People seem to mistake that with greed, but there's a fine line between the two. Similarly, developers wanting to earn money off used copies is exactly the same; it's not greed, it's maximising earnings, particularly earnings we're relatively owed. I just don't agree with it because of how much it shits on developers.

Companies don't say "We earned A amount of money, but could have earned B (more) amount of money. That's fine though, we're happy with A". No, a good business would go "We earned A amount of money, but could have earned B amount of money. Next time we make B amount of money".

[Ernst]

I still haven't worked out why you believe the video game industry should be getting special privileges over how ownership of a product is defined. Like someone else said earlier, car makers don't expect a cut of used car sales.

[Nem]

Originally Posted by Ernst

I still haven't worked out why you believe the video game industry should be getting special privileges over how ownership of a product is defined. Like someone else said earlier, car makers don't expect a cut of used car sales.

Thats the thing. I'm pretty sure they know they never will.

What they want is to ruin the deal for retailers because they think they can get more lifetime sales that way, wich is a really questionable assumption.

[spider-prime]

I never understood why people buy used games for games that just came out to save a few bucks, that was always stupid to me when if you waited you could get the game new much cheaper on sales and price drops. But I can understand missing a game that you wanted but didn't have the money for it at the time and the only place to really find one is by buying it used.

[KingOfSentinels]

Originally Posted by Ernst

I still haven't worked out why you believe the video game industry should be getting special privileges over how ownership of a product is defined. Like someone else said earlier, car makers don't expect a cut of used car sales.

No one is saying they don't own their game or 'defining ownership of a product', where is that happening? Yet more retarded over-exaggeration.

First of all, there's no standard in businesses. Not every single industry is the same, they don't all abide by the same rules and do the same things, or we'd be at a pretty stupid stand-still right now. Trying new things is why we're here today. If they could, why wouldn't car makers want a cut of used sales? Nothing to say they wouldn't, and they probably would with how many deals and offers they do to make you buy the brand-new models, but they're in the same predicament as we are; you can't piss off the distributors. They'll be no used products to make money off if no new versions of products are sold. The ideal solution would be to order GameStop to simply give a cut on used copies, but funnily enough they said no. And that's that.

And we can. The videogame industry is the most technologically advanced around, we're all connected, and so we can do this without intruding on the experience of our paying customers particularly. That's where some DRM solutions slip up, when they hurt the paying customer we care about. You buy our game, you enjoy our game, and get everything you want out of it. We don't have an entire department for complaints and support for nothing you know, it's because we care about your experience. Developers don't work on patches to a game for any reason but to better your experience with a game, since patches are for people who already bought the game. We earn no money back from answering your complaints and support requests, or patching the game up. You buy our game used and give us no money in return, why should you get the same experience as someone who supported us, to be frank.

On that note, we got a complaint from someone the other day we bought our game for Xbox 360 and said it was stupid it didn't work with his PS3. lolololol. Someone put it in as a memo. Much lulz were had.

DLC acts as a way to earn money off used copies and is not greedy or deterrent to anyone's experience since it simply adds, not takes away. Off-disc content has become very important as a way to increase the longevity of a game while continuing to produce revenue. It doesn't effect our paying customers in anyway, and gives used buyers incentive to either buy new or still support us and give us money for our product we spent millions to make and for you to enjoy. Pre-order bonuses are just another example. Pre-orders look good to show off to publishers and others, and earn a lot in the process.

I never realised supporting the Industry was so abhorrent to some people.

Originally Posted by spider-prime

But I can understand missing a game that you wanted but didn't have the money for it at the time and the only place to really find one is by buying it used.

Yup, that's fair. New copies do fall in price quite quickly, people don't realise. But digital distribution is the solution to that little problem after all. If they can't rely on used sales either, stores may stock more games rather than expect to get a lot of used copies back. Might price the new copies more competitively too, rather than deliberately making them more expensive so people buy used.

[Escaflowne2001]

Originally Posted by KingOfSentinels

DLC acts as a way to earn money off used copies and is not greedy or deterrent to anyone's experience since it simply adds, not takes away. Off-disc content has become very important as a way to increase the longevity of a game while continuing to produce revenue. It doesn't effect our paying customers in anyway, and gives used buyers incentive to either buy new or still support us and give us money for our product we spent millions to make and for you to enjoy. Pre-order bonuses are just another example. Pre-orders look good to show off to publishers and others, and earn a lot in the process.

I don't think anyone is really complaning about DLC. It's the on-disc content such as online passes and day-one dlc that's usually already on the disc such as Dragon Age 2 had that your locked out off if you buy used that is the problem and wrong. That is taking away.

Originally Posted by KingOfSentinels

Developers don't work on patches to a game for any reason but to better your experience with a game, since patches are for people who already bought the game. We earn no money back from answering your complaints and support requests, or patching the game up.

Really. What do you think would have happened if Bethesda hadn't patched Skyrim or Fallout 3 after release? people wouldn't have brought the next games because they would be expecting a glitched mess and knew it wouldn't get fixed. Likewise don't you think the Witcher brand would have been damaged if CD Projekt hadn't fixed The Witcher on the PC with patches? It would have seriously hurt the sales of Witcher 2.