Tiger Woods 11 ripoff

ShaunC

I just bought TW11 second hand and cant play online. Only the first user to use online code can play online. is this the begining of the end of second hand games? :mad:

amacachi

There's a code included with the original game to play online to try and make the games worth less second-hand. The codes can be bought for a fiver but I'm fairly sure I remember people complaining that they're hard to get in Ireland.

ShaunC

Its a pity the shop didnt inform me that the code was already used before I bought the game.

amacachi

ShaunC wrote: »

Its a pity the shop didnt inform me that the code was already used before I bought the game.

I'd give them an angry phone call or drop in about that tbh.

ciaburkie

How would they know that the code had been used? And sure they wont even care...they got their money out of you and made a profit on what they gave for the trade in.

I mean i got Cod 4 GOTY 2nd hand and the codes for the mappacks were used....who cares? you got the game significantly cheaper.

Also, this whole passport thing by EA to play online is a load of **** anyways

amacachi

ciaburkie wrote: »

How would they know that the code had been used? And sure they wont even care...they got their money out of you and made a profit on what they gave for the trade in.

I mean i got Cod 4 GOTY 2nd hand and the codes for the mappacks were used....who cares? you got the game significantly cheaper.

Also, this whole passport thing by EA to play online is a load of **** anyways

A courteous heads-up wouldn't go amiss.

theteal

it's going to be a lot more common lads. the developers, who spend a lot of money and effort to produce a game, make nothing on 2nd hand sales. personally i don't think i'd have a problem with having to pay a nominal fee to access the online content of a 2nd hand game

as this unique online code is still a relatively new tactic, the game stores should have a notice up informing prospective customers of a possible extra charge to play online

projectgtr

just bring it back, Gamestop had no issues refunding my mate when this happened, turned out it was cheaper to buy new than buy 2nd hand and buy the code!!:mad: he was never informed he did not have full access to the game so they refunded him. i think its a crazy idea on developers parts, too expensive imo

Mr E

Not crazy. The games companies don't get a penny from second hand sales.

What's crazy is the price gamestop sell these 2nd hand games at. Sounds like its starting to bite them in the ass.

Helix

theteal wrote: »

it's going to be a lot more common lads

and its going to get worse than simply not being able to access online play

wait til you cant access the game at all

gizmo

Gamestop have a habit of not marking the boxes of games affected with these codes correctly when selling them second hand...

Lawsuit Targets GameStop over “Free” DLC

Never did hear how it turned out though.

ironictoaster

Delighted for gamestop, they should lose a fortune if more companies to do this. Karma is a bitch.

projectgtr

Mr E wrote: »

Not crazy. The games companies don't get a penny from second hand sales.

What's crazy is the price gamestop sell these 2nd hand games at. Sounds like its starting to bite them in the ass.

well i do think its crazy, i could care less that they dont get a penny from 2nd hand games, what other industry gets a cut from when their product is sold secondhand??? to be honest they are just greedy and this is coming from someone with friends in the indusrty, i also think gamestops prices can be mad but at least you have the option there.

I buy alot of games just for LAN nights, to have the same games as the lads or to try old games, this might put a stop to this. I think the games industry just seen how successful the 2nd hand market is and wants a slice the people who are going to pay for this is us gamers, that makes me :mad:

Orim

projectgtr wrote: »

well i do think its crazy, i could care less that they dont get a penny from 2nd hand games, what other industry gets a cut from when their product is sold secondhand???

There's no other industry in which buying second-hand is pretty much the same as buying first hand.

gizmo

projectgtr wrote: »

well i do think its crazy, i could care less that they dont get a penny from 2nd hand games, what other industry gets a cut from when their product is sold secondhand??? to be honest they are just greedy and this is coming from someone with friends in the indusrty, i also think gamestops prices can be mad but at least you have the option there.

The motor industry.

Then you have what Orim said.

Also, if you really do have mates in the industry then you'll know how hard they work and how comments like "i could care less that they don't get a penny from 2nd hand games" are completely disrespectful.

Helix

projectgtr wrote: »

I think the games industry just seen how successful the 2nd hand market is and wants a slice the people who are going to pay for this is us gamers, that makes me :mad:

of course they did

theyre losing BILLIONS, all because the likes of gamestop point blank refused to give them a cut of second hand sales

had they not been so greedy, youd still be able to buy games second hand without any of this online pass stuff

craze7

How much did you buy it for?

Its €30 pre owened in Xtravision and €31 brand new in Argos! ☺ ☺

whiterebel

gizmo wrote: »

The motor industry.

Then you have what Orim said.

Also, if you really do have mates in the industry then you'll know how hard they work and how comments like "i could care less that they don't get a penny from 2nd hand games" are completely disrespectful.

So if a Ford is sold second-hand by a Renault dealer, they have to pay a cut to Ford?

Damo 2k9

What pisses me off about the online code is that 2 people in the one house cant play online on seperate accounts without one of them having to buy the code, which is bulls**t! This happened me, my brother bought the game, he used the code and hes able to play online, but now im not able to ?! Pissed off to say the least, not at him but at ea for introducing this stupid thing!

Helix

whiterebel wrote: »

So if a Ford is sold second-hand by a Renault dealer, they have to pay a cut to Ford?

i do believe this is correct

Stephen

Uh, no its not.

Overheal

i thought this was going to be about the lack of an SUV level/minigame.

Gunmonkey

projectgtr wrote: »

well i do think its crazy, i could care less that they dont get a penny from 2nd hand games, what other industry gets a cut from when their product is sold secondhand??? to be honest they are just greedy and this is coming from someone with friends in the indusrty, i also think gamestops prices can be mad but at least you have the option there.

True, but in no other industry is 2nd hand forced down our throats so much as in the games industry. Have never been asked in Waterstones if I would "like a 2nd hand copy of that book" or "you can trade that book back for credit against a further purchase". Plus the reason EA does this is it operates servers for the games, the publishing companies of books, dvds, cds, etc very rarely (if ever) have to offer that after-sales support for one of their products. And then if someone comes along and uses it without paying them (by buying 2nd hand) is a bit of a kick in the sack.

All so little Timmy can save €5 on a game :rolleyes:

Overheal wrote: »

i thought this was going to be about the lack of an SUV level/minigame.

South Park teases us so much with what could have been

Grumpypants

All EA games will have this problem, THQ and Ubisoft as well are either doing or just about to do the same. Sony are "thinking" about it but i think the fact they need Gamestop to shift PS3 at the moment and in a few years PS4's, will hold them back.

Digital downloads are not an option any time soon so at the moment its going to be an uneasy partnership between publishers and Game stores to earn billions for themselves in a very lucrative market, as they both know with out the other one they are screwed.

Its like when a footballer on 80 grand a week complains that its unfair another player is getting 100 grand a week. Its very hard to feel sorry for either.

garv123

Damo 2k9 wrote: »

What pisses me off about the online code is that 2 people in the one house cant play online on seperate accounts without one of them having to buy the code, which is bulls**t! This happened me, my brother bought the game, he used the code and hes able to play online, but now im not able to ?! Pissed off to say the least, not at him but at ea for introducing this stupid thing!

happened to me with cod4 and the map packs. what worked for me was if i singed in the other account aswel on the other controller it gave me full access to those maps online but when i just signed in on just my account i couldnt use them. maybe this might work for you too? worth a try anyway if ye share a console

Helix

Damo 2k9 wrote: »

What pisses me off about the online code is that 2 people in the one house cant play online on seperate accounts without one of them having to buy the code, which is bulls**t! This happened me, my brother bought the game, he used the code and hes able to play online, but now im not able to ?! Pissed off to say the least, not at him but at ea for introducing this stupid thing!

no they can

theres a work around

whoever actually owns the game needs to run it the first time as their own account on the other person's console. that activates the online pass to both their online account, and to the console

that means that they can then play the game with their own online account on the second console, and the other person signs in to their online account on the console where the online pass was activated and also gets access

never tried it, but ea have been clear that it's both the online account that's associated with online pass AND the initial activation console that can use it

whiterebel

Helix wrote: »

i do believe this is correct

I do believe that is complete rubbish, but I know the owners of 2 main dealers, so I will ask them when I see them.

projectgtr

gizmo wrote: »

The motor industry.

Then you have what Orim said.

Also, if you really do have mates in the industry then you'll know how hard they work and how comments like "i could care less that they don't get a penny from 2nd hand games" are completely disrespectful.

Its not disrespectful in the slightest,why should they make money on me swapping/selling a game to my friend?? the server issue is a load of crap they build these costs into the games when they set prices, if i sell a game its not like there is one more person on the server :rolleyes: , to me its down right greed its a profitable industry that just wants a bigger slice of the pie.

Explain to me how the motor industry gets a cut when a 2nd hand car is sold??

Helix wrote: »

of course they did

theyre losing BILLIONS, all because the likes of gamestop point blank refused to give them a cut of second hand sales

had they not been so greedy, youd still be able to buy games second hand without any of this online pass stuff

How are they losing billions :rolleyes:?? why should gamestop give them a cut, would you give them a cut if you sold your copy of reach to your mate?? i think not

Gunmonkey wrote: »

True, but in no other industry is 2nd hand forced down our throats so much as in the games industry. Have never been asked in Waterstones if I would "like a 2nd hand copy of that book" or "you can trade that book back for credit against a further purchase". Plus the reason EA does this is it operates servers for the games, the publishing companies of books, dvds, cds, etc very rarely (if ever) have to offer that after-sales support for one of their products. And then if someone comes along and uses it without paying them (by buying 2nd hand) is a bit of a kick in the sack.

All so little Timmy can save €5 on a game :rolleyes:



South Park teases us so much with what could have been

I dont get you.......... servers and support centers are all factored into costs when the game is in development, useage does not go up or down with the sale of a 2nd hand game its still the same amount of games in circulation same amount of people using the servers, same amount of people using the support, that argument just doesnt work with me. Its all about not spotting a niche in the market and wanting a slice, i think it will have a detrimental effect on game sales as a whole, me included as i mentioned above

gizmo

projectgtr wrote: »

Its not disrespectful in the slightest,why should they make money on me swapping/selling a game to my friend?? the server issue is a load of crap they build these costs into the games when they set prices, if i sell a game its not like there is one more person on the server :rolleyes: , to me its down right greed its a profitable industry that just wants a bigger slice of the pie.

They don't make money on you swapping the game, your friend can play the game online for a week for free before needing to get an Online Pass. As for the selling part, they're not making money off you, they're making money from the people who bought it second hand, the same people who chose to save a couple of quid themselves which results in the industry not seeing a penny for the transaction.

Calling the industry profitable is simply ignorance. Sure there are titles which make a lot of money but if you look at any meaningful stats you'll see that most titles struggle to break even. Second hand sales damage this further and, given the extent to which they're pushed by retailers, form a credible thread to jobs, jobs like your mates have. Hence the disrespectful comment. By all means ask your mates about it though, I'd be interested to hear back what they say to you.

projectgtr wrote: »

Explain to me how the motor industry gets a cut when a 2nd hand car is sold??

It was brought up in an online article which was quoted by another member here in a similar thread awhile back. The jist of it was, 2nd hand dealers pay some form of licence fee to the manufacturers in order to be authorised dealers and sell second hand cars. It is similar to what publishers asked of video game retailers, pay some form of contribution for the ability to resell games and it's all good. The retailers told them where to go so the publishers tackled a problem another way.

projectgtr wrote: »

How are they losing billions :rolleyes:?? why should gamestop give them a cut, would you give them a cut if you sold your copy of reach to your mate?? i think not

Again, you're not in possession of the facts here. Gamestop had revenue of $2 billion from second hand sales in the US alone last year, that is money which is being taken out of the industry hence the above losing comment. While some argue that that money is being used to fuel further game purchases, given that the market for second hand games is so strong, it indicates that publishers are being completely left out of the loop while the retailer makes all the money. As for me personally, no I don't trade in games as I prefer to support the industry. If I was going to sell my games I'd do it privately, something which I have no problem with. My issue is with Gamestop and the like here.

projectgtr wrote: »

I dont get you.......... servers and support centers are all factored into costs when the game is in development, useage does not go up or down with the sale of a 2nd hand game its still the same amount of games in circulation same amount of people using the servers, same amount of people using the support, that argument just doesnt work with me. Its all about not spotting a niche in the market and wanting a slice, i think it will have a detrimental effect on game sales as a whole, me included as i mentioned above

No they're not. At the most basic level, if they were then games which utilised this functionality would be more expensive than those without. The usage argument is valid in the sense that capacity doesn't increase however that means someone else should get to take their place for free.

Helix

projectgtr wrote: »

How are they losing billions :rolleyes:?? why should gamestop give them a cut, would you give them a cut if you sold your copy of reach to your mate?? i think not

gamestop alone made $2bn from second hand sales last year

i wouldnt give my a cut to the developers if i sold a game to a mate, but then again im not turning over $2bn a year in second hand game sales

Drakar

Is there any company that voluntarily gives money away like that?

I think this system is fine, except of course that at this point customers dont know how to tell which titles feature this thing. If(/when) it becomes clear to customers, "oh I'm buying this and look it has *this* icon on it which means whoever owned it originally will probably have used the code which means I'll need to buy one, so I'll just add $10 to the price and decide if I still want it", then the system will work for everyone. Developers will get their kickback, customers will get the clear choice about whether they want to buy new or used (used games of this type should be cheaper than other games both when being traded in and being resold).

AnneFrank

amacachi wrote: »

I'd give them an angry phone call or drop in about that tbh.

I'd give them the people's elbow

CiDeRmAn

Why on earth should Gamestop give a toss about a publishers decision to limit DLC, which has an intrinsic value outside of the base product, to the first owner of the game?
The publisher only has a responsibility to honour deals with the original owner.
Gamestop has no obligation to preowned buyers, other than to make sure that the item does what it says it does.
Those pack in DLC deals, with codes on scratch cards and the like, what fool would possibly believe they are "entitled" to them as a second (or third) owner?
All they do is hope that the previous owner never bothered to cash them in, and if they did, that's the chance you take .
The Publishers don't take this course of action, with regard to the DLC being limited to the first owner, because of some lack of a deal with GS.
Are people really so naive that they'd think that profits recouped by publishers on the sale of preowned games would be fed back to the punters?
These are publicly owned companies in many instances, any profits have a long ways to go before the punter can expect a little bit extra.

If anything, they don't want a cut of the preowned market, they want to kill it outright, hence the enthusiasm Sony and MS have had with online stores.
You're right to sell your own possessions is undermined when a company says you can't do it, or we want a portion of the profits, and again, don't you think the establishment of a "tax" on games to be fed back to the publishers would immediately be added onto the price of the game?
Of course it would, and preowned games would all get more expensive.

So, please, if you buy a pre-owed game, don't fool yourself into believing you are buying exactly the same product, with the same attached expectations, ultimately a preowned game is always compromised in some way, be it a missing manual, a slightly damaged disk, a soiled game box etc.
And that's why it is cheaper for gods sake!
If you to ensure you get absolutely everything as you would buying new, buy it new!

gizmo

CiDeRmAn wrote: »

Why on earth should Gamestop give a toss about a publishers decision to limit DLC, which has an intrinsic value outside of the base product, to the first owner of the game?
The publisher only has a responsibility to honour deals with the original owner.
Gamestop has no obligation to preowned buyers, other than to make sure that the item does what it says it does.

The items the retailers are selling come with text on the box stating what is included. If the item is no longer included then it is their legal responsibility to ensure the customer is informed of this. Gamestop clearly haven't made this a store policy as they know people will be turned off second hand games as any normal person would have been in the Dragon Age issue I linked earlier.

CiDeRmAn wrote: »

The Publishers don't take this course of action, with regard to the DLC being limited to the first owner, because of some lack of a deal with GS.

Yes they do.

CiDeRmAn wrote: »

Are people really so naive that they'd think that profits recouped by publishers on the sale of preowned games would be fed back to the punters?

Why would they be fed back to the punters? They'd be fed back to the publishers and developers, the people who created the product in the first place.

humanji

Is there a warning of any sort on the boxes of games affected by this?

gizmo

humanji wrote: »

Is there a warning of any sort on the boxes of games affected by this?

Judging from the two issues mentioned so far? Nope. I've not seen any additional stickers on second hand copies in the local Game or Gamestation either,

super_furry

I've been 'encouraged' to buy a second hand copy by till staff when going to buy new games in both GAME and Gamestop recently. When I pointed out that I'd have to spend an extra tenner to be able to play them online and that would make them more expensive than buying them new, they just shrug their shoulders.

The game staff don't care and just want to get the managers off their backs about making their pre-owned and pre-order sales targets.

CiDeRmAn

gizmo wrote: »

The items the retailers are selling come with text on the box stating what is included. If the item is no longer included then it is their legal responsibility to ensure the customer is informed of this. Gamestop clearly haven't made this a store policy as they know people will be turned off second hand games as any normal person would have been in the Dragon Age issue I linked earlier.

From what I read of the article you linked to about Dragon Age the label not only offered this DLC free to purchasers of the game, but also “One-time use code available with full retail purchase.” Now, a preowned purchase of a game, getting $5 off the retail price, does not constitute "full retail purchase", in fact, seeing as it is most game stores policy to clearly mark a game as preowned, it is the buyers own fault for not making himself fully aware of the consequences of buying preowned.
If he can't tackle small print, then maybe he shouldn't buy preowned anything.

gizmo wrote: »

Yes they do.

Yes they do?
Where did you get this bit of information?
The devs and publishers?
The very people who detest preowned sales?
Who would rather trample on your right to re-sell your property?
Do we expect Nissan now to look for kick-backs when you sell your Almera?
It's a nonsense business idea, the game producers are simply trying to provide incentives to buy brand new, if you buy preowned it should be buyer beware, as it is in every other 2nd hand market.

gizmo wrote: »

Why would they be fed back to the punters? They'd be fed back to the publishers and developers, the people who created the product in the first place.

The profits, in this case, bolstered by a return from preowned sales, and you suggest that the lack of these is what results in the DLC being limited to the first owner only and so costs the preowned buyer, therefore if the money was forthcoming, the DLC would be free to all owners of the software.

This is, of course, wishful thinking.
No reason at all that money recouped from preowned sales would make a blind bit of difference to the provision or lack thereof of free DLC to preowned games.
And this you do say above, making my point, thank you very much.
The idea that the money would go straight to the publishers and devs.

Now I would say that, googling the lawsuit, all I can find is the initial lawsuit announcement and the same text sent around most of the various gaming news sites, and this all dates from March or so.
No word of a result of the case anywhere.
The law allegedly in breech here is also a Californian law, not something seen across the US, and not something possibly seen in our courts either.
In fact, he could have returned the game and gotten a refund with which to buy the new copy of the game in a shop where he feels more welcome, but he failed to return the game in the 7 day returns period.
I mean, he could have brought it back, once he realised the DLC he wanted wasn't available, but didn't, not til weeks later,
http://www.tomsguide.com/us/GameStop-BioWare-Game-Lawsuit-DLC,news-6270.html
See this link for a far more balanced report on the whole business.

CiDeRmAn

super_furry wrote: »

I've been 'encouraged' to buy a second hand copy by till staff when going to buy new games in both GAME and Gamestop recently. When I pointed out that I'd have to spend an extra tenner to be able to play them online and that would make them more expensive than buying them new, they just shrug their shoulders.

The game staff don't care and just want to get the managers off their backs about making their pre-owned and pre-order sales targets.

And you know of these sales targets because?
What?
You work there?
You were told by a member of staff or a manager there?
Or is it something you think might be going on?

Most shops I have been in have encouraged you to buy preowned because it's cheaper.
In fact more cases have been when I went with a preowned game and the new version of it is cheaper, because the game price new has dropped but the electronic point of sale system hasn't updated the used prices yet.
This has happened to me on several occasions.

Shiminay

We've already had this discussion before, here are my thoughts on it.

gizmo

CiDeRmAn wrote: »

From what I read of the article you linked to about Dragon Age the label not only offered this DLC free to purchasers of the game, but also “One-time use code available with full retail purchase.” Now, a preowned purchase of a game, getting $5 off the retail price, does not constitute "full retail purchase", in fact, seeing as it is most game stores policy to clearly mark a game as preowned, it is the buyers own fault for not making himself fully aware of the consequences of buying preowned.
If he can't tackle small print, then maybe he shouldn't buy preowned anything.

Nope, it'll be the legal responsibility of the store to highlight this, either through a sticker or at the till.

CiDeRmAn wrote: »

Yes they do?
Where did you get this bit of information?
The devs and publishers?
The very people who detest preowned sales?
Who would rather trample on your right to re-sell your property?
Do we expect Nissan now to look for kick-backs when you sell your Almera?
It's a nonsense business idea, the game producers are simply trying to provide incentives to buy brand new, if you buy preowned it should be buyer beware, as it is in every other 2nd hand market.

You seem to be taking this as an attack on you, the consumer when it isn't. This is squarely aimed at publishers trying to recoup some money lost when they are completely cut out of the second hand market by retailers. As for where I get the info, it's an industry I'm involved in and one which I keep myself fully informed. One need only look at the developments over the last few years to see this coming a mile off.

CiDeRmAn wrote: »

The profits, in this case, bolstered by a return from preowned sales, and you suggest that the lack of these is what results in the DLC being limited to the first owner only and so costs the preowned buyer, therefore if the money was forthcoming, the DLC would be free to all owners of the software.

The idea of Project Ten Dollar from EA and the subsequent Online Pass was specifically brought in to combat the loss of sales from second hand sales. They do it by their very nature, rewarding first time buyers with additional content yet charging those who buy it second hand.

CiDeRmAn wrote: »

Now I would say that, googling the lawsuit, all I can find is the initial lawsuit announcement and the same text sent around most of the various gaming news sites, and this all dates from March or so.
No word of a result of the case anywhere.
The law allegedly in breech here is also a Californian law, not something seen across the US, and not something possibly seen in our courts either.
In fact, he could have returned the game and gotten a refund with which to buy the new copy of the game in a shop where he feels more welcome, but he failed to return the game in the 7 day returns period.
I mean, he could have brought it back, once he realised the DLC he wanted wasn't available, but didn't, not til weeks later,
http://www.tomsguide.com/us/GameStop-BioWare-Game-Lawsuit-DLC,news-6270.html
See this link for a far more balanced report on the whole business.

That link does actually state the case more clearly...

However GameStop should make an effort to inform the uninformed consumer by attaching labels or marking out the promise of free content on packages.

Which is what I suggested above.

As for US law, well with the recent decision by the US Supreme Court that EULAs are legally enforceable, the entire issue of second hand sales will be called into question. As for what happens next, well all I know for sure is it's going to be interesting to watch the publishers and retailers battle it out.

CiDeRmAn wrote: »

Most shops I have been in have encouraged you to buy preowned because it's cheaper.

That's incredibly naive. You are being encouraged to buy the preowned game because all of the money goes straight to the retailer, simple as that.

CiDeRmAn

If you would quote a little more generously you'd show the rest of what I said, which was that when the new game was cheaper than the preowned due to some delay in the point of sale system, I have been advised to go for the new copy.
There is no pressure, at least no pressure I have ever heard of, and I have know most of staff in GS for quite sometime, not to mention have worked in that retail business myself some years ago.

As for taking it personally, no not me.
Aside from the issue of, what seems to me, people being unable to spur themselves to read fine print, I have had plenty of disagreements with individuals working for GS, not to mention the, at times, meagre trade in prices and small discounts on certain preowned games compared to their new, in demand, brethren.

This topic has, as a previous poster has said, come up before, it would be more illuminating to actually see the ruling the courts made, instead of websites publishing a customers grievances, with wording that suggest a big bad corp is out to steal his money.
Of course they are, it's called exchange of money for services, and they will make sure to maximise profits where they can.

If I were to compromise on this, it would be to say that GS policy has not kept up with the devices used by publishers to get their games into the hands of inital buyers and then poison them for subsequent owners.
Every Gamestop preowned game has a preowned sticker on it, as said they could add yet more small print to direct myopic buyers aware of the limited nature of any possible DLC deals mentioned on the cover.

Helix

CiDeRmAn wrote: »

Most shops I have been in have encouraged you to buy preowned because it's cheaper.

shops encourage you to buy second hand because they get 100% of the takings, rather than around 30% on new games

Helix

CiDeRmAn wrote: »

as said they could add yet more small print to direct myopic buyers aware of the limited nature of any possible DLC deals mentioned on the cover.

and the fact that they wont be able to use the games online after their free 7 day trial is over

ShooterSF

As a gamer who can only afford to buy second hand these days it won't bother me. In the long term I can only see this having a negative impact on people who buy new games and trade them in. Resale value will decrease and to keep their profit margins gamestop will have to offer less to buy the game back meaning the game cost "more" to the original purchaser.

Helix

ShooterSF wrote: »

As a gamer who can only afford to buy second hand these days it won't bother me

unless youre buying your second hand games 8-12 months after original release, are you REALLY that hard up that you cant spend the extra fiver for it new?

ShooterSF

Helix wrote: »

unless youre buying your second hand games 8-12 months after original release, are you REALLY that hard up that you cant spend the extra fiver for it new?

I bought Mass Effect last week for ten quid! Fable 2 next. I guess it's also the library of old games I haven't played that impact me. Howover as a redeeming factor I did just buy Fallout new from gog.

I do agree people saving a fiver for second hand is crazy. When I did buy new releases I bought them new and even spent a little more in my friendly local gameshop to try and help them stay open after gamestop opened.

The sad fact of life though is capitalism works and the games industry is not going to get some special reprieve and while I do respect the rights of publishers to sell online content separate (throwing it in free with a purchase of the game) I am uncomfortable with the idea that I cant sell something I have bought. I was never keen on buying a license that cannot be transferred.

Drakar

Maybe people should be saving like 50% and buying online anyway...

Helix

ShooterSF wrote: »

I bought Mass Effect last week for ten quid! Fable 2 next. I guess it's also the library of old games I haven't played that impact me. Howover as a redeeming factor I did just buy Fallout new from gog.

I do agree people saving a fiver for second hand is crazy. When I did buy new releases I bought them new and even spent a little more in my friendly local gameshop to try and help them stay open after gamestop opened.

The sad fact of life though is capitalism works and the games industry is not going to get some special reprieve and while I do respect the rights of publishers to sell online content separate (throwing it in free with a purchase of the game) I am uncomfortable with the idea that I cant sell something I have bought. I was never keen on buying a license that cannot be transferred.

They can still be sold, but itll be for a tenner less than it used to be. The market will adjust itself to it

whiterebel

So if a Ford is sold second-hand by a Renault dealer, they have to pay a cut to Ford?

Helix wrote: »

i do believe this is correct

I spoke to one of the main dealers last night, and he confirmed this is complete tripe. He gets a car on his forecourt, and he pockets the money, end of.

pablomakaveli

There is another negative effect of this and that is for people who want to buy a game that was released a couple of years ago. It's often harder to find a brand new copy in a shop a year or two after a games release so buying a second hand copy might be the only option.

If that game includes a code to access certain features than that person who might have intended to buy a new copy but could only get a second hand one is screwed. I think they should drop the price or get rid of it altogether a year or two after a game is released.