sony is baning used games

For one not everyone has internet access all the time. And don't be so short sighted to think only of yourself and your play habits, if it is bad for the overall industry it will eventually effect you. I feel this is bad for the industry, thus all gamers even if they research and buy all thier own games and are connected to the net 100% of the time.

~mrmiller

S7 mrmiller wrote:For one not everyone has internet access all the time. And don't be so short sighted to think only of yourself and your play habits, if it is bad for the overall industry it will eventually effect you. I feel this is bad for the industry, thus all gamers even if they research and buy all thier own games and are connected to the net 100% of the time.

~mrmiller

No need to get so defensive. I'm just saying that I'm not bothered by what they're choosing to do because it's something I already do basically. If it does eventually effect the industry in a way that will effect me, then I will be bothered. But nobody knows what will happen in the future, maybe they'll end up making big on this, maybe not. Maybe they'll make a chnage to accomodate offline players, maybe not. I'm just not bothered by the current facts. Is there anything wrong with that?

Xpert2010 wrote:

OneBadHuskerFan wrote:
I'm not about to go and spend $60 on a game if I really don't know much about it.

I just make use of the internet by watching gameplay vids, review game features, or play any demos if they're available to make the decision to buy a game. I became a lot more into researching games after buying Two Worlds... The one game that I hate more than CoD. lol

I do all of the above, but there are still things that might be fine for others, but not for me. Take The Witcher 2...everybody and their Mom's loved that game (pretty much), but I couldn't deal with the way the camera acted for some reason and didn't play for more than the first 30 minutes or so. Now had I spent $60 on it I would have been pissed. As it was I just sent it back to gamefly and got the next game in line.

OneBadHuskerFan wrote:
I do all of the above, but there are still things that might be fine for others, but not for me. Take The Witcher 2...everybody and their Mom's loved that game (pretty much), but I couldn't deal with the way the camera acted for some reason and didn't play for more than the first 30 minutes or so. Now had I spent $60 on it I would have been pissed. As it was I just sent it back to gamefly and got the next game in line.

That's definitely a valid reason for why people enjoy services like Gamefly.

Buuut, that in itself is detrimental to the industry.

Using the most ridiculous, unrealistic figures I can think of let's do some math:
Gamefly Buys 10 copies of each game.
Each copy is rented by 10 people.

Let's say 80% of those people would have never played/bought the game, 20% would have bought it.

That means that the company would have sold 20 copies rather than 10. Their profit is cut in half.


Now more realistic numbers: People usually keep gamefly games for an average of 2 weeks. It's probably less, but we'll go with that. So in a year each copy is used by 20 people (Yes, I'm taking a lot of time off for shipping).

With those numbers, the only way Gamefly makes the industry money is if less than 5% of their renters would have bought the game. Not very likely.

The exception I can think of is crappy games that no one likes. So what does gamefly do? It increases the profit companies make on crappy games, and lowers the profit made on quality games.
Sound like it hurts the industry to me.

"But Atrum, a lot of people buy the game from gamefly!"
Yes, but you can be sure Gamefly gets a discount on those games. They're just reselling the copy they already bought. The math still stands.

For many its not a simple choice of buying vs renting. $180 per year to gamefly validated their mass purchases of the 24 games the consumer will play that year. Or $180 buys almost 3 single discs or more realistically 2 titles and some DLC. I don't think such simplified example numbers truly illustrate consumer choices. Now, if I live in the country I would only be able buy maybe one game and no DOC because I have to get internet through Dish or DirecTV just to play SP.

IMHO They should focus on ways to get people who would have spent their money on museums, ballets and sports events (for example) to instead buy a console and games. Expand the base; don't risk shrinking it.

I just think that gamefly users in general are a very, very small % of all gamers. On top of that the % of GameFly users that would not buy the titles they care about is probably very small.

I'm just throwing out these ideas to give some perspective. I personally think that it's a terrible move. I have 2 xboxs and 2 Live accounts (mine and my wifes). Now I'll have to buy 2 copies of each game just so we can both play it.
Which is ridiculous.

Yeah that would change my behavior; i'd drop one console and account and just share. This is such a stupid decision for them. I would be amazed if M$ follows this same path when they've been handed 2 huge advantages.

S7 Coolhand wrote:Yeah that would change my behavior; i'd drop one console and account and just share. This is such a stupid decision for them. I would be amazed if M$ follows this same path when they've been handed 2 huge advantages.

Totally agree. MS would have a HUGE advantage in the console wars if Sony decides to stick with banning used games and MS doesn't. Now I don't really like that because I like competition in the marketplace, but I'd rather have MS have the advantage than having no console at all...because like I said, if they both do this then I'm out of the console gaming business whether that hurts them or not. I simply can't afford it.

OneBadHuskerFan wrote: Take The Witcher 2...everybody and their Mom's loved that game (pretty much), but I couldn't deal with the way the camera acted for some reason and didn't play for more than the first 30 minutes or so.

It's called vertigo. Lightheadedness, nauseated, spinning, whirling, falling, or tilting feeling. Many games give it to people. Certain ones more than others.

If you're getting vertigo playing games you might want to do a little self check. Tons of things can cause it, but inner-ear trouble or medications are the most common factors.

Xpert2010 wrote:

S7 mrmiller wrote:For one not everyone has internet access all the time. And don't be so short sighted to think only of yourself and your play habits, if it is bad for the overall industry it will eventually effect you. I feel this is bad for the industry, thus all gamers even if they research and buy all thier own games and are connected to the net 100% of the time.

~mrmiller

No need to get so defensive. I'm just saying that I'm not bothered by what they're choosing to do because it's something I already do basically. If it does eventually effect the industry in a way that will effect me, then I will be bothered. But nobody knows what will happen in the future, maybe they'll end up making big on this, maybe not. Maybe they'll make a chnage to accomodate offline players, maybe not. I'm just not bothered by the current facts. Is there anything wrong with that?

I wasn't trying to get defensive, and just adding to the conversation in replying to your attitude of "Meh, I don't care as it doesn't effect me." I only wanted to point out it may not directly effect you or others like you, but in the long run it may.

Back to the conversation-

It's not only GameFly and GameStop, but anyone who buys or sells used games and anyone who rents or has a rental service. I do agree with what I think Atrum was pointing out, that Sony and MS wouldn't do it if they didn't think they could make more money from it. I'm sure their analysts have crunched the numbers and see it as a better profit point for the company. I don't always understand how they come up with it, or believe they are correct, but they wouldn't do it if it wasn't making more money, as that's the reason they are in the business. It's not to make games for the fans, it's to make money for the shareholders.

Take something like the the COD map packs. They basically have no overhead besides the initial cost. Once that is covered it is mainly profit. Some analyst a few years ago crunched the numbers and said they could charge 50% more and sell it for $15 over $10 and make more money. They knew they would loose some customers, but also had calculated the price increase would surpass the loss. I always thought if they sold it for half the price they would gain twice the sells, but someone else has facts that prove otherwise, or be certain they would do it.

My only fear is that it doesn't damage the industry in the long run. With the lack of new IP, and increasing prices, people might go along at first but will back off and may lead to another crash like in the 80's. That was due to an overabundance of crappy games and crappy Atari "clone" consoles that made people not willing to shell out the high price and continue to purchase.

Also, like Coolhand mentioned they need to broaden their base and bring in new gamers. They don't need to do it with only causal games and gamers like they have been for a while now, but they need to find a way to convert those casual gamers into hardcore gamers that will go along with the pre-orders and midnight releases that boost sales numbers for the company and industry.

Anyhow, that's my two cents on the issue.

~mrmiller

AtrumX wrote:If you're getting vertigo playing games you might want to do a little self check. Tons of things can cause it, but inner-ear trouble or medications are the most common factors.

I actually have had the issue with other games but quickly gotten used to them. I believe the first game I ever experienced it on was the orignal DOOM.

OneBadHuskerFan wrote:

AtrumX wrote:If you're getting vertigo playing games you might want to do a little self check. Tons of things can cause it, but inner-ear trouble or medications are the most common factors.

I actually have had the issue with other games but quickly gotten used to them. I believe the first game I ever experienced it on was the orignal DOOM.

Well to be fair, did anyone not get vertigo from Doom? Especially going back and playing it now. Twitch shooter mechanics with ancient graphics is hard on this eyes

@ Miller

Yes, that was the point. They're after money.

They do have a diverse strategy though. Map Packs, and really 60$ game releases are for semi-hardcore to hardcore gamers. The casual audience they are going for look more to arcade style games. Look at all the stuff they're throwing at the Xbox Dashboard, that's their diversification plan. Exploit the hardcore gamers for money, use the pretty-user friendly interface to draw in more people.

S7 K1ll3rKlown wrote:They'll have to answer this.
The gaming community all know about it and will certainly ask the Sony reps because the people want to know why they're doing it.

You're right, just like political candidates answer the questions they're asked in debates.

I was fine with Doom and Quake, but Wolfenstein made me sweaty and nauseous.

yeah, FPS.
I had a slight problem with the first COD but got over it after a while.

big news coming out i hope its about the ps4

S7 Sticky wrote:big news coming out i hope its about the ps4

Wow, what a waste of time, energy, and money to put that together.
Flying playstation graphics only to say nothing but "coming 2.20.13".

Should I be in awe, should I be on the edge of my seat, should I be trying to decipher what the stars aligning on this date mean?
no, I'm less interested now than before. Probably just an exclusive game release. I'm not sure they're ready to announce the PS4 this early. But of course, I could be wrong. Sad thing is if this is what the fuss is about we'll know well before 2/20 so just say it already if you want to be the first with the announcement. Otherwise "Gamer.com" or some small website trying to boost visitors will announce the leak first. Besides, everyone knows you can't keep a secret off twitter.

Saw this today and thought I would share. Rumors about the next Xbox...

Rumors on details about the next Xboxen are beginning to fly fast and furious, with an always-on Internet connection and Blu-ray drive being the latest. Edge cites sources with "first-hand experience" who rehash previously noted tech specs, but also mention the next Xbox will have an improved Kinect and an always-on internet connection to cut out the second-hand game market from the platform.

See? Both companies are playing with the idea. Should be interesting to see what happens.

i feel if one does it so will the other

sad thing it will kill used games sellers like gamestop



we all hope its rumors but if not it will only limit the none major titles i get


PC> console
got to love steam sales

S7 Interseptor wrote:Saw this today and thought I would share. Rumors about the next Xbox...

Rumors on details about the next Xboxen are beginning to fly fast and furious, with an always-on Internet connection and Blu-ray drive being the latest. Edge cites sources with "first-hand experience" who rehash previously noted tech specs, but also mention the next Xbox will have an improved Kinect and an always-on internet connection to cut out the second-hand game market from the platform.

See? Both companies are playing with the idea. Should be interesting to see what happens.

That's not very promising.

No it's not. Not sure what I'll do if the rumors are true. I enjoy console gaming and prefer to play on my couch. Might have to convert to PC gaming?! Guess we will have to wait and see how it all pans out. At least we should know something later this month.

I still doubt they will directly kill used games all together, but make you pay a license fee to play them sort of like the EA online passes. This keeps MS and the game maker making money (maybe more as the distribution cost is gone). Then again, this most likely would still kill the used game market, just in more of a slow manner, and would totally devastate the rental market pretty much immediately.

~mrmiller

If they make it have an Internet always on function, then I say they sould make an Xbox steam or games on demand better and cheaper I'm all about the following: never having to buy a disk again, better demos, $40 aaa games, FTP games like pc with level caps. If it does kill GameStop then o well IMO and if people that do not have the Internet can't play , bummer,

I wouldn't want to be somebody with a lot of stock in Gamestop right now. I think I'd be selling if I was.