They're not getting screwed. Buying second hand does not screw the publishers, nor the developers, any more than buying a used car screws the manufacturer. In fact, you could argue that buying NEW games via brick and mortar stores screws developers even worse because it perpetuates an exploitative and dated business model which enriches the publisher and not necessarily the developer.
I took the liberty of correcting your statement. People are willing to pay $60 a game, so that's what they're sold at. Games don't have to cost $60 to make Sony/Microsoft a profit (the Wii was never sold at a loss). One of the reasons console customers find $60 games to be acceptable is the used market. PC gamers don't usually have that option anymore, so they've balked at jumping from $50 to $60 (and many, like me, refuse to even pay that much).
And he's dead wrong. Player has $400 to spend on games in a year. He buys a $60 game, plays it for a month, sells it for $30. Then he buys a new game for $60, plays it for another month, and sells it for $30, and so on... He ends up buying 12 new games in a year. If he can only get $20 for a used game (that $10 less the price is because of online), then he's down to only 9 games in a year on his budget. If he can't sell the games at all, he's down to 6 titles a year. Unless those currently buying used step up to buy more new (and I don't think that will happen), the game publishers have lost sales because of the damage to the used market.[/QUOTE]
I believe that THQ approach is bad in terms of future customers.
I took the liberty of correcting your statement. People are willing to pay $60 a game, so that's what they're sold at. Games don't have to cost $60 to make Sony/Microsoft a profit (the Wii was never sold at a loss). One of the reasons console customers find $60 games to be acceptable is the used market. PC gamers don't usually have that option anymore, so they've balked at jumping from $50 to $60 (and many, like me, refuse to even pay that much).[/QUOTE]
Oh I understand the point (at least I do) The company rather get the money from each person playing the game than just 1 and "shared" among 2-3 people (if not more)
Steams great if your a retro gamer though. It's much easier to buy copies of older games off of steam for five-ten bucks than it is to find them in stores sometimes.
Hey, if that's what they want, they should be willing to allow me to trade me back their old game in exchange for playing their new one. A license to use a piece of software is not, by default, the same a license to use a service. This would also get them out of needing to maintain levels of support for legacy. That's how most SaaS models work.
Hey, if that's what they want, they should be willing to allow me to trade me back their old game in exchange for playing their new one. A license to use a piece of software is not, by default, the same a license to use a service. This would also get them out of needing to maintain levels of support for legacy. That's how most SaaS models work.
Yes. Yes, you can.
Transfer My Membership - gym membership, gyms, health clubs, membership transfers,
Companies like CellSwapper are performing the exact same service that the gym membership swap club I linked above is performing: Finding people who have contracts they no longer want and matching them with people who want them. It's the exact same business model that Gamestop has for used games.
Yes. Yes, you can.
Transfer My Membership - gym membership, gyms, health clubs, membership transfers,
The up-front cost of most enterprise software packages dwarfs that of game product costs, though. Also, many companies will charge a yearly maintenance fee for support and patches/upgrades.
I often wonder what is the percentage that the developers are getting from digital download format.
My smaller priced adobe products, which are comparable in cost to games, are fully transferable.
Yearly maintenance fees are not required. It's related side revenue but has nothing to do with sales. My smaller priced adobe products, which are comparable in cost to games, are fully transferable.[/QUOTE]
My smaller priced adobe products, which are comparable in cost to games, are fully transferable.
Yup..but if you don't need support, you can do without monthly/yearly fee. I work at a company that uses VM on our mainframes. We buy the license for the software, but we have our own VM wizard. We don't pay the extremely high support fee. But even if we did, that support contract would be fully transferable to a third party along with our VM licenses. So, really, this side discussion adds nothing new to the debate.
This is because the MMO model is really new, as far as the courts are concerned. That said, courts are starting to get pulled into the fray, and we are starting to see mmo objects treated more like real property.
There may not be any direct financial payment to game developers, but that's a far cry from having the same effect as piracy. The market for used games promotes and supports the market for new games. Gamestop wouldn't be as big a business as it is now if it didn't buy and sell used games. If Gamestop weren't as big as it is now, they wouldn't be able to hold their big game launch midnight-release events, and the publishers would get less support for advertising their new games.
There may not be any direct financial payment to game developers, but that's a far cry from having the same effect as piracy. The market for used games promotes and supports the market for new games. Gamestop wouldn't be as big a business as it is now if it didn't buy and sell used games. If Gamestop weren't as big as it is now, they wouldn't be able to hold their big game launch midnight-release events, and the publishers would get less support for advertising their new games.[/QUOTE]
Hell, if they rereleased this, I'd gladly pay full retail price, because it'd be way cheaper than the ridiculously overpriced used copies you find now
