Originally Posted by Coma;15567822
Dude, what? How is that even remotely related to this?
He is pointing out that the site may be somewhat disreputable by its inability to find a permanent home. Not sure that the two are strongly correlated myself, but that was the intent.
Originally Posted by matty0610;15568646
That's why the used games market hurts the gaming industry. Its good for us,gamestop, bestbuy, and etc, but bad for them. 1 person buys it brand new has all the fun and the publisher gets a cut and the retail gets a small cut, sells it back, another person buys it used enjoys it and now the retailer gets all of the money while publisher gets none, repeat until no one buys that game anymore.
Sharing games and buying used games does hurt the industry. But how badly is left to someone to crunch the numbers and report back.
But as you point out, this same "hurting the industry" has been going on in the VHS/DVD and music industry forever. Yet somehow they managed to survive. In fact, it has been going on in the gaming
industry forever too; or at least as long as the internet has made it easy to do so, anyway. Cripes, I was buying and selling used Apple games on USENET before there ever was a world wide web.
So while it cannot be disputed that there is a loss of sales revenue to the game publishers due to the secondary market, it is completely disingenuous for anyone to claim that this is some new and unpredicted phenomena that is just SO disruptive, as publishers would have us believe. The industry needs to find a way to adjust to the market reality that games WILL be resold, just as ALL content is resold.
As distasteful as we may find it, those "pay $10 to get online capabilities for your used games" are exactly that. If the market accepts them, they will continue; if the market rejects them, then the industry will try something else.
Originally Posted by bevo;15568753
i actually don't think 60$ for a game is that bad. The last time me and the wife went out the movies we spent, 40$ for 2 hours of entertainment. A night out to dinner is easily 60$, take the family to the amusement park for a day well over 300$, 25$ for a 2 hour blue ray, for those of you that drink beer 15$ for a 12 pack of beer, etc. 60$ for a good game could get you an easy 20 hours of fun minimum and if it's an online game it could be played for years. If you look at it as how long you get to enjoy the game, compared to other ways you spend money to entertain yourself, then 60$ is a great deal.
All true from a pure dollar comparison point of view, and we've all heard these arguments before. The problem is that not all forms of entertainment are of equal value; and by "value", I mean how the market has priced that entertainment form. "Dollars spent per hour" is just too simplistic. If it were valid, no one would ever go to the movies again because the intrinsic value would be closer to a couple of bucks per ticket, and that $8 bucket of popcorn's intrinsic value is maybe $1. Obviously people are willing to pay more, so their actual value is higher.
It is easy to turn my previous post's argument against me using this exact same argument, of course. I basically argued that buying a game at full price on day one is foolish, because the game is unchanged a year later and will be available at 50% off or more. And while that is true if experiencing the game content is the only thing that matters to you, clearly there is a market value to the time value of experiencing that content.
Originally Posted by matty0610;15568984
Dinner is 60 for 2 people? Jeez that must be dessert, meal, and appetizer and must be some expensive drinks.
While $40 for a movie does seem excessive, $60 for a decent meal at a "real" restaurant with a couple of drinks and tip is certainly in the $50-$60 range. And that's in Ohio, where the cost of living is relatively cheap.
Originally Posted by Scrappy;15569021
Maybe if they went with a little more fair price, the jump from $50 to $60 was a mistake IMO.
Not really, the price of a game had been $50 for something like 10 years. They were way
overdue for a price increase. What was strange, and made the jump to $60 seem more tumultuous, was that there had been no incremental price jump to $55 during the PS2/Xbox era as there should have been.
Originally Posted by Raiden911;15569785
I concur. I remember when $40 was the price for new games.
So you remember 1980? Seriously, I think that's what I was paying for Atari 2600 games. I think some NES games went for $40-ish too. Of course, in inflation adjusted terms, $40 in 2011 is a hella lot more
than $40 was in the early 1980s!!!