Report: New Sony Patent Blocks Second Hand Games

I would hope no company in any medium would attempt this. I can easily see it being a kiss of death for them.

Personally I rarely buy used games, probably one out of +10 games this year. I would rather see money go to the developer rather than the reseller but I could not back this idea.
 
[quote name='Kazaganthi']I'm talking physical game library of 20-30 games, they'll give you a free digital download of all your 30 games on your new console? I doubt that. Also, what if the console never even went online?[/QUOTE]

Brainstorming here - allow the tags space for two names...a PSN name, and a console name. Have the console name something you set when you first setup the machine. When you put a disc in, it writes the console name to the tag. If you've taken the console online, it also writes the PSN name. If you haven't, it doesn't.

Whenever you load a disc into your machine, it'll first check the PSN name (since there's a guarantee of uniqueness there). If the tag doesn't have one, it then goes to the console name. Should your console break, as long as you remember your console name, you won't have a problem.

Such a simple solution has an obvious fallback here. Group of people, all use the same console name and never take 'em online...they'd be able to trade games back and forth at will. It'd still be too hard to guarantee games would work across Ebay or Gamestop, so it'd solve the "used games problem" fairly decently.
 
[quote name='msdmoney']
I disagree on DLC, it has definitely been abused, but it has also been used with great success to add to or modify great games that are worth going back to.

Never happen? As in there will always be some physical format even if it is a tiny niche market? Sure I'll go with that, but there will come a time in the not too distant future when physical media for consoles is akin to the vinyl of the music industry.

It will be similar to cd sales, pysical cd sales have been on the decline for years, downloadable music now accounts for 57% of all music sold. Will cd's still be around, sure, but they won't be the dominant format anymore.

http://techcrunch.com/2012/07/05/ni...ar-this-year-on-pace-to-set-new-sales-record/

PC games have already gone this way, and they are now cheaper than ever. I don't care if I get to resell my $5 steam game.

There is a problem with that assumption. Once you buy a playstation system you are in a closed market unlike the PC. Steam has a lot of competition for your money, and there are a lot of big players getting in to compete in that space. Amazon has been beating Steam at their own game lately in terms of sales. Sony and Microsoft don't have the same incentive to push price like the online PC stores.

There are other closed platforms like iOS that see cheap prices, but there is such a small barrier to entry for developers and such a large amount of content, and with such an open and flexible market that prices don't have the rigidity that they do on traditional consoles.[/QUOTE]

A few comments here. DLC has cheapened the value of some full release games, Bethesda and a few others have been the exception. This being said some big names, COUGHCapcomCOUGH, have seen fit to gouge people with bullshit unlocks. There are also games out there I'm sure you feel that the developer held back some content on just to squeeze extra money out of you with unlocks(Mafia 2) or that just plain feel unfinished or halfassed.

Be honest, how many of you feel you got fuller games in terms of value last generation, before DLC became standard.
I wouldn't bitch so much if the aforementioned crap I'm complaining about only came from 10% or less of these companies but most of the time it seems like 90% or more with Bioware, Bethesda and a few others being the exceptions.
As for CD market dying arguably it's a lot of the music industries fault. Most CD's are PCM stereo, i.e. Lossless stereo. This was great like 15 years ago. The Napster debacle could have been prevented accordingly by......wait for it, wait for it, transitioning the medium of music onto DVD's. Standardizing the music players into playing DVD's standard as well as CD's would've done the Music Industry a world of good. I mean, having high quality multichannel audio for play on those players would've made the downloads for newer stuff a bit of a bandwidth hurdle. Not to say there wouldn't have been widespread adoption of MP3's and all but a necessary bandwidth hurdle would have been put in place.
Though I know it's not fully on point but the movie theaters always came up with something new to make sure peoples television sets wouldn't end up cannibalizing viewership in theaters. After the television came out directors started shooting in 16:9 or 2.35:1.

As for Steam I'd rather pay more for Lucasarts games on GOG.com instead of downloading something that says something to the equivalent of "Go fuck yourself" in terms of having a license since I bought it.
 
Another thing to consider is marketing. MP3 players (and legal downloads) and smartphones would not be as widespread as they are if not for Apple's marketing department. Sony's marketing department isn't on that level.
 
[quote name='Vader582']Quite frankly, I'm ok with this.
I'd rather the money end up in developer's hands than in Gamestop's coffers, who provide no content of their own.
I wouldn't be surprised if this was something devs have been asking for behind the scenes.[/QUOTE]

It's going to end up in the publisher's hands. The developers will be laid off.
 
[quote name='Vinny']Just because a company patents a type of technology, doesn't mean they'll use it. If they do, however, they can kiss my business goodbye.[/QUOTE]
That's my impression as well... If Sony patent this then other companies can't capitalize on this idea, so in a way, it's good for gaming. Hey, think positive people! Besides, I have enough games to last me for a life time if the patent does put to work.
 
[quote name='Salamando3000']I wonder how long it'll take hackers to either find a way to replace RF tags or to find a way to record the "unused" state of a tag and use that to rewrite the tag when they want to sell it.[/QUOTE]


They will probably just hack the console to circumvent the check in the first place.
 
[quote name='camoor']I don't see why. As long as we have physical media, the console that doesn't ban used games will have a serious competitive advantage. I have to think that Xbox720 would take advantage to bury PS4.

Once we have all digital downloads then yes you're correct.[/QUOTE]

So it will happen eventually? ;)

I agree that right now it would be foolish for one console manufacturer to go this route but it wouldn't be all that crazy to me if game developers and publishers formed some sort of union where they all agreed to go along with this. So what if GameStop goes out of business? Places like Walmart and Target who have no interest in the used game business would still carry the consoles... and we would all still buy them and then bitch about it.

I think it is nuts because there are a ton of games that I never would have played if I didn't get it used due to the $60 price tag on new games. A "no used game" policy could work but NEW games would have to be $20 out of the gate.
 
[quote name='Javery']So it will happen eventually? ;)

I agree that right now it would be foolish for one console manufacturer to go this route but it wouldn't be all that crazy to me if game developers and publishers formed some sort of union where they all agreed to go along with this. So what if GameStop goes out of business? Places like Walmart and Target who have no interest in the used game business would still carry the consoles... and we would all still buy them and then bitch about it.

I think it is nuts because there are a ton of games that I never would have played if I didn't get it used due to the $60 price tag on new games. A "no used game" policy could work but NEW games would have to be $20 out of the gate.[/QUOTE]

Eventually eventually :D

And agreed.

Javery - I think that's the saddest thing about this, I get a certain joy out of trading games on the web, swapping one piece of fun software for another.

I don't see any scenario happening where new games are $20 out of the gate, but a slick digital download delivery service ala steam wouldn't be the end of the world for me.

If it was easily navigable, didn't require DLC codes, and they had good sales it might even be a plus - nothing like buying a game and getting almost instant gratification, plus not having to swap discs in and out would be pretty cool.
 
[quote name='camoor']Eventually eventually :D

And agreed.

Javery - I think that's the saddest thing about this, I get a certain joy out of trading games on the web, swapping one piece of fun software for another.

I don't see any scenario happening where new games are $20 out of the gate, but a slick digital download delivery service ala steam wouldn't be the end of the world for me.

If it was easily navigable, didn't require DLC codes, and they had good sales it might even be a plus - nothing like buying a game and getting almost instant gratification, plus not having to swap discs in and out would be pretty cool.[/QUOTE]

I pretty much begrudgingly agree with all of this. I'm not sure I want it and I LOVE trading games with friends but it wouldn't be the end of the world if the delivery method was slick and the prices were FAIR (with lots of sales).

I do hate scrolling through my XBLA games and seeing ones I've finished that I'll never play again just sitting there with me unable to get anything for them in order to fund the next one.
 
What if you buy a second console? As in to have in another room or to replace a broken one? I got YLOD on my PS3. Do I have to rebuy my entire collection?!?!??? I've bought all the Sony consoles except Vita. IF they do this (I doubt the next-gen) then bye bye Sony...
 
[quote name='Javery']So what if GameStop goes out of business? Places like Walmart and Target who have no interest in the used game business would still carry the consoles... and we would all still buy them and then bitch about it[/QUOTE]Both Best Buy and Target sell used games as well. Their selection isn't anywhere near GameStop, but they are there.
 
I'm not a fan of this idea from Sony. I am a software developer, so I do understand the desire to profit from your work and having used outlets undercutting your ability to recoup development costs and reward for your work. A used game sale almost always guarantees that you will never sell that game to that person - it cuts out the people responsible for making the game completely from the equation.

However, I also understand that not every used game sale is a lost new sale (a used game buyer probably won't buy the game new, but not being able to get is used doesn't mean they would buy it new instead). And how it enables buyers to buy more new games, as well as add-on sales, and sequel new sales. All of that DOES benefit the developers.

I actually thought the "Online Pass" was a great idea. It preserves used sales for single player, but in the case of online gaming, a company also incurs the costs of maintaining servers, cheater policing and patches for ANYONE used or new that plays online. It is only fair that the used game buyer kick in some to the company that maintains the servers if you want to use that feature. You play the game until you trade it in, the original cost factors in the average span of time a player will play the game online, but with used games that span increases every time it is resold. I know it is wishful thinking, but the used game price should reflect that it is not a complete package - something Gamestop definitely does not do with the used prices $5 below new, but missing a $10 online pass. It's up to us to show we won't pay almost new prices for a game missing an online pass.

The Sony patent does not seem unusual for Sony. They have a history of proprietary formats and technology that have nothing to do with creating benefit for the consumer. Remember they were the ones busted for the root kit installer on music CDs many years ago. The only way I could support this is if new game prices fell drastically as a result, but you know that isn't their plan. If new PS4 games were $30, they would KILL the competition, regardless of used game ability. If anything though, they will bump up the standard price and let us be the ones to pay extra for their technology for their own benefit. New games $65 AND you can't trade them in. This is very similar to DiVX, the old Circuit City DVD format that tried to pass DRM costs onto the user with higher priced players. It didn't work out too well for Circuit City, either.
 
[quote name='joeboosauce']What if you buy a second console? As in to have in another room or to replace a broken one? I got YLOD on my PS3. Do I have to rebuy my entire collection?!?!??? I've bought all the Sony consoles except Vita. IF they do this (I doubt the next-gen) then bye bye Sony...[/QUOTE]

Well, the idea there is you send the console in and pay Sony to fix it for "bend over" repair prices instead of picking up a new console for cheaper. Again, more profit for Sony - there is far more profit in a repair than a new hardware sale, they sell those things very close to cost (if not under) in the early stages of a generation.

This technology has absolutely zero benefit to the consumer unless they use it as a reason to lower new game prices. Which they won't.
 
The idea of treating digital software as discrete physical objects was antiquated two decades ago. I'm surprised that anyone in the industry is still clinging to it so desperately.

When you buy a "used" game, what you are actually buying is the disc, the case, and whatever paper inserts accompany them. The game itself is digital, and is only peripherally related to its physical container. You aren't buying the game, you are buying its physical conveyance. These discs can have lasting value to collectors, but not to anyone else. The very act of "trading in" games proves that they physical aspect of the medium is disposable to most consumers. Those who regularly dispose of their games in order to obtain new titles care only for the experience.
 
[quote name='Sarang01']As for CD market dying arguably it's a lot of the music industries fault. Most CD's are PCM stereo, i.e. Lossless stereo. This was great like 15 years ago. The Napster debacle could have been prevented accordingly by......wait for it, wait for it, transitioning the medium of music onto DVD's. Standardizing the music players into playing DVD's standard as well as CD's would've done the Music Industry a world of good. I mean, having high quality multichannel audio for play on those players would've made the downloads for newer stuff a bit of a bandwidth hurdle. Not to say there wouldn't have been widespread adoption of MP3's and all but a necessary bandwidth hurdle would have been put in place.
[/QUOTE]

The CD market dying has nothing to do with audio quality it is about accessibility. The majority of music users just don't care enough for high quality multichannel audio for it to have stopped the transition to online music. Having near infinite music at your fingertips on the computer for free or cheap trumps any difference in quality from mp3's to cd's or dvd's for most consumers. CD's were already higher quality than mp3's especially mp3's encoded in the early days of napster and early online music sharing. If the industry had gone to dvd's, music would have just been converted to a lesser quality mp3 anyways. Consumers still aren't that concerned with audio quality, otherwise streaming wouldn't be as big as it is.

[quote name='Richard Kain']The idea of treating digital software as discrete physical objects was antiquated two decades ago. I'm surprised that anyone in the industry is still clinging to it so desperately.

When you buy a "used" game, what you are actually buying is the disc, the case, and whatever paper inserts accompany them. The game itself is digital, and is only peripherally related to its physical container. You aren't buying the game, you are buying its physical conveyance. These discs can have lasting value to collectors, but not to anyone else. The very act of "trading in" games proves that they physical aspect of the medium is disposable to most consumers. Those who regularly dispose of their games in order to obtain new titles care only for the experience.[/QUOTE]

Well said. I have the collector mentality (not for investment just for personal use) so I completely understand the want for physical media, I still have a large physical game collection, but very idea of media on discs is nearly antiquated now, and in ten years I suspect it will seem as silly as the thought of carrying around a binder of cd's these days.
 
[quote name='62t']When your PS3 or Xbox 360 break or when you get a new system, your transfer your profile to the new system and redownload everything you purchase, even if they been removed from the online store. We don't know what the new system will be like but I don't see it being very different.[/QUOTE]

I still don't think you know what a physical game disc is. You know those things you buy at Gamestop, Target, Walmart, Best Buy, or other retailers...yeah, those theoretically won't work on your 2nd console or replacement console. Speculating on next-gen, as next-next-gen in 5-10 years could actually be digital-only. Heh, America has the slowest internet in the world, not to mention most consoles never even go online.

[quote name='joeboosauce']What if you buy a second console? As in to have in another room or to replace a broken one? I got YLOD on my PS3. Do I have to rebuy my entire collection?!?!??? I've bought all the Sony consoles except Vita. IF they do this (I doubt the next-gen) then bye bye Sony...[/QUOTE]

Exactly, a big problem. I know people that have gone through 5 Xbox 360's, either to RROD or just want the new slim that isn't as loud as a lawn mower. In theory, they would have had to replace their entire library of games (physical) each time, that's bogus.
 
[quote name='Richard Kain']Those who regularly dispose of their games in order to obtain new titles care only for the experience.[/QUOTE]

Those who regularly dispose of their games (sell) do so in order to acquire new ones. I suppose it is only the "experience" that I care about BUT I have absolutely ZERO faith that $10 games that are only 6 months old will be the norm if the used game market dies.
 
Im worried that with a few software updates this could be implemented on the ps3 as well. I don't always buy used games, but I like having the option. I also like knowing I can re sell it. There better not be any issues with the ps4 because instead of wasting R&D dollars on this type of BS they should be trying to figure out how they're going to get the ps4 to play ps3 games.
 
[quote name='Thomas96']Im worried that with a few software updates this could be implemented on the ps3 as well. I don't always buy used games, but I like having the option. I also like knowing I can re sell it. There better not be any issues with the ps4 because instead of wasting R&D dollars on this type of BS they should be trying to figure out how they're going to get the ps4 to play ps3 games.[/QUOTE]
It's already possible on the PS3 if you think about how Sony enables the PS Vita cross buy functionality with games like PS All Star battle royale.
 
They used something with the same idea for Playstation All Stars and the free Vita version.

I honestly don't see Sony doing this for the PS4. If they somehow do I don't think people will care as much as everyone seems to think. People were in an uproar over online passes and now no one seems to really care.

Not to mention this pretty much has already happened with PC gaming a long time ago and it doesn't seem like anyone really cares.
 
If the PS4 is being announced this year I can't see the new console having this new technology implemented. I'm no engineer but I can't imagine with something as dramatic as this new technology to be patented with less than a year before launch. You'd figure the patent is the first step and everything is engineered, roadmap, and marketed internally from there for a couple of years beforehand. My guess is this is for the PS5.
 
The problem here is a ton of people trade in their old games for new ones, regardless this is how people get new games. There are very few people who go and sell the game privately, most trade it to get the latest game. If there were no trade-ins I can't imagine people buying a console en masse, people would just not buy it. Each used game traded in, in a ton of cases equals the purchase of a new game at launch. GameStop would have a tough time selling a console to customers if customers could not trade back the games, I suspect they wouldn't carry the hardware.

GameStop is very different today than it was even last year, I see them preparing for this, they now have a whole section for gaming tablets and they advertise the heck out of their tablet and I-device trade in. A year ago the store was all games, now it's 33% tablets and used iDevices. They would have never started this if something wasn't changing in the gaming industry, it's clear the company needs to find a new direction to stay alive in the changing industry.
 
[quote name='whoknows']Not to mention this pretty much has already happened with PC gaming a long time ago and it doesn't seem like anyone really cares.[/QUOTE]

If console game prices go as low as PC game prices have been going, I welcome the change.
 
[quote name='JasonTerminator']If console game prices go as low as PC game prices have been going, I welcome the change.[/QUOTE]

You're better off waiting for the inevitable SteamBox. If the new "Big Picture" feature is any indication, Valve wants in people's living rooms.
 
[quote name='camoor']i'm usually a big sony fan, but if this happens on the ps4 i am ditching it and getting whatever the competitors come up with.[/quote]

+1
 
[quote name='defpally']
I actually thought the "Online Pass" was a great idea. It preserves used sales for single player, but in the case of online gaming, a company also incurs the costs of maintaining servers, cheater policing and patches for ANYONE used or new that plays online. It is only fair that the used game buyer kick in some to the company that maintains the servers if you want to use that feature.[/QUOTE]

Why? Used game sales don't increase the playerbase or burden on the servers. The first buyer can't play the game online anymore.

The whole "oh we need the online pass money for maintenance and upkeep" thing was proven a hollow lie when EA started shutting down the servers for online pass games.
 
I'd be shocked if that happened this next generation. Seems easier to just wait until they move to only downloadable games and take physical media out of the equation. And that's probably at least another generation away as broadband needs to be everywhere first so they're not writing off chunks of the rural market etc.

Personally, I doubt I'll buy another console anyway. Especially two generations away, I could see maybe getting one next gen if I get sucked in by a bunch of must play games after a price drop or something.
 
[quote name='SaraAB']The problem here is a ton of people trade in their old games for new ones, regardless this is how people get new games. There are very few people who go and sell the game privately, most trade it to get the latest game.[/QUOTE]

That is your opinion. I would say "most" people hold onto their games. "Most" large retailers outside of Gamestop and Best Buy have very weak trade-in programs (if any at all). That means nearly all video game sales at Newegg, Walmart, Target, Kmart, Toys R Us, Sam's Club, etc. are done without someone trading a game in first.

Yes I know Target has a 3rd party trade-in program as does TRU and as did Kmart but it is virtually non existent.

This technology would not have as big of an impact in the real world as people on this site want to believe because they can't see things from an outside perspective.
 
[quote name='Salamando3000']You're better off waiting for the inevitable SteamBox. If the new "Big Picture" feature is any indication, Valve wants in people's living rooms.[/QUOTE]

Meh, I already have my PC hooked up to my TV. I used Big Picture for the first time a few days ago to play Shank, pretty good stuff. Microsoft and Sony should be scared shitless about Valve entering the market.

Hopefully prices will go down and I can get the damn Banjo Kazooie games for less than $15 each. fucking XBL Store.
 
[quote name='GBAstar']That is your opinion. I would say "most" people hold onto their games. "Most" large retailers outside of Gamestop and Best Buy have very weak trade-in programs (if any at all). That means nearly all video game sales at Newegg, Walmart, Target, Kmart, Toys R Us, Sam's Club, etc. are done without someone trading a game in first.

Yes I know Target has a 3rd party trade-in program as does TRU and as did Kmart but it is virtually non existent.

This technology would not have as big of an impact in the real world as people on this site want to believe because they can't see things from an outside perspective.[/QUOTE]
You forgot amazon but yeah I agree with you. The average consumer that buys games never trade it in. I rarely did myself until Best Buy started offering 100% trade in bonuses.
 
[quote name='ElwoodCuse']Why? Used game sales don't increase the playerbase or burden on the servers. The first buyer can't play the game online anymore.

The whole "oh we need the online pass money for maintenance and upkeep" thing was proven a hollow lie when EA started shutting down the servers for online pass games.[/QUOTE]

Regardless of what EA said or did, this reasoning is sound, though... publishers do need that money because of increased use of the servers. Sure the 1st purchaser isn't using the game anymore, but if they kept the game then their usage would drop over time. No publisher expects someone to play the game "forever", yet perpetual playing is exactly what would happen if the game keeps getting re-sold and the buyer of the used game uses the online portion. It's like a gym membership... the fee they charge you doesn't cover enough for everyone to use the facilities all at once. But they know that over time most people's usage will fall off, and so the model works. If full usage all the time had to be figured in, the price would be more.
 
[quote name='GBAstar']That is your opinion. I would say "most" people hold onto their games. "Most" large retailers outside of Gamestop and Best Buy have very weak trade-in programs (if any at all). That means nearly all video game sales at Newegg, Walmart, Target, Kmart, Toys R Us, Sam's Club, etc. are done without someone trading a game in first.

Yes I know Target has a 3rd party trade-in program as does TRU and as did Kmart but it is virtually non existent.

This technology would not have as big of an impact in the real world as people on this site want to believe because they can't see things from an outside perspective.[/QUOTE]

Most people I know trade in their old games to GS, I don't know anyone who trades elsewhere, I know a lot of people who clean out their collection so they can get the latest game they want that comes out. I have seen people trading at BB, but that is quite the minority. I also know a ton of kids who trade their games in, with parent approval even though they are getting a terrible deal.

The online pass is a problem because all it does is limit the number of players playing online, aka it makes the multiplayer in games die faster. Though some games do go free after some time. I think that's the best way to do it, have a pass for 6-12 months, if you want to play online you either buy a new copy or you pay, then after that make the MP free so the game doesn't die.

I definitely don't agree with GS selling online pass games for $5 less than new without the pass, and they do, do it. You have to really watch that so you don't get ripped off.
 
[quote name='soonersfan60']Regardless of what EA said or did, this reasoning is sound, though... publishers do need that money because of increased use of the servers. Sure the 1st purchaser isn't using the game anymore, but if they kept the game then their usage would drop over time. No publisher expects someone to play the game "forever", yet perpetual playing is exactly what would happen if the game keeps getting re-sold and the buyer of the used game uses the online portion. It's like a gym membership... the fee they charge you doesn't cover enough for everyone to use the facilities all at once. But they know that over time most people's usage will fall off, and so the model works. If full usage all the time had to be figured in, the price would be more.[/QUOTE]

Then how would you explain Single-player games that do the same thing? Arkham City, Dragon Age, Mass Effect 2, all included dlc codes with new games. No way they did that to save on server costs or whatever. And anything that increases the time between "I put disc in system" and "I start playing the game" needs to be done away with. So annoying to have to enter a code and wait for something to DL before I can play a game.

If it were a server cost thing...would be alot easier for all parties to just pay for it using advertising during loading screens or menus. The more someone plays online, the more they're subjected to advertising, which (in a round about way) puts more money in the hands of their server people.
 
[quote name='Salamando3000']Then how would you explain Single-player games that do the same thing? Arkham City, Dragon Age, Mass Effect 2, all included dlc codes with new games. No way they did that to save on server costs or whatever. And anything that increases the time between "I put disc in system" and "I start playing the game" needs to be done away with. So annoying to have to enter a code and wait for something to DL before I can play a game.

If it were a server cost thing...would be alot easier for all parties to just pay for it using advertising during loading screens or menus. The more someone plays online, the more they're subjected to advertising, which (in a round about way) puts more money in the hands of their server people.[/QUOTE]

And when I said it was a good idea, I specifically said "Online Pass", not "Single Player New Buyer Content". There is no cost justification, just them wanting a cut of the used content and doing so by denying a part of the game to those that don't buy it new. I don't buy the inconvenience argument though, PC gamers have to put up with installs and patching, downloadable games have to put up with download times and it doesn't hurt either of those. It seems like every time I turn on my PS3 (I don't use it often) I have to sit for a while for some required system update.
 
[quote name='soonersfan60']Regardless of what EA said or did, this reasoning is sound, though... publishers do need that money because of increased use of the servers. Sure the 1st purchaser isn't using the game anymore, but if they kept the game then their usage would drop over time. No publisher expects someone to play the game "forever", yet perpetual playing is exactly what would happen if the game keeps getting re-sold and the buyer of the used game uses the online portion. It's like a gym membership... the fee they charge you doesn't cover enough for everyone to use the facilities all at once. But they know that over time most people's usage will fall off, and so the model works. If full usage all the time had to be figured in, the price would be more.[/QUOTE]

Tough. That second or third user is no different than the first user continuing to play. You're way off.
 
[quote name='ElwoodCuse']Tough. That second or third user is no different than the first user continuing to play. You're way off.[/QUOTE]

But the 1st user's playing would decline over time. Very rarely does that not occur. The 2nd and 3rd user will use way more resources than the 1st user would have over that same period of time.
 
By the time the 2nd and 3rd users get their hands on the game, the game would be mostly irrelevant. The game becomes advertisement for the next installment in that game's series.
 
This doesn't bother me in the slightest when I remind myself that the future of gaming is digital and that physical games are environmentally unsustainable. So any measure to ween people off of this outdated system is good news to me. Gamers need to realize that console developers need a ton of money to compete with other titles that incorporate micro-transactions into their games and significantly cheaper games on ios and android platforms. With all this competition, the last thing devs, the game makers, need is for money to escape their pockets to reward amazon or gamestop. I support the devs and the future of the industry in uncertain times.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top