Saints Row 4 (To Be Announced)
inSANE (2013)
Saints Row: The Third (2011)
Red Faction: Armageddon (2011)
Red Faction: Guerrilla (2009)
Saints Row 2 (2008)
Saints Row (2006)
The Punisher (2005)
Red Faction II (2002)
Summoner 2 (2002)
Red Faction (2001)
Summoner (2000)
FreeSpace 2 (1999)
Descent: FreeSpace – The Great War (1998)
Oh, it's not just this guy. Big publishers like EA and UbiSoft are speaking out against used games and trying their best to make it so it's not worth buying a game used.
Despicable.-Innuendo (February 07, 2012, 12:16 PM)
I think what most consumers don’t realize is that every time they buy a used game, there is ZERO money making it back to the Game Developers. All of those profits are going directly to the re-seller and making it more and more difficult for us to continue making higher quality products.
The Question is, what can we do about it?
Game Developers have recently been trying to figure out ways to address this on our own over the last few years and have come up with some ideas that I’m actually beginning to like!
(Link to full article here (http://altdevblogaday.com/2012/02/02/i-feel-used/). )
There’s another big rumor about the next Xbox console that could really start to shake things up…it won’t play used games at all! Personally I think this would be a fantastic change for our business and even though the consumers would be up in arms about it at first…they will grow to understand why and that it won’t kill them.
(Link to full article here (http://altdevblogaday.com/2012/02/02/i-feel-used/). )
So, like anything else that i buy, i paid $60 for it, now i own it and can do whatever i want with it. I can agree that if they put an easy to understand label on the package that says that it is a one time use purchase and it will not be transferable, i will make my buying decision based on that info. Regardless, i can't support developer's complaints that they don't get paid from the used market. Who does for any product? My example is going to be a ford mustang... I buy a new mustang at the ford dealership. Ford makes $3-4 thousand from the purchase. 2 years later, i sell it to some guy and make some of what i paid for it back. Of course, Ford makes no money. 2 months after the guy buys it, it needs a new door handle. He pays $75 at the ford dealership and ford makes some money(Hey, it sounds like DLC to me). The point is, if your original product is worth anything, DLC will be of interest to everyone who buys it whether it is used or new. If your business model doesn't make a profit on the first dsales, then you need to sell a better product. There is a secondary market for almost every product that exists.
Don't boycott those games. Buy them used if you want them.-Deozaan (February 07, 2012, 01:12 PM)
Dan had learned that each book had a copyright monitor that reported when and where it was read, and by whom, to Central Licensing. (They used this information to catch reading pirates, but also to sell personal interest profiles to retailers.) The next time his computer was networked, Central Licensing would find out. He, as computer owner, would receive the harshest punishment—for not taking pains to prevent the crime.
Of course, Lissa did not necessarily intend to read his books. She might want the computer only to write her midterm. But Dan knew she came from a middle-class family and could hardly afford the tuition, let alone her reading fees. Reading his books might be the only way she could graduate.
If nature has made any one thing less susceptible than all others of exclusive property, it is the action of the thinking power called an idea, which an individual may exclusively possess as long as he keeps it to himself; but the moment it is divulged, it forces itself into the possession of every one, and the receiver cannot dispossess himself of it. Its peculiar character, too, is that no one possesses the less, because every other possesses the whole of it. He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me.
We are still the ones voting for these people. These who did and tried, will try again, will hide it under other bills, etc.-rgdot (February 07, 2012, 02:44 PM)
Add to that many laws are passed down or overridden by EU law which isn't in any sense democratic and where exactly is the democracy the 'alliance' is supposed to be exporting to undemocratic countries?-Carol Haynes (February 07, 2012, 07:42 PM)
The fallacy of ideas as property is the core problem. As long as people cling to that, there will be conflict.-Renegade (February 07, 2012, 07:14 PM)
What you are saying is true but the defeatism won't improve anything either. By saying and thinking what you posted they have really won, our apathy (or similar sentiment) is and has become their greatest weapon. And also, we can not keep on living thinking that all of us can be bought and there is no chance of "true democracy".-rgdot (February 07, 2012, 08:22 PM)
Step-1: Feel your pain. Deeply. Horribly. Let it become unbearable. Do not attempt to rationalize it away.
Step-2: Allow yourself get to the point of where you want to scream: This is intolerable! I cannot live even one more second like this!!! This has absolutely got to change!!!!!
Step-3: Now remind yourself the only way anything is ever going to change is if you yourself change it.
The fallacy of ideas as property is the core problem. As long as people cling to that, there will be conflict.-Renegade (February 07, 2012, 07:14 PM)
I think that this is a case of no one going to the middle. You have one side that thinks that ideas cannot and should not have ownership, and others that think that they have to hold onto it with both hands. IMO, neither is correct. When we say that you cannot own an idea, then the characters that we have grown up with become meaningless. That's when despite the wishes of Bill Watterson, when he decides not to make any more Calvin and Hobbes cartoons, someone else makes cheap rip-offs for the money... or even worse, they do it while he's publishing his.
I understand the concept of what you're saying (probably) isn't advocating this, but isn't this the same thing that a lot of our protests against PIPA and SOPA are about? The abilities that these laws give rather than in many case the truths of what would come about even if passed?-wraith808 (February 07, 2012, 09:58 PM)
The media lobby got ACTA signed into law while we were sitting around congratulating ourselves on how well "we showed 'em."
Now SOPA and PIPA are looking more and more like a diversionary tactic. The classic red herring. The disposable infantry units that got sent out to draw fire and distract attention away from what the real game was - getting ACTA signed as quickly, and in as many countries, as possible.-40hz (February 07, 2012, 10:15 PM)
What you are saying is true but the defeatism won't improve anything either. By saying and thinking what you posted they have really won, our apathy (or similar sentiment) is and has become their greatest weapon. And also, we can not keep on living thinking that all of us can be bought and there is no chance of "true democracy".-rgdot (February 07, 2012, 08:22 PM)
Also make voting compulsory - with a large fine if you don't without a very good reason.-Carol Haynes (February 08, 2012, 02:59 AM)
Finally have a 'none of the above box' on every ballot paper and force a new election if that box wins!-Carol Haynes (February 08, 2012, 02:59 AM)
If we take the basic empirical approach, then there is no debate whatsoever -- ideas cannot be property. Period. You can only have exclusive access to an idea if you never share/reveal it. But even then, someone else might think of the same idea... History is full of these kinds of things, e.g. Calculus with Liebniz and Descartes, even though it was known elsewhere centuries before.-Renegade (February 08, 2012, 12:06 AM)
If we take the basic empirical approach, then there is no debate whatsoever -- ideas cannot be property. Period. You can only have exclusive access to an idea if you never share/reveal it. But even then, someone else might think of the same idea... History is full of these kinds of things, e.g. Calculus with Liebniz and Descartes, even though it was known elsewhere centuries before.-Renegade (February 08, 2012, 12:06 AM)
While it is true that anything that you say or do that is not obfuscated in some manner cannot be owned, where does this leave the creative side of things? If you take the money grubbing out, and leave out the non-personal aspect of the corporations, and get back to the very basics as my example above... where is it right or fair that someone who creates this idea and does all of the work on it loses it just because they want to share what they did with the world?
If I create something with my writing that inspires others, then that's a great thing. But if someone takes my characters to make a profit off of those characters that I create, then in what place is that fair? And is the only choice give it away or keep it to yourself?-wraith808 (February 08, 2012, 09:58 AM)
But if people want and expect better than that, they're going to need to give something back to the creatives before they have to quit - and leave nothing behind but commercial hacks and amateurs to fill the void.
ACTA/SOPA/PIPA isn't the answer to this problem. But neither is the "Why should I have to pay at all?" mindset many people now have.
<snip />
At least it's worth a try. Because what people and their governments are doing right now isn't working. And never will.-40hz (February 08, 2012, 11:01 AM)
I think what most consumers don’t realize is that every time they buy a used game, there is ZERO money making it back to the Game Developers. All of those profits are going directly to the re-seller and making it more and more difficult for us to continue making higher quality products.
Wait, 40hz, weren't you recently advocating *not buying anything* rather than buying from independents, as I suggested? Isn't that the opposite of "giving something back to the creatives"? :D-JavaJones (February 10, 2012, 02:09 PM)
I'd suggest we start by dumping outmoded and unnecessary parts of the distribution system, since it's the distributors and their trade practices that are the biggest part of the problem right now. Digital downloads have pretty much rendered most of the old industry models obsolete or inapplicable anyway.
.
.
.
Once the crud gets cleaned out of the distribution pipes we have a better chance of putting artists directly in touch with their friends and fans. And maybe out of that will come a new awareness of why it's necessary to actively and financially support the arts people are most interested in. And hopefully the people will act on their awareness without the need for givernment (not a typo!) to continue to propose crazy and unworkable laws and other regulatory nonsense.
It's little more than queen's pawn to queen's pawn 3 so far. An opening move. The real battle hasn't even begun yet. And the gloves won't come off until some time after that.Stretching the chess analogy beyond safe limits:-40hz (February 07, 2012, 10:15 PM)
Yes I was. But I've had a little time to think about it so I've modified my stance somewhat. (I'm not so full of myself that I'm unwilling to rethink my position or opinions.)
:P
But I still think it would be better not to buy any more than humanly possible until such time as we completely kill off the existing music and record industry. Because as long as they're around funding bad legislation, they will prevent my further suggestion (see below) from ever happening.-40hz (February 10, 2012, 02:37 PM)
It's little more than queen's pawn to queen's pawn 3 so far. An opening move. The real battle hasn't even begun yet. And the gloves won't come off until some time after that.Stretching the chess analogy beyond safe limits:-40hz (February 07, 2012, 10:15 PM)
So the Media Lobbies, with the advantage, are playing White? What's their meta strategy? To play the Queen Pawn systems a tempo down so that we get lulled into thinking they're beaten, or are they playing a King's Indian Attack aka a reversed defense as an offense? :)-TaoPhoenix (February 10, 2012, 02:55 PM)
Hooray for the ability to intelligently debate, consider our perspective, and modify our opinions or approach if necessary.-JavaJones (February 10, 2012, 03:15 PM)
I think their "meta strategy" is to make a totally bizarre move, and then - while we're staring at the board and trying to figure out exactly what that BS is all about - have somebody else (really big) sneak up behind us, bash us over the head with a brick, and then take our wallet and smartphone!!!This is not exactly it, but you reminded me of this little prank:-40hz (February 10, 2012, 03:30 PM)