Why TF would anybody anywhere ever buy a used game from Gamestop?

[shmokes]

What I'm saying doesn't just end with, "If you can afford $55 you can afford $60."  That is, of course, the case in the relevant market.  But my point is that if you can afford $60 why would you by something well above market value when you don't have to.  A $5 savings simply does not represent the market value lost by virtue of the title being used.

People who wanted to act like I was being spoiled or insensitive to the financial difficulties of others were just being passive aggressive and dishonest.  Some other people actually answered my question with things like the 7-day return-for-any-reason policy.

Even Versapak answered my question honestly, owning that the savings is negligible, but combined with the convenience of the game being right there and the fact that he doesn't care at all whether the game is new or used, he doesn't mind getting ripped off a bit.

In other words, Versapak said what you wanted to say because he didn't pretend to be victimized by my insensitivity.

[Malenko]

In other words, Versapak said what you wanted to say because he didn't pretend to be victimized by my insensitivity.

Nah hes just more articulate then I am. He's also more articulate then you because he didnt require  eleventy posts to get his point across. Hope I didnt tread on you, and I like your profile picture caption a lot better now =) Just so ya know, I also answered your question with the 7 day return policy thingie too

As for the price, meh you actually get $10 off with an edge card (as stated earlier) and you can return it

See?

gimme a high five!


EDIT: Awww I remember now, we clashed about the april fools/everything else/politics and religion thing! Miss me? Sometimes I roleplay Chaddles and Deathpunch and just like to argue for no real reason. Is there where I joke and say give me $5 and I'll stop, because I know you can afford it?

[Ginsu Victim]

A $5 savings simply does not represent the market value lost by virtue of the title being used.

Keep in mind that Gamestop sells opened games as NEW all the time. It's bollocks. Even at $60, it still isn't market value.

If there is a $55 used one or an opened $60 "new" one, take the $55.

[shmokes]

Awww I remember now, we clashed about the april fools/everything else/politics and religion thing! Miss me?

Lol . . . I honestly have no idea what you're talking about and no memory of having ever clashed with you (specifically).  I clash with everyone.  It's not personal.  I'd buy you a beer if I saw you in a bar.

[SNAAKE]

wait you could return any game in 7 days? I need to rent some stuff..

[Malenko]

Awww I remember now, we clashed about the april fools/everything else/politics and religion thing! Miss me?

Lol . . . I honestly have no idea what you're talking about and no memory of having ever clashed with you (specifically).  I clash with everyone.  It's not personal.  I'd buy you a beer if I saw you in a bar.

I'd buy ya a jagerbomb or Soco and Lime  

wait you could return any game in 7 days? I need to rent some stuff..

I dont quite remember the specifics, but its something like you can exchange it for a title of equal value and you can only bring back 1 game, if the one you exchanged it for sucks as well, you are teh boned.

[shmokes]

you can only bring back 1 game, if the one you exchanged it for sucks as well, you are teh boned.

Wow . . . that's a pretty big caveat.  I mean . . . like I mentioned before, it's not difficult at all to predict with great accuracy which games you will like and which you won't.  We have the internet.  You can get metacritic scores.  You can base judgments on critical reviews from particular critics who seem to share your tastes.  You have prior games to go on (e.g., the next Tim Schafer game will be excellent because he always makes excellent games).  You have trailers and oftentimes you have demos.

Unless you are incredibly lazy or just have no self-control at all you should have very little occasion to take advantage of that 7-day return policy if you're ligitmately using it because you bought a game thinking it would be good only to find out otherwise.  If you can't exploit the policy a bit as a pseudo-rental service I'm back to my original position (not that I ever strayed too far from it).  $5 off is highway robbery.  Paying $55 for a used game that costs $60 new is just embarrasing.  

Btw, while I was going on about it being nonsense that anybody could afford to pay $55, but not $60 for a game it didn't occur to me that there was a far better way to illustrate this point.  Explain to me the incongruence of a person who will buy a used game for $55 because he can't afford to pay $60 for it, but yet doesn't take advantage of the fact that he could get the same thing for $40 with free shipping on eBay.  I mean, if $5 is a lot to you, $20 must be a ---smurfing--- fortune.

[knave]

I find that my gamestop experience varies by store. I'm fortunate in that my favorite one is within walking distance from my work. The staff there are always polite even though I seldom buy anything. I cherry pick older titles that got great reviews for around $20. That plus the edge discount on used games and hardware makes it a great resource.  It's fun to walk in browse around for a while and find a great game that's on my list for cheap...that game probably isn't even on the shelf new anymore and now I have it in hand.  

[shateredsoul]

gamefly is way better, you always get a new case and booklet, and the games are always in great condition.  Right now they have  final fantasy 13 for 30, and god of war 3 for 22 and if you are member or have an old account you can get it shipped for free.  Seriously good deals,  40 or 30 dollars less in about 3 or 4 months. 

some more

bioshock 2 $16.99
Bayonetta $17.99

[newmanfamilyvlogs]

Back around 2001 or so I bought Chrono Trigger for SNES from the local GameStop for $39.99.
I still can't decide if it was a good deal or not.

[ark_ader]

$5 is a lot of money especially when you do not have it in the first place.

$5 is neither a lot nor a little bit of money.  it's relative to who you are. Steve Jobs presumably does not think $5 is a lot of money.  The average 13-year-old probably does.  We're talking about relative differences in classes of people and the relevant class is the group of people who own a current-gen game console and pay $50+ for video games.

Are we talking about the same class of person who used to be the class of person, that went out and bought a $50 game, say 9 months ago, now makes the same choice either to pay the utility bill or go family food shopping with that last $5? 

Relative speaking.... is your example similar to a Nevadian who used to purchase said games at $50 a pop and now treats $5 like a C note? 

Before you go mighty than thou, research Reno NV, which has the worst economic downturn in the country.  I'm sure there will be of 360s and PS3 consoles in the living rooms of Reno playing old rehash. 

Especially Christmas rehash...


I'm not that person BTW, but I will be the person who will donate food, clothing and toys this holiday season.  You know what would be cool?  To organize a Christmas (or whatever you celebrate) drive to get games and consoles to economically deprived kids in your area that are either refurbished or not wanted.  I used to donate used computers to low income families (old Macs) in 2000.  Maybe need a new thread eh?

[shmokes]

Are we talking about the same class of person who used to be the class of person, that went out and bought a $50 game, say 9 months ago, now makes the same choice either to pay the utility bill or go family food shopping with that last $5? 

Yes.  Exactly.  When I referred to a class of people in the present tense I obviously was talking about people who once belonged to that class and are now unemployed.  Seriously? 

Anyway, I already explained this.  $5 is a lot of money to your guy deciding whether to apply his last $5 to utilities or groceries.  Guess what . . . I bet you can guess . . . I'm gonna give you a minute . . . see if you can do it . . . here it comes . . .

wait . . .


for . . .

it . . .

That guy isn't buying $50+ videogames.

[AtomSmasher]

Are we talking about the same class of person who used to be the class of person, that went out and bought a $50 game, say 9 months ago, now makes the same choice either to pay the utility bill or go family food shopping with that last $5?  

Yes.  Exactly.  When I referred to a class of people in the present tense I obviously was talking about people who once belonged to that class and are now unemployed.  Seriously?  

Anyway, I already explained this.  $5 is a lot of money to your guy deciding whether to apply his last $5 to utilities or groceries.  Guess what . . . I bet you can guess . . . I'm gonna give you a minute . . . see if you can do it . . . here it comes . . .

wait . . .


for . . .

it . . .

That guy isn't buying $50+ videogames.

Haha ya, I was thinking the same thing.  If a guy needs his last $5 to buy groceries, then he shouldn't be spending $50 on a videogame.  Buts lets say he really wants the game no matter what, then he would still be an idiot not to buy it online for $35 and have an extra $15 to put in the bank.

[shmokes]

Maybe he doesn't have internet and what he saves in broadband bills he applies to Gamestop highway robbery.   

[ark_ader]

He could have a gaming habit.

[shateredsoul]

I used to have a gaming habit.. it's crazy how many good deals they have for games that were rated as must haves, A, 90+/100... so I kept buying eventhough i didn't have time i'd stockpile 15 10 and 20 dollar games.  I stopped that. now i'm building an arcade cab 

[VespaGuy]

I didn't ask "who".  I asked "why" and "what kind of moron".  Don't be retarded.  

I wasn't aware that discs wore out.   

Back in the cartridge days, I wasn't particularly thrilled about used games but now I couldn't care less.  Manuals are worthless because everything has a tutorial level nowadays.

The people saving the $5 are killing the industry, though.  Game companies make nothing on that sale and all it does is dilute demand.

BS


Those used games are often first owned by someone who bought them new, and only traded them in so that they could buy another new game.  If that person was not able to trade his game in to buy another new game, then it is likely that he wouldn't buy it.

That may cover a portion of the used game buyers/sellers, but in my experience, each time I have purchased a new game, the salesclerk has said, 'would you like a used-copy with the same guarantee for $5 less.' The people who accept that offer - and I'm guessing that there are many - are directly taking a sale away from the publisher and giving it to the reseller. Not every person who buys a game for $5 less is doing it because it's all they can afford.  There are plenty who walk in with every intention of buying a new game and decide to save $5.00.

Used car sales don't kill car companies, and used game sales don't kill game companies.

This is a horrible analogy. The used car market is entirely unlike the used game market. Unless the packaging and manual have any value to the consumer (which they usually don't) a used game and a new game are identical in every way. The game plays exactly the same. The same cannot be said for physical items (like automobiles) which lose value as they accrue mileage, wear & tear, etc. 

Because of this the new game market is in direct competition with the used game market. The used game market is offering - for all intents and purposes - an identical product at a reduced price. The same cannot be said of the used car market.

I have bought plenty of games used for only $5 less. Why not? It is $5 less. Yeah, $5 less isn't really all that much in savings, and if I can afford $55, then I can afford $60, but so what? It is still a savings. So I don't get the new game smell. Oh well.

My point exactly. You can afford a new game (which benefits the publisher) but choose the used game (which does not benefit the publisher).  How can you say that this isn't killing the developer/publisher?


As an aside, many publishers (beginning with EA) have begun to institute a $10 fee for online multiplayer for upcoming titles. If you purchase the game new, you will get a code to waive the $10 fee. So the price remains the same for the customer who pays full price, but folks who buy the game used will have to fork over $10 to the publisher.

[Ginsu Victim]

Used car sales don't kill car companies, and used game sales don't kill game companies.

This is a horrible analogy. The used car market is entirely unlike the used game market. Unless the packaging and manual have any value to the consumer (which they usually don't) a used game and a new game are identical in every way. The game plays exactly the same. The same cannot be said for physical items (like automobiles) which lose value as they accrue mileage, wear & tear, etc.  

Well, when buying used games, one does have to take wear and tear into account. A new game and scratched to hell used game aren't necessarily going to play the same. Like a car, a game can have mileage, too.

[shmokes]

Not to mention, who the eff cares?  When you buy a new game it's yours.  You own it.  That's why they call it buying instead of licensing.  I can sell a game that I own every bit as much as I can sell a book that I own or a CD that I own.  And I'm perfectly free to buy games, books, CDs from other people.  And if there's a market a person is perfectly free to facilitate those sales by getting into the business of buying/selling used games, books and CDs.  If a content creator wants to discourage resale he might just have to get creative and build some longevity into the product or something, because once he sells his game he doesn't own it anymore. 

Don't get me wrong . . . consumers are utter morons who purchase used games at Gamestop for a whopping $5 savings, but I digress.  Point is, nobody who sells me anything should be able to tell me that I have to either continue owning it or destroy it.  That's retarded.

[Ginsu Victim]

Point is, nobody who sells me anything should be able to tell me that I have to either continue owning it or destroy it.  That's retarded.

A-frickin'-men.

[massive88]

Well, when buying used games, one does have to take wear and tear into account. A new game and scratched to hell used game aren't necessarily going to play the same. Like a car, a game can have mileage, too.

Maybe Im in the minority, but I have never had a game have a problem dues to scratches, dating all the way back to my PS1.  When buying used, you check out the disc to make sure there is nothing major, beyond that, no problem, same product.

Especially now a days with my 360, where any game Im actively playing I install to the HDD first.  The CD just has to spin up once to make sure its there.  Then there is no difference.

[Ginsu Victim]

Maybe Im in the minority, but I have never had a game have a problem dues to scratches, dating all the way back to my PS1.  When buying used, you check out the disc to make sure there is nothing major, beyond that, no problem, same product.

Back in the day, I would buy Dreamcast games used and occasionally they wouldn't work because they had one tiny, barely visible scratch in just the right place. I had NFL2k that stopped working because of one nearly invisible scratch!

[shateredsoul]

man.. I remember when I was a kid there was this guy at the swapmeet who would let you trade your used Nintendo games for free. Well not exactly.. he'd look at the game you had and tell you which section you could trade in for (they were separated by price).  From what I can remember, he would look at the game and based on what people would probably pay for it, he would let you trade for that stack (I think the games were separated into 10, 12, 15)

I remember the first time I went to sell a game .  I had bought some game with my own money (brand new) .. but it turned out I didn't like it. When I found out how much I could get for it.. I nearly cried, then the guy felt bad and gave me some more $$ (I bought the game from him and was now selling it back to him).

Aaaaaaaaannnnd

When I was a kid, my dad would bring a used Nintendo game home each time he went to the swapmeet.  This one time, he brought home donkey kong jr.  I looked at it and was dissapointed and asked him why he got this one (and did the whole ungrateful kid thing). He never bought us a used game again.  I still feel bad about it to this day and my brother blamed me for our dad no buying us games anymore.

used games created so many good and not so good memories, I didn't care if they were older games.  I bet kids today get older used games too from their parents.

[VespaGuy]

Used car sales don't kill car companies, and used game sales don't kill game companies.

This is a horrible analogy. The used car market is entirely unlike the used game market. Unless the packaging and manual have any value to the consumer (which they usually don't) a used game and a new game are identical in every way. The game plays exactly the same. The same cannot be said for physical items (like automobiles) which lose value as they accrue mileage, wear & tear, etc.  

Well, when buying used games, one does have to take wear and tear into account. A new game and scratched to hell used game aren't necessarily going to play the same. Like a car, a game can have mileage, too.

That's ridiculous. The "mileage" has no effect on the gameplay. Either it works, or it doesn't work.  If it works, the gameplay is identical.  If it doesn't work, GameStop will replace it with a working copy. For all intents and purposes, a working used copy is identical to a working new copy.

[VespaGuy]

Not to mention, who the eff cares?  When you buy a new game it's yours.  You own it.

No it isn't and no you don't.

You own the physical media the game is on, and you own a license to play the game. Sorry, but you don't own the game.

That's why they call it buying instead of licensing.

You are "buying" the license, not the game.

I can sell a game that I own every bit as much as I can sell a book that I own or a CD that I own.  And I'm perfectly free to buy games, books, CDs from other people.  And if there's a market a person is perfectly free to facilitate those sales by getting into the business of buying/selling used games, books and CDs. 

Yup. The First-Sale Doctrine protects you there. However, you still have limitations to what you can and can't do with a video game or a CD because you do not own them. Go ahead and make copies of the music or video games "you own" and sell them and see what happens...

If a content creator wants to discourage resale he might just have to get creative and build some longevity into the product or something,

That is what's happening now. We already see creativity in the form of DLC and other additional content. We are also seeing separate charges for multiplayer.

because once he sells his game he doesn't own it anymore. 

Legally, he does. He has only sold you the license.

Don't get me wrong . . . consumers are utter morons who purchase used games at Gamestop for a whopping $5 savings, but I digress.  Point is, nobody who sells me anything should be able to tell me that I have to either continue owning it or destroy it.  That's retarded.

Again, you are purchasing the license to use a certain content and a physical medium to transfer the content. Despite your unfounded claims otherwise, You do not own the game.

[Ginsu Victim]

Used car sales don't kill car companies, and used game sales don't kill game companies.

This is a horrible analogy. The used car market is entirely unlike the used game market. Unless the packaging and manual have any value to the consumer (which they usually don't) a used game and a new game are identical in every way. The game plays exactly the same. The same cannot be said for physical items (like automobiles) which lose value as they accrue mileage, wear & tear, etc. 

Well, when buying used games, one does have to take wear and tear into account. A new game and scratched to hell used game aren't necessarily going to play the same. Like a car, a game can have mileage, too.

That's ridiculous. The "mileage" has no effect on the gameplay. Either it works, or it doesn't work.  If it works, the gameplay is identical.  If it doesn't work, GameStop will replace it with a working copy. For all intents and purposes, a working used copy is identical to a working new copy.

Yeah, well it's always fun to get 10 hours into a game and find out it doesn't want to work anymore, or certain aspects of the game won't load.

[Mikezilla]

I personally prefer to rent games now adays instead of buying them. I bought Spiderman for N64 back in the day and I beat it the same night I bought it. Couldnt exchange it or return it for anything. I was out 55 bucks. Gamestop wasnt even around back then but still. Most games you can rent, beat em, then give em back. I havent tried Gamefly yet, but it sounds like it would be cool. I barely justify paying 65 bucks for a game (I live in CA so I get raped by tax) that I REALLY want. I bought Starcraft 2 for 65 bucks because I know Im going to play the hell out of it, and it is going to have tons of replay value, odds are Im not going to want to sell it. But am I going to play 65 bucks for a game like...say Batman Arkham Asylum (when it came out, havent been playing the console stuff lately) probably not.

\

Back around 2001 or so I bought Chrono Trigger for SNES from the local GameStop for $39.99.
I still can't decide if it was a good deal or not.

Yes you got a good deal, that damn game still goes for 40+ on ebay. Thank god I found one for 20 the other day, cause the guy was a tard. I remember when the damn thing was 79.99 at Toys R Us when it first came out. Thats the only cartridge game I remember seeing for more than 50 bucks for its time. But see, now look. That game is awesome and you will play that through every few years, I do anyway.

[Mikezilla]

That is what's happening now. We already see creativity in the form of DLC and other additional content. We are also seeing separate charges for multiplayer.

I wouldnt say its creativity, its trying to milk the property as much as they can. Take Starcraft 2 for example. I got it cause I played the first one, its an awesome story, and its been 12 years in the making. Yeah Im going to pay 65 bucks for it, because its an awesome game that I can play FOREVER. People still play the old one. Make a great game, and you wont need to charge for DLC or multiplayer. Thats ridiculous. I would never pay more money to play the game, after I bought the damn thing. Thats why I think people that play WoW are a different breed of animal. I wouldnt pay extra money to download a map pack from MW2 either. Thats absurd. Game companies want more money, because they know people will pay it cause they can afford to. It boils down to their target audience as well. Most kids now-a-days have such bad ADD they need something new constantly, and the game market is trying to bank on that.

[VespaGuy]

Used car sales don't kill car companies, and used game sales don't kill game companies.

This is a horrible analogy. The used car market is entirely unlike the used game market. Unless the packaging and manual have any value to the consumer (which they usually don't) a used game and a new game are identical in every way. The game plays exactly the same. The same cannot be said for physical items (like automobiles) which lose value as they accrue mileage, wear & tear, etc. 

Well, when buying used games, one does have to take wear and tear into account. A new game and scratched to hell used game aren't necessarily going to play the same. Like a car, a game can have mileage, too.

That's ridiculous. The "mileage" has no effect on the gameplay. Either it works, or it doesn't work.  If it works, the gameplay is identical.  If it doesn't work, GameStop will replace it with a working copy. For all intents and purposes, a working used copy is identical to a working new copy.

Yeah, well it's always fun to get 10 hours into a game and find out it doesn't want to work anymore, or certain aspects of the game won't load.

If there are any issues, they will more than likely appear within the first 90 days which is the normal exchange period for defective games. You can continue to create unlikely situations where a used game differs from a new one, but the fact remains that a functional used game is identical to a functional new game.

[shmokes]

No it isn't and no you don't. You own the physical media the game is on, and you own a license to play the game. Sorry, but you don't own the game.  You are "buying" the license, not the game.  The First-Sale Doctrine protects you [in the situations you described]. However, you still have limitations to what you can and can't do with a video game or a CD because you do not own them. Go ahead and make copies of the music or video games "you own" and sell them and see what happens...
Again, you are purchasing the license to use a certain content and a physical medium to transfer the content. Despite your unfounded claims otherwise, You do not own the game.

I don't know if you are a lawyer or are pretending to be one, but either way (and especially if you are a lawyer) you should learn to write in paragraphs.  Look at the quoted text to see how easy it is.

Aside from basic usage problems, though, everything you wrote is complete nonsense.  Everyone, including you, knows that when I say that you own the game you buy I don't mean you own the intellectual property.  Don't be absurd.  I said that you can sell the game you own.  And you can.  The fact that you have a license to use the product is a distinction without a difference because the license is irrevocable and freely transferrable forever and ever.  It is no restraint whatsoever on transferrability (such as is the case with the license you get when you rent a game from Blockbuster).  You own the disc and every single 1 and 0 on that disc.  And yes, only the ones on that disc.  But that's all we were ever talking about so coming in and pointing out that I can't make copies of it and then sell them is entirely irrelevant because, and I shouldn't have to point this out to you, but, once you sell it you no longer have any right to possession  You sold that.  That doesn't just apply to games.  It applies to anything involving protected intellectual property.  

At any rate, I didn't say that you can do anything you want with it.  I said you can sell it.  Which we both know is true.  And whether you know it or not, you do own that game--the copy of the game that you purchased.  You own the physical media and you own the right to use it and you own the right to sell it.  And the person who owned it previously can do absolutely nothing to affect those rights in any way.  

You don't own a right to make copies of it and sell those or to keep copies and sell the original.  But who was ever talking about that?

edit: fixed tags

[massive88]

Yes you got a good deal, that damn game still goes for 40+ on ebay. Thank god I found one for 20 the other day, cause the guy was a tard. I remember when the damn thing was 79.99 at Toys R Us when it first came out. Thats the only cartridge game I remember seeing for more than 50 bucks for its time. But see, now look. That game is awesome and you will play that through every few years, I do anyway.

Pretty sure I bought Final Fantasy 3 (6) when it came out for $69.99, may have even been $79.99

[VespaGuy]

No it isn't and no you don't. You own the physical media the game is on, and you own a license to play the game. Sorry, but you don't own the game.  You are "buying" the license, not the game.  The First-Sale Doctrine protects you [in the situations you described]. However, you still have limitations to what you can and can't do with a video game or a CD because you do not own them. Go ahead and make copies of the music or video games "you own" and sell them and see what happens...
Again, you are purchasing the license to use a certain content and a physical medium to transfer the content. Despite your unfounded claims otherwise, You do not own the game.

I don't know if you are a lawyer or are pretending to be one, but either way (and especially if you are a lawyer) you should learn to write in paragraphs.  Look at the quoted text to see how easy it is.

My occupation is irrelevant to the conversation. What I say is either correct or incorrect.

As for my formatting, I find it easier to quote out the portions of text that I am addressing (as one would carry on a conversation). I do use paragraphs, albeit small ones. Is there a certain length quota (number of words? number of sentences?) that you prefer for each paragraph?

Aside from basic usage problems

Such as?

, though, everything you wrote is complete nonsense.  

With the exception of a disagreement between the definition of "the game", can you please point out exactly what I said that is incorrect?

Everyone, including you, knows that when I say that you own the game you buy I don't mean you own the intellectual property.  Don't be absurd.

I can honestly say that if this is what you meant than I misunderstood you. I've been involved in plenty of conversations with folks who think that once they buy a game that they have every right to do anything and everything with that game. As you and I are both aware, that simply isn't true.

I said that you can sell the game you own.  And you can.

 

As with many forum conversations the devil is in the definition. You say you own the game and you're right, because you define "the game" as the disc and it's packaging. I say you don't own the game and I'm correct, because I define "the game" as the actual game content. I think we both agree that as a customer you own the disc and the ability to transfer the license along with the contents through sale or trade.

The fact that you have a license to use the product is a distinction without a difference because the license is irrevocable and freely transferrable forever and ever.  It is no restraint whatsoever on transferrability (such as is the case with the license you get when you rent a game from Blockbuster).  You own the disc and every single 1 and 0 on that disc.  And yes, only the ones on that disc.

I never claimed otherwise.

But that's all we were ever talking about so coming in and pointing out that I can't make copies of it and then sell them is entirely irrelevant because, and I shouldn't have to point this out to you, but, once you sell it you no longer have any right to possession  You sold that.  That doesn't just apply to games.  It applies to anything involving protected intellectual property.  

The creator of the content still has control since he never sold the content, he sold the license. I think we're both saying the same thing here.

As for my "can't make copies" comment, I apologize for the non-sequitur. I mistook your claim of "it's mine and I can sell it" with a different claim that I continually hear, "it's mine and I can do whatever I want with it". Knee-jerk reaction. Sorry.

At any rate, I didn't say that you can do anything you want with it.  I said you can sell it.  Which we both know is true.  And whether you know it or not, you do own that game--the copy of the game that you purchased.  You own the physical media and you own the right to use it and you own the right to sell it.  And the person who owned it previously can do absolutely nothing to affect those rights in any way.  

I agree. However, the creator does retain certain rights, but I think we both understand that.

You don't own a right to make copies of it and sell those or to keep copies and sell the original.  But who was ever talking about that?

Nobody. I can admit the mistake.

[Ginsu Victim]

I can honestly say that if this is what you meant than I misunderstood you. I've been involved in plenty of conversations with folks who think that once they buy a game that they have every right to do anything and everything with that game. As you and I are both aware, that simply isn't true.

Oh good. I couldn't understand how you took it the way you originally did, so I'm glad to see you just misunderstood.

[VespaGuy]

That is what's happening now. We already see creativity in the form of DLC and other additional content. We are also seeing separate charges for multiplayer.

I wouldnt say its creativity, its trying to milk the property as much as they can. Take Starcraft 2 for example. I got it cause I played the first one, its an awesome story, and its been 12 years in the making. Yeah Im going to pay 65 bucks for it, because its an awesome game that I can play FOREVER. People still play the old one. Make a great game, and you wont need to charge for DLC or multiplayer. Thats ridiculous. I would never pay more money to play the game, after I bought the damn thing. Thats why I think people that play WoW are a different breed of animal. I wouldnt pay extra money to download a map pack from MW2 either. Thats absurd. Game companies want more money, because they know people will pay it cause they can afford to. It boils down to their target audience as well. Most kids now-a-days have such bad ADD they need something new constantly, and the game market is trying to bank on that.

I strongly disagree. DLC has made gaming much, much better, not worse.

Take a game like Guitar Hero or Rock Band. When it was released for the PS2, it made a huge splash. People willingly paid for a goofy peripheral and a limited number of songs and played the Hell out of the game. Enough copies were sold that several sequels were made. At the time, most people were happy to play the game with the limited number of songs available.  Nobody expected more free songs, bonus content, or anything extra. The game was what it was.

But now with the advent of DLC, people can still purchase a game like Guitar Hero or RockBand and play only the limited songs that come with it OR they can purchase additional songs "a la carte". There are literally hundreds of songs to choose from, and buyers are not forced to purchase an entire disc of games - they can simply pick single songs they like. They can choose to extend the life of a game they enjoy if they choose. It's very possible that DLC content may have it's foundation in corporate greed, but if it leads to more choices for the consumer how is this a bad thing?

The problem as I see it is that there is a percentage of people that, for some reason or another, feel entitled to the DLC because they purchased the game. Even though they got exactly what they expected from the game and were never promised anything additional, they are immediately outraged at the prospect of the developer offering them additional content for a fee. I'm not sure I understand the reasoning behind it, but there are people who buy a game like MW2, enjoy the game, and dump dozens of hours of gameplay into it. If you ask them what they think of the game, they'd tell you it's great and they got there money's worth. However, as soon as you make DLC content available, they immediately feel entitled. "$15 for maps for a game I already own!! That's ludicrous! The nerve of those greedy ---daisies---!!". It makes absolutely no sense to me but I see it happen time and time again. Go figure.

[VespaGuy]

I can honestly say that if this is what you meant than I misunderstood you. I've been involved in plenty of conversations with folks who think that once they buy a game that they have every right to do anything and everything with that game. As you and I are both aware, that simply isn't true.

Oh good. I couldn't understand how you took it the way you originally did, so I'm glad to see you just misunderstood.

I guess I'm not going be shown my "basic usage problems", or what I wrote that was incorrect?

[shmokes]

I find it easier to quote out the portions of text that I am addressing (as one would carry on a conversation). I do use paragraphs, albeit small ones. Is there a certain length quota (number of words? number of sentences?) that you prefer for each paragraph?

It is easier.  It's also extraordinarily lazy, and a generally dishonest way of arguing.  The sentences in my paragraphs do not exist in a vaccuum.  Pulling them out and responding to them one-by-one, without the benefit of context is not only absurd, but it is extraordinarily tedious to read and impossible to respond to.  And if I do respond in kind it very quickly (usually immediately) devolves into a two-way conversation that the rest of the community skips over out of sheer obnoxiousness.  

[Malenko]

I can honestly say that if this is what you meant than I misunderstood you. I've been involved in plenty of conversations with folks who think that once they buy a game that they have every right to do anything and everything with that game. As you and I are both aware, that simply isn't true.

Oh good. I couldn't understand how you took it the way you originally did, so I'm glad to see you just misunderstood.

I guess I'm not going be shown my "basic usage problems", or what I wrote that was incorrect?

I think hes afraid you'll reply with a million quote boxes and give the world a headache, again.

[shmokes]

As with many forum conversations the devil is in the definition. You say you own the game and you're right, because you define "the game" as the disc and it's packaging. I say you don't own the game and I'm correct . . . blah blah I can't even read beyond this point.

Oh shut up.  Yeah . . . I'm sure you thought that I meant that going to Gamestop and paying $60 for God of War transferred ownership of the entire IP. 

[Ginsu Victim]

Oh shut up.

I love how you finally reached this point in the argument. I know the feeling.

[VespaGuy]

I find it easier to quote out the portions of text that I am addressing (as one would carry on a conversation). I do use paragraphs, albeit small ones. Is there a certain length quota (number of words? number of sentences?) that you prefer for each paragraph?

It is easier.  It's also extraordinarily lazy, and a generally dishonest way of arguing.  The sentences in my paragraphs do not exist in a vaccuum.  Pulling them out and responding to them one-by-one, without the benefit of context is not only absurd, but it is extraordinarily tedious to read and impossible to respond to.  And if I do respond in kind it very quickly (usually immediately) devolves into a two-way conversation that the rest of the community skips over out of sheer obnoxiousness.  

Wow, I had no idea how polarizing my posts were. Yikes.

It actually takes more time to continually quote out parts of a post, but I'm sure that's not what you meant by lazy. Personally, I consider it lazy to respond to a post by just hitting "quote" and responding to whichever parts seem the easiest to target. Your mileage may very.

Of course your paragraphs don't exist in a vacuum, but some posts are littered with dozens of claims and I prefer to address them individually.  (It's a habit I picked up from "debating" with conspiracy theorists who tend to throw a ton of claims on the wall to see what sticks.  "Old habits" and all of that.)  And although I break up posts, i do not remove content. The context is there for everyone to see.

You are correct that it can quickly devolve into a two-way conversation, and for that reason I've responded with lovely, easy-on-the-eyes, paragraphs. I even threw in an Oxford comma at no extra charge.