Money-grubbing Sony

KomradDakka wrote:its pretty aparent too that the age of hardcopies (cds, movies, game discs) is gradually coming to a close... having everything done digitally saves time, money, and space... it was only a matter of time really.

I actually don't think so. The fact is soft copies are so fragile and easily lost the hard copy is better. In so,so many ways. It's only better for the companies that produce the stuff, not the consumer which is the most annoying thing about it.

I highly doubt Sony will be able to get that patent. If they somehow did, their partnership with GameStop is finished, and let's face it, that's the most popular game retailer alive, and if they stop partnering with Sony, that's gonna be a real kick in the nethers.

Their partnership with Gamestop is an extremely inconvenient one anyway. Gamestop essentially has a monopoly on the used games business, and they are the only ones who benefit from it.

Never heard of this 'gamestop' so I presume it's American.. When considering Sony is less popular in America but has Japan by the balls and a good share in Europe Mayberry it's not so important, though sacrificing the American market is probably too big a sacrifice for no used policy.

Wii U all the way!

I just need to actually get one is all...

Serious_Much wrote:Never heard of this 'gamestop' so I presume it's American.. When considering Sony is less popular in America but has Japan by the balls and a good share in Europe Mayberry it's not so important, though sacrificing the American market is probably too big a sacrifice for no used policy.

Gamestop: Buys back games that you paid 60 dollars for and gives you 15. Will then go and sell those games for 45.

The developers will never see the money from used games, that profit goes straight to Gamestop. Along with whatever cut they get for selling new games in the first place. Somehow I doubt that there cut is less than 15 they give you for the games you sell them.

Essentially they're these guys, same lousy attitude most of the time too.

sounds like a rip off, i can get better deals from amazon, cex.. lots of places for new games..

By the sound of it i'd rather they get dead in the water so the prices get more 'competitive'

I'm exaggerating a bit, but yeah, If a game is really really new(as in just got released), then they'll give you like 20 and sell it for 54. That's a 24 dollar(or w/e money system you use) profit when all they did was ease a transaction.

Essentially: You should only use them if you're too lazy and/or impatient to sell the games yourself.

Edit: or sports games, no one wants old sports games

Yeah this is exactly what Australia needs ... no no I enjoy buying all my new games for $80+ minimum.

KomradDakka wrote:

WhatDoesThePendantDo? wrote:Because everyone either buys all their games exclusively new or exclusively used. There aren't people who have a bit of both.

thats a bit of a stretch there bud... jus' saying

Definitely sarcasm. :|

Microsoft isn't any better. They force you to pay for their maintenance, and make piles of money on advratising. (seriously, last I checked, a single hour on the front page is $15,000.)

I agree they aren't any better but they don't force you to pay for maintenance everyone is given a 3-year warranty. Just send in your old 360 at the 2-year, 11-month mark and they'll give you a new one in 1-2 weeks.

Network maintenance. 50$ a year for xbl.

Yeah, for XBL, but you don't have to get it if you're Ok with Silver membership. Do I wish my Gold membership were free? Hell, yeah! But it's not the end of the world.

WhatDoesThePendantDo? wrote:Yeah, for XBL, but you don't have to get it if you're Ok with Silver membership. Do I wish my Gold membership were free? Hell, yeah! But it's not the end of the world.

Dark Souls without PVP or Co-Op... have you gone mad?

Neither is not being able to play used games.........

Silver membership forbids online play. Who would be ok with that? I'm all for playing games alone, but I like halo and I can only do the campaign so many times.

The silver membership punishes you, where ps+rewards you. very different system.

Yeah, well I have Gold, but if you just like Elder Scrolls games, for example, then you have no need for Gold. It's pretty cheap though to be honest, I just buy a bunch of points to cover my membership and to be able to buy things off the Arcade, they definitely won't ever get me to spend a dime on a Halo shirt for my avatar, though. That's just money down the drain, IMO.

Especially when you consider that the vast majority of their exclusive titles are mostly Multiplayer. I dropped the 360 after my 3rd system got the RROD and I haven't regretted it since. Now if Only my friend would put a PS3 controller in a Xbox controller shell... but noooo!

WDTPD: I guess. I preffer single player games myself, but I don't like the idea of having to pay for online if I want to play Multiplayer.

Sloth9230 wrote:Plastic: the reason you have to buy an online pass separately is because Sony and the game creators don't see a dime of the money you give to Gamestop(or any other retailer) when you buy a used game.

Gamestop actually got in trouble for this a while back, they'd sell a used game for 50(54 or something plus tax) and then the buyer would have to get an online pass separately for another 10. Pretty much, the buyer would end up paying the same amount for a used game.

Gamestop now includes online codes(which I'm guessing they pay the game companies for) on their receipts for used games. Though I've heard that they don't do it consistently.


Edit: I'm guessing Sony is having a similar thoughts about used games. They don't see any of the profit from them, so why should they allow them?

Yeah, I've found that most franchised used game stores are jip joints. I love my mom and pop video game shop. A gamestop just opened down the street from them and I refuse to walk in the doors. I once traded them 2 ps2 games for a rare ps1 game, a lottery ticket, and a pack of smokes. Can't do that at Gamestop. They won't really haggle with you at all.

Whether they see profits for used game sales or not, in order for a game to be used someone would have had to buy it new at some point. The fact of the matter is, once we spend money to purchase something we should be able to do whatever the hell we want with it. If Sony wants to tell me that they don't think I should be able to, then Sony is going to lose my business, and that's coming from a pretty loyal customer. The reasoning behind it doesn't matter so much to me.

Course it is.

My point was MS's entire system is "pay us or we punish you" which I don't know why people tolerate. The current sony system is more "if you pay us more we'll make it awesome"

The patent (if implimented) would be them being greedy, but MS already does crap like that. I'm even bombarded by advratising in some of the in game loading screens. The wi-fi adapter costs $100. For something built in to every other system and computer, MS wants $100.

I don't buy MS stuff now for that reason, and sony would be treated no different. I'm not sure why they are treated differently now.

Plastic: You could just as easily let a friend borrow the game and now they've experienced something that they never paid for, that's stealing. You selling a game that you already played? You're stealing from the game companies so you can get some of your money back. Just because you paid for it, it doesn't mean you can do whatever you want with it.

Technically lending or selling a game is illegal, it's just one of those laws no one listens to.

Burning money(even if you've earned it) is illegal.

And about Franchises. I used to help my dad run a video game stand at the swapmeet. Oh man the amount of people who would come and tell me that they could get better deals or buy games cheaper at Gamestop was hilarious(I'd usually check prices so i'd know when they were lying).

I'd just tell them that they should buy from them then.

It's not that I wasn't willing to negotiate, but when you lie to my face I get a bit annoyed.

Sloth9230 wrote:Plastic: You could just as easily let a friend borrow the game and now they've experienced something that they never paid for, that's stealing. You selling a game that you already played? You're stealing from the game companies so you can get some of your money back. Just because you paid for it, it doesn't mean you can do whatever you want with it.

Bull ****. Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, WRONG.

Its not illegal to let a friend borrow a car or movie. Its YOUR PROPERTY, and you can do whatever the *** you damn well please with it so long as you don't violate copyright laws.

Money, is FEDERAL PROPERTY, you are simply allowed to use it as a placeholder for actual money (ie gold)

Get your facts straight or I will eat them.

Great point, Pirate.

I guess people would just never be able to sell their cars anymore, following that logic.

forum, your point about microsoft making you pay for online play is extremely valid, i completely forgot about that barrel of horse **** considering i find it inconceivable that a company would make people pay for being able to play online when their competitors don't (bazinga)

About the stealing thing sloth.. i'm with forum here. Once you've bought that game, or dvd or tv whatever it's yours. Its the same with video games. You go give a load of your **** to a charity shop and they sell it on. Would you expect them to give money to the companies that stuff came from originally? No. Would you expect recycling plants to give money to the companies of stuff they're recycling and selling on? No.

I don't see why selling things to other people or letting people borrow stuff should have different rules to everything else like music or dvds etc. Video games companies are just lucky that free versions of their games aren't as readily available as music and dvds. Consoles are lucky in that regard, someone has to buy it and physically pass it on, with music i could rip all my CDs and email them to everyone on my contacts list if i felt like it. According to your argument there, each one of my friends would be stealing hundreds of pounds just because i passed a few files over to them.

Oh and yes i have spent hundreds of pounds on CD copies of music, because PURE FILES SUCK. I'd never pay for music again if cds went into extinction, and if gaming went the same way and i had a decent computer i'd damn sure do the same thing with games on my PC. Just to get back on point of the fears of next gen gaming. I guess i'm just old fashioned, but unless i get something physical to keep, i just think it's not worth paying for.

Forum Pirate wrote:

Sloth9230 wrote:Plastic: You could just as easily let a friend borrow the game and now they've experienced something that they never paid for, that's stealing. You selling a game that you already played? You're stealing from the game companies so you can get some of your money back. Just because you paid for it, it doesn't mean you can do whatever you want with it.

Bull ****. Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, WRONG.

Its not illegal to let a friend borrow a car or movie. Its YOUR PROPERTY, and you can do whatever the *** you damn well please with it so long as you don't violate copyright laws.

Money, is FEDERAL PROPERTY, you are simply allowed to use it as a placeholder for actual money (ie gold)

Get your facts straight or I will eat them.

Yes, Pirate. 100% Yes. I buy something and it becomes my property. I'm not making copies of games and selling them, and keeping copies myself. I'm buying a game, purchasing the right to own the cd, playing it, deciding I don't want it, and allowing someone else to purchase it. That's not illegal. It's business.