Pookiablo Posted May 22, 2010 Author Share Posted May 22, 2010 Well to tell the truth Publishers don't make any money on Pre owned games sales so I guess this is their way of weedling into that market. I always used to see in the days of working in blockbuster that preowned games would be around £10 cheaper than brand new. Blockbuster got to keep all the revenue from that sale. That is why many retailers have taken to the preowned games market. HMV not too long ago and even Argos is considering this business model. But hey if anyone wants to take dafts advice and join love film give me a pm I've got vouchers lying around all over the place. Argos have actually started taking trade-ins, although they're not selling them (yet). It doesn't seem to make sense that they'd offer pre-owned games in store, just doesn't really fit with the whole nature of the shop. They do have side ventures though, pretty sure they have some sort of deal or part-ownership with a games/dvd website or something. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ReZourceman Posted May 29, 2010 Share Posted May 29, 2010 You call 2 or 3 new games a month a limited income? That's ridiculous. 3 games a month? Really? I KNOW SOME PEOPLE! I'm just about to leave home again and move out and I'm looking at 1 game every other month... "Limited Income" just means the opposite of "Unlimited Income" Nicktendo is merely confessing that he is unable to print money. :p Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Emasher Posted May 29, 2010 Share Posted May 29, 2010 Well it's the developer and publisher's right to sell a product that they want to sell, so it's just a case of whether it is morally right or wrong.I'd say in this case it is fair, and it's very similar to the Bad Company 2 VIP codes you get when you buy it new. What I don't like is the over-exploitation against consumers, in recent memory, the MW2 map packs. Yes, the consumer has shown that they will buy 3 new maps for £11, but that doesn't make it right. I hate Activision for what they've done there. Basically this. While the consumer has the right to sell something on (In the states at least), the publisher still has the right to sell the online modes separately if they want to. If you think about it, a used game buyer would be using their servers without ever paying the publisher at all, so its especially justified with online modes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flameboy Posted May 29, 2010 Share Posted May 29, 2010 Basically this. While the consumer has the right to sell something on (In the states at least), the publisher still has the right to sell the online modes separately if they want to. If you think about it, a used game buyer would be using their servers without ever paying the publisher at all, so its especially justified with online modes. Thats precisely why I think its hard to argue against them charging. It's completely differest to a dvd or a cd. Once you've bought a film thats it the film distributor's costs have been covered and they've made their profit you both move on, your transaction with them is complete and you don't expect anything further off them and they don't provide anything else. Whereas with a game with online they are providing a service at some cost and if your not putting any money into that system then why should you get to be a part of it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mcj metroid Posted June 4, 2010 Share Posted June 4, 2010 now sega are coming into the mix “It is a very clever idea and is something we are certainly taking a look at.” – Sega West president Mike Hayes I am 100% against this whole idea and It really infuriates me how some people defend this. well so far EA, THQ and sega.. for me.. I can avoid their games no hassle:) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts