Shop now Shop now Shop now  Up to 50% Off Fashion  Shop all Amazon Fashion Cloud Drive Photos Shop now Learn More Shop now Shop now Shop Fire Shop Kindle Shop now Shop now Shop now
Customer Discussions > video games discussion forum

Rentals and Online Passes


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 26-50 of 88 posts in this discussion
Posted on 24 May 2012 15:49:27 BDT
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on 24 May 2012 16:01:40 BDT
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

Posted on 24 May 2012 16:18:37 BDT
martytarty says:
Andy,

Chill FFS, it's just my opinion, I'm not trying to be a whiny little kid, If I really want some DLC content then I'd buy it, yes I understand games companies want to make money but I think it's becoming more than making money, their getting greedy.

Let's assume the cost of games doubled in the past 15 years, so we would be paying £80 for a game.

I love buying and playing games but at £80 a pop I don't think many people would be buying them.

Not trying to get into an argument, just voicing my opinion.

Ok 'whining' over.

In reply to an earlier post on 24 May 2012 16:38:24 BDT
First of all I didn't address you, what made you think I did when my post wasn't in response to you or quoting you?

Secondly I'm not irate.

And finaly if you think the company's being greedy and the content isn't worth it DON'T BUY IT. It's called a free market, they are free to charge whatever they want for THEIR product, and you are free to tell them to funk off if you don't think it's worth it.

In reply to an earlier post on 24 May 2012 18:12:09 BDT
Nick says:
This is how I feel. I buy games first hand, because I feel like as a gamer, I should be supporting developers, and the games industry as a whole. If someone makes a product, they deserve the money, not Game/Gamestation. I know not everyone can afford every game on release, but I still stand by 'I will buy all games first hand' the ONLY second hand gaming thing I own ironically is my PS3, and that's only second hand as it was bought during the 250GB/320GB transition, and no shops had a 'first hand' console.

Posted on 24 May 2012 18:23:18 BDT
The online pass thing doesn't bother me as I buy the games new. If I finish it or have had enough I trade it in usually for 30-35 quid. Which means for my 5-10 quid I have played the game and now have the online pass for good as well as a sizeable chunk of capital for my next game. So later in the year when it is dirt cheap or I can rent it if i feel like an achievement mop up.

Posted on 24 May 2012 18:35:58 BDT
Totally agree with Andy on this.

People's sense of entitlement never ceases to amaze me. As far as I'm concerned anyone who rents a game or buys a game scone hand should not have the same experiance as someone who buys a game brand new. When you rent or buy second hand your paying less so should get less in my opinion.

What people fail to realise is that the rental market has changed a lot over the years. When I was a kid if I went to my local video rental store and rented a video or a game I only had 48 hours to use the product then I had to take it back. If it was late I'd be fined. These days you could pay a tenner a month to lovefilm or someone similar and rent games and keep them as long as you want so you could in fact hold onto one game for as long as it takes to play and do everything you need then send it back. If you play video games all the time you could get 3/4 games fully completed to the max every month and pay a tiny fraction of the cost that someone purchasing new would spend. How does that benefit developers and publishers?

As for the guy moaning that he's paying for trophies, Jesus give me strength!! Why should EA or any other publisher give a flying funk that you like to max out trophy lists or have a 'tidy gamertag'.

Honestly you don't like it then do one of the following:

- play less games, you don't have to play everything that's released

- wait for new games to be in a sale, you don't have to play games on launch

- get a different hobby

- get a better job and earn more money

- win the lottery

Kids these days have it easy (lol sound like my dad). I remember paying nearly £70 for streetfighter II on the Snes.

Posted on 23 Oct 2012 15:17:32 BDT
S Dutton says:
Basically, unethical companies like EA are profiteering - they are the only one who can sell the game, so they can dictate everything to do with it.

Ethical companies would NOT charge customers for 2nd hand copies or rentals - they have made their money from the original purchaser buying their game. If the purchaser either finishes the game or doesn't enjoy it, they should have a right to sell it as 2nd hand to somebody else.

I sincerely hope that companies like EA lose a good part of their customer base because of this - if potential customers shun these companies, they won't have any option other than scrapping their unethical schemes.

In reply to an earlier post on 23 Oct 2012 15:26:24 BDT
S Dutton says:
@Wayne:

In reply to an earlier post on 23 Oct 2012 15:30:47 BDT
S Dutton says:
Amazon messed up my nice long post, so..

Wayne:
- That is absolutely ridiculous.
- By your logic, 2nd hand cars should have the doors missing since the manufacturer hasn't had any money from the new owner and you should have to pay extra to get them back!!!
- Thanks for making me laugh!!! (At your badly-thought-out ideas)

Posted on 23 Oct 2012 15:35:34 BDT
Alien Girl says:
So, buying a second hand copy, thus depriving everybody of the return they should have received on a new game, IS ethical?

In reply to an earlier post on 23 Oct 2012 15:42:35 BDT
To be fair, at least it didn't take Wayne 5 months to put a compelling argument together.

Posted on 23 Oct 2012 15:44:14 BDT
Bozz says:
The second hand car reference is invalid anyway as you ARE buying less of a car. Your buying a car with "miles on the clock" which you know wont last as long as a new car, hence why you pay less for it. Things are more likely to go wrong with a used car, and you dont have the comfort of 3 years without an MOT and the manufacturers warranty.

None of thes issues are there when buying a second hand game

In reply to an earlier post on 23 Oct 2012 15:47:25 BDT
"- By your logic, 2nd hand cars should have the doors missing since the manufacturer hasn't had any money from the new owner and you should have to pay extra to get them back!!!"

Ever heard of servicing?

"Basically, unethical companies like EA are profiteering"
Intrigued as to why you've not mentioned the ethics of those, like Game, that are profiteering from selling used games for a premium.

I'd also suggest you look up what 'unethical' actually means.

Posted on 23 Oct 2012 15:59:52 BDT
I wrote a huge wall of text and then remembered I've said the same 'common sense' stuff in another thread.

Game developers don't get their money back from rentals...they lose out big time.

An online pass is for an 'online' service. An online service and the game (finished product) are two completely different things. If the game itself was only an online service, then I could understand you complaining about renting games with a 'limited' service...as it is though, you are getting a game to play..end of.

Posted on 23 Oct 2012 16:53:57 BDT
Last edited by the author on 23 Oct 2012 16:55:16 BDT
S Dutton says:
@ Alien Girl - It isn't depriving anyone of anything. When you buy a product, that product becomes yours. If you want to sell it on once you are done with it, that is your prerogative!!!

@ Stopharage - Only just saw this topic lol. And servicing doesn't have to make the manufacturer any money at all. It's your choice where you take the car to, and if you want to use genuine parts or not.
Companies like Game are unethical as well - they generally prey on stupidity and laziness (you can sell your games on eBay/Play/Amazon for a LOT more than game would ever give you). But that is another discussion which is why I didn't mention it. And I know exactly what unethical means - why are you suggesting otherwise?

@ Bozz - Yes, and in this case you are buying a used game with scratches instead of miles, which won't last as long as a new copy (in general). If we allow this stupidity to continue, then you will not be able to buy ANYTHING second hand, whether its DVDs, books, electronics, cars, etc.

@ Russ - Game companies don't lose money from rentals. They sell rental copies for large amounts of money to places like Blockbuster. And they only do that because they WANT to.
The pass is NOT for an online service. Literally thousands of games allow you to play on-line because it's part of the game that you already paid for. Besides, what you are forgetting is that the original purchaser is no longer using the online 'service' that has been fully paid for, so the company is not losing out on a single penny. And with a lot of games, the online portion is a significant part of the game - take Battlefield for example which has practically no offline game.

More to the point, why are the 4 of you (so far) defending these business practices that are targeted to rip consumers off even more than normal?

Posted on 23 Oct 2012 17:12:00 BDT
Alien Girl says:
Ah, so the guy who buys my second hand game then goes on to give the RRP of that game to the developers, does he? Of course, he doesn't. But if he had bought the game new, instead of second hand, he would be giving them money, so it IS depriving them of revenue.

Whether I can sell or not or want to sell or not, is indeed up to me, but that's not what we're talking about. At least, I didn't believe it was.

In reply to an earlier post on 23 Oct 2012 18:00:12 BDT
Last edited by the author on 23 Oct 2012 18:02:37 BDT
S Dutton says:
The company does not lose a single penny through 2nd hand sales. Obviously they would make more money if there were no 2nd hand sales (which they are obviously trying to stop). But this is completely against consumer rights. Would you say that people deprive Ford of trillions of pounds of revenue by purchasing second hand? Or that Vauxhall are depriving Ford of revenue by selling similar products at similar prices?

And whether you can sell it or not is the whole reason for the "on-line pass" system - they can simply change the price for rental copies, but the only way to do this for 2nd hand copies (so far) is intentionally depriving users of part of the game unless they input a unique code.

Fortunately for us, they have not yet figured out a workable method of stopping second hand games being played - and the only reason for that is because not every console is on-line!

Posted on 23 Oct 2012 18:24:40 BDT
This will all be irrelevant in 5 years when games are download only.

In reply to an earlier post on 23 Oct 2012 18:32:59 BDT
Last edited by the author on 23 Oct 2012 18:37:40 BDT
S Dutton says:
Yep - not looking forward to that day...

Here are just a few of the reasons why it's a bad thing:
- One set price, no competition, effectively a monopoly.
- No second hand sales whatsoever
- If company goes bust, you have paid your money for nothing.
- Company dictates when & where you can play (and everything else)

A download-only game is technically worth less than the disc version would be because of the reasons outlined above, as are "Online Pass" games.

IMHO the entertainment industry is getting more ridiculous by the day - the big names make more in a day than most of us earn in a year, and all because we are willing to pay the massively inflated prices set by the game/movie companies... and the same goes for football players...

Take for example Diablo 3 - the price has not dropped since it came out, there have been numerous problems stopping people from playing the game they have paid for, you can't try out the game without purchasing (despite Blizzard's promises that you would be able to 30 days after release). If it wasn't for these facts, I would have bought Diablo 3 months ago. Now, in all likelihood, I won't ever bother getting the game because I avoid dealing with companies that treat their customers like crap!

Posted on 23 Oct 2012 18:34:10 BDT
"The company does not lose a single penny through 2nd hand sales. Obviously they would make more money if there were no 2nd hand sales"
Do I need to point out the contradiction inherent within this?

"But this is completely against consumer rights."
No, it's not. I'd suggest you look at how the games companies mention that online gameplay may be stopped at any time as Russ has already pointed out.

"Would you say that people deprive Ford of trillions of pounds of revenue by purchasing second hand? Or that Vauxhall are depriving Ford of revenue by selling similar products at similar prices?"
Again you're disregarding the fact that servicing is where most car companies get their profits from.

"More to the point, why are the 4 of you (so far) defending these business practices that are targeted to rip consumers off even more than normal?"
I'd be interested in your justification for how games are a rip-off in the first place when they have ignored inflationary increases apparent across other entertainment formats. £30 for 15-20 hours entertainment is value for money in most people's eyes.

I enjoy the variety that comes from a wide range of gaming titles being available to me. If games developers and publishers suffer loss of income through the continued resale of their products without a penny extra going to them, then niche titles will have a real problem being funded. They're not going to risk releasing SP games that have little replay value and tend to be traded in quickly. Restricting access to MP or extra SP content is a necessary evil. I'm not in favour of a homogenised marketplace and feel that paying the developers/publishers an additional fee is fair enough if I'm borrowing a game that they've not received a huge amount for or that I've purchased second hand.

In reply to an earlier post on 23 Oct 2012 18:46:29 BDT
"Here are just a few of the reasons why it's a bad thing:
- One set price, no competition, effectively a monopoly."
Of course there will be competition and prices will deliver between the various digital delivery organisations. There are already a number of Steam-like vendors set-up and that will continue.

"- No second hand sales whatsoever"
You seem somewhat misinformed. I'd suggest you read this:-
http://www.destructoid.com/eu-court-rejects-eulas-says-digital-games-can-be-resold-230641.phtml

"- If company goes bust, you have paid your money for nothing."
In what respect? You'd still have the game and unless it was an MMORPG you'd still be able to play it.

"- Company dictates when & where you can play (and everything else)"
Highly unlikely - a number of British and EU laws would safeguard against this if it became unduly restrictive.

"IMHO the entertainment industry is getting more ridiculous by the day - the big names make more in a day than most of us earn in a year, and all because we are willing to pay the massively inflated prices set by the game/movie companies... and the same goes for football players..."
Are you aware of how companies involved in newspapers, music, publishing, films etc are being squeezed by piracy and the 'digital revolution'? I'd suggest that the entertainment industry is gradually getting less ridiculous. Yes, there are still people making huge amounts, but that is diminishing rapidly. There's little money in music for the vast number of bands - gigging and merchandise is where their profitable revenue streams are. Authors and publishing houses are receiving less. Newspapers struggle to turn a £1 profit. And so on.

Posted on 23 Oct 2012 19:06:09 BDT
S Dutton says:
There was no contraction - Loss would mean that they either had the money, or it was rightfully theirs to begin with. Neither is true, so what I said was correct. They have not LOST anything by 2nd hand sales just because they haven't made anything from them!

It may not be against consumer law per se, but the consumer should have the right to sell something they own. Until the "Online Pass" the multiplayer was a part of the game (which you have obviously paid for). You can argue that the online service is an extra but the fact is they have removed part of the game so they can charge you more for it!

Forget servicing and how Ford/Vauxhall make their money - that is irrelevant for this discussion. The comparison I was making could have been Apple, Samsung, Sony, etc. You are just trying to avoid the point.

Not all games are a rip-off. But paying £50 (at certain high-street shops) or £35 (usually about the cheapest online price for a new release) for a 2-4 hour game like many are nowadays is definitely a lot. And look at FIFA 13 on Wii (for example) - they literally got FIFA 12, renamed it, changed a few players/uniforms and released it. Not a rip-off ?
But I do agree with you that £30 for 15-20 hours is good value - and 40-60 hour RPGs like Mass Effect are even better

And its still not a "loss of income" . Companies have been making games for decades and not one has suffered because their games were resold. If they release a good game, people will buy it when it comes out. And there can't be any second hand copies if nobody buys it in the first place...

Do you honestly think it would be a good thing if every single item you will ever buy was unable to be resold (or given away) ?

Posted on 23 Oct 2012 19:28:46 BDT
Last edited by the author on 23 Oct 2012 19:30:00 BDT
"If they release a good game, people will buy it when it comes out"

Maybe not. I might wait a month to get feedback from other people then if it's a good game I'll buy it. By that time though there will be 2nd hand copies available so I might buy one of them meaning the developer will lose out on £30-£40.

Posted on 23 Oct 2012 19:36:55 BDT
Last edited by the author on 23 Oct 2012 19:38:22 BDT
An example of loss of income would be remedy, the makers of Alan wake. A cracking game that sold 1 million copies yet it's been proven that over 3 million people have unlocked at least 1 achievement. If remedy had sold 3 million copies then we would have Alan wake 2 by now or maybe another ip from them.

Of course 2nd hand games deprive developers and publishers of money, to say anything else is frankly pure stupidity.

The fact is, if you buy something second hand you expect to get less of a product. That's why you pay less. The car industry for example. If a car is used regularly, even with a regular service it will degrade over time. When you buy a second hand car your not getting the same as a brand new car, with wear and tear and mileage you would expect it to last a lot less longer and may even cost more in the long run on repairs and parts. If you were getting a car as good as new then you'd pay the same price as a new car.

The same thing applies to games. If you buy a second hand game you get less of the experience otherwise if it was the exact same full experience then people selling second hand games should expect the full retail price back when seeking it.

Servers cost money to run.

Sounds to me like your a bit of a poorper Dutton and don't have a lot of money and have issues with people who are well off and have earned lots of dosh hence your comment about how much games publishers make.

Put it this way if you started a business by selling something you created and made £100k in a year and your product became popular and a business analyst told you you could make £1,000, 000 the next year by charging a tiny premium to the 2nd hand buyers of your product what would you do?
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in
 


Recent discussions in the video games discussion forum

More Customer Discussions

Most active community forums
Most active product forums

Amazon forums
 

This discussion

Participants:  25
Total posts:  88
Initial post:  4 Oct 2011
Latest post:  12 May 2013

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 2 customers

Search Customer Discussions