Don't Get This to Front Page. Just posting my biggest GIFs for the glory of Admin, please don't get it to frontpage.. My brother got an Xbox one for christmas, he sold it to get the xbox 360. xbox one PS4 following orders
Upload
Login or register
Hide Comments
Leave a comment Refresh Comments (173)
[ 173 comments ]
> hey anon, wanna give your opinion?
asd
User avatar #2 - iamausername
Reply +85 123456789123345869
(05/04/2014) [-]
My brother got an Xbox one for christmas, he sold it to get the xbox 360.

User avatar #8 to #2 - charlesengine
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(05/04/2014) [-]
what did he do with the extra money?
User avatar #9 to #8 - iamausername
Reply +14 123456789123345869
(05/04/2014) [-]
He had to give it back to our parents.

He has a drug problem
User avatar #11 to #9 - charlesengine
Reply +5 123456789123345869
(05/04/2014) [-]
oh dang, he should have used it on games or something!
User avatar #94 to #11 - iamausername
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(05/05/2014) [-]
He's got the games he wanted with the console, but I've borrowed him some like Oblivion and Fallout 3.
User avatar #102 to #2 - tatwis
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(05/05/2014) [-]
Selling presents isn't very nice
User avatar #110 to #102 - iamausername
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(05/05/2014) [-]
He is a bit of a cunt, but it wasn't what he expected and the 360 had everything he wanted, my parents weren't too bothered as they got most their money back.
User avatar #85 to #2 - cubanwhiteman
Reply +2 123456789123345869
(05/05/2014) [-]
On a scale of 1 to 10 that comment made my day.
User avatar #3 to #2 - toppone
Reply +5 123456789123345869
(05/04/2014) [-]
Smart man
#14 - include
Reply +58 123456789123345869
(05/05/2014) [-]
Comment Picture
#99 to #14 - anon id: 481887ad
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(05/05/2014) [-]
is this blazing saddles ?
User avatar #120 to #99 - zahnrad
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(05/05/2014) [-]
No it's 420 seats on animals
#1 - sinery
Reply +39 123456789123345869
(05/04/2014) [-]
Comment Picture
#167 to #1 - kungfulouie
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(05/06/2014) [-]
PC Master race and Console stand together discussing the best new FPS game just released.   
   
Console - "Hey PC, do you think you'd let me borrow your copy of that game?"   
PC - "We PC's can't borrow games"   
Console - "Ok, do you think I could buy it from you?"   
PC - "No, peasant, we can't sell our used games either"   
Console - "Well, I'm just a peasant, can I maybe buy a cheap used copy somewhere else?"   
PC - "Foolish peasant, you can't buy used PC games, do you not know of glorious DRM?"   
Console - "Maybe I'll just go rent it then.  Did it come out for both PC and consoles?"   
PC - "Ugh, yes peasant, but you can't rent PC games"   
Console - "Oh ok.  Thank you glorious master race."   
   
Bring on the red *************.
PC Master race and Console stand together discussing the best new FPS game just released.

Console - "Hey PC, do you think you'd let me borrow your copy of that game?"
PC - "We PC's can't borrow games"
Console - "Ok, do you think I could buy it from you?"
PC - "No, peasant, we can't sell our used games either"
Console - "Well, I'm just a peasant, can I maybe buy a cheap used copy somewhere else?"
PC - "Foolish peasant, you can't buy used PC games, do you not know of glorious DRM?"
Console - "Maybe I'll just go rent it then. Did it come out for both PC and consoles?"
PC - "Ugh, yes peasant, but you can't rent PC games"
Console - "Oh ok. Thank you glorious master race."

Bring on the red *************.
#168 to #167 - sinery
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(05/06/2014) [-]
>Implying you can't buy a disc for a PC game
>Implying you can't buy a disc for a PC game
User avatar #169 to #168 - kungfulouie
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(05/06/2014) [-]
Sure you can, but most likely, unless it's pretty old, there's a DRM license that's already been used, so you'll have to purchase one of those too.
#170 to #169 - sinery
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(05/06/2014) [-]
I actually have no ******* idea what I'm currently on about.
#171 to #170 - kungfulouie
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(05/06/2014) [-]
Lol, right on man.  I'm just goofin anyway
Lol, right on man. I'm just goofin anyway
#17 to #1 - steil
Reply +4 123456789123345869
(05/05/2014) [-]
#59 to #1 - majordraco
Reply +7 123456789123345869
(05/05/2014) [-]
#16 - theshadowwalker
Reply +22 123456789123345869
(05/05/2014) [-]
I ended up buying a PS4, upgraded my PC, and used my 3DS as the excuse not to get a Wii U, in said order.
I'm very happy with the results.

pic unrelated
#60 to #16 - boomerpyro
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(05/05/2014) [-]
picture unrelated
User avatar #67 to #16 - indecisivejew
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(05/05/2014) [-]
I can't recomend the WiiU enough. The 3DS was great last year, but man there is NOTHING on the horizon for it other that the inferior version of Smash Bros., because now they're switching a lot of their effort over to their home console. It actually has a lot of great exclusives. Mario 3D World and Wonderful 101 were my two picks for GOTY last year, and they are both exclusive, and Pikmin 3, Monster Hunter, Wind Waker, Rayman Legends, Sonic Lost World, and Donkey Kong are all glorious as well.

If you're interested in getting one, they're doing a Mario Kart 8 bundle (and the game looks ******* amazing by the way), and its only $330, and it comes with the $250 system, Mario Kart which is $60, another free $60 digital game of your choice, a $40 wiimote, and a $10 racing wheel. Its a really good ******* deal. And I like to tell people about it because even though I think it has by far the best games, its still getting outsold by the competition by a huge margin. Its like the GameCube all over again.

But you should look into it man. Can't recommend it enough.
#21 to #16 - Omnomnomynous
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(05/05/2014) [-]
Good because the new smash bros. game comes out for the 3DS first anyway  lil mac is best new character    
HYPE ***** HYPE
Good because the new smash bros. game comes out for the 3DS first anyway lil mac is best new character
HYPE ***** HYPE
User avatar #80 to #21 - virtigo
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(05/05/2014) [-]
Considering air combat is the reason some characters have been blatantly better than other is past games, I wouldn't count on it since Sakurai has stated several times that Lil Mac is going to be awful in the air.

BUT YEAH HYPE *****
User avatar #23 to #16 - enigmaticspirit
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(05/05/2014) [-]
Eh, there are enough WiiU games out and coming out that are enough to make me seriously consider getting one. I don't have one yet, but between Smash, the Mario games, Wind Waker HD, Bayonetta 2, the new Xeno- game, DKC Tropical Freeze, and other things that are coming out in the future, I am pretty excited. I just wish more of them were in the now, rather than in the future.
User avatar #41 to #23 - poccylane
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(05/05/2014) [-]
Still no one who has played the Wonderful 101 and liked it enough to acknowledge it... sigh...
#66 to #41 - indecisivejew
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(05/05/2014) [-]
It is truly the greatest crime. But there are a few places where people appreciate it. /v/ and neogaff both have a lot of wonderful ones lurking.

Have a desktop background for your good taste.
#145 to #66 - poccylane
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(05/05/2014) [-]
Holy **** thank you, I was looking for that ever since I beat the game on hard mode. And besides, I need to replace my old MGR:R Desktop background.
User avatar #146 to #66 - poccylane
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(05/05/2014) [-]
Holy **** something is wrong with my quality on that.
User avatar #46 to #16 - fuckingtrolls
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(05/05/2014) [-]
The wii u is really good you should've put more faith into it but either way the 3ds is good
#15 - swiftcoyote
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(05/05/2014) [-]
Is all of that true? **** I'll just keep playing my PS3 and X-Box 360.
User avatar #20 to #15 - giveupnow
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(05/05/2014) [-]
That was made far before the changes.
User avatar #52 to #20 - hellomynameisbill
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(05/05/2014) [-]
it's funny because they actually listened to their consumers
#71 to #52 - jestersjake
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(05/05/2014) [-]
Okay, i'm not starting a console war and i do not say that PC or PS4 or WiiU are better than the Xbox, they all appeal to a certain audience and the changes were the right choice, BUT, they did not listen to the consumers, don't ever believe that. It's naive. They listened to the money. They saw that sony recieved a lot better feedback and the changes were the only way to save their console.
#81 to #71 - BloodyTurds
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(05/05/2014) [-]
listening to the money would mean they released it with said issues, it took a major dive, which prompted a firmware patch removing most of those limitations...

so yes they did listen to the consumer (even if the changes were driven by a desire for profit)
#137 to #81 - jestersjake
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(05/05/2014) [-]
listening to the money = they made more money with these changes, because a lot of people only bought the console because of those changes.
#138 to #137 - BloodyTurds
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(05/05/2014) [-]
by that logic, any improvement ever made on a retail product would be 'listening to the money' because earning money is the primary goal of most businesses....

"Listening to the customer" in my mind would mean taking actions to increase customer loyalty, and thus profit. which i believe they did in this case...

Honestly they could have left the decision to the developers (the ones supposedly to benefit from it) and made it case by case (IE the developer was allowed to make their software system exclusive...) without having to tell us anything...

Does windows get public outrage because software licenses bind to specific accounts (yes but not as much, because they left the decision to the developers, and maintain a neutral stance)

#173 to #138 - jestersjake
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(05/09/2014) [-]
i understand why you would think this and it's not completely wrong, but as you said, microsoft is a company, they don't produce consoles so that everyone can have fun, they produce them to earn money. (The same applies for sony and nintendo and every big company out there).
They just earn more money if we happen to have fun with their products, but the primary target is always to earn money and keep the company alive.

#174 to #173 - BloodyTurds
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(05/09/2014) [-]
earning money is an (expected) consequence of the action (listening to the customers outcries)

The action they took, was to listen to their customers, in hopes that it would serve a profit...

money doesnt speak, it simply amplifies the voices of those that do... (heh I think ill save that quote)
#175 to #174 - jestersjake
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(05/09/2014) [-]
no, i'm sorry but you're wrong.

they saw dropping preorders and bad pr on the internet, which would have led to even more losses. they engaged in damage control and turned around, "listening to customers" is simply a requirement to "earn money", and that is all they want. If they'd care for customers, why would they design their console this way in the first place?
#176 to #175 - BloodyTurds
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(05/10/2014) [-]
ive never been up to date on the whole console thing, I was under the impression that the changes were made before pre-ordering was even available.....

And I have never once said they cared for the customers (in this conversation anyways)

Though I feel they do care for their customers, I believe money has a greater value..

If you gave me 2 choices:
I get 500$
OR
some charity gets 600$
Id take that 500 and walk away without a second thought...
However if you added a 3rd option: that gave me 495$, and the charity 600$. It would be the option I chose... (and I truly believe sony executives would to)
User avatar #47 to #15 - myaccountisnew
Reply +16 123456789123345869
(05/05/2014) [-]
Nah, they did a huge turn around a 360, if you will, on most of those decisions. I'm pretty sure it's just a regular console now.
User avatar #74 to #47 - tightybrighty
Reply +3 123456789123345869
(05/05/2014) [-]
A 360 would mean they ended up walking in the same direction... lol
#104 to #74 - steppenwolfvg
Reply +4 123456789123345869
(05/05/2014) [-]
>This new
>This new
User avatar #131 to #74 - skulldan
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(05/05/2014) [-]
welcome to every org wow chatroom in World of Warcraft history.
i know what a 360 is i skateboard
#58 - nighthawxx
Reply +10 123456789123345869
(05/05/2014) [-]
Comment Picture
User avatar #4 - sickopuppy
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(05/04/2014) [-]
what movie is this from?
User avatar #5 to #4 - colfer [OP]
Reply +10 123456789123345869
(05/04/2014) [-]
It's from the movie "Se7en" or "Seven", very good, watch it
User avatar #7 to #5 - sickopuppy
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(05/04/2014) [-]
OOH AND ******* MORGAN FREEMAN!
#123 to #7 - gerfox
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(05/05/2014) [-]
It's awesome. Kevin Spacey is glorious
User avatar #6 to #5 - sickopuppy
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(05/04/2014) [-]
thanks, brad pit is one of those actors who either have brilliant roles in movies or ****** roles xD like fightclub vs mr & mrs smith
#84 - krystalkitty
Reply +9 123456789123345869
(05/05/2014) [-]
Comment Picture
#24 - endospore
Reply -17 123456789123345869
(05/05/2014) [-]
I think buying used games is worse than piracy since someone who didn't have anything to do with the game gets all the money and the creator of the game still doesn't see a penny.
User avatar #25 to #24 - thenewgizmobox
Reply -2 123456789123345869
(05/05/2014) [-]
i'd say they're pretty much on par is asshole-ness and that selling a used game should only be legal if the makers get a cut of the profit.
User avatar #103 to #25 - kungfulouie
Reply -1 123456789123345869
(05/05/2014) [-]
And I say once they sell it, they got their money. You don't get paid twice for a single transaction. Purchase concluded. Now, if I want to trade my friend 2 old games and $5 for a new game he just beat, the company has about as much say in that new transaction as they do in my decision to use the case to stop my table from wobbling.
User avatar #132 to #103 - thenewgizmobox
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(05/05/2014) [-]
okay, first of all, i'm not talking about you going and selling a game to a friend for two reasons. One, it's literally impossible to track ALL the people selling used games among each and their friends. Two, i'm talking about big companies that sell games like gamestop. Do you know that gamestop has their employees push used games onto people over new games because they know they can get more money that way? that's pretty ****** for the developer because they get absolutely nothing for all their hard effort. And no money = no more games.
User avatar #135 to #132 - kungfulouie
Reply -1 123456789123345869
(05/05/2014) [-]
Sure, Gamestop might not be the smoothest operator, but that doesn't mean you can take away my right to own a game. But that's exactly what they're doing, instead letting you rent it. They say you own it, but when you own something, you can sell it, but because they never actually give you all the ownership rights (thus the term renting), they're trying to take away any second-hand purchases. MY biggest problem is it seems like it's just so they can get more money. They already got paid once, for 100% of what they asked for, they got. They are DONE now, with all future transactions of that item, because I own it. It sounds like they're trying to get paid AGAIN, for the same item. That's ********.
User avatar #144 to #135 - thenewgizmobox
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(05/05/2014) [-]
but that's where you're wrong unfortunately, a used game is a serious missed opportunity. What if someone who's never played it before buys it used? the devs are completely missing the profit they could have gotten for their game sold new because someone else sold it to them for a lower price. now scale this up to the thousands and millions and you see what game companies are losing.
second of all, a used game isn't a game that's been sold and done, it's a game that's being put through way more than the devs originally intended. Think of a multiplayer game like call of duty or halo, think of how much it costs to run the servers of those multiplayer games. How do they get paid for you ask? by the revenue they get from people buying their game from them. if someone goes out and buys it used, that's just a bit less cash being put into keeping the servers online and that's a bit less time the servers have to be up. Even if it's a single player game it still has an intended runtime. i'm not saying a physical or digital copy of a game isn't yours, if you buy a game it should be yours and that should be the end of it. i'm saying if a big company like gamestop wants to resell a game they should have to give at least some percentage of the revenue to the original developers.
User avatar #147 to #144 - kungfulouie
Reply -1 123456789123345869
(05/05/2014) [-]
If I buy a house, it's mine. If I sell my house, someone else get's to live in it. What doesn't happen is the construction workers don't get a cut of the money I made from my house. Once they built it, and got paid for it, they're out. Done. They got their money. Once the house is mine, I can do with it whatever I please. I can sell it for MORE than I paid for it, because it's mine. I own it. What they're trying to do is take away that right, and say that since they made it, you can own it or make money back from it. If what they say is true, thrift shops can't exist, because Nike loses too much money towards second-hand shoes that poor people buy. They just want more money, even though they make millions (some BILLIONS) off of the original copy. If they want my business, do it buy lowering the prices. It's ******* DIGITAL now for Christ's sake, they don't even have to print a hard copy. Just lower the price to compete with the market. They'd rather take ownership rights away from the people who spent money on the game, rather than trying to compete with the market. even if it means screwing over the customers, their friends, and the poor.
User avatar #149 to #147 - thenewgizmobox
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(05/05/2014) [-]
okay, you are so ******* stupid u just don't want to do this anymore. if you actually want to listen to any form of reason just watch this, it'll basically be my arguement.
The Devil's Halibut - Used Games
and go **** yourself.
User avatar #150 to #149 - kungfulouie
Reply -1 123456789123345869
(05/05/2014) [-]
Yeah, I know the opposing side's argument. Take that video, and replace games with shirts, and listen to how wrong it sounds. Like thrift shops shouldn't exist.
User avatar #151 to #150 - thenewgizmobox
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(05/05/2014) [-]
because a shirt has a measurable lifetime, do you even know what entropy is you retard?
#152 to #151 - kungfulouie
Reply -1 123456789123345869
(05/05/2014) [-]
Yes, and just like a movie or music, you should be able to purchase your copy, and sell it at your leisure.  I'm going to stop talking to you now because you're using name calling and you've lost your cool.  Good-bye.
Yes, and just like a movie or music, you should be able to purchase your copy, and sell it at your leisure. I'm going to stop talking to you now because you're using name calling and you've lost your cool. Good-bye.
User avatar #153 to #152 - thenewgizmobox
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(05/05/2014) [-]
A straw man, also known in the UK as an Aunt Sally,[1][2] is a common type of argument and is an informal fallacy based on the misrepresentation of the original topic of argument. To be successful, a straw man argument requires that the audience be ignorant or uninformed of the original argument.
The so-called typical "attacking a straw man" implies an adversarial, polemic, or combative debate, and creates the illusion of having completely refuted or defeated an opponent's proposition by covertly replacing it with a different proposition (i.e., "stand up a straw man") and then to refute or defeat that false argument, ("knock down a straw man,") instead of the original proposition.[3][4]
This technique has been used throughout history in polemical debate, particularly in arguments about highly charged emotional issues where a fiery, entertaining "battle" and the defeat of an "enemy" may be more valued than critical thinking or understanding both sides of the issue.
User avatar #148 to #147 - kungfulouie
Reply -1 123456789123345869
(05/05/2014) [-]
*you can't
User avatar #28 to #24 - fitemeirlbro
Reply -1 123456789123345869
(05/05/2014) [-]
ok then lets just all spend stupid amounts of money on cheap plastic and data
#29 to #28 - endospore
Reply -1 123456789123345869
(05/05/2014) [-]
Yeah, you're right. Hundreds of people working thousands of hours is worth nothing. Let's judge an item solely based on the amount of tangible material it is. I hope you don't spend money on cable, since really it's just data flying through the air. Oh, and how can you justify spending money on the internet when it's really just cheap data.
User avatar #31 to #29 - fitemeirlbro
Reply -1 123456789123345869
(05/05/2014) [-]
people who really care can buy it new but if you dont know the game buy it used
#33 to #31 - endospore
Reply -1 123456789123345869
(05/05/2014) [-]
I'm not saying the prices are reasonable. Most probably should be lowered. All I'm saying is that it's kind of ****** up that Gamestop, who had absolutely nothing to do with the creation of the game and is essentially completely superfluous in this day and age, takes one hundred percent of the profit of used game sales.

Compare this to Steam, where selling in game items still gives the developers a cut of the profit, and where (If and when game selling becomes a thing) selling the actual game will presumably follow the same model.

Also, this isn't limited to games. I hate used books, too. When it gets to physical items like tables, it's a bit different since you don't get to use the table any more, unlike with a piece of entertainment that you can read/watch/play once and retain it in your memory essentially forever. But that's a whole different argument.
User avatar #26 to #24 - justanotherblablab
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(05/05/2014) [-]
I'm going to bring some breaking news to you. You are ******* retarded.
#44 to #26 - bobbysnobby
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(05/05/2014) [-]
Developers dont get any money out of used copy sales. Its why I cant wait for distribution companies like Gamestop to go bottoms up.
#30 to #26 - endospore
Reply -1 123456789123345869
(05/05/2014) [-]
Care to... elaborate at all? Maybe offer a single counterpoint, at least?
User avatar #32 to #30 - justanotherblablab
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(05/05/2014) [-]
You buy the game right, after a few weeks you think to yourself that the game you bought is a piece of ****. Now you have two options. Either keeping the game, or cutting your losses. You gain no profit from selling the game, you just cut your losses. It's your property, why would you be an asshole for selling your own things? It's like saying that selling your TV would hurt the companies that produce TV's.
#34 to #32 - endospore
Reply -2 123456789123345869
(05/05/2014) [-]
You can return the video game? Maybe? Most places have a month return policy, and the only reason Gamestop mostly has a week is because of assholes abusing the system by buying games, beating them, and then returning them.

It's different with a physical item since when I buy a videogame and play the videogame, I have gained the entertainment and essential retain it in my mind forever. With a TV, I can't use the TV any more once I sell it. If i want to use the TV again, I must buy a new one. Imagine if you could eat a burrito, enjoying the meal and gaining its sustenance, but still be able to sell the burrito later. That's what selling entertainment is like.

And yes, used video game sales absolutely hurt the market. Steamtrades is a great michchosm of this. When a game goes on sale, that's the highest price any trader will pay for it any more. With ten minutes of effort, I can get almost any game for half price or better, or even less if it's not region locked. (Thanks Russia!)
User avatar #63 to #34 - indecisivejew
Reply -1 123456789123345869
(05/05/2014) [-]
What the **** are you talking about? You can't return a new game after you already opened it and played it for a week. What the **** would the store do with it? You can't sell a game that has been opened and likely had all the codes inside used as new, because its not new anymore.

No where has a month return policy on physical games. Stop talking out of your ass. The used games system works just fine.
User avatar #35 to #24 - imadps
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(05/05/2014) [-]
A used game is still purchased in the first place. The creator does see a penny. A few, actually.And once the person buys the game, that copy becomes their property. They can sell it if they want. Buying used games is a very reasonable option for some people, especially people with low-income. If the basic prices for new games lowered by maybe 35%, I'd buy a lot more games retail. Until then, I'll enjoy buying second-hand games at appropriate prices.
#36 to #24 - anon id: 09332b33
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(05/05/2014) [-]
yes they did the creators of the game got their money when sombody bought said game used there not losing money on used games
User avatar #62 to #24 - Welshhobo
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(05/05/2014) [-]
I think releasing ****** games that are unplayable until you buy extra content to make is playing is worse than murdering babies, but hey, thats how the industry works. I also think "early access" games are a load of bollocks and a scam.
User avatar #64 to #24 - indecisivejew
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(05/05/2014) [-]
Sure a lot of people sell games, but you know what they use the money from selling their old games to buy? New ******* games. Games they wouldn't have the money to buy if they didn't sell their old games and just bought everything at $60 with no way to do anything about it if they got a game they didn't like.

And another thing, you clearly don't have any idea how developers actually get paid. They are paid a salary while the game is being made. The sales of their game do not effect the paycheck of the average developer in the slightest. It effects the publisher. You know, the middle men who give money to make money without any actual involvement with the development process, which also exactly describes GameStop? Are you really upset that EA isn't making enough of your money?
User avatar #87 to #24 - krystalkitty
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(05/05/2014) [-]
Do you believe that used cars and used books should be treated the same way then?
#100 to #24 - anon id: 481887ad
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(05/05/2014) [-]
what do you think retail does ?
User avatar #38 to #24 - chuca
Reply +6 123456789123345869
(05/05/2014) [-]
so what your saying is if you don't put any work into something, paying money for it does not make it yours

nice to know to know everything i thought i owned isn't actually mine
User avatar #78 to #38 - Fgner
Reply +3 123456789123345869
(05/05/2014) [-]
I'll elaborate. The retailer makes money on the first purchase, and the creator gets paid. However, once they buy it back for an order of magnitude less, they can sell it again without royalties to the producer. So by buying a used game, the people who should actually be getting that money - the people who spents years and millions making the game - are screwed completely out of a sale, while the people who simply retail it make bank selling something for a 10% discount maybe, that they don't have to pay almost anything for.

It gets even worse thanks to the fact that retailers will often promote buying used games over new games. Get points or discounts or special offers that a new game won't provide, because they make far more money on a used game.

I think he's putting the blame on the wrong person. Almost everyone buying a used game doesn't know it works like this, so why should they be "worse than piracy"? It's simply a corrupt and sick business practice and as a gaming community we should do better to inform our consumers of it and try to fight back at companies like Gamestop who parctipate here. And even if you buy used knowingly, who cares it's your money and you spend it as you see fit.
User avatar #89 to #78 - kungfulouie
Reply -1 123456789123345869
(05/05/2014) [-]
"The retailer makes money on the first purchase, and the creator gets paid"
The creator gets paid

Whatever happens after that should be the people who paid the creators decision. The creator is now done. It's whom ever bought the games decision to do with it what they like now. And if a company that buys and sells used games are selling a copy for less than the original, good. That's how capitalism works. Maybe if the "creators" weren't so damn greedy, I'd take my business to them. But they want to be paid twice apparently. For the same game. Now that is the problem.
#133 to #89 - Fgner
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(05/05/2014) [-]
1) Creators aren't pushing the anti-retailer stuff. They make enough to get by and that's what matters for them - the consumers hav/e begun this push. And how does wanting to be paid for their work make them greedy?   
   
2) Unlike pirating, where the person wouldn't be buying the game to begin with, reselling is a situation where the game would have been bought to begin with. So in this case they truly are losing a sale.   
   
3) The problem is pretty much over. Digital distribution is more convenient for everyone and follows the proper licensing system. When you buy software, you buy a license to use it - not a physical product itself. You can return the license, but not resell. I barely see any PC games that have optical drives for distribution - it's just consoles and even they're advocating a push to all digital.   
   
4) Let's look at this one: A single-player oriented game is produced. People buy it and return it after they beat the campaign. Let's say the retailer sells each copy 20 times for 10% off, but the creators only get paid the first time. Because everyone buying a used game were going to buy it anyway - the creators only make 1/20 of the money they deserve. Only 1/20 of the people who play and likely completed their game actually paid them for their work.   
   
5) And the practice isn't just the resell - the practice is the advocation and push to sell the used copies. They push used copies as hard as they can because it's cheap as dirt for them to do so and they make far more money that way. This is a greedy practice.
1) Creators aren't pushing the anti-retailer stuff. They make enough to get by and that's what matters for them - the consumers hav/e begun this push. And how does wanting to be paid for their work make them greedy?

2) Unlike pirating, where the person wouldn't be buying the game to begin with, reselling is a situation where the game would have been bought to begin with. So in this case they truly are losing a sale.

3) The problem is pretty much over. Digital distribution is more convenient for everyone and follows the proper licensing system. When you buy software, you buy a license to use it - not a physical product itself. You can return the license, but not resell. I barely see any PC games that have optical drives for distribution - it's just consoles and even they're advocating a push to all digital.

4) Let's look at this one: A single-player oriented game is produced. People buy it and return it after they beat the campaign. Let's say the retailer sells each copy 20 times for 10% off, but the creators only get paid the first time. Because everyone buying a used game were going to buy it anyway - the creators only make 1/20 of the money they deserve. Only 1/20 of the people who play and likely completed their game actually paid them for their work.

5) And the practice isn't just the resell - the practice is the advocation and push to sell the used copies. They push used copies as hard as they can because it's cheap as dirt for them to do so and they make far more money that way. This is a greedy practice.
User avatar #134 to #133 - kungfulouie
Reply -1 123456789123345869
(05/05/2014) [-]
1) They want to be paid twice for their work. Once the initial purchase is complete, so is their say in whether or not I sell it to a friend or second hand store.

2) This is about pirating
3) This is about digital distribution

4) Again. The creators DON'T deserve that money, because they've ALREADY BEEN PAID. That's the entire concept of buying something used, whether it be a game, a shirt, a book, or a basketball. That's the entire concept of ownership. I'm not renting this game from them. Once I buy it, it is mine, and they have no say in any secondary transaction, because, again, I've already paid them. Not 1/20, 100%, but only once.

5) No, that's capitalism. The creators already got paid. They got their money. 100% of the asking price. Now, they want to take away your right to ownership, which implies your ability to sell it if you so choose, maybe even for a higher price, because that's good business practice, regardless of the item. The point is you been bamboozled son. Hoodwinked. They're trying to tell you renting is the same as owning, then charging over and over for the same single item (like renting), but anyone who owns something will tell you otherwise.
User avatar #155 to #134 - Fgner
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(05/06/2014) [-]
CONT.

4) The creator deserves money for every single "seat", or person who uses their software or intellectual property. Not simply every disk sold. So, again, you simply don't understand how software nor the legal system involved in software works. And you obviously haven't really thought it out either.

5) "Hur dur mai rights". You, again, don't understand - you bought a license for your use. You don't own the software, you only own the right to use it yourself. This is how software works because that's what makes sense. Your analogy with rentals is perfect, actually! Businesses renting movies actually require a license to do so! Not doing so is breaking the law. Because the movie producers paid millions of dollars and decades of man years to make that movie, and they deserve money for every single view. If someone sees and doesn't pay, technically they were robbed of payment. Once again, owning the medium doesn't give you ownership of the movie, only your right to use it.

P.S. "The unauthorized reproduction or distribution of this copyrighted work is illegal. Criminal copyright infringement, including infringement without monetary gain..." is the warning on every movie. It's the FBI Anti-Piracy movie. Every single movie you've ever played says showing the movie to anyone but the person who purchased it without permission is illegal and subject to legal action. Now of course they aren't idiots or ass-nuggets (or magically all knowing) so they never do anything about DVD sharing or movie parties.

6) Just... please. Don't talk about what you don't know or understand.
User avatar #158 to #155 - kungfulouie
Reply -1 123456789123345869
(05/06/2014) [-]
All they're doing is trying to cut out a market. I mean, I see what you're saying, but I disagree with it. I disagree that there is anything wrong with buying something second-hand. It doesn't matter who made it, or what it is. If it's been paid for, the transaction is complete. If you build my house, and I buy it from you, I can sell it. I can sell it for MORE then I paid you for it. It's mine. Just because something is in a digital medium, and doesn't physically degrade, doesn't mean you can hold ownership rights. All they are doing is trying to MONOPOLIZE the market. Cut out the competition. Right now, the reason they're making so little money is because, and this falls into your "digital" argument, Gamestop is selling hard copies for cheaper then the digital ones on say the Xbox Marketplace. The game companies are trying to make more money, not buy competing with the market, but by trying to monopolize it by taking away ownership rights, yet still demanding more money.

I do understand. I understand that now that you make something, get paid for it, and other markets pop up with your products you're not getting a cut of, it angers you. But you know what? That's what happens when you sell something. And don't compare it to piracy, because it's not even close. We're not talking about making copies. Were talking about one copy, which I paid you for, and you're trying to say that since you made it, it's still yours. this isn't like other software that can be used simultaneously. This is a hard copy of a game that is required to use it. The hard copy I bought, with the money I earned. It is mine now, not yours.
User avatar #154 to #134 - Fgner
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(05/06/2014) [-]
1) Irrelevant to the point that creators aren't even asking people not to buy used. They can't say bad things about retailers themselves, because then the retailers wouldn't carry their games. Which means no games sold at all. So stop acting like the creators are even a part of this conversation.

2) No... This is about reselling and it's a valid point. They are, without a doubt, losing a sale. And unlike pirating where there is an excuse and it's sometimes reasonable to say "well they weren't going to buy it anyway", the consumer was going to buy the game anyway, regardless if used wasn't available.

3) What, are you incapable of making connections between two intersecting topics? Humans have this wonderful ability to understand and infer, try using it. Software, which includes games, are not physical products. It's intellectual property. Unlike a washing machine that can be bought and now it's yours - software is the selling of the license to use the software. The only reason games have ever been resellable is because they used to be distributed on optical media. Now that digital distribution is the predominant form of distribution, games are finally switching to licensing systems - which is the proper and intelligent way. Thus I'm reducing the value of the conversation, since retailers like Gamestop are making orders of magnitude less difference to game creators, especially in terms of PC games where optical media is almost never available at all.

4) You don't work in software or law do you? You obviously don't understand how it works. Software is not a physical object, it is a license to use the software. It is this way in every single other software market but gaming (because of reasons outlined above). This "I bought it so it's mine" is irrelevant. Otherwise pirating would be legal - after all it's legal to share all other physical products like DVDs (which is a problem too) and laundry machines.

CONT.
User avatar #156 to #154 - kungfulouie
Reply -1 123456789123345869
(05/06/2014) [-]
All they're doing is trying to cut out a market. I mean, I see what you're saying, but I disagree with it. I disagree that there is anything wrong with buying something second-hand. It doesn't matter who made it, or what it is. If it's been paid for, the transaction is complete. If you build my house, and I buy it from you, I can sell it. I can sell it for MORE then I paid you for it. It's mine. Just because something is in a digital medium, and doesn't physically degrade, doesn't mean you can hold ownership rights. All they are doing is trying to MONOPOLIZE the market. Cut out the competition. Right now, the reason they're making so little money is because, and this falls into your "digital" argument, Gamestop is selling hard copies for cheaper then the digital ones on say the Xbox Marketplace. The game companies are trying to make more money, not buy competing with the market, but by trying to monopolize it by taking away ownership rights, yet still demanding more money.
User avatar #157 to #156 - Fgner
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(05/06/2014) [-]
See #6. You clearly don't understand what you're talking about.
User avatar #159 to #157 - kungfulouie
Reply -1 123456789123345869
(05/06/2014) [-]
Do you understand the difference between a hard copy and a digital one? The reason they want to switch it over is so they can cut out the competition. They can make so much more money renting out digital rights, as opposed to selling hard copies, which allows poor people to play their games after the rich are done with them. It creates a whole second-hand market that COMPETES with them, and that's good for everyone. In the digital way, the only people who can play their games are the ones who paid them the exact price they set, for however long they set it there, and they can set it however high they want. It's just a way to monopolize the market. Jesus man, open your eyes.
#161 to #159 - Fgner
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(05/06/2014) [-]
*Sigh* I'm a ******* software engineer - and a game maker in my free time (unpaid) - I know these things. Knowing the rules and technicalities is my job. Understand how the economics work keeps me eating food every day. Once again, you're full of **** up to your eyes because you simply don't know what you don't know.

And once again, you're acting like they're trying to cut out the middle-man just for the dough. But Steam completely invalidates your points. People love Steam because it's more convenient than having to drive to the damn Gamestop, it's more convenient than having to manage a disk and isntall it manually, it's got all these wonderful features. And because of all the sales - sales almost always initiated by the developers. Developers can't offer sales through Gamestop though.

To further my point - Developers have proposed (with other companies like Steam) that the cost of games is too high, and it would be beneficial to reduce the MSRP of newly released titles to attract a larger audience. Gamestop basically told them "**** off - $60 on release or we won't stock your game and you sell nothing". (citation not provided because laziness)

Gamestop is legal, Gamestop is not breaking rules. But they conduct horribly vile business practices that the entire industry despises, but can't fix because so many simply need optical media to be sold and don't have their own multi-thousand-hub franchise.

Oh, but the developers like me are just pure evil. Yeah, ignore what everyone in the entire industry - including those who would never, ever, ever see even a dime of that money. Even people who work for Gamestop agree they conduct immoral business.

And finally - you still don't understand the difference between physical property and intellectual property. You don't seem to understand how software works legally or economically. I'm spoon feeding you knowledge but you won't eat it!

tl;dr You seriously have no clue what you're talking about. Stop talking.
User avatar #160 to #159 - kungfulouie
Reply -1 123456789123345869
(05/06/2014) [-]
They could stop Gamestop right now by competing with their prices, solely on the basis of not having to print another hard copy, and pay employees at a store. Just pop an old game up on the digital marketplace for cheaper. Get all the demand. They just don't want to drop the price, instead they'd rather eliminate the competition regardless of who is burns over. The gamers
User avatar #162 to #160 - Fgner
Reply -1 123456789123345869
(05/06/2014) [-]
This is the best part because you're now arguing in my favor.

Gamestop could not compete with Steam. Steam is more convenient, Steam is direct to developers (with royalties), Steam is more feature-ful, and Steam is FAR CHEAPER. Optical media only applies to consoles because digital distribution has absolutely demolished the competition in the PC world. The reason it can't take the console world quite yet is because it relies on internet pretty hard and console gamers like sharing games and such. And that's the only reason Gamestop hasn't been eaten by digital distribution systems.
User avatar #163 to #162 - kungfulouie
Reply -1 123456789123345869
(05/06/2014) [-]
How are you not arguing in mine?

That's exactly what I said, and maybe if Xbox's Marketplace WOULD be far cheaper than Gamestop, this wouldn't be a problem. But it's not. So it's a problem. The best way to corner the market is to have the best price. Now I've never said Gamestop didn't run shady, but I did say the thrift shop didn't. Or the used record store. You know, all the places I can sell my games to? I get you're a programmer, so you have a certain vested interest in what you create. Do you understand I'm a consumer, and I want the best possible price? If Gamestop is the one who gives it to me, fine. If it's Steam, great. But it sure as **** isn't the current digital media sales outlet for Xbox, you can be damn sure of that. They're selling games for 3 times as much as used. And the reason most console gamers don't HAVE the piracy problem that PC gamers have is because Xbox is actually pretty damn thorough in weeding out modded boxes once they go online. But do you know what you give up when it's all digital? Sharing with friends, hell giving it to your friend, maybe even selling it to him, and making some of your hard earned money back. But PC has never really been as... co-op as console either. The whole reason I bought a console instead of a PC is so I can play with my friends, side by side, trade games with them, hang out personally with them. PC is not about couch co-op. I'm getting off topic though kind of. My point is when you take away ownership, you're not just making more money for the companies, your taking away my ability to make decisions with my game, because I own it. You PC gamers are used to that, you can't share games. But we can, and you're telling us to give that up, so the devs can cut out the thrift shop. NOT just Gamestop, but every used store in existence. And that's kinda ********. Sure, **** Gamestop, but don't burn down everyone because of them alone, that's way ********.
User avatar #164 to #163 - kungfulouie
Reply -1 123456789123345869
(05/06/2014) [-]
By that logic, you shouldn't be able to take your favorite movie over to a friend's house and watch it with them, because they didn't buy it from MGM.
User avatar #165 to #164 - kungfulouie
Reply -1 123456789123345869
(05/06/2014) [-]
Furthermore, by that logic, all rental places should cease to exist as well. They purchased the movie, you can watch it without purchasing it. They own it, and make that decision. I don't know how you PC gamers can be ok with not being able to do that, but you are. We console gamers are not.
User avatar #166 to #165 - kungfulouie
Reply -1 123456789123345869
(05/06/2014) [-]
You guys can't rent, you can't trade, you can't sell. You guys gave up all that to save a few bucks or a trip to the store? Seems like a bad deal to me.

PC can thumb me down if they want, but it's true.
#136 to #134 - kungfulouie
0 123456789123345869
has deleted their comment [-]
#77 to #38 - bobbysnobby
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(05/05/2014) [-]
Well for software you dont own it. You own the rights to use according to the terms of service. Its why people on the PC market cannot resale used games. When you buy a copy of Photo Shop Pro you dont own that copy, you own a license to use Adobe Photo Shop Pro and legally you cannot resell that license.
User avatar #95 to #77 - kungfulouie
Reply -1 123456789123345869
(05/05/2014) [-]
APS is different then a game in the sense that one copy could be used an infinite amount of times simultaneously. I also think it has a lot to do with piracy and cracks, which plague the PC community or is awesome, depending on your hat . Granted, people hack/mod the Xbox, but MS is decently keen on sniffing them out, especially if they go online. All in all, I think the gaming companies are just getting ****** tactics, and greedier, and not holding the buyers rights or respect to a standard any higher then a kid with his parents money, and not his own.
User avatar #43 to #38 - IamWhoIam
Reply -3 123456789123345869
(05/05/2014) [-]
I deliver pizzas but I don't make the pizzas so I shouldn't get paid I guess.
#61 - flambenobunaga
Reply +5 123456789123345869
(05/05/2014) [-]
I purchased an Xbox One on launch for Dead Rising 3 and Killer Instinct. I, for one, am content with my purchase.
User avatar #65 to #61 - admiralshepard
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(05/05/2014) [-]
I too enjoy my Xbox . . . The original proposals almost pushed me to PS4, but I'm quite happy with the end product, I just couldn't give up the xbox exclusives. I wore an eye-patch as a child due to a lazy eye, and was embarrassed to wear it in public. My friends would come over whenever I had to patch and play Halo CE. Say what you will about Halo, but no other series gives me the warm and fuzzies like it . . . I don't think I could ever forgive myself if I couldn't continue to play the franchise.