too pissed off to put it in "pissed off today" thread...

**green-lantern** · 07-15-2011, 12:20 AM

Originally Posted by IPD

you don't need to worry about video games because you have a dog?

1st thing I thought. lol A dog?

**mb3000** · 07-15-2011, 12:27 AM

Haven't played video games in years. I wonder if my old Nintendo 64 still works.

**terrets** · 07-15-2011, 12:50 AM

I think thats a load of shit. Its our property and we paid it. We have a right to do with it what we want. Just like with the PS3s. Fuckers. Greed will be the end of us.

**AgentOblivious** · 07-15-2011, 04:45 AM

Originally Posted by terrets

I think thats a load of shit. Its our property and we paid it. We have a right to do with it what we want. Just like with the PS3s. Fuckers. Greed will be the end of us.

technically though, all you payed for was a license to use their product in certain ways...

**GTOJOE** · 07-15-2011, 05:06 AM

Kylie Minogue??? Seriously???

**stealthify** · 07-15-2011, 05:33 AM

Originally Posted by GTOJOE

Kylie Minogue??? Seriously???

^-- lol

I really hope others don't implement this in their games. But you're right, I've been seeing game makers trying to cash-in on the used game market more and more too. One example that comes to mind is Mortal Kombat 9 and their $10-$15 one-time-use 'Online Kombat Pass.'

**Dbeltran24** · 07-15-2011, 12:36 PM

The only New game encouraging practice I am ok with is, Free DLC content with new games. I view that as a BOGO offer. You buy the game new, they give you free content along with it. Besides that, all other practices against the sales of used games are wrong. Forcing online subscription fees to play, single saved games, and "online passes" are going overboard. Any company that impliments these practices will only hurt their sales.

I also don't agree with paying $10-$20 buck just for one additional character and/or map for a game. Thats close to 20%-40% of the cost of the game itself for way less than 10% of the content included in the original game. I'd sooner buy another game than spend that on a DLC. In many cases to acquire all the DLC content for a game costs more than the original game.

**HilbillyHomeboy** · 07-15-2011, 04:22 PM

Originally Posted by AgentOblivious

technically though, all you payed for was a license to use their product in certain ways...

That doesn't hold water. A license refers to permission AND the document that grants that permission. You're not paying for a license to play a video game as a singular person/entity; nor are you leasing the game indicating a guaranteed return to the seller at some later date. The only licensing that is remotely attached in this instance is the lack of right to disseminate. Still, that is not a license per se, that is a restriction that is acknowledged when you take ownership. This nonsense won't last, it's absolutely absurd.

Jeremy

**Danube_3KGT** · 07-16-2011, 02:40 AM

Originally Posted by HilbillyHomeboy

That doesn't hold water. A license refers to permission AND the document that grants that permission. You're not paying for a license to play a video game as a singular person/entity; nor are you leasing the game indicating a guaranteed return to the seller at some later date. The only licensing that is remotely attached in this instance is the lack of right to disseminate. Still, that is not a license per se, that is a restriction that is acknowledged when you take ownership. This nonsense won't last, it's absolutely absurd.

Jeremy

QFT.. Won't last long.. not like Capcom is really gonna hurt many people anyway.. how many flight simulators can you buy?