LATEST CHATTY HEADER
Subscribe to Shacknews Mercury starting at $1/month!
Chrome Shack Community Guidelines Chatty Search
Scroll down to join the conversation.
New to Shacknews? Signup for a Free Account
Already have an account? Login Now
Subscribe to Shacknews Mercury starting at $1/month!
Chrome Shack Community Guidelines Chatty Search
Scroll down to join the conversation.
http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2010/8/25/
Basic treatise: If you buy a publisher's game used then you're not a customer of theirs so they don't really care if the "one time use" code thing pisses you off:
http://www.penny-arcade.com/2010/8/25/words-and-their-meanings/
And boy did the responses start coming in:
http://www.penny-arcade.com/2010/8/25/lets-talk-about/
And now they've started posting some of them (with permission, I'm assuming):
http://www.penny-arcade.com/2010/8/25/lets-go-phones/
Very interesting...
Thread Truncated. Click to see all 313 replies.
2. It is completely reasonable for people to be upset that developers/publishers are starting to intentionally cripple the games.
3. Attacking the ethics of people who buy used games isn't productive. Also, is it really persuasive to say that anything but buying straight from the developer/publisher is as bad as completely pirating the game? Seems like a great way to rationalize piracy.
4. I would expect severely reducing sales of used games to harm new game sales. I'd be a lot more willing to pay $60 for a game if I knew it was really like paying $40 and loaning someone $20 that I could recoup later.
5. Saying that people who can't afford to buy games at full price shouldn't play them doesn't seem good for the industry either. Are developers/publishers really better off, in the long run, with fewer people playing fewer games?
The post has been reported. Thank you!
You must be logged in to post.
You must be logged in to post.