Xbox One "witch hunt" somewhat unjustified, says Carmack

Id Software cofounder says backlash surrounding Xbox One policies not necessarily justified, believes the future will be fully digital.

by

Industry veteran John Carmack, who cofounded Doom studio id Software, believes the blowback surrounding Microsoft's since-reversed Xbox One policies was somewhat unjustified.

"I think the witch hunt was a little bit unjustified there," Carmack said during this keynote address at QuakeCon. "I personally am extremely fond of having all of my digital purchases in a curated garden. All of my iTunes, all of my Amazon stuff, all of my Steam things. And it's a positive thing."

The days of physical media are numbered, Carmack said, adding that a digital-only future is clearly the way forward.

"Yeah, you can have better and worse ways of doing that, but we are very quickly going to be past the age of having a game that you hold in your hands on optical media," Carmack said.

"It probably won't be many years before we wind up with SKUs that just have the optical drives deleted and everybody will just be getting it through the net," he added. "The future is obvious right there and it will be good for us in general."

Carmack also said he believes fears are overblown over the possibility that the Xbox One's new Kinect camera will snoop on users.

"If you go back 10 years, the idea that everyone would carry around a phone that has your GPS-located position at all times would cause the tinfoil hat crowd to go absolutely crazy," Carmack said.

He said it is possible that the government will have backdoors into technology like smartphones and potentially Kinect to track consumers, but "that's pretty much the situation…we just kind of carry on."

He pointed out that the situation with the Kinect is already in existence on laptops, which have had built-in webcams for years.

At the end of the day, Carmack said, "We'll get used to it," because potential security concerns that come with new technology are "just inevitable."

Discussion

1243 comments
ccfman2008
ccfman2008

What about people who live in areas that don't have high speed internet access.  I do like the idea of having digital copies of my games so I don't have to get up to change a disc as I am lazy but when the xbox 360 part of LIVE is shut down, all those digital copies are lost forever.  Having the physical disc means that you can keep playing offline until the system breaks and you can't get a replacement.


Look at the original Xbox LIVE.  All digital content that you bought can never be re-downloaded if you delete it off the hard drive.  If that system was all digital, then everything you bought is lost forever.

I like having an RGH Xbox 360 for the eventuality of Xbox 360 LIVE being shut down so I can still use all of my purchased content


Digital content is great but it lousy when you can no longer download the stuff and it becomes wasted money.  I still have my video game stuff from the NES era.  Many times I go back and play older games when I have the urge.  Look at the GameCube.  That is an old console but ever now and again I get the urge to vacuum up some ghosts in Luigi's Mansion or kill some dinosaurs in Star Fox Adventures.  Digital content may be convenient and space saving but only as long as it can downloaded.  There's the obvious issues of resaleability.  Digital content cannot be resold once it is in your account.

steelmouth
steelmouth

Well in the same way that I was on the side of MS and understood their point I also understood the fans reaction and totally side with them too, I believe in everybody's right to do as they please and fuck their own life's up, Its MS console they may do as they please with it and its our cash we can also do as we please with it

Lostat
Lostat

Carmack may be fond personally of that system, but a great many people are not, and, oddly enough, its not "all" about Cormack.  Also, if the furore over DRM hadn't kicked-off as much as it did, then the DRM-system would, in all likelihood, not have changed at all.  A lot of people have very poor or no internet but still want to play.

With regard to kinect "spying" on us, I do agree with Carmack there.  I think it seems like a lot of over-blown conspiracy -theorists.  I mean, how many people complained about collecting our meta-data...whilst complaining about it on facebook which is the biggest open-door privacy place there is!

darrenfps
darrenfps

Mr Carmack may be right, however, many gamers (like myself) still like the idea of "tangible" items. Not that I don't purchase the occasional DLC or game from time to time. Nevertheless, cars may fly in the future as well, this doesn't mean were all for flying cars congesting our airways right now.

Spartan_1004
Spartan_1004

I agree with him. A lot of people think the policies were forced but they really weren't. No one has to buy an xbox one. I think what ruined the whole thing is that microsoft knew gamers were attached to their physical media and tried to join discs to the whole steam model. Yes I know there are still pc discs. But pc gamers buy their games primarily online. I work in retail and the pc game section doesn't get bought until they go on sale or clearance.

Used games do eat up sales. Someone buys the game, beats it, sells in a week to gamestop for (being generous) $20. Someone else buys it for $55 (you know it's true) does the same and back to gamestop for let's say $15. And for arguments sake the third guy buys it and keeps it, thinking he cheated the $60 price tag by buying it for $50. That is 3 copies that could have been sold by developers. Also I could be wrong, but I don't remember there being a huge pc section at gamestop. The 24 hour check in was the only way to keep people from downloading the game and selling it back, and probably the only way developers were on board with it.

Sorry for the long post. No one has to agree with me or Carmack but don't bash people for their opinions. We can disagree without name calling. Reply if you like I probably won't stay on this article. And yes I know my profile pic is halo, it is one of my favorite games but people can own multiple systems/handhelds. Whatever your next gen console of choice, we all win.

Sruppert
Sruppert

(At the end of the day, Carmack said, "We'll get used to it," because potential security concerns that come with new technology are "just inevitable." )

"Those Who Sacrifice Liberty For Security Deserve Neither."

By extension, Should one have to sacrifice their freedom of privacy (or Game usage) because a new age device offers "More Security" over these freedoms? In a ever growing, ever changing Technological society, Thieves and Anarchists have always adapted and even used said securities offered by a new age device against the privacy of the user/owner. So in Essence, Neither the sacrifice of Liberty is justified, nor is the promised security obtained and therefore both Privacy and Security is lost on the purchase and simultaneous usage of the new age device.

While I disagree with Carmack's opinion on DRM and digital distribution, I fear the that his presumptions of a society who will one day "get used to it." and acceptance of DRM policies are "just inevitable" may ring true. Linkin Park's "The catalyst" (http://youtu.be/51iquRYKPbs) comes to mind of this outcome. So Xbox One won't muscle you on being "Kinected", but it can still spy on you. "Kinect To the cloud in the Sky Net!" should be their slogan.

bluefox755
bluefox755

It was justified, because they didn't just promote those policies, they forced them.  They took "choice" out of the equation, if DRM and all digital is the future, fine, it will inevitable become more popular the the consumers will WANT THEM.  When consumers want something, you don't have to FORCE it on them.  This simple idea seems to escape so very many.

damo320
damo320

Where poor old John is wrong is future tech only becomes "accepted" by consumers when it is delivered in a intuitive and well thought out manner. Technology riddled with restrictive DRM is not the way forward. People are right to reject poorly formulated licensing policies for software.

Carmack mentions iTunes, Amazon and Steam and yet none of those marketplaces is as restrictive and authoritarian on DRM as what the Xbox One was shaping up to be. If Xbox were serious about pushing the digital delivery route they should have presented a better system from day one.

Do I need to be connected to the internet 1 x per 24hrs to validate my iTunes or Steam digital purchases? No. So John... you're full of it. We'll accept fully digital as soon as Microsoft grows some balls and devises a less publisher focused system.

Validating devices themselves or validating software 1 x week online would have been easier to accept. Microsoft only have themselves to blame.

dmdavenport
dmdavenport

MS tried to shove digital down gamers throats and shouldn't be surprised they were pissed. Throw in a $100 for the kinect, whether you want it or not, and it's no wonder MS got grief. Maybe next time they'll try a focus group not made up of MS employees to test feedback.

CRYO_HAWK
CRYO_HAWK

I have no idea where people come off on reading the future it might it might not happen I just wait and see something else can happen and games go back to cartridges and be more advanced than blu-ray. Music can be fully digital but cd's are still brings in hundreds of billions of dollars a year. I guess JESUS CHRIST was right false prophets will rise.   

predator4965
predator4965

Carmack isn't necessarily wrong, but his mistake is he isn't seeing what the cons were to all the initial policies that they were going to have. He equates it with steam, but the xbox one would not really have been like steam. I don't know how many times I have logged on here to see Microsoft being caught for doing shady things with their customers' accounts. One of the more recent of them being Microsoft caught spying on private Skype conversations. I'm sure the xbox one will be a good console now that they reversed a lot of these things, but the truth is I just don't trust them anymore. 

Enforcer246
Enforcer246

I didn't know Gary Cole was in the video game business.

AdamLeBlanc
AdamLeBlanc

For me, the point of wanting physical media over digital has nothing to do with convenience. It's all about price. I can't get a game cheaper if it's digital and I'm not made of money. If I want to play a bunch of games, I may have to buy some used or rent some from a company like Redbox or Gamefly. It's easy to talk about how great digital is when you are a developer or a gaming journalist and you don't have to buy half of the games out there.  The average consumer has to pay over $100 if they want more than one game. That is a bit outrageous for some. 

I get that the used game market is hurting developers but it's not as though gamers will all of a sudden have tons of money they didn't have before to buy games when they are only digital. They will simply be able to play less games which doesn't help anyone.

Mega_Loser
Mega_Loser

it's a shame because carmack is pleasing to listen to on his speech at quakecon, the xbone marketing and unnecessary apologetics could have been ommited/skipped.

he does trash kinect as a tool for gaming however and praises digital distribution. @Darth_Kaneposted this link of some person ranting on digital distribution and how it doesn't work for consoles:

escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/jimquisition/7586-Why-PC-Gaming-Gets-Away-With-It

Benny_Blakk
Benny_Blakk

These guys absolutely REFUSE to remove their Asshats.

Noone was really objecting to digital sales. It was the objection to not being able to do as you please with the physical media. That was a clear violation of the Right of First Sale Doctrine. In addition to that, people were offended by the notion of being  treated like a thief despite paying full price for an authentic product. The 24 hour check in was a disgrace and everyone knows it. 

XCyberForceX
XCyberForceX

Forced change can be view as ignoring a person's rights and they will fight back.  Gradual change is different.  For some reason we view it as a professional change and don't resist it as hard.  Almost like putting frog in a pot and slowly raising the temperature until its boiling.  The frog will not jump out.  But if that same frog was exposed to rapidly changing heat it would jump out of that pot way before it came close to boiling.  The word is gradual and that's what XBOX did wrong.  Yes, we are heading toward a full digital console world but that sudden leap caused us to jump out of the pot.

tightwad34
tightwad34

I hope you realize one of the reasons people were so pissed off was because you guys were taking choices away from your loyal customers and potential customers. At least we still have the choice of buying your console or not.

tionmedon
tionmedon

why worry about ms ,where is my DOOM4.......

gamerboy100
gamerboy100

Yet another out-of-touch game developer. This kind of thing will NEVER be okay because we will lose all of the games that we paid for whenever they decide to shut down the servers.

digitaltiger
digitaltiger

If people are really that concerned about the Kinect camera then just cover it when your not using the Xbox. Carmack is use to being in an environment where there's lots of high tech, so it makes sense from his life style that this is his view of the future. He is wrong though, otherwise there never would of been such a huge back lash at MS. Also physical media is going to be around for a long time still, he's not living in the majority of people homes where every thing isn't state of the art. Carmack is not in touch with the real world life style of most people, so he can't understand why people are against these kinds of restrictions.

Erebus
Erebus

The problem with Xbox One is actually pretty simple: Microsoft completely ignored or grossly misinterpreted consumer input. Pretty much no one likes Kinect. Solution: force it on you. Consumers clearly love to buy/sell/trade used games. Solution: Prevent users from doing these things. This problem isn't exclusive to the Xbox One, either. Windows 8 turned out to be complete garbage, the Surface is deemed a failure, and speculation is that Windows 8 is actually responsible for the continual decline in PC sales. 

It's not a witch hunt, we have DNA evidence showing Microsoft's chicanery..

blackace
blackace

Well, I have said that were are already being watch a long time ago. Gamers in fear that Kinect is watching us when our Iphones, laptops and millions of cameras on streets and in buildings have been watching all of us for many, many years. 

I'm fine with DD games, my only real problem is the price. If all games are going to be DD and we won't be able to resell them, they the price of these games need to be cut in 1/2. So those $60 games should be $30 or less. That's the only way I'll spend my hard earn money on a DD full game. The other issue is we won't be getting anymore of that pre-order swag that we get now in limited edition and collector edition games.

Tee_Mal
Tee_Mal

These guys keep on implying the same god damn things - Trying to make us think that digital games carry the same benefits as digital music and film, no. They're completely different in the nature that we consume them! Games rely heavily these days on patches and bug fixes via downloadable packets which would soon be non-existent when the servers are inevitably shut down leaving us with tons of broken games years down the line, the developers cash in while the products hot but when the time comes that they don't make any money from their product anymore they're waving "bye-bye" and we're left in the trash.

.----------- Developer 1-0 Consumer

No resale value and ability to lend, swap or gift our stuff ? These are bare essential rights that have been possible since the birth of the games industry, and the games industry has never ever suffered from this system, in fact, it's been super beneficial in stimulating the industry as a whole to where it has gotten today and there have been no signs that the existence of used games has been detrimental in any way shape or form. THE MAIN REASON games don't sell is down to whether or not the game is good or if the game is total crap; used games can't exist if new games don't sell in the first place because there's not going to be just a few used copies of a game circulating throughout the world so really whats happening here is just devs want to cash in on the same product twice! Again, their audacity and greed only benefits one party. Not only that, thousands of jobs will be lost, stores shutdown, common culture affected all so that the devs can get that extra buck. Put simply if I bought a pair of jeans, wore them a few times, decided they're not for me and give them to a friend or relative instead do Levi deserve to get paid once more? Ownership non-existent.

.----------- Developer 2-0 Consumer

I could go on for a few more points not unequal in importance to the points already made in the way in which these guys are trying to rape our wallets and our rights as a consumer, people may argue that there are some benefits to an all digital platform and that some are worth sacrificing for others, but know this, as long as these guys think they can tell you what's best for you and let you believe it, they're losing incentive piece by piece to the point where ratio of the desire to create something good and unique to envisioning you as a dollar sign slowly creeps over the line which fundamentally leaves us with a much, much worse deal, the evidence to this is already here with micro-transactions, locked-out portions of ON-DISC "DLC" for frankly sub-par games, Resi 6 anyone?

Don't believe everything you read and always ask yourself the question "Why?" on your own terms, "Why does that work better for me?"

Speak up, boycott their policies and there's not a damn thing they can do about it.

PEACE

BradBurns
BradBurns

@darrenfps 

I don't agree with Carmack at all. I think he is completely wrong.

I have the utmost respect for him, but I and many others wholeheartedly disagree.

He seems to be using one argument about the future of gaming (which he is correct about; most games in the future will be digital) to justify an entirely different argument about people hating Microsofts anti-consumer policies. He's basically saying that you should just sort of take it lying down.

He's trying to make it seem as though you don't have a choice in this, as though you either agree with every single thing Microsoft is doing or you hate every single thing they're doing. 

You can take what you like and protest what you don't. That's how a corporation-consumer relationship is supposed to be, not vice versa. And that is what won out at the end.

gamemaven
gamemaven

@bluefox755There's a lot of things people didn't ask for that we have today. It's called innovating, just because you don't agree with it doesn't mean it's forced. It means you're a whiny little shit that nobody cares about.

Daemoroth
Daemoroth

@bluefox755 Exactly, people railed against the FORCED policies. I would be absolutely fine if you had the OPTION of going digital/online. Steam works with all digital or disks, works both online AND offline, NOTHING stopped Microsoft from copying that system.

MS flipping the policies reminded me of a child throwing a tantrum. Instead of saying "ok, obviously people don't like being FORCED, here's the deal - online is OPTIONAL and provides all these awesome goodies we know you'll love.", they went "FINE!! You don't want to be forced online? Well f*** you, then we'll just take it all away! There!!! HAPPY!?".

If the service was good enough, people would use it, no need to shove it down their throats.

ZRavN
ZRavN

@damo320 Actually as John Carmack said he is in favor of an all digital system and believes that it is the next step in the near future. He did not say that he believes that microsoft's policies are the correct way to implement such a distribution method. 

There is a clear right and wrong way to make digital appealing to the consumer. I mean steam is a great service and since going mostly all digital the PC market is thriving and we get deep discounts on titles, have our own library we can put anywhere and little hassle. 

Your problem is that you didn't actually watch his speech or read the article and took those quotes out of context.   

ZRavN
ZRavN

@CRYO_HAWK John Carmack is a genius level programmer and his predictions are generally always spot on. Show respect. 

rcviper02
rcviper02

@XCyberForceX This is the perfect analogy.  And I think you are absolutely right.  I'm a PC gamer and that's how it happened with us and Steam (among others).  The next thing you know, I look up and the PC game section at Best Buy has shrunk 10-fold.  Then it hit me....its all digital.  This is the future.  I remember when PC games game in cereal-sized boxes! lol

ZRavN
ZRavN

@gamerboy100 yeah cause digital distribution on the PC sucks right? lol. 

BradBurns
BradBurns

@digitaltiger 

He is kind of using one argument about the future of games to justify something else (bad policies).

On this I feel he is plain wrong. That's not to say that I can't see where he's coming from, but he is flat wrong in my and many others view.

Daemoroth
Daemoroth

@gamemaven Apparently more people cared than you would like to admit - why else would they reverse their policies?

Once again you miss the PIVOTAL point in all of this - those innovations that you're talking about, cars, trains, phones, cellphones, LCD monitors, they were created, people were given the OPTION to adopt them (Or ignore them), and because they were so brilliant people did adopt then, and it became a huge success.

When the car was invented, nobody went around shooting all the horses left on earth and told people to "buy a car, shut up, and deal with it". A car was just much better than a horse, so people who could afford it flocked to cars as soon as they could.

The point we're trying to drill into your tiny little brain, is that if Microsoft said "Hey, look, this is the XBox One, and guess what, if you have a reliable internet connection, and you connect the two, you get all this SUPER AWESOME stuff!! But hey, we understand if you don't want to be online permanently just yet, and for you, this baby will work just fine, you're just going to miss out on these additional features (Just like how Steam and iTunes operates)", do you REALLY think there'd be even the tiniest storm?

BradBurns
BradBurns

 @ZRavN

He said regarding the blowback of Microsoft's policies "I think the witch hunt was a little bit unjustified there,"

First of all he referred to it as a witch hunt, which I think is a poor choice of words. That wasn't a witch hunt, it was a mess of people who didn't like Microsoft's policies towards the consumer. 

Now if all he was referring to was the issue people had with the Kinect camera always being on and the future of gaming being all digital, then that's a fair enough statement to make. I wouldn't refer to it as a "witch hunt", but it's a fair sentiment. 

However, if he was referring to their protesting of bad policies as a "witch hunt", I feel that he was demonizing them for having legitimate grievances.

I think that the backlash for the whole thing was fine. If Gamespot took something he said out of context, I'm all ears. 

Either way, I'm completely for people protesting things that they don't agree with, so I wouldn't refer to it as a "witch hunt" in any capacity. It's healthy to protest.

granola_goodnes
granola_goodnes

@ZRavN Ok so this day and age, we have multiple all digital systems with which we can play games.  The consoles have their digital markets, android and iphone have their app markets, and pc has steam and gog.com (among others).  All of these things are well established and quite popular among consumers, and they are also all digital.  Digital media isn't some crazy outlandish idea to most customers, and that isn't at all what people were complaining about when it came to xbox 1 policies.  What people were pissed off about was that MS was trying to make physical media worthless.  They tried to force their consumer base into all digital, not by making it appealing, but by making physical media unappealing.

If John Carmack thinks that the "witch hunt" was caused because of the digital thing, then he is looking at it very narrowly. 

CRYO_HAWK
CRYO_HAWK

@ZRavN @CRYO_HAWK wtf ever I have over 300 triple a hardcore games across high end pc and consoles collected from over a decade and-a-half never seen his name in any of them hes just another tute running his mouth instead of minding his own business trying to brainwash people to think from his perspective I'm a free thinker and a leader thank you. peace out.  

Daemoroth
Daemoroth

@Tee_Mal @AdamLeBlanc You have to be a fool to believe that. Every second-hand copy sold is money that the developers DON'T get for their work (And a copy that the retailer has now "sold" twice, making profit on BOTH transactions... If you could sell your lunch twice to two different people, wouldn't that be great? Imagine how much money you could make selling the same thing over and over again, only paying the supplier once!).

Now, on whether the trade-ins and sales generated from THAT make UP the loss is an entirely different story, but taken JUST on its own, yes, second-hand sales hurt devs.

gamerboy100
gamerboy100

@ZRavN

So you're not concerned about, say, Valve going bankrupt and everyone losing all of the games they purchased on Steam?  

Daemoroth
Daemoroth

@gamemaven @Daemoroth All I can say is... *swish*.

Small-minded people I guess, can't grasp the simplest little concept of "choice". The fact that you think I'm "overcomplicating" the idea of "optional" features just shines a spotlight on your shortcomings. Steam does optional online, why couldn't MS?

I wonder what must be like living with your lack of intelligence.

gamemaven
gamemaven

@Daemoroth @gamemaven Wow you really are a complete moron. Stop making things more complicated then what they are. And when you say "we" you just admitted you're the biggest idiot of the idiots, thanks for that dipshit. Anyway, everything you just said can either be bought or not bought if you don't like it. Same with the Xone, you really should pull your head out of your ass this isn't a math equation Einstein.

Tee_Mal
Tee_Mal

@Daemoroth @Tee_Mal Sorry, I misinterpreted that part. You're first reply seems to be more concerned with retailers versus developers though, so it really does come down to the devs selling these new policies in a way which benefits the end-user as well as them and the distributors. If  the way they do business with the stores is unfair then it's something they should address on that level than simply doing away with used games altogether and directly affecting their buyers, a certain infrastructure is needed; price drops, sales, perhaps a virtual trading system put in place, things which require time as many others have stated, a gradual process rather than expecting to allow the consumer to suffer for what is supposedly becoming for them a bad way of doing things. So why should the consumer have to pay a used game fee (as MS intended) Have the bloody retailers pay their dues for that. Also it's silly to assume that the same game disc is circulating among millions of gamers and its getting sold again and again, every copy sold is every copy used.

Daemoroth
Daemoroth

@Tee_Mal *sigh* I'll quote my first post's last paragraph:

"Now, on whether the trade-ins and sales generated from THAT make UP the loss is an entirely different story, but taken JUST on its own, yes, second-hand sales hurt devs."

The "value" you're getting from trade-ins are way too low, but with only one major player pretty much controlling the prices offered for trade-ins, it's going to take a hell of a lot to shake it up and get fair value for trade-ins.

Face it, when you bought a game for $60, traded it in for $20 only to see it being sold for $50, how can you NOT feel robbed?

Tee_Mal
Tee_Mal

@Daemoroth @MrOrbitz @Tee_Mal @AdamLeBlanc The fact remains, it's hard to spend full price on a game that you'd like to play and try out, people trade in and sell their previous games to subsidize the cost of a new game ALL THE TIME, so by that logic used games actually stimulate the sale of new games. Developers are filthy rich as it is,  I don't know what you're getting at by defending millionaires trying to take something from the consumer that has been possible forever.

Do you know what this actually means? In the biggest scheme of things it means that if developers get their way they will lose a huge chunk of motivation to actually make great games in order to have it sell new copies, so to the contrary to whatever you're thinking it will actually have a much worse effect on the quality of games because just like any other industry they should want to strive to have their product fly off the shelves, trying to kill used games is an utter cop-out.

Who cares if they don't make profit on used games? The fact is if they make something actually good, actually worth spending full price on they will sell games, and lets not forget used games can't exist without the sale of new games in the first place so if they really want to make money the proper way they'll make sure they make a kick ass game, just watch out for GTA V and see the sickening revenue that game generates.

We shouldn't be punished in a corporate world by corporations because of their greed, what justification is there for the removal of consumer buy/trade rights? If the video game industry hurt that much because of used games then why oh why is it that it's now utterly booming, bigger than ever. Bigger than the movie industry and used games have been around since day 1.

EA's figures in 2011 were close to 4 billion dollars in total revenue, in pure profit for the fiscal year, the reason video game companies go down is because of corporate greed, because bigger companies buy them out and shut them down, or the game company made bad business decisions and bad games. Try and find one article that states that a games company folded because of used games, you won't find it because it's absurd.

When a relatively new game comes out, the used price of that game is only a few pennies cheaper for a fair amount of time, so when a game is too good to refuse people will pre-order something or they'll take the new copy over the used copy for just a few bucks difference of course, it's only when a game has been out for a while that it's actually worth buying used, so when I've nothing to play and nothing is out which I must have I'll check out some games I missed from the past which have already been sold new, which the dev has cashed-in on, now i can get it SECOND HAND for a fair price, WHAT IS WRONG WITH THAT?

Nothing.

Daemoroth
Daemoroth

@MrOrbitz @Daemoroth @Tee_Mal @AdamLeBlanc Comparing different markets without actually comparing the values of the products is pointless. That automobile of yours gets traded in for roughly 80-90% of its market value (Take the market value of the vehicle in question - then look at what trading it in will get you), where games get traded at about 30% of their market value.

Furniture to Automobiles get this thing we like to call "wear-and-tear", you know, a 5-year old Toyota isn't in the same condition as that one on the showroom floor, hence it doesn't have the same value as a new car. On the other hand, that Last of Us copy you bought used? Does that game EVER suffer wear-and-tear? And I'm not talking about the disc (Most of these stores will replace your disc if it doesn't work, hence no buyer risk), I'm talking about the game - does it ever start lagging, lose textures because it's old? Or, since it's a digital product, does it never actually "wear out"?

50 cents? Really? Care to cite the source for that claim? I see retailers giving $20 store credit (Not cash) on a trade-in of a NEW game, only to sell that game for $50 ($10 less than it was bought for). I also see a gross profit margin of 20% on new video game software sales, and a WHOPPING 48% gross profit margin on used games. If you're going to make outlandish claims, at least have the decency to link to a reputable article that supports it.

If the trade-in value you got was $40, then I'd have no problem, but as it now, you and the rest of you proponents for trade-ins are getting a pineapple shoved up your *ss and  you - are - LOVING it.

Again, if you have the affinity for numbers, I'll point you to that article again, have a look at actual numbers, as opposed to your "grabbed out of thin air" valuation.

MrOrbitz
MrOrbitz

@Daemoroth @Tee_Mal @AdamLeBlanc  Not to mention that you should be well within your rights as a consumer to re-sell anything you want.

I shed no tears for game companies who sell millions upon millions of copies, STILL aren't profitable because their sales model is fucking broken and then whine to me about giving up my rights as a consumer.

Fuck that.

MrOrbitz
MrOrbitz

@Daemoroth @Tee_Mal @AdamLeBlanc Except for the fact that consumers have been able to freely re-sell anything from Books to CD's to Furniture to Automobiles as many times as they want and the suppliers of those items don't complain about it, because they GOT their take from you when you first bought it.

Do you know how much money retail stores get from the sale of a video game? about 50 cents to a dollar from each game sold. Developers pocket all the rest. How about consoles? when I worked at Future Shop the store made just about 10 to 15 dollars from each CONSOLE sold. With the manufacturers getting all the rest. Stores make money from selling accessories and warranty sales among other things.  

Second hand sales are one of the easiest ways for retail chains to make their money back. Do you want to support retail? If you do you should probably support second hand sales.