If a game is opened it can only be returned to most "big box" retailers for one simple reason: its defective. You aren't legally allowed to return a game because "you didn't like it". And this is why when you return an open game the most you can really get is an exact copy of the game you are returning.

When a retailer gets an open game returned they have a few choices dependant on who their supplier is. In every case there is paperwork that must be filled out - the paper work tells the manufacturer that there was a defective item and the store is given credit for that item. Now this is the tricky part - the store can either A: return the defective copy to the manufacturer IF that is required or B: once the paperwork is complete and the credit is in the system the game is simply thrown away.

Sometimes a retailer can see that there is nothing wrong with the product, they can then sell the game at a steep discount as an "open box" item. And it won't matter how low they sell it - as they have already recieved credit for the item from the manufacturer - its essentially a "free" item now and whatever they sell it for is profit. But "open box" items are very rare and in about 98% of the time the items were actually opened "in store" for a promotion or other reason and haven't actually been in the hands of any consumers.

CrimsonpugTwo

this is true ... except there are no legality issues, it's store policies not law.

Borderlands "Big Tournament" ... while it wasn't exactly difficult, it sure was tedious and mind numbing ....

you guys are also assuming the false premise that everyone sees in 3d ... I, for one, can not. I personally can not wait for 3d to go away again.

1) unlike other goods, movies, music, cars, ect. A dev keeps working on and spending money on the games they make, a patch alone can cost insane amounts of money to make, and long work hours. Basicly it is not the buying the game used, but that the devs does nto see a dime on it, I see games like I see an apartment, you do not just "get" an apartment because its used, you pay a fee, which mainly go into its maintenance. So if there is something like the infamous online pass, I am content, the SP part would be done, and most patches adress online issues, so if you do not use online, then used game is fine, if you DO use Online, then you should atleast make sure the dev gets alittle.

The Dev has the right to charge for these (ie pair up a patch with a dlc etc.) no one is owed additional content for free

2) Who gets the money from the used game sales, Yeah this is part of the real problem for me, because it is an ethical one. ive seen gamestores that goes through alot to make sure you buy an used copy of a game, for nearly the same as it would cost new, so they would get all the revenue. That I consider Morally wrong. If they sold the games for say, 5-10 bucks and did not try to make sure you bought an used copy? I would not really care alot.

and you should think about who is getting the money ... I, for example, buy my used games from a local play n trade, which is locally owned and is a generally a good guy

Maddie_Larkin

This may have already been stated ... I fully admit that I have not read all the posts in this thread. Just the first page is enough to tick me off.

People are looking at this all wrong. This is not a question of ruining an industry or everyone having the "right" to play play regardless of cost. This has everything to do with personal choice. I have every right to do what I want with the games that I own. If I choose to sell them to someone else that is my right. I own the game regardless of what the record industry wants you to believe. Also, on the flipside the industry has the right to put limit the use to the online and continuously supported aspects of their games.

However, no one is complaining that Harry's Used Cars in ruining the auto industry. Pawn shops aren't ruining the fake Rolex market. The arguement that used games are ruining the games industry is ludicris, and is just being pushed now because the industry doesn't want to change. I think every person that is yelling about that hasn't put forth the effort to come up with better reasons why no one wants to play there crappy game.

[QUOTE="Bick_Dutt"]Wait 6 Months, buy it used off eBayElann2008

wow, someone is on a high horse ... besides doesn't GoW have an online pass?

[QUOTE="discipleofsin"]

I really think you are giving gamespot a lot more credit than they deserve. I honestly don't think that a review done by one site is going to change the minds of people who are more apt to purchase a copy of this game after talking with like minded people than reading a review by one of the faceless masses.

To sum up ... reviews don't matter.

Synthia

Interesting, what about the reviewers at GameSpot makes you feel as though they are faceless?

heh ... don't feel too offended, it's not Gamespot it's the Internet. Also, I have never seen their faces ... and the fact that, as previously stated, reviews don't matter.

Getting good press here is a useful source of buzz and promotion for smaller developers. And there are plenty of people who don't follow NIS that might like to know that there are good games out there they haven't heard of. People who keep asking where the good RPGs are, for example.

Rottenwood

I really think you are giving gamespot a lot more credit than they deserve. I honestly don't think that a review done by one site is going to change the minds of people who are more apt to purchase a copy of this game after talking with like minded people than reading a review by one of the faceless masses.

To sum up ... reviews don't matter.

why does it matter ... you have obviously already formed your opinion. Why do you need other peoples opinion?

it completely depends on how it's written ... in a well written game it doesn't much matter and one probably wouldn't even notice.