xoxaan

@JasonA

I couldn't disagree more. I think having digital distribution is a plus for getting expansion packs and little odds and ends for games, but it should stop there. Streaming, as in OnLive, is an all together bad idea for gamers. One scenario where I can see it thriving is to be a service hotels provide to guests for some kind of daily fee. Other than that, I don't get why anyone would want to use this.

You don't own anything you are buying. If their servers go down or your connection drops, you can't play. You can't gift, trade or sell any of your games. They can take away titles or may even lose the license they have to stream a particular game (this would become prevalent, I bet, if Microsoft, Sony or Nintendo jump onto the streaming bandwagon. They have a lot more influence with the publishers and could start taking titles exclusively). If the company goes under, you just wasted all your money on nothing, and if they go bankrupt there is little you can do to recover your lost investment.

More importantly, digital distribution and streaming gives more control to corporations. If you can't sell or gift your games then you do not own them. Therefore, ownership lies in the hands of the corporations giving them more power over the customer. The more we head in the online direction, the more power we lose and the more expensive digital "copies" of games will get.

Whats to prevent them from jacking up pricing or releasing games in an episodic manner (Starcraft 2 is kind of doing this)? Sure, now you say, "Well, I wouldn't pay for it!" So all the fans of Call of Duty or Mass Effect are going to pass on the next iteration of those games if they now cost $69.99 instead of $59.99? Doubtful. Instead they will save and buy only those games, which means a lot of developers will go under because no one buys their less popular games.

Ultimately, we end up in a scenario where the giant publishers control everything (it's already bad as it is) and make hand over fist all because you couldn't be bothered to go to a store. And for your little brothers and sisters that start gaming when their digital copies now cost $69.99, it'll just be the norm to them, not unlike $59.99 is the norm to us and it just goes up from there.

When you own your games, you at least have the power to choose who and where you buy from or sell to which means the publishers have to contend with and share with the retailers. The more they all compete against each other, the better off consumers are.

@Nolan North

Actually you are completely wrong. Those 250,000 copies are purchased outright by the retailer. Therefore, the 150,000 new copies that dont sell are a loss for the retailer, not the publisher. The publisher gets all the money from all the copies that retailers purchase upfront not after they are sold in stores.

If the game sucks but the publisher has too many copies sitting in the warehouse that retailers aren't purchasing because they still have an excess of 150,000 unsold copies, then the publishers offer price protection and credit the retailers for a price drop in order to encourage sales. Do you know what that means? It means the game they made wasn't popular or it was crap. So in the end, the retailer suffers, not the developer or the publisher. Get your facts straight.

@TreyIM2

So who do you work for? One of the big publishers?

@Gco

How exactly do you plan on digitally downloading your consoles and accessories? You think Walmart and Gamestop would agree to only selling consoles from which they make almost no money?

And lets say you can miraculously download a console. Do you think EA and Activision are going to charge you less than $60.00 for your digital "copy" of the game? Once they have complete control, as you would like, games will be released episodically and you'll be paying $180.00 for one game in the long run. A game that you won't own let alone sell, lend to a friend or trade.

I dont really care what Gamestop is planning honestly, I'm just smart enough to know that if retailers are eliminated like so many of you want, there won't be a balance of power and the publishers will have gamers by the balls. Then you'll just start whining about them and the developers won't seem so innocent anymore. Congratulations on contributing to the steady decline of gaming.

@Dr Perry Ulysses Cox

So which publisher or developer do you work for?

@(Unverified)

Completely agree with you. Its unfortunate that there are gamers out there who are so eager to give up their property rights. If the publishers want to make more money its quite simple. Make good games and people will buy them new. Since there isn't a value gradient for games, its up to the customer to decide what game is worth what price and used games fill that space. Clash of the Titans is a piece of garbage but it costs $59.99. Apparently it has the same value and fun factor as Halo, Mass Effect or Call of Duty. If publishers want more new game sales, start lowering the price on the crap you keep making and more importantly, give retailers a larger profit margin. The small margin they get on new games and systems isn't enough to keep a store open.

Maybe Gamestop, Walmart and Best Buy and all of the indy shops should start to charge the publishers with marketing fees for all the awareness they create for all of the games. I know that I end up learning about a lot of titles just because I see them in the store. Or maybe they should charge them a rental fee for the shelf space they sit on. Everyone knows the crap titles just sit there and collect dust. The retailers are being cheated because they could using that space to sell a better product.

I'm not a fan of Gamestop (which is why I shop at a local gaming store) but the path the publishers are taking is pretty treacherous. They need to stop blaming everyone for their own failings.

@Faenix

Wow. So when you buy a car, you're just buying the right to drive it? So at any moment, Ford could just come in and say, "Times up! We're taking our property back." Are you completely bereft of all logic?

@whylekat

You may not have realized this, but Joystiq is now owned by AOL. Are you surprised about their pro DLC, pro online gaming only, pro streaming, pro Online Pass (apparently an "extra gift") stance? The more we head in this direction, the more property rights we lose. Additionally, games will get more expensive than ever as we move towards "episodic" releases and keep buying into the BS that the publishers are feeding us about giving us "FREE" content (like multiplayer features or an item that was already programmed before game release). EA whines about used games because they dont make good games and therefore make no money. Why is Mass Effect 2 already $29.99 if its so good? The more you participate in this BS the more power you hand over to megacorps like EA and Activision, who have time and again, demonstrated their greed.

I think that car companies should also levy fees on any car you purchase used. For every sale you make on Ebay, the original manufacturer should levy a fee. Everytime you sell a game to a friend, you should mail a check to the publisher.

Or. Maybe we should retain our property rights and do with the products we purchase as we please. The fact that so many of you fall for this BS from EA and THQ is disturbing. I hope to god that most of you are not in politics.

DLC is completely out of hand. Especially EA's lovely new plan for pre-DLC -- translation, paying for demos. ME2 should have been Empire Strikes Back but in turned out to be Attack of the Clones. I already traded my copy in (yes I bought it new for all you whiny idiots that think developers are starving). Sorry EA, not falling for anymore of your horsesh*t DLC. Here's an idea, let the developers finish their games instead of rushing them or removing content for your precious DLC.