The bottom line is that Gamestop is not the enemy here. I totally agree that without Gamestop's pre-orders, a small percentage of gamers wouldn't be aware of what's out there.

The most insipid thing I see about the distribution of games is the process. Why would publishers / developers waste time SHIPPING games to retail stores thus decreasing their profits when they could send them directly to gamers eliminating one of the middle men? If they have me pay for shipping, they could afford to lower the price of the game.

They could charge $40 or less for a game and I'd pay the shipping. That's about the price of the digital distribution method right?

I despise video game pirates because they remind me that gamers are becoming more and more spoiled. Everybody wants to play the game…but they don't want to pay the price. Maybe it's just me but I put more stock into user reviews because they actually invest their own money when playing a game. If you didn't buy the game, how you can you really tell me how much you value the game? You have spent no money and lost the key motivation to stay honest.

But regardless of the developers' and my own detest for gaming pirates, piracy will exist and used games will become more popular unless developers/publishers take steps to lower the price of their games.

As for the legality of used sales, regardless of the supposed "licensing" fee or what publishers think, gamers are allowed to resell property they purchase legally under protection of the first sale doctrine ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-sale_...) If licensing was the big issue, then I don't think Sony would allow game sharing for the majority of PSN titles. Until companies start doing what Sony planned to with the one game branded to one console idea, licensing means absolutely nothing.

If they think I'm paying for a game without an ending included, they can kiss my money goodbye. There's plenty of television to watch and soccer to be played!

The bottom line is that Gamestop is not the enemy here. I totally agree that without Gamestop's pre-orders, a small percentage of gamers wouldn't be aware of what's out there.

The most insipid thing I see about the distribution of games is the process. Why would publishers / developers waste time SHIPPING games to retail stores thus decreasing their profits when they could send them directly to gamers eliminating one of the middle men? If they have me pay for shipping, they could afford to lower the price of the game.

They could charge $40 or less for a game and I'd pay the shipping. That's about the price of the digital distribution method right?

I despise video game pirates because they remind me that gamers are becoming more and more spoiled. Everybody wants to play the game…but they don't want to pay the price. Maybe it's just me but I put more stock into user reviews because they actually invest their own money when playing a game. If you didn't buy the game, how you can you really tell me how much you value the game? You have spent no money and lost the key motivation to stay honest.

But regardless of the developers' and my own detest for gaming pirates, piracy will exist and used games will become more popular unless developers/publishers take steps to lower the price of their games.

As for the legality of used sales, regardless of the supposed "licensing" fee or what publishers think, gamers are allowed to resell property they purchase legally under protection of the first sale doctrine ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-sale_...) If licensing was the big issue, then I don't think Sony would allow game sharing for the majority of PSN titles. Until companies start doing what Sony planned to with the one game branded to one console idea, licensing means absolutely nothing.

The bottom line is that Gamestop is not the enemy here. I totally agree that without Gamestop's pre-orders, a small percentage of gamers wouldn't be aware of what's out there.

The most insipid thing I see about the distribution of games is the process. Why would publishers / developers waste time SHIPPING games to retail stores thus decreasing their profits when they could send them directly to gamers eliminating one of the middle men? If they have me pay for shipping, they could afford to lower the price of the game.

They could charge $40 or less for a game and I'd pay the shipping. That's about the price of the digital distribution method right?

I despise video game pirates because they remind me that gamers are becoming more and more spoiled. Everybody wants to play the game…but they don't want to pay the price. Maybe it's just me but I put more stock into user reviews because they actually invest their own money when playing a game. If you didn't buy the game, how you can you really tell me how much you value the game? You have spent no money and lost the key motivation to stay honest.

But regardless of the developers' and my own detest for gaming pirates, piracy will exist and used games will become more popular unless developers/publishers take steps to lower the price of their games.

As for the legality of used sales, regardless of the supposed "licensing" fee or what publishers think, gamers are allowed to resell property they purchase legally under protection of the first purchase doctrine ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-sale_...) If licensing was the big issue, then I don't think Sony would allow game sharing for the majority of PSN titles. Until companies start doing what Sony planned to with the one game branded to one console idea, licensing means absolutely nothing.

The bottom line is that Gamestop is not the enemy here. I totally agree that without Gamestop's pre-orders, a small percentage of gamers wouldn't be aware of what's out there.

The most insipid thing I see about the distribution of games is the process. Why would publishers / developers waste time SHIPPING games to retail stores thus decreasing their profits when they could send them directly to gamers eliminating one of the middle men? If they have me pay for shipping, they could afford to lower the price of the game.

They could charge $40 or less for a game and I'd pay the shipping. That's about the price of the digital distribution method right?

I despise video game pirates because they remind me that gamers are becoming more and more spoiled. Everybody wants to play the game…but they don't want to pay the price. Maybe it's just me but I put more stock into user reviews because they actually invest their own money when playing a game. If you didn't buy the game, how you can you really tell me how much you value the game? You have spent no money and lost the key motivation to stay honest.

But regardless of the developers' and my own detest for gaming pirates, piracy will exist and used games will become more popular unless developers/publishers take steps to lower the price of their games.

As for as the legality of used sales, regardless of the supposed "licensing" fee or what publishers think, gamers are allowed to resell property they purchase legally under protection of the first purchase doctrine ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-sale_...) If licensing was the big issue, then I don't think Sony would allow game sharing for the majority of PSN titles. Until companies start doing what Sony planned to with the one game branded to one console idea, licensing means absolutely nothing.

The bottom line is that Gamestop is not the enemy here. I totally agree that without Gamestop's pre-orders, a small percentage of gamers wouldn't be aware of what's out there.

The most insipid thing I see about the distribution of games is the process. Why would publishers / developers waste time SHIPPING games to retail stores thus decreasing their profits when they could send them directly to gamers eliminating one of the middle men? If they have me pay for shipping, they could afford to lower the price of the game.

They could charge $40 or less for a game and I'd pay the shipping. That's about the price of the digital distribution method right?

I despise video game pirates because they remind me that gamers are becoming more and more spoiled. Everybody wants to play the game…but they don't want to pay the price. Maybe it's just me but I put more stock into user reviews because they actually invest their own money when playing a game. If you didn't buy the game, how you can you really tell me how much you value the game? You have spent no money and lost the key motivation to stay honest.

But regardless of the developer's and my own detest for gaming pirates, piracy will exist and used games will become more popular unless developers/publishers take steps to lower the price of their games.

As for as the legality of used sales, regardless of the supposed "licensing" fee or what publishers think, gamers are allowed to resell property they purchase legally under protection of the first purchase doctrine ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-sale_…%3C/a%...) If licensing was the big issue, then I don't think Sony would allow game sharing for the majority of PSN titles. Until companies start doing what Sony planned to with the one game branded to one console idea, licensing means absolutely nothing.

The bottom line is that Gamestop is not the enemy here. I totally agree that without Gamestop's pre-orders, a small percentage of gamers wouldn't be aware of what's out there.

The most insipid thing I see about the distribution of games is the process. Why would publishers / developers waste time SHIPPING games to retail stores thus decreasing their profits when they could send them directly to gamers eliminating one of the middle men? If they have me pay for shipping, they could afford to lower the price of the game.

They could charge $40 or less for a game and I'd pay the shipping. That's about the price of the digital distribution method right?

I despise video game pirates because they remind me that gamers are becoming more and more spoiled. Everybody wants to play the game…but they don't want to pay the price. Maybe it's just me but I put more stock into user reviews because they actually invest their own money when playing a game.

But regardless of the developer's and my own detest for gaming pirates, piracy will exist and used games will become more popular unless developers/publishers take steps to lower the price of their games.

As for as the legality of used sales, regardless of the supposed "licensing" fee or what publishers think, gamers are allowed to resell property they purchase legally under protection of the first purchase doctrine (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-sale_doctrine….If licensing was the big issue, then I don't think Sony would allow game sharing for the majority of PSN titles. Until companies start doing what Sony planned to with the one game branded to one console idea, licensing means absolutely nothing.

The bottom line is that Gamestop is not the enemy here. I totally agree that without Gamestop's pre-orders, a small percentage of gamers wouldn't be aware of what's out there.

The most insipid thing I see about the distribution of games is the process. Why would publishers / developers waste time SHIPPING games to retail stores thus decreasing their profits when they could send them directly to gamers eliminating one of the middle men? If they have me pay for shipping, they could afford to lower the price of the game.

They could charge $40 or less for a game and I'd pay the shipping. That's about the price of the digital distribution method right?

I despise video game pirates because they remind me that gamers are becoming more and more spoiled. Everybody wants to play the game…but they don't want to pay the price. Maybe it's just me but I put more stock into user reviews because they actually invest their own money when playing a game.

But regardless of the developer's and my own detest for gaming pirates, piracy will exist and used games will become more popular unless developers/publishers take steps to lower the price of their games.

As for as the legality of used sales, regardless of the supposed "licensing" fee or what publishers think, gamers are allowed to resell property they purchase legally under protection of the first purchase doctrine (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-sale_doctrine….If licensing was the big issue, then I don't think Sony would allow game sharing for the majority of PSN titles. Until companies start doing what Sony planned to with the one game branded to one console idea, licensing means absolutely nothing.

This is also absolutely a self defeating strategy for the developers. Period. They get tons of bad press, ill will by their consumers and they can't do anything about pirating already or they'd have shut it down by now. This kind of mindset expressed by Epic has gotten the RIAA exactly where the music industry is now, losing billions of dollars to piracy.

I agree with your points about why it's bad in terms of the gaming stores. In fact I'd also add that when people make used purchases in Gamestop other places it gives the store a chance to talk the consumer into a pre-order for a brand new game. IMO that's a far more effective sales tactic than simply stuff on the 'net. Also, gaming stores sometimes give people a chance to play demos and see videos of upcoming games and those gamers without Live may only get that at the game store. My Best Buy and Walmart (for example) only have an opportunity to play already released games, not demos of upcoming ones or see videos. Walking into a game store and seeing a video of an upcoming game you hadn't known about or really considered purchasing might influence a purchase of a brand new game later and make the developers money.

I just think that this strategy is far, far worse in terms of how it would impact the consumer. It's like the gaming industry is taking a blueprint from the RIAA, except they don't understand the RIAA is losing the economic battle. And this is coming from somebody who's never pirated a thing in my life, including music because I want to see the artists get paid. But if the gaming industry makes it a choice between paying an extra fee to play a mediocre game, I'll either quit gaming and they lose a consumer or I become a pirate.

This is also absolutely a self defeating strategy for the developers. Period. They get tons of bad press, ill will by their consumers and they can't do anything about pirating already or they'd have shut it down by now. This kind of mindset expressed by Epic has gotten the RIAA exactly where the music industry is now, losing billions of dollars to piracy.

I agree with your points about why it's bad in terms of the gaming stores. In fact I'd also add that when people make used purchases in Gamestop other places it gives the store a chance to talk the consumer into a pre-order for a brand new game. IMO that's a far more effective sales tactic than simply stuff on the 'net. Also, gaming stores sometimes give people a chance to play demos and see videos of upcoming games and those gamers without Live may only get that at the game store. My Best Buy and Walmart (for example) only have an opportunity to play already released games, not demos of upcoming ones or see videos. Walking into a game store and seeing a video of an upcoming game you hadn't known about or really considered purchasing might influence a purchase of a brand new game later and make the developers money.

I just think that this strategy is far, far worse in terms of how it would impact the consumer. It's like the gaming industry is taking a blueprint from the RIAA, except they don't understand the RIAA is losing the economic battle.