Hi all,

Normally I dont participate in online discussions as the flames and trolling are too much of a hassle to dwal with. But this topic is something that means a lot to me and so I would like to post something in the hope that it brings some idea as to why this particular topic of new vs used creates such heat.

To start off I would like to say to the Developers that "I get it!" and really, I do. You take a big risk making a game and it takes a hudge amount of time, effort and love to get it out into the world. You do it for the love of it and also, in the end, to get paid. This is what you do and you deserve to be paid for doing it. I understand this because I too work for a living and want to be fairly compensated for what it is I do. I want people to buy my product because, the more people that buy it, the more profit I make and the higher my reward. So I get it.

Now lets look at it from the consumer / customer side. You make something and want to sell it to me. I want what you are selling and so, taking my hard earned cash from my job, I pay you your asking price and you sell me your product. What I do with it from that point on is my business. Provided I dont attempt to pass it off as my own or do something illegal with it (such as pirate it for profit or otherwise or pass ) I am free to do with it what I wish, including doing something with the product the producer never intended. Simple so far.

Here is where the problem starts. I, as a consumer, am now finished with using your product and wish to recoup at least some of my costs, by selling the game onwards to someone else, as is my right. You, as a producer, seem to see this as a 'lost sale' in that you dont see any profit from that transaction despite the fact that it is a legitimate option on the part of your customer.

Maybe I, as a customer, sell my game back to the retail outlet that sold it to me who in turn sell it on at close to the price of a full game. That really doesent seem fair but it is. I am selling my ownership and rights back to the retailer who, as the new owner, is free to do with it what they wish, including doing something with the product the producer never intended. In this case, selling it on for thier exclusive profit.

You, the producer, dont like this. When a used copy is placed on a rack next to a new one and the price is lower consumers will, naturally, go for the lower cost. Especially as, aside from packaging, there is no discernable difference between the new and used ones. So how do you propose to combat this? You decide to offer purchasers of new product a "freebie" that purchasers of used content have to pay for. By doing this you incentivise potential purchasers looking at the new vs. used rack to buy "new" but what you have also done, perhaps unintentionally, is devalue the used copy at the expense of your customer. The retailer, realising they can no longer sell the used copy for as much, dratically lowers the price they will sell a used copy for thereby resucing the price they will pay for any used copy. They may not even buy the used copy back at all as they now realise nobody wants it as it is missing the "free" content that is only availiable as new.

I, as your customer, feel like you have not played fair with me. You have my money, you made your profit off me, and now you want to deprive me of the ability to sell on my paid for property at a reasonable price. The retailer doesent care. They continue to make a profit wether someone buys new or used. The margins on used may have been higher but no so much as they would really care too much. The only person who truly loses out on the deal is I, your customer.

There are other options availiable to you that you may want to consider. Perhaps some sort of agreement with your distributers for a slice of the used market if they wish to sell your product new, or something that allows individuals to sell the product on to other individuals via an online marketplace where you could perhaps take a small percentage of the trade?

Unfortunately there is always an option for consumers. They can either not buy your product, in whaich case everybody loses or they can simply pirate the game and get everything, DLC included, for "free", in which case you lose out and the customer feels justified in doing so as you were out to screw them out of thier money (and ability to recoup same) anyway so they may as well screw you!

I know thats not what you want. Its not what we want. We want you to be rewarded, just not at our expense.

Thanks for reading.

This really is a not as much of an issue as the author makes out. IT is all in favor of users bringing their own devices to the party as long as they accept that, much like you may own the briefcase, the documents and data contained therein remain property of the company and need to be protected.

If end users are prepared to accept the responsibility of protecting their data in line with the policies set out by the management of the organization (note i say management here, as opposed to IT) then the issue becomes one of personal culpability for breaches which IT is more than happy to shift to the user. Once people realize they can be fired if they leak data from their own devices they very often sing a new tune.

More often than not though, when users want to use ther own devices they want to do so with the same ease and level of support afforded to their company supplied equipment. This is simply unworkable. If its yours, you own it and you need to support it, not the IT department. Think of it like using your car for company business - You can claim back the milage but its your responsibility to maintain it or fix if it breaks down.

You also need to ensure that your personal equipment is good enough do the job and that you are licensed for all the right software. Don't think that, because the company runs Office 2003 that you can start sending 2010 docx's everywhere because it came preloaded on your new laptop. Likewise don't expect the company to pay for your upgrade to the latest MSOffice on your personal equipment. They might do, but don't expect it!

Likewise users ust also realize that they cannot have it all their own way. If its dropbox for file sharing then ok, dropbox it is for everyone. It makes no sense if 5 different departments use 5 different file shares. Dont blame IT if bob in sales prefers rapidshare to dropbox.

The state of IT security and systems is far more advanced than most users realise. Just so you all know, the second you connect your device (android, apple, windows et al) device to the corporate email systems or related services IT already has the ability to remotely wipe your device of any data or remotely access it. In the same way a company uses onstar or similar GPS services to track company vehicles so IT has tools to do the same on your devices.

Finally, there is a staggering amount of ignorance when it comes to IT and the people who work in IT for a living. For some reason someone who goes out and buys an Iphone or an iPad suddenly thinks they are able to talk over people who have far more experience and knowledge than them. Its kind of like buying a Prius and then trying to talk down to a Nascar or F1 pitcrew. IT doesn't actually think you are stupid, they just think you act that way when you condescend to them and claim to have more knowledge than you actually do.

Is to simply approach your boss (or the owners) and express an interest in investing in the enterprise. This works for both you and the owners as it registers your interest and belief in the endeavour and allows the owners the widest possible options in response.

If you are truly part of the companies DNA you will be recognised as such and can expect something reasonable; ELSE your offer is politely declined and you carry on working knowing exactly where you stand and, as you are fairly compensated anyway, no worse off than before.

Sorry to go against the grain of the generally held opinion that Onlive doesn't work but as someone in the UK who has tried the service out from my living room PC I have to say it is definitely a viable, workable platform for game delivery.

I know that it isint really all that hot for FPS's but neither are consoles with their auto-aim and limited input controls. Thats why i have a PC.

Meanwhile there are plenty of games that are pretty good, even with my 80ms lag to the us servers (lego batman just as an example). I enjoy being entertained by games, not by the frame rate or resolution.

And to pay 9.99 p/m for access to the current games on onlive is not really that steep.

When the service comes to the UK for real I will definitely sign up. Rather than buy a console which will become tomorrows trash!

The fact is Murdoch has committed himself to this paywall and it has to succeed no matter what (in his eyes)! Those of us living in any major uk city have seen the big billboards and everyone has seen the hugely expensive ad campaigns trying to convince us that somehow the mere presence of Rupert Everett is enough to get us to part with our cash. But the days of paid for content are over, at least for the news industry. The sooner he fails the sooner we can forget about it... he has deep pockets and a huge ego though!

Ahh MP3, the Vinyl of the digital audio world.

I agree. There is nothing new to see here... move the budget along to something better.

One does not simply follow the GPS into Mordor it seems!

They were running thier outfit on VMWare Server - as in the free-runs-on/in-a-desktop version. So basically thay benchmarked a virtual machine runnning on top of a full blown OS running on physical hardware. Then they switched to running a virtualised environment on physical hardware. I am amazed that they ony got a 10 fold increase! Seriously, Try ESXi, the free hypervisor from VMWare and run the benchmarks again. The author really should do more research before slating vmware.