yes and no. They got money for DLC and they got money for the ps3 copy but didn't get anything from the upscaling work they did on your ps4 remaster.

I'm not trying to do a holier than thou deal here by any means, I just don't support gamestops business practice. Now maybe if they offered more than just 5 bucks off the cost of a new disc, I'd be more interested. $10 to $15 off would entice me to go back.

Also, I know an argument can be made that you get much better discounts on older games. But in my case, if I didn't buy the game when it came out, I'll probably never buy it anyway because I didn't find it interesting in the first place. If there is one place I would purchase an old game its sports games. But I suck at those. :-)
[Reply]

I hardly ever buy games when they come out because so many games are buggy nowadays. I usually wait 6 months to a year on AAA games just to make sure they're not bug-riddled crap.

And I get it. I buy new games when they're available. But they aren't always available and that's where buying used is a big plus. I also trade in a ton of games - I'm a Gamestop member and get discounts on just about everything there.

Quite frankly, I don't really have anywhere else to buy games locally other than Walmart and well, I have a problem with THEIR business practices. :-)
[Reply]

My big games are Destiny and Division so I pretty much have to get in on those as soon as they come out or I'm way behind my friends. Most other games I just wait for a price drop. I'm big on Tomb Raider so as soon as those games see a 50% drop I grab them.
[Reply]

Yeah, I play almost exclusively single player games, so waiting almost always works out for the best. For example, I was one of the few that actually enjoyed AC Unity because it had been fully patched by the time I played it.
[Reply]

So basically you can play the games whenever on multiple devices but you don't actually own the games? Maybe if the gaming industry crashes this actually might be what replaces it.
[Reply]

I would imagine there is still some sort of purchase for each game. Especially AAA type titles. Thats how Onlive worked anyway.
[Reply]

Well what I meant was that Google could just block certain games if they wanted and then what options do you have?
[Reply]

I don't trust Google to actually stick with it. They abandon nearly everything they start.
[Reply]

Yep, way to early. Tech and bandwidth still need more time to evolve to make this vision viable.
[Reply]

Yep. Ultimately, this will lead to the same fragmentation that is being experienced in the streaming movie/TV industry, where you have to have multiple subscriptions to get all the content you really want.

Today, there's very few exclusive titles driving a person to own an Xbox, PS4, AND a PC. Just like there used to be little reason to have Netflix, Hulu, AND Amazon. With the rise of exclusive content and the entry of players like Disney, that's over.

If streamed games take over, people will eventually be forced to multiple streaming providers. There's a reason Google and others are pushing this - they WANT people to cut the cord.
[Reply]

Are all large companies just inherently evil or is the business model of profit the issue here?
[Reply]

It depends on whether you believe maximizing profit is inherently evil. :-)
[Reply]

:-) That's a tough call to make. I suppose no one is forcing anyone to buy or use their products so I suppose it's not evil when they use everything they can get away with to get your money.
[Reply]

The claim there will be no lag with this. Good luck with that.
[Reply]

In a vacuum sure they can claim whatever they want. They'll blame the consumers lack of quality products if there is any lag. But they have a video/presentation out. Here it is:


[Reply]