3 ms·
Well, if we put things in perspective, there's a paradox here. If we take the case of a game that is resold a few times on average (not even 7+ times), users a
by pizza234 6y ago
Well, if we put things in perspective, there's a paradox here.
If we take the case of a game that is resold a few times on average (not even 7+ times), users are waiving ownership on their own will - they're effectively renting.
In these specific conditions, a hypothetical (digital) game rental would actually serve best both the producer and the consumers.
Note that I don't make a general statement, but I'm referring to this specific case. I'm also not familiar with game rental, but at least until a few years ago, I've seen a physical shop offering it.
- zaksoup 6y agoBuying an item, and then selling it later, is not effectively renting. It's buying an item and then selling it later. The fact that they had the option not to sell and could choose to exercise it doesn't disappear when they do choose to sell it. In this specific case I think it's completely wrong to say that people who sell back physical copies are effectively renters.
- treeman79 6y agoAs a kid, buying and selling games was the only way I could play most games. Used to make good money on Prodigy. Then my dad switched us to AOL. It was too competitive for me; I went back to waiting for birthdays and Christmas.