EA to charge extra for used games

[KillerKat]

is it just for gamestop used games or used games from wherever you buy them?

[88 Bronco]

I heard Wal-Mart is getting into the used game market soon, if it works out Gamestop may be dead.

fug walmart

[Porn Shop Clerk]

is it just for gamestop used games or used games from wherever you buy them?

My guess would be they're going to issue an account code with each disc, and that code can only be used once. When you buy used, you'll have to register an account with EA or register that game on your EA account. Similar to what Sega did with Phantasy Star Online.

For a "nominal" fee of course.

EA is the one that raped L4D and turned a ton of potential into a pooty sequel.

[Mesmer]

Lol what are you talking about

[Porn Shop Clerk]

Elaborate?

[Chimera]

You're missing the point with that comment though. Sure there are plenty of PS3 games on the 360 and vice versa. But what you're missing is that the true best games that sell systems are first party titles. While third party games don't get a benefit from blu-ray the first party games see it 10-fold. Games like God Of War' date=' MGS4, Uncharted 2, Killzone 2 etc etc just wouldn't be possible in their current form on the 360. And as for your comment about preferring DVD's over blu-ray thats just your opinion. I personally will never buy a regular DVD again after seeing my first blu-ray, there is just too big of a difference in the quality.[/quote']

You act like there is a universal standard in video game coding. Many games in their current form can easily be coded in half their size or less. MGS4 has what, 4,000 hours of video in the game? Does that somehow make the game better?

If quality were the biggest factor, then HD-DVD would have won the format war and we would have watched beta through the 80s.

[C47]

You act like there is a universal standard in video game coding. Many games in their current form can easily be coded in half their size or less. MGS4 has what, 4,000 hours of video in the game? Does that somehow make the game better?

If quality were the biggest factor, then HD-DVD would have won the format war and we would have watched beta through the 80s.

If you don't see the positives for having more storage in a particular medium then I really don't care to hear your opinion.

[Delhomeboy]

You act like there is a universal standard in video game coding. Many games in their current form can easily be coded in half their size or less. MGS4 has what, 4,000 hours of video in the game? Does that somehow make the game better?

If quality were the biggest factor, then HD-DVD would have won the format war and we would have watched beta through the 80s.

For me, yeah. I hate games that are more gameplay than story/cutscenes...that's why I wouldn't call myself a "gamer." Story is much more important to me than gameplay...meaning I wouldn't have bought MGS4 without those 4000 hours of video.

I think you're trying to be objective in an subjective thread. It all depends on personal preference.

[mmmbeans]

You act like there is a universal standard in video game coding. Many games in their current form can easily be coded in half their size or less. MGS4 has what, 4,000 hours of video in the game? Does that somehow make the game better?

If quality were the biggest factor, then HD-DVD would have won the format war and we would have watched beta through the 80s.

blu-ray was always a superior format compared to HD-DVD it was just more expensive and slower to market.

[Chimera]

blu-ray was always a superior format compared to HD-DVD it was just more expensive and slower to market.

Whaaa?

The video codec and uncompressed sound were far superior by anyone's standards. Content, however, was a joke.

[mmmbeans]

Whaaa?

The video codec and uncompressed sound were far superior by anyone's standards. Content, however, was a joke.

no way man, the video codecs were and are the same. mpeg2, mpeg4 and VC1 were the primary codecs. Sound is always dolby. The codecs don't make any difference, the key to a utilizing a good codec is the bitrate and storage capacity both of which blu ray had almost twice what hd-dvd did.

I'm not talking up blu ray either, I f*cking hate sony.

[Chimera]

no way man, the video codecs were and are the same. mpeg2, mpeg4 and VC1 were the primary codecs. Sound is always dolby. The codecs don't make any difference, the key to a utilizing a good codec is the bitrate and storage capacity both of which blu ray had almost twice what hd-dvd did.

I'm not talking up blu ray either, I f*cking hate sony.

While HD-DVD was still in business, Sony wasn't using VC1. They were using the old mpeg2, which basically forced them to cram six times the information on 2.5 times the disk size (compared to DVD) This caused them to take short cuts in other areas, such as sound.

Nowadays, they've gotten their heads out of their posteriors and tech is on par, if not better than HD-DVD.

Notice I said, WAS the better format.

[necroplasm]

Blu-Ray won because the logo was pretty.

[mmmbeans]

While HD-DVD was still in business, Sony wasn't using VC1. They were using the old mpeg2, which basically forced them to cram six times the information on 2.5 times the disk size (compared to DVD) This caused them to take short cuts in other areas, such as sound.

Nowadays, they've gotten their heads out of their posteriors and tech is on par, if not better than HD-DVD.

Notice I said, WAS the better format.

Yea but it's all relative, they had to cram twice as much info onto a disc but they had a disc that was twice the size and with twice the bitrate... Doesn't matter either way. I thought that Blu-rays primary codec was always mpeg4. Movies might have been encoded in mpeg2 as some sort of stop-gap while productions houses streamlined HD output workflows but it was my understanding that the whole platform was based around mpeg4.

I dunno though, I could be wrong.