Would you pay $75-$100 per game without complaining? Do you think enough consumers would?
What do you think this new system is? It's a way for devs to get a cut of used game sales from retailers.
You're not for financially supporting the makers of content.
Punish? There is no punishment.
Is Steam punishment?
This is a new platform with new rules.
You're entitled.
I've seen nothing but your allegations that games need to cost more as proof that they need to cost more. I don't see EA and Ubisoft and Epic and Microsoft and Sony and Take-Two posting massive losses because their games are too costly to make.
They could get a cut without treating their consumers so poorly. I mean, this IS the kind of action that helped EA earn the status of Worst Company in American for 2 straight years. Instead, they take the shortcut that does nothing to affect GameStop, but hurts consumers.
You claim I'm not in-favor of supporting content providers, but that's it. You claim it, and back it up with nothing. Case in point to how you are wrong: I actually bought a game on Windows Phone I didn't intend to play, simply because the developer was so engaged and friendly to people on these forums. I played the game twice and uninstalled it, but I still paid for it knowing I didn't care for it, just because the person showed himself to be a good person worth supporting. Please tell me how asking publishers to engage themselves in the used game market is showing a desire to NOT support content providers.
Yes, after doing nothing illegal or harmful with my consoles and Xbox LIVE account for 10+ years, I am now being told that I cannot play games the way I wish, because someone else pirated a game. I am being grouped with those who pirate games without pirating games, and it's to my detriment. I consider it a punishment to tell me that I am not allowed to play a game offline when I want to, even though I've done nothing to suggest I am doing anything dishonest with the products that I purchase.
Steam isn't punishment, but Valve is a consumer-friendly company. They don't require me to buy a specific peripheral to use Steam. They offer the BEST pricing on content, no question. Steam allows you to play games offline. Valve literally offers such good deals on games that the benefit of that pricing is greater than the DRM it presents. Microsoft isn't doing that, instead continuing the $60 game model, and forcing me to play my games in a certain manner.
Yeah, and the rules suck.
Again, CLAIMING I am entitled without anything to actually back up the claim. I'm not asking for free things. I am asking for a business model that has benefitted the industry for YEARS to continue to exist. I'm providing suggestions to benefit the providers without harming the consumers. What I am doing is seeking a COMPROMISE. Is seeking compromise entitlement?