PSA: Do not buy Wolfenstein Youngblood.

[Tenjen]

Brilliant deduction skills, let’s just ignore the part that most online games also have them, yet ain’t getting the sort of those that these specific examples got.

Micro-transactions are a way to keep a constant income of cash, which is required if you are hosting servers for your community while providing them regular content updates, they were never really much of a problem, until pay-2-win and randomized shit started popping up, and even in those cases, as I said before, most people just don’t really care.

Thats what MT's are supposed to be yes but their current tactics and earnings go way past being able to be justifed by saying "hosting servers". Especially since another tactic is to release new titles in the franchise as fast as possible and make all that progress disapear. They are earning massive amounts of money and keep pushing the letter with every new game.

Something like GW2 and Warframe can justify it, but Activision and EA games have gone way past "games/live services are expensive to make/maintain" (its actually marketing) and have driven deep into pure greed and exploitation territory.

- - - Updated - - -

Yes, because you're supporting a business tactic that would ultimately break trust from consumers. You either stop this now, or you create an E.T. and watch as the loud vocal minority becomes larger and stops buying AAA games.

in the US, quitting/losing your job is like you and your family playing russion roulette but with only 1 bullet missing... in a pistol. Not to mention the rest of the companies are like that too and might blacklist you in the industry.

I am against the MT's as well but with your anti-sjw talk and big talk, you sound as dudebro as the sisters in youngblood.

Game is a 5 or 6 of 10 at best but only because it uses a pre-existing game system, which it did little to innovate. The Coop would have been a point for it if it hasnt been warped into an excuse to peddle the MT's and include repetitive content.

[Vineri]

Citation needed.

May stores (not just video game retailers) will not put merchandise back on store shelves after they have been returned. It simply isn't worth the risk. The store no way of knowing if the product has been unaltered. A quick search will show it is pretty easy to reseal packages. Yes, I'm sure there are some stores out there that will immediately throw it back up. More often, they will sell it as used, or previously opened.

I have to double down on this. The retailers I know about, will put returned "brand new" merchandise back on store shelves, video games.

I believe it would be my responsibility to also state "citation needed", to indicidate that they do not participate in this practice.

When it's a common practice.

Businesses .. big or small .. they don't want to lose money. Returns are a loss.

[Vash The Stampede]

Game is a 5 or 6 of 10 at best but only because it uses a pre-existing game system, which it did little to innovate. The Coop would have been a point for it if it hasnt been warped into an excuse to peddle the MT's and include repetitive content.

And what about buggy AI, bullet sponge enemies, and back tracking maps you've already been through? We going to turn a blind eye to those?

https://i.imgur.com/ZB9KKtml.jpg

Then the people of America should have voted for Bernie Sanders.

[Krastyn]

I have to double down on this. The retailers I know about, will put returned "brand new" merchandise back on store shelves, video games.

I believe it would be my responsibility to also state "citation needed", to indicidate that they do not participate in this practice.

When it's a common practice.

Businesses .. big or small .. they don't want to lose money. Returns are a loss.

The burden of proof is on you show that stores are putting returned games for sale at full price as part of corporate policy.

The case in question, there is need to provide a citation. The guy willingly admitted he is re-selling the game. It is 100% not new. 100% of the games he is selling are in fact, used.

You may try to handwave and say that a small faction of games sold by stores are returned games being re-sold as new, but you have nothing to show that is the case. The store may also have permission from Bethesda to re-sell any returned, unopened games. With a low cost, high value good though, it is usually easier to scrap/return it, than risk an unknown sale. Gamespot/EB sell returned consoles as "refurbished", usually at a slight discount. Similar for games.

[Vineri]

The burden of proof is on you show that stores are putting returned games for sale at full price as part of corporate policy.

You should realize this is being turned upon you once again, for lack of proof.

I have no vendetta against retailers. I speak as it happens.

If someone claims "brand new" games only get re-sold on-line.

/popcorn.

[Orange Joe]

Snip

Snip

There are 3 separate companies.

Blizzard Entertainment. Which is still listed as a developer/publisher
Activision which is also listed as a publisher.
Then you have Activision Blizzard which is listed as a holding company and parent company for previous.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blizzard_Entertainment
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Activision
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Activision_Blizzard

Yes they are all tied together. No they are not 1 single company.

[Vineri]

There are 3 separate companies.

Blizzard Entertainment. Which is still listed as a developer/publisher
Activision which is also listed as a publisher.
Then you have Activision Blizzard which is listed as a holding company and parent company for previous.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blizzard_Entertainment
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Activision
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Activision_Blizzard

Yes they are all tied together. No they are not 1 single company.

It's curious why they all shame the same bank account. Like they were married or something..

[oplawlz]

There are 3 separate companies.

Blizzard Entertainment. Which is still listed as a developer/publisher
Activision which is also listed as a publisher.
Then you have Activision Blizzard which is listed as a holding company and parent company for previous.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blizzard_Entertainment
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Activision
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Activision_Blizzard

Yes they are all tied together. No they are not 1 single company.

They're only separate for tax purposes, it lets them sell royalties to each other and call it a loss. They're the same company.

[Krastyn]

You should realize this is being turned upon you once again, for lack of proof.

I have no vendetta against retailers. I speak as it happens.

If someone claims "brand new" games only get re-sold on-line.

/popcorn.

You're truly daft.

Fact: He was trying to sell a game as new, that was in fact, not new. That's deceptive. Full stop.

Your turn. Have a nice day.

[Tenjen]

As I said...



I don't think micro-transactions are "evil", companies who exploit them through some pretty nasty tactics are, claiming that a video game is bad just because it has micro-transactions is god damn ridiculous, both Anthem & Fallout 76 originally just sold cosmetic items directly, no RNG involved, the shit these games got had very little to do with their monetization systems.

Regardless, as I’ve repeated over a bazillion times by now like a broken record, most people don’t really fucking care, it’s why games such as Fifa still sell like hot cakes, and there is a picture over another thread that I find very suiting for this:

https://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media...eujcgewjpg.jpg

Fifa and Madden, my god Madden...

I wasnt so much argueing with you as continueing the point at hand.

And i agree on the people bit. Its not that they dont care, its that they simply dont mingle in the gamer forums of discussion regarding such topics and are just regular people going about their day and are thus unaware of whats going on.

[themaster24]

Everyone knows the E.T. story, and yes E.T. wasn't the worst game ever made, but it was the straw that broke the camels back that caused the crash. Truth is the gamers had long been sick of the games being released and just stopped after E.T. But I do believe DLC/MTX are going to do it again because gamers don't want them. The whales do and will spend a small fortune on a single game. The problem I see is that micro-transactions may double the revenue but may also decrease the sales of sequels. Specifically sequels like Youngblood who have long built an image with its audience in what they can expect out of a Wolfenstein game. There's already animosity towards games people bought that comes incomplete. This already hurt the industry back in 2018 where suddenly Activision removed Bungie over Destiny and Activision/Blizzard removed 800 employees to keep their stock from plummeting. Fallout 76 is just the beginning of how micro-transactions hurt sales for Bethesda.

Game studios and publishers are money hungry and will try to find ways to make micro-transactions work, even if that means releasing the game without micro-transactions and then adding them in through a patch. Youngblood certainly has plans for more micro-transactions later on. If the AAA industry continues to push for micro-transactions then I could see it going under. If there's enough angry people to get a developer to quit Twitter, then you know it's bad. Where's all the people defending micro-transactions and DLC's? They don't exist.

They MAY decrease the sales, but they don't inherently. Most people buying games don't care about your average run of the mill MTX or DLC because it does not affect them. The only time it becomes an issue is when either a.) the MTX are predatory or come off as mandatory (i.e. Battlefront 2) or b.) the game has otherwise glaring problems, causing people to point at the MTX/DLC is a thing to blame (see Youngblood).

In reference to what ActiBlizz did, if you noticed, they turned around shortly and rehired for those positions. They did want other businesses in other sectors do. They fire people who cost to much for what they provide, wait the mandatory period, and rehire people at a lower wage. It's an awful business tactic, but it's not something exclusive to the video game sector, and certainly not related to MTX/DLC.

Publishers are generally money hungry, because ultimately, their purpose to is solely to make money. They essentially invest in studios in the hopes that the product they produce profits big time. It's like any other investment. Making people quit twitter doesn't mean something is bad, it just means people are being toxic. The angry people speak the loudest and thus, their voice is spread the furthest. In our age of toxicity, someone going into the fray to stand up against whatever people are being toxic about, just gets it thrown in their direction. These angry people on twitter acting this way appear incapable of being civilized, and thus people do not wish to interact with them.

Obviously Blizzard needs to continue with TBC and WOTLK. Specifically in that order.

Once again, that keeps being said, but Classic hasn't even launched yet. We have no idea how well it will actually be after launch. It could be a smashing success, a moderate success, or the same on the opposite side.

How do you think micro-transactions work? How do you get people to buy your digital crap? You have to entice them by getting them to the store. If people play the game and ignore the store then you aren't getting many sales in micro-transactions. So games now introduce a way for you to grind for these items so you would visit the store. Realistically these items would require weeks or months of grinding just to get the stuff they have in there. After all, they want you to spend money not quickly grind for these items. So games get more grindy by either introducing unnecessary mechanics or just feed you XP or coins slowly. If they didn't do this then the micro-transaction system won't work as well.

Pay2win micro-transactions don't general last long and will alienate new players from the game. Considering how bad the reception is with pay2win, I don't think developers will try those again. It's now all about harmless cosmetics. Except, no not really harmless.

Yet, not every game with MTX does this. Borderlands 2, for example has an admittedly dumb amount of $1 skin sets, yet you could play the game and without ever knowing they exist. They never once push them on you, and I don't believe you can even see them in game. Some games, offer skins in the store, but you can get considerably better ones by playing the game and not even having to do grindy stuff.

Rage 2, as another example, has had several in game events that have offered skins that are better than many of the skins that you could possibly buy with real money. Then they had an event that let players get pretty much every event skins that had been released up to that point, if they missed any. People were losing their minds about Rage 2 having the option to buy skins, yet they have offered way more skins for free just by playing the game. Not grinding the game, just things like kill 20 of this type of bad guy, kill this special boss, loot a small amount amount of this item. This is a clear example of where the option exists for a player who really likes the game to toss a couple extra bucks to show they support the game.

Nobody has been violent about is so far. Just people being upset and spewing toxic, just like the rest of the internet. Gamers and everyone else don't usually see eye to eye on issues. Remember gamergate? Yea, that was seen as five different issues. In the end, gamers will game, and everyone else just sits there and twists. Gamers don't care how they're viewed and will spew toxicity towards you if you grab their attention. Ask Jimmy Kimmel how he found out the hard way.

Tossing out death threats is purporting violence. They've gone beyond just calling people mean names, and that's been a growing trend recently. It's deplorable that people will act the way they do over such inconsequential things. The gaming community should care how they are perceived, because it could result in massive negative impacts on our hobby. Acting the way the loud people do, it gives everyone else a reason to not take us seriously in the slightest. So when something truly important comes along, why would they listen to us. The UK, for example, has thrown out the concept of forcibly limiting play time in games similar to the way the Chinese have. If it were to get real push from their government, it would be easy for them to present any argument from the gaming community in a bad light by simply presenting the way we've handled other situations.

Bullet sponge enemies? Forced online co-op? Broken single player AI? To me it shows that Youngblood was preparing for micro-transactions and these are the results. Playing with a friend to show off your micro-transactions cosmetics, and bullet sponge enemies for that badass weapon you bought off the store. Assassin's Creed Odyssey didn't need to be a level cap to continue the main story just to force you to grind out boring side quests.

Lets say these weren't the result of micro-transactions but poor game design. Now your poor game design is being picked at and criticized more heavily because of those micro-transactions. Your game will be held to new standards that it didn't need to before.

It's not an option. You can't progress in this game without resurrecting your AI buddy, which usually means you have to put yourself in harms way getting yourself killed and starting from the beginning of the stage.

Let's get it straight. You can not like the AI partner, but you are not forced to play co-op. Having to res them to move forward would be a problem if a human partner put you in the same situation. No AI, at least that we've developed, is ever going to be comparable to playing with another human. It is still an option though, as much as you may not like how the option works.

Regardless, how do any of these factors connect with MTX? They don't benefit from skins being purchasable. Skins don't make enemies die faster, they don't give your partner a buff or make changes to NPC AI. Yes your friend can see your skin, but skins are put in single player games and still market all the same. Most people who buy a skin, buy it because they like it and think it's cool. You also can't buy any guns with real money, so that's another moot point.

Odyssey, however, is an example of when aspects of the game were designed around the MTX. It's painfully obvious that the game was designed, then they figured out the maximum acceptable % value to decrease XP gains, to sell it back as a boost. It's absolutely gross to do, and I will never buy that game for that reason. I will also keep an eye on any future Assassin's Creed game if I'm every intrigued in the future.

At the end though, games often have design choices that just doesn't mesh with players, and it's not always because it was intentionally done to make you spend more money. So yes, they get criticized for those flaws, and as I said before, when a game has enough flaws to generate ample criticism, people will jump to proclaim that MTX/DLC were the root of the cause. Sadly, in a lot of these cases, it's just poor development choices. It's not better for that to be the reason a game has problems, but it's important to tackle what is ultimately making a game poorly received than to use MTX/DLC as a universal scapegoat.

Some developers don't know how to make things more difficult besides making things have more HP. It's why we have the term bullet sponge to begin with, and why we revere devs who do know how make something challenging without just making it require a high TTK.

HAHAHAHA, what people want co-op for Elder Scrolls 6? The gamers would shit a brick. Like Fallout 76 wasn't bad enough.

You linked a reddit thread that has people saying they don't want an TES game with coop if it means it will be like 76. Hence why I said a drop-in/out type co-op, the kind people do want. You can also see this in the thread. People talking about a 2-4 player co-op, where you can choose to join a friend's game. Almost every person who said they didn't want it was because they don't like how Fallout 76 turned out, and they feel like any ESO co-op would be a reskin of that.

Again, though, this is why I mentioned the specific type of co-op people have been clamoring for, you know, the kind that Skyrim now has a mod in beta for. A mod that, at it's peak, was bringing in around $36k a month on patreon for the team to continue development. Three years in, and they still generate 10k+ a month as they get closer to finishing the mod. There is demand for co-op, people just want it done right, not hamfisted into an otherwise single player game.

It's hard for a game to screw up in 2019 like Superman 64 but that's why we hold new games to higher standards. Keep in mind that Wolfenstein Youngblood screwed up hard in many more ways than just micro-transactons. I haven't played the game myself and don't plan on it, but this is what I've learned from reviews.

• The AI is bad for both the sister and the enemies. You have AI just standing there taking damage and doing nothing. *Bad AI is not an uncommon problem for newer games. That doesn't excuse any game for having it, but let's not act like it's some kind of rarity
• The enemies are bullet sponges thanks to this new armor system. *Like previously mentioned, this is another common issue when developers don't really know how to increase difficulty besides just turning the HP dial up
• You revisit maps very often, and there aren't many maps to explore. *Yet again a frequent issue with many games, one that is always a detractor
• This game focuses on Co-op, but breaks solo play. *Yes, it is a co-op game. They could have not provided you an option to play solo, like some co-op games do, or allowed you to play co-op but having no AI partners. Generally, any focus on co-op will be negative to someone who doesn't want it to begin with, though.
• You can't pause the game even in solo gameplay. Because again, it focuses on Co-op. *Ya, that sucks, but it's to be expected in a co-op game, like you said
• The writing is awful. *Yet again, a relatively common complaint for many games, even those for whom writing is a vital aspect of the game (i.e. RPG's)
• Copy and paste quests. *Just like the others, it's a common thing
• The net code is broken.

That's without mentioning micro-transactions and SJW. That sounds like a zero to me. What aspect of this game is redeeming? What could possibly make this game worth a 1, besides that likely to be the lowest value that can be given?

What I'm getting at is these are all things that every game has taken into consideration. Bad writing, recycled content, artificial difficulty, and bad AI are things that a lot of games grapple with. There are just varying degrees to how a.) how bad this problems were, and b.) how impactful they were to the in the moment gameplay. Going back to Rage 2, as an example, everyone I know who has played enjoyed the gunplay so much, that most of the other issues they ran into felt minor. Playing the game was so enjoyable, it didn't matter if the AI was dumb, or the missions were are all the same like 5-6 things. Killing enemies was just too much damn fun for them to care.

That's why most games that have these kinds of problems aren't inherently 0's or 1's, because at the end of the day, what matters to most people who buy a game is how much fun they can be had by just playing the game, even when a game has otherwise faulty components. It's why we don't have a rating system that is just "Good or bad", and instead a sliding scale of 0-10. Relatively speaking, this is a pretty good way of analyzing how much enjoyment an average gamer would get out of any given game (discarding the fact that certain places are paid off).

[Vineri]

Everyone’s go to excuse when I call them out, because it’s so hard to practice effective communication.

If a reader has to assume what you mean then you have failed to communicate.

That’s one of the reasons there is constant arguing and bickering on these forums instead of actual discussions.

I really mean, exactly what I said:

You should realize this is being turned upon you once again, for lack of proof.

I have no vendetta against retailers. I speak as it happens.

If someone claims "brand new" games only get re-sold on-line.

/popcorn.

I should impose on you, that the general retail industry does not identify returned "NEW" games as suddenly "used". This is Bethesda's claim; one which you adopted - but not adopted by major retailers.

You're truly daft.

Fact: He was trying to sell a game as new, that was in fact, not new. That's deceptive. Full stop.

Your turn. Have a nice day.

I'm not sure why you are so angry.

You should go after Best Buy, Target, Walmart, etc .. because, would you like to know how THEY handle new game returns? They put them back on the shelf for someone else to buy.

Completely out of Bethesda's control. Or any other Developer / Publisher for that matter.

It burns a hole in your [undergarments]. But it's real. Very real.

[Krastyn]

I'm not sure why you are so angry.

You should go after Best Buy, Target, Walmart, etc .. because, would you like to know how THEY handle new game returns? They put them back on the shelf for someone else to buy.

Completely out of Bethesda's control. Or any other Developer / Publisher for that matter.

It burns a hole in your [undergarments]. But it's real. Very real.

I'm not angry. I'm just baffled at how thick you are. You seem to think it's ok for random people to sell things as "new". You fail to see the difference between an authorized dealer selling something as new, backed by full warranty, and something being sold by some random person which is a different product, but listed as "new".

I guess you like shady salespeople. To each their own. You still can't even back up your statements with proof. Just your own assumptions. It's cute.

[Vash The Stampede]

They MAY decrease the sales, but they don't inherently.

They decrease sales because they inherently effect gameplay.

Most people buying games don't care about your average run of the mill MTX or DLC because it does not affect them. The only time it becomes an issue is when either a.) the MTX are predatory or come off as mandatory (i.e. Battlefront 2) or b.) the game has otherwise glaring problems, causing people to point at the MTX/DLC is a thing to blame (see Youngblood).

That's part of the problem with micro-transactions in that it pushes consumers to find problems and blame it on micro-transactions. One can't help looking at a grindy game mechanic and see XP boosters and weapons you can buy that alleviate a problem that the game designers made.

Making people quit twitter doesn't mean something is bad, it just means people are being toxic.

I like how toxic is a cause to you and not a symptom. People are toxic because people are made over something. That something is micro-transactions.

The gaming community should care how they are perceived, because it could result in massive negative impacts on our hobby.

Micro-transactions do that much more so than anything said by any gamer. Even in 2019 the gaming community will get the blame for mass shootings, so it's not like gamers even have a say in how we're perceived. More importantly that we hurt their wallets than their minds, and being loud and toxic is a great way to do this. Not to send a message to the studios or developers, because those people are deaf and stupid anyway, but a message to the other gamers who mindlessly buy these games. The mico-transaction issue did get more coverage because of this Twitter spat, even though it was by a little. Slowly more gamers will be aware and will learn to boycott these games.

Regardless, how do any of these factors connect with MTX? They don't benefit from skins being purchasable. Skins don't make enemies die faster, they don't give your partner a buff or make changes to NPC AI. Yes your friend can see your skin, but skins are put in single player games and still market all the same. Most people who buy a skin, buy it because they like it and think it's cool. You also can't buy any guns with real money, so that's another moot point.

Skins are meant to show off and who is going to see your skin? That's right, a co-op player will. See, this is what I meant when maybe something done in a game wasn't related to micro-transactions and now is being perceived as related. You can't help but connect the dots, even if the dots were never meant to be connected.

Some developers don't know how to make things more difficult besides making things have more HP. It's why we have the term bullet sponge to begin with, and why we revere devs who do know how make something challenging without just making it require a high TTK.

Doesn't sound good either way now does it?

*Bad AI is not an uncommon problem for newer games. That doesn't excuse any game for having it, but let's not act like it's some kind of rarity
*Like previously mentioned, this is another common issue when developers don't really know how to increase difficulty besides just turning the HP dial up
*Yet again a frequent issue with many games, one that is always a detractor
*Yes, it is a co-op game. They could have not provided you an option to play solo, like some co-op games do, or allowed you to play co-op but having no AI partners. Generally, any focus on co-op will be negative to someone who doesn't want it to begin with, though.
*Ya, that sucks, but it's to be expected in a co-op game, like you said
*Yet again, a relatively common complaint for many games, even those for whom writing is a vital aspect of the game (i.e. RPG's)
*Just like the others, it's a common thing

Keep in mind that 90% of games sold today are crap. Not all games are game of the year, and worth playing at all. So just because a mistake is common, doesn't make it OK, or worth a score above zero because common is crap.

That's why most games that have these kinds of problems aren't inherently 0's or 1's, because at the end of the day, what matters to most people who buy a game is how much fun they can be had by just playing the game, even when a game has otherwise faulty components. It's why we don't have a rating system that is just "Good or bad", and instead a sliding scale of 0-10. Relatively speaking, this is a pretty good way of analyzing how much enjoyment an average gamer would get out of any given game (discarding the fact that certain places are paid off).

That's a very well thought out argument. The game will still get a 0 because that's how people feel about the game anyway. In a year from now the game will be $10 either in the store or online because the games reputation is bad. This along with Fallout 76 will teach Bethesda a very valuable lesson in adding micro-transactions and shitty game design into a paid for game. Next time do better, a lot better.

[Vash The Stampede]

Micro-transactions by themselves were never the problem, we been over it:

https://www.mmo-champion.com/threads...1#post51484269

Those 2 posts that you completely ignored cuz reasons kind of explain you why.

Pay-2-Win elements, slot-machine-like mechanics and broken ass video games are the problem.

You say it like it's a fact. You ignore the idea that maybe the community doesn't want their games hosted by the studio? Maybe they want to host their own server, with their own content? Minecraft comes to mind where the community thrives on custom servers with mods. This is how multiplayer games used to work in the past. We lost these features for micro-transactions.

A proper fair micro-transaction system would hardly make any money, especially a game where it's single player and can have mods. In order for it to be profitable, you have to adjust game mechanics to funnel players to them. Single players games especially don't get content updates, because that's how single player works. In single player games it's just pure greed.

[Vineri]

I'm not angry. I'm just baffled at how thick you are. You seem to think it's ok for random people to sell things as "new". You fail to see the difference between an authorized dealer selling something as new, backed by full warranty, and something being sold by some random person which is a different product, but listed as "new".

I guess you like shady salespeople. To each their own. You still can't even back up your statements with proof. Just your own assumptions. It's cute.

You keep mentioning "different product"'s. Is the product really different?

I suppose this is where we fail to meet eye-to-eye.

If I return a brand-new, unopened game to GameStop, is it a different product? GameStop says NO. They inventory it, and place it back on the shelf as "NEW".

I'm sorry I'm being so thick. You see things from a lawyers standpoint. I'm telling you reality.

Go after retailers if you think this is such a major problem.

[Krastyn]

You keep mentioning "different product"'s. Is the product really different?

I suppose this is where we fail to meet eye-to-eye.

If I return a brand-new, unopened game to GameStop, is it a different product? GameStop says NO. They inventory it, and place it back on the shelf as "NEW".

I'm sorry I'm being so thick. You see things from a lawyers standpoint. I'm telling you reality.

Go after retailers if you think this is such a major problem.

A licensed re-seller/distributor has an agreement with a suppler to sell goods. This includes any warranties that come with the product. An unlicensed seller does not.

It comes down to whether you think two products (physically identical), one with a warranty and one without are the same product, and should be able to be marketed identically.

To me, they are different. The one without a warranty is a lesser product. Most people in reality expect a new product to have some kind of warranty. Most people would not expect a used product to have one, unless explicitly stated as such.

[Vineri]

A licensed re-seller/distributor has an agreement with a suppler to sell goods. This includes any warranties that come with the product. An unlicensed seller does not.

It comes down to whether you think two products (physically identical), one with a warranty and one without are the same product, and should be able to be marketed identically.

To me, they are different. The one without a warranty is a lesser product. Most people in reality expect a new product to have some kind of warranty. Most people would not expect a used product to have one, unless explicitly stated as such.

Is GameStop, BestBuy, Target, or Walmart unlicensed?

[Jtbrig7390]

A licensed re-seller/distributor has an agreement with a suppler to sell goods. This includes any warranties that come with the product. An unlicensed seller does not.

It comes down to whether you think two products (physically identical), one with a warranty and one without are the same product, and should be able to be marketed identically.

To me, they are different. The one without a warranty is a lesser product. Most people in reality expect a new product to have some kind of warranty. Most people would not expect a used product to have one, unless explicitly stated as such.

The sell in question (Evil Within 2) was done on Amazon and was marked as New because its seal was never broken.

Amazon provides a 30 day warranty on all items period. If someone was to sell you a game and it didn't work, Amazon would fully refund you.

Also I can pull up 1000's of items on Amazon being sold as new, This was just Bethesda waving their dick around for no actual reason.

You can even find lists of Evil Within 2 right now still marked as new.

Edit: Correction it was on amazon and both Amazon and Ebay provide the same warranty on all sales. Also the seller was 100% protected by the First Sale Doctrine law.

[Vineri]

If anyone doesn't get the reason people politically disagree with this game it's because while there's nothing wrong with killing nazis and glorifying it (though it's a bit childish and pandering if you ask me) - in a culture than chucks the word "nazi" around so liberally, especially to anyone slightly right of your traditional leftist, it does feel like it's a veiled on certain political points of view.

Then you have actual racists on /pol/ who are mad about killing nazis because they actually like nazis - and they're just batshit but that's not who I'm on about

There are plenty of other games, where the enemies are [you name it!] race.

Killing Nazi's stuck because, you know, Hitler was assaulting Europe and the USA. WW II.

It doesn't get simpler than this.