Amentep

Never said they could. I still don't see that as a reason for nerfing used games (and again, I don't think this will stay at nerfing online content; if this persists its inevitable to this alarmist in me that they'll start doing this to offline content). The parts is a fair point BUT cars also have a longer life than the average game (as DLC/Expansions for most games still don't seem to be common). It seems to me the appropriate model would be for the game companies to, you know, make stuff that consumers would buy new for their used games as opposed to trying to discourage them buying used games. But that would require work when instead they can just cut out online content to used buyers without having to lift a finger. Media Play's model seemed similar to Gamestops at the time from the outside looking in (but I didn't work at either store so can't really argue the mechanics). Mind you since Media Play eventually failed totally and Gamestop didn't, it could have been down to the companies involved.

Why not? Because the game company decided you shouldn't?

I am pretty sure libraries, as well as video-rental-shops have to buy more for their copy. Games rental still doesn't do this though, so there's an additional loss post right there. Actually from people I know who work in Libraries for books they pay the price set by the vendor, which is typically the MSRP. Right now, I'm told, the big money is making Libraries pay for online databases which seem to be the popular resource for research at least and for which the companies charge more for. Actually for college there's big money in textbooks; the textbook companies don't try to put the used textbook stores out of business, but what they do is release new books every 2-3 years and hope the universities follow suit of adopting the book, ensuring that there's a limited shelf-life in a particular edition. It seems that this was the approach that had been used in the past, updating Madden or Smackdown vs Raw every year, but now for some reason that's not enough for the game publishers. That was probably the idea until it became just clear how much money GameStop is making out of this. I am sure if libraries make millions of bucks a year booksellers would want a slice too. But I don't think libraries do financially *that* well... I'm not sure what GameStop making money has to do with this - I don't see Ford, Chevrolet, GM, etc trying to shut down CarMax. And its not like Used Games is an easy money-making proposition; I remember the late box-store Media Play had great failure with their used game initiative.

Michael Chabon's Pulitzer Prize winning The Amazing Adventures of Kavalier and Clay took 4 years to write, I think, this after spending 5 years on a novel he ultimately put aside, unable to complete. (Yeah its still one person, but you make it sound so easy). Still not sure the expense of producing a game means one has to be forced to use the disc as a coaster because the game publishers decided that the used game market was affecting their bottom line (which I should add, I'm not sure is actually the case; I think the majority of people who buy used games wouldn't have bought the game if it wasn't used so I don't think they'll see the upswing in consumers from killing the second hand market for games.)

That isn't what he said at all. He said don't complain that you aren't getting the fancy online stuff if you aren't buying new. Perhaps I'm being a bit of an alarmist, but I can't imagine that this is going to stop at online content. Once people have had to live for awhile with online content being locked away, or not being able to access online features at all (per the EA model), I think the companies will start looking at ways of applying the model to the whole game content.

heh, I played some games from start to finish over 20 times. not because they were made to be played that much. because those were great games. but you can't help getting curious when a game shows it's double-layered. and if the game has an interesting story I want to follow but the game design is ATROCIOUS and the process brings only frustration - this just makes me want to crack the designer's skull open. wtf was he thinking? this is especially true for AP. there's no way I'm replaying it. I'll download a couple of walkthroughs instead. And that's totally fair. I was mostly just addressing replayablity as a modern issue (or maybe I was more addressing that I personally don't look out for games that are replayable so much as I replay games I really, really like). I have no problem admitting I liked ME more than the BG games and understand others may feel differently (for what its worth, I probably enjoyed JE more than ME and I imagine I'm in a small population on that one).

I didn't like TOB end fight; but I never had a problem with BG2's (probably why I finished it more than once).

Eh, I've seen chain used music stores, chain used VHS/DVD stores, chain Car dealers and chain comic book stores. Apparently THQ isn't going to be happy unless everyone buys the game new the week it comes out and if the buyer ends up not liking the game to have no option other than to use the discs as coasters.

Really? A modern curse? I replayed Adventure on the Atari 2600, Phantasie on the C64, Shining Force on the Genesis, Chrono Trigger on the SNES, Ogre Battle on PSX, IWD, PST and Fallout 1 and 2 on PC? I have no interest in 100% completion. I don't go playing games just to get achievements. Very rarely do I care about alternate endings (unless I really like the game). But if I like a game, I'll usually want to play it multiple times. To me Alpha Protocol was about living with the choices you made, not constantly reloading because you made a "bad" choice. I enjoyed it; making decisions on the fly that felt "right" at the time and seeing what happened.

Considering the difference in length, not a surprise. Length is part of it (as I tended to get bored about halfway through BG2). But I also found BG1's end to be terribly frustrating and only beat it the one time I did by cheating. To tell the truth, I prefer IWD and PST to either BG games.

I've played ME more times over my ownership than I ever have either of the Baldur's Gate games. In fact I played BG to completion once, TotSC once, BG2 twice, ToB once. I beat ME three times with just one of my characters (I've got 5) and ME2 twice (once each with two characters). Can't say one is better than the other since its up to personal taste, but for me I found ME a lot more replayable than BG games.

It doesn't change the fact that the game publishers are apparently the only people concerned with a second-hand market (book publishers don't, music publisher's didn't, comic book publishers don't (in fact they cater to this market), car makers don't, movie producers don't, etc.)

Dare I ask?

Basically the game industry sees killing the used market as a way of raising their profits. Which was, I believe, my argument when EA did the same thing. It is funny, as you mention, that apparently every other industry (except the food industry) has a thriving second hand market without problems.

The Thresher Maws killed me a lot. And I accidentally drove into lava a bit.

Yeah you can't necessarily stop them coming. I just wouldn't feel comfortable putting stuff out for them (I'm just weird that way). Oddly we never get raccoons (which may be why when I see them they make me paranoid because seeing a raccoon around here usually means its rabid) but we do get opossums all the time.

Yeah, I wouldn't feed racoons. Ever. Don't care if they're adorable. They're dangerous and encouraging them to come near human habitation is pretty much asking for them to pillage people's garbage, and could lead to a rabid racoon attack, IMO.

Saw Piranha 3D over the weekend. A big old "ugh" to the film. I loved the original Piranha film and high hopes for this one, but its a total mess of a film. Its also much more of a gore film (ie the point seems to be showing gore than anything else), which I personally find to be a disappointing approach. As a fan of B to Z grade films, I can live with one dimensional characters, but most of the characters in this film don't even rate a dimension. They do whatever the plot calls for them to do for plot expediency, not because it makes sense or has been supported by character development (or even a line of dialogue). The attacks have no suspense (the big piranha attack on the beach party goes on so long that its actually boring instead of suspenseful) and often have no rhyme nor reason (the piranhas seem to be pretty much wherever they need to be for the plot to have an attack). Several times attacks are broken up for visual gags, deflating the scenes. The last minute "shock ending" is laughable (and spoiled by the trailer). That said some of the cast manages to do well with what they're given (Elizabeth Shue, Ving Rhames, Christopher Lloyd) just simply because they manage to invest the characters with enough spark to gain audience sympathy. Special kudos to Jerry O'Connell who manages to play a loathsome porn producer with appropriate combinations of "gee-whiz we're going to make a movie" enthusiasm and seedy "hurh-hurh-hurh" attitude (with occasional teen boy "boobies!" approach). Steven R. McQueen and Jessica Szohr play the main leads and unfortunately the film undercuts any real buildup to their characters (Szohr's character's boyfriend gets a bigger shaft, having an unexplained-by-the-film reaction during the beach attack that mostly seems to have happened so there could be some more gore effects). Kellie Brook manages to invest some sympathy into her character whose storyline seems to get dropped with McQueen's and Szohr's (as she seems to be trying to play matchmaker between them, but again that whole storyline doesn't get any screen time beyond a few nods early on). The 3D itself is a mixed bag; some of it seems well thought out, some of it not thought out at all. Parts of it are obviously upconverted and some parts of the film don't seem to be 3D at all. Overall I'd say its a big missed opportunity not worth shelling out the dough to see in 3D in the theaters.

Van Damme and Seagal were both invited to join in, but both turned the project down. Seagal reportedly turned it down due to issues with one of the producers (he'll be appearing in Robert Rodriguez' Machete in September). Van Damme reportedly turned it down because he didn't think it was the right move to make (or alternatively he wasn't crazy about the character/plot; I've read different rumours). Also reportedly turning down a part was Kurt Russell (who would have had the Bruce Willis cameo) and Wesley Snipes (who was unavailable) and Forest Whitaker (who initially signed but then had scheduling conflicts).

Like in Space:1999, but without the radioactive explosions. Will it still go through a black hole? And find a planet of robot people? And meet metamorphs? And will there be a moonbase with Martin Landau commanding? And will they always send out Eagle 1 with Alan Carter piloting?

If its fun to me, I don't care how the combat is done.

To be fair, the government/army intervention is taken straight out of the original film from 1973.

Does the university register you for your courses? (I ask because where I work we have hand registered the majority of student for almost 15 years). That should be HAVE NOT registered the majority of students for almost 15 years.

I like to play games and get entertainment value in them. I don't invest myself heavily in game companies other than if I play a game and like it, I'm more inclined to pay attention to the company's next game. And if I've liked a bunch of games a company has made, then I'm more inclined to lurk/post on the company's message board to keep up with what is coming next. Beyond that it just seems like a bunch of "my dad can beat up your dad" arguments.

Does the university register you for your courses? (I ask because where I work we have hand registered the majority of student for almost 15 years).