Well, I tried boobies earlier, so I guess my area of expertise has been covered.
Sadly, I don't really know any other way to cheer up people. Hugs sometimes work but he's a programmer! He'd probably faint from so much contact with another human being.
Telltale is located around Silicon Valley, which is why everything's so expensive. Once you get out of California, New York, and certain places in Florida, things are a lot more reasonable. My 4-bedroom house in the St. Louis area has a mortgage payment of less than half what that studio apartment's rent is. The state income taxes are cheaper, too. (I used to live in California once upon a time, so I know what it's like there. I would demand a much higher salary if I had to adjust back to that cost of living.)
Rainbows on Telltale's forums tend to remind people of Hugh Bliss, so I'm not sure that's such a calming effect.
Edited P.S. After seeing messages posted while I was writing this: Programmers like hugs, too.
Sadly, I don't really know any other way to cheer up people.
With hardened crankypants cynics, I just hang around until they're thoroughly sick of my sweetness and sunshine. When I finally give up and go away they're flooded with a euphoric sense of relief. It's surprisingly effective.
With hardened crankypants cynics, I just hang around until they're thoroughly sick of my sweetness and sunshine. When I finally give up and go away they're flooded with a euphoric sense of relief. It's surprisingly effective.
You could achieve the same effect by being rude and insulting them for the same length of time.
You could achieve the same effect by being rude and insulting them for the same length of time.
I don't know about you, but if I'm rude I feel terrible, while if I'm nice I feel great. If both achieve the same effect, might as well choose the one that doesn't make you feel like crap.
Huh? Studios for 1500? I recently looked at apartments in that area and found two bedroom apartments for 1600. Right next to UC Berkeley, too: where the prices are the highest. Yare should come live in Berkeley and save money...or have a bigger apartment for the same price.
(@Dashing) Well, being bitchy, bitter and cynical is normal for you, but we're not sure if it is for Yare so we're trying to cheer him up just in case.
So... their office is in some bushes at the side of the road?
Haven't you heard? GameStop's concurrence has been pretty harsh on the guys, now they have a bunch of computers on cardboard boxes and whoever isn't using the computers has to peddle to generate more energy.
Based on this discussion, I thought it would be interesting to correlate the Mercer cost of living index and the quality of living index for some of the world's cities. San Francisco does pretty well!
Cost of living is based on the cost of rental accommodation and various goods and services (e.g. price of a hamburger, cost of an average trip on public transport). Quality of living is a separate index that takes into account things like personal safety, hygiene, and city infrastructure. Both of these indexes (indices, if you must) are relative, using New York as the base of 100 (i.e. NY will always be at 100, and everything else is compared to NY). The chart is based on 2009 data.
So San Francisco is relatively inexpensive compared to places like Tokyo, Paris, London or New York, but the quality of life is ostensibly the same or better (in other words, SF is good value!).
Apparently I should ditch London and go back to Sydney though.
I wonder what they included or not though. Seems to me that health care is a pretty important part of quality of life for instance, but I'm guessing it's not included in there or there would be more difference between Paris and New York, right?
I think we can show this chart every time an Australian complains about cost of shipping, though
Mercer evaluates local living conditions in all the 420 cities it surveys worldwide. Living conditions are analysed according to 39 factors, grouped in 10 categories:
Political and social environment (political stability, crime, law enforcement, etc)
What I find the most interesting is that while quality of life is pretty much the same everywhere, cost can change so much... I guess you should expect the same quality of life in the western world, but it's still... I don't know, it's like everyone is getting the same thing, but people in Sydney are paying only a third of what people in Tokyo do.
And all of that is big cities, the cost of living is so much lower in smaller places (although to be fair, I'd say the quality of life is, as well, if you follow these criteria: you often don't get very good public transit, you have access to less stuff, etc).
Of course, none of that is really applicable to the "company" part of it, since we don't know what kind of taxes each city has.
Interesting indeed. I'm surprised that the quality of living doesn't vary more--in the top 50 list, the lowest score is 99.8 and the highest is 108.6.
And Sydney's low cost of living is quite striking. Seems like Australia would be a pretty awesome place to live, if it wasn't for the few puritanical paranoids who're forcing all that censorship legislation on the poor Aussies. (No, I won't shut up about it, those people are dangerous)
To show a greater variation in quality of living, I updated my original post and added Johannesburg and Moscow to the chart.
I think a large part of the international variation in cost of living is due to the relative strength or weakness of the currency compared to the US dollar. It's not comparing the cost of living to the median household income in that city, so to be honest I don't think it gives a real indication of how affordable it actually is for most people living there. I'd be very interested to see that kind of data.
If anyone is interested, the 2009 top 50 lists for the cost of living and quality of living indexes are available here and here, along with more detailed info on how they're calculated.
I think a large part of the international variation in cost of living is due to the relative strength or weakness of the currency compared to the US dollar. It's not comparing the cost of living to the median household income in that city, so to be honest I don't think it gives a real indication of how affordable it actually is for most people living there.
Good point. The cost of living is shown as higher in Paris than San Francisco, but minimum wage is higher in France than the US, for instance. I can't speak about wages in general or on average though.
Then other stuff come into account, for instance you're not allowed to have two jobs or work over 35 hours a week in France except in specific cases (the goal is to reduce unemployment, therefore people have to hire more employees rather than be allowed to make the current ones work more), which can be bad (you'd like to work more so you can pay your bills) but also good (you're obviously less overworked).
@puzzlebox
Thanks for posting all this data. It's very interesting and is making me think I should move to Australia or Paris.
I kind of like the idea of having maximum work hours in France. That way people can't overwork themselves, and so they will get sick less. It seems like a good idea. Although, I can see the problems if you just don't have enough money to pay your bills each month.
What happens if a company goes under, or refuses to sell the game anymore, and you have some copy protection on your game that doesn't let you play it on some new computer you get 10 years down the road? All of a sudden you have no game left, and are forced to either get a pirated version, or I suppose pay someone to re-program your game to make it playable again?
In this case, all buyers should be aware they are paying for the chance to play the game for a week? a year? or until something unfortunate happens, or they move and lose their account or computer. All games then would be technically rented. The buyer, when it comes down to it, would own nothing. And under that logic, the games themselves would have to be a whole lot cheaper. I just can't see paying $70+ for a game like that.
QFT. Call a spade a spade. Call renting a game license a rent and stop charging $60+ for games. Ridiculous. I understand companies need to make money and all, but it is becoming too much. I'd rather not pay so much for something I'm never really ever going to own. I'm glad TTG's games are still pretty cheap. Also, I saw Left 4 Dead 2 in a Gamestop for $29.99 (turns out it's $29.99 on Steam too). It was just $49.99 a couple months ago when I last saw it. And it wasn't used because you can't sell a used pre-HL2 Valve game. Valve at least tries to constantly give deals to their customers to make up for high prices.
I kind of like the idea of having maximum work hours in France. That way people can't overwork themselves, and so they will get sick less. It seems like a good idea. Although, I can see the problems if you just don't have enough money to pay your bills each month.
Yeah... Because the unemployment was so high they reduced it from 40 (well, 39) to 35. It's not the only such law, either. They're a mix of "trying to help the most people at once" (more people work, even if they work less) and "trying to protect the employees" so they don't get overworked and stuff.
The "not allowed to have two jobs" is a bit different. While technically it's legal as long as both jobs combined don't push you over the maximum hours, in practice most jobs will have a "no other job" clause in their contacts.
I think that one is more for the employer: they don't want you to be tired and cranky from another job and end up less productive or something.
But there are other laws like that that taken together get really annoying. I remember when I tried to get a part-time job, 20 hours over two days. I was told "sorry, the law requires us to spread that over at least four days". So instead of having 5 days to study, write, etc, I'd have 4 days taken out for 20 lousy hours?!
You have other "maximum hours" stuff (no more than 10 hours in a workday, no more than 5 hours without a 30 minute break, no less than 12 hours between shifts). I remember how frustrating it was in McDonald's, when one day I'd end up doing overtime, so the next day even though I was one time I wasn't allowed to work (it hadn't been 12 hours) and had to just wait there. Usually for a couple of hours).
Which didn't prevent them from considering it "showing up late for work), which was the most frustrating part.
Or once I was done eating during my break and decided to get back to work (I had taken my break late so it was the normal time to start work again), but the machine didn't let me because I hadn't taken a full break.
All these things are meant to cause you to overwork yourself less, but in the end it's time you spend at work, not being paid, instead of ether working them or finishing earlier and having more time at home and stuff. It's pretty frustrating. You'd also regularly on Saturdays (the McDonald's weeks started on Sundays) have the machine's alarm because someone had reached 35 hours, and had to stop working NOW. So most Saturdays we ended up short on staff because they had worked extra hours during the week. And Saturday isn't a day you want to be short on staff -_-'.
Anyway, I guess it's nice that your employer can't take advantage of you these ways (oh, you also need your two days off to be in a row) but much too often it comes and bite you in the ass, because the time you would have worked ends up pretty much lost.
I also remember when I worked at the frozen food store, we had 2 hour breaks for lunch. Two freaking hours. Sure, you could go home (and waste an extra hour or so of unpaid transiting) but some people couldn't, and well, you ended up losing 2 hours in the middle of every workday. It was pretty ridiculous, I'd have preferred 15-30 minutes to eat and finishing earlier or starting later, or even working that time and getting paid.
I also remember when I worked at the frozen food store, we had 2 hour breaks for lunch. Two freaking hours. Sure, you could go home (and waste an extra hour or so of unpaid transiting) but some people couldn't, and well, you ended up losing 2 hours in the middle of every workday. It was pretty ridiculous, I'd have preferred 15-30 minutes to eat and finishing earlier or starting later, or even working that time and getting paid.
That is very annoying. Especially if you don't work close to home.
A lot of people I went to college with would miss classes because their boss wanted them to cover for someone else's shift. And the boss would intimidate them into staying longer. So although that does seem a little extreme and frustrating, the way it is here in the US is really not good either.
Yeah, I realise that. I just get annoyed sometimes how France has so many policies that pretty much boil down to "let's make X illegal so people can't abuse it", instead of working on regulating it so it's not being abused.
I don't normally even eat lunch and so got yelled at during a lab job for not taking a break. I tried to explain that the stuff I was doing was sort of constant and if I took a half hour break I'd have to stay two hours later but nobody really cared about that. It's sort of stupid.
1900s: lots of people in the publishing industry are concerned about resellers undercutting the sale of new books and demand a minimum resale price. Supreme Court says that's not allowed.
1930s: lots of people in the music industry are concerned about radio stations playing their music without payment. Courts say it's OK.
1980s: lots of people in the movie industry are concerned about video stores renting their movies and keeping all the profits. Courts say it's OK.
We've heard this before.
This is a really late reply to this post, but I don't see why it's "OK" for second hand retailers/renters to make money hand over fist on goods they had nothing to do with creating and not giving even a tiny cut to the people who made the goods. It's one thing to sell your own used copy of something on the second hand market, but it's another thing entirely to have a business that exists solely to profit off of someone else's labor.
If you made something and were selling it, would you think it was cool if someone was selling used copies of your product (which cuts into your potential customer base, since they would no longer have a desire to buy your product in a way that provides you, the one who made it and deserves the profits from it, any cut of the profits) and not giving you a dime or even asking you if it was cool?
Well, radiostations and movierenting companies pay money for "renting" out their stuff, so that's not harmful.
But if GameStop makes $ without paying anyone in the gaming industry money what-so-ever obviously something is wrong.
They are thinking here about putting tax on CD's and HardDisks' and MP3-players for the music companies because everybody will use them to play illegal music anyway. That's just plain stupid. So why can GameStop do stuff like that without any penalty, like us consumer's are stuffed down the throat by copyright companies (and as a result; infuriate many people)?
Maybe they ought to be?
Although I guess with the easy possibility of burning a disk that's probbably a bad idea. A x days ability to play like some Steam actions probably makes more sense in that regard...
I mean that when a copy of Halo 3 or whatever gets rented out, Bungie does not get any money for it. The rental companies buy games at the regular price and then rent them out.
I mean that when a copy of Halo 3 or whatever gets rented out, Bungie does not get any money for it. The rental companies buy games at the regular price and then rent them out.
Maybe that's (part of) the problem. If the rental copies were different and you had to pay rental fees and stuff, people would get part of the money.
On the other hand, try finding a rental place for games in Paris. Unless it has drastically changed, you might find one and that's it. It costs so much that nobody wants to risk it, and as a result games are much less accessible. Not only would that mean less gamers (a lot of people started out by renting) but it probably also means more pirating (although I guess you said that's preferable).
Maybe if it's something in the middle? Rental place paying more for games, but not four times the price?
This is a really late reply to this post, but I don't see why it's "OK" for second hand retailers/renters to make money hand over fist on goods they had nothing to do with creating and not giving even a tiny cut to the people who made the goods. It's one thing to sell your own used copy of something on the second hand market, but it's another thing entirely to have a business that exists solely to profit off of someone else's labor.
So the following businesses should no longer exist under your theory, since they all make money without reimbursing the original creator :
Used/rare book stores
Antique stores
Thrift stores
Used car dealers
Consignment stores
eBay
Mind you, I hate eBay as much as the next guy, but I respect their right to conduct business.
So the following businesses should no longer exist under your theory, since they all make money without reimbursing the original creator :
Used/rare book stores
Antique stores
Thrift stores
Used car dealers
Consignment stores
eBay
Mind you, I hate eBay as much as the next guy, but I respect their right to conduct business.
Most of those types of stores don't have brand new versions of the same product sitting 2 inches away from the vastly cheaper used version. If a store deals in only second hand goods, that's one thing, but when they're a retailer of new goods, I don't think it's right to place used cheaper copies directly next to brand new ones in a retail environment.
Most of those types of stores don't have brand new versions of the same product sitting 2 inches away from the vastly cheaper used version. If a store deals in only second hand goods, that's one thing, but when they're a retailer of new goods, I don't think it's right to place used cheaper copies directly next to brand new ones in a retail environment.
Why not? Why restrict the choice of the consumer?
You can either buy a game new, knowing that it is in pristine condition, has all the documentation, and has a full manufacturer's warranty, or you can buy it used, knowing that it may have some cosmetic damage or wear & tear, possibly missing documentation, and a shorter (if any) warranty. The lower price reflects the lesser quality of the used item. Sounds like a fair choice to me.
New and used cars are frequently sold on the same dealer lot. You can often find a used car from the previous model year that costs half of a new one, and the models may be virtually identical if there have been no major design changes. Should used cars be forbidden from being sold on the same lot as new cars?
You can either buy a game new, knowing that it is in pristine condition, has all the documentation, and has a full manufacturer's warranty, or you can buy it used, knowing that it may have some cosmetic damage or wear & tear, possibly missing documentation, and a shorter (if any) warranty. The lower price reflects the lesser quality of the used item. Sounds like a fair choice to me.
New and used cars are frequently sold on the same dealer lot. You can often find a used car from the previous model year that costs half of a new one, and the models may be virtually identical if there have been no major design changes. Should used cars be forbidden from being sold on the same lot as new cars?
Considering the auto industry is crumbling due to a lack of new car purchases, that might be a good idea.
My local Gamestop will gladly show you the used copy before you buy it if you ask to see it, so if condition is an issue, you just ask them to pull it down and look at it before you buy it. Used games aren't typically "lesser quality" than new, unless having some plastic wrap around a case is that important to you.
Gamestop refinishes any disc that has any scratches or anything like that, so there is almost no difference to buying used. I'm fairly certain Gamestop has a 30 day "return for any reason" policy for used games, also, so I think their policy for used games is far more lenient than for new, as I believe for new games, you can only return a sealed copy, or exchange it for a new (opened) copy of the same game. There is virtually no manufacturer's warranty to speak of on software purchases, as any non-working software is typically just exchanged at the store for a different copy of the same software.
It's equivalent to if you went to the auto lot and there was a brand new car with a piece of tape over the door indicating it hadn't been opened, and one with no difference whatsoever, besides the lack of the piece of tape, was sitting right next to it for 10-20% cheaper. You'd have to be an idiot to grab the new one in that situation.
Considering the auto industry is crumbling due to a lack of new car purchases, that might be a good idea.
The US auto industry was betting all of its chips on high-margin SUV and truck sales; when gas prices rose, credit tightened, and the recession affected consumers' willingness to spend, sales tanked. Their failure was their own fault from poor planning, and they shouldn't be rewarded by getting a cut of used car prices!
My local Gamestop will gladly show you the used copy before you buy it if you ask to see it, so if condition is an issue, you just ask them to pull it down and look at it before you buy it. Used games aren't typically "lesser quality" than new, unless having some plastic wrap around a case is that important to you.
Many of the used games I've examined look like they've been to hell and back. You must live near a Gamestop where games are meticulously cared for by glove-wearing gaming enthusiasts before they're traded in.
I'm fairly certain Gamestop has a 30 day "return for any reason" policy for used games, also, so I think their policy for used games is far more lenient than for new, as I believe for new games, you can only return a sealed copy, or exchange it for a new (opened) copy of the same game.
Nope. Only 7 days to return a used game for any reason, and I believe they track this to make sure people don't abuse it (note in the fine print that they reserve the right to refuse any return!)
There is virtually no manufacturer's warranty to speak of on software purchases, as any non-working software is typically just exchanged at the store for a different copy of the same software.
Nope again. I finally caved and bought the "opened but new" copy of Vampyre Story from my local Gamestop-owned Planet X I mentioned earlier in the thread, and the manual specifically states:
DreamCatcher will gladly replace any disc free of charge, whether accidentally damaged or due to manufacturer defect, within the first year of ownership
DreamCatcher may legally restrict that warranty only to the original purchaser. Buying used does not guarantee you'll get that one-year warranty.
Gamestop's used game return-for-defects warranty is only 30 days. Again, you get what you pay for.
It's equivalent to if you went to the auto lot and there was a brand new car with a piece of tape over the door indicating it hadn't been opened, and one with no difference whatsoever, besides the lack of the piece of tape, was sitting right next to it for 10-20% cheaper. You'd have to be an idiot to grab the new one in that situation.
You don't know how the used car was treated by the previous owner unless you examine the engine and transmission. You no longer have the manufacturer's original warranty, which for some brands can last as long as 100,000 miles. There's no way I'd buy a used car if it was only 10%-20% cheaper than new. Likewise, I'd never buy a used game that's only $5 less than new.
Bottom line is that if Gamestop can sucker people into buying used, then more power to them. They have every legal right to, and if they can separate that much money from consumers' wallets in the process, good for them. I think buying used is usually foolish, but I'm in the minority.
Many of the used games I've examined look like they've been to hell and back. You must live near a Gamestop where games are meticulously cared for by glove-wearing gaming enthusiasts before they're traded in.
Some of them, maybe, but any used game I have ever bought in my life was in near mint condition.
You don't know how the used car was treated by the previous owner unless you examine the engine and transmission. You no longer have the manufacturer's original warranty, which for some brands can last as long as 100,000 miles. There's no way I'd buy a used car if it was only 10%-20% cheaper than new. Likewise, I'd never buy a used game that's only $5 less than new.
My comparison wasn't meant to be about engine condition/previous owners etc. as I clearly stated the only difference between the two was the tape on the door, which is 95% of the time the case with a used vs new game purchase at Gamestop, although you apparently live in a place where people violently stomp on their games before trading them in, I guess.
Edit: PS: My car was purchased used and is still covered under the manufacturer's warranty.
Bottom line is that if Gamestop can sucker people into buying used, then more power to them. They have every legal right to, and if they can separate that much money from consumers' wallets in the process, good for them. I think buying used is usually foolish, but I'm in the minority.
I still don't think it's right for a company to offer used products alongside new ones, regardless of its current legality. I don't think it's fair to artists/creators in general to lose sales to the second hand market directly from a first hand retailer.
I said before I have no problem with the second hand market, and I have no problem even with retailers entirely dedicated to selling second hand copies of things, especially if it's something that isn't available new anymore, but I think if a store is going to stock a used, and for all intents and purposes, exactly equal copy of something right next to the brand new copy, a cut of the sale should still go to the developer, even if it's just a tiny fraction.
Comments
Sadly, I don't really know any other way to cheer up people. Hugs sometimes work but he's a programmer! He'd probably faint from so much contact with another human being.
Rainbows on Telltale's forums tend to remind people of Hugh Bliss, so I'm not sure that's such a calming effect.
Edited P.S. After seeing messages posted while I was writing this: Programmers like hugs, too.
With hardened crankypants cynics, I just hang around until they're thoroughly sick of my sweetness and sunshine. When I finally give up and go away they're flooded with a euphoric sense of relief. It's surprisingly effective.
You could achieve the same effect by being rude and insulting them for the same length of time.
Well, then why do they weep when I give them one, or scream weird stuff I don't get?
I don't know about you, but if I'm rude I feel terrible, while if I'm nice I feel great. If both achieve the same effect, might as well choose the one that doesn't make you feel like crap.
I couldn't do that, I love the hardened cynics in my life.
a) a rabbit singing a song in French about kisses and hugs
b) if it doesn't help you feel better, an alternate solution to solve your problems (I have no clue what the video is about).
Clang clang Maxwell's silver hammer made sure that she was dead.
Also, wait, Yare has a problem? I'm noticing that everyone else is annoyingly chipper, but Yare seems to be doing fine.
Well, being bitchy, bitter and cynical is normal for you, but we're not sure if it is for Yare so we're trying to cheer him up just in case.
Big Brother is watching.
(and also Avistew... the stalker.)
Don't forget intransigent.
Haven't you heard? GameStop's concurrence has been pretty harsh on the guys, now they have a bunch of computers on cardboard boxes and whoever isn't using the computers has to peddle to generate more energy.
(Okay, I meant pedal. But that's funny too.)
At the end of every rainbow is a mugged leprechaun.
Attachment not found.
Cost of living is based on the cost of rental accommodation and various goods and services (e.g. price of a hamburger, cost of an average trip on public transport). Quality of living is a separate index that takes into account things like personal safety, hygiene, and city infrastructure. Both of these indexes (indices, if you must) are relative, using New York as the base of 100 (i.e. NY will always be at 100, and everything else is compared to NY). The chart is based on 2009 data.
So San Francisco is relatively inexpensive compared to places like Tokyo, Paris, London or New York, but the quality of life is ostensibly the same or better (in other words, SF is good value!).
Apparently I should ditch London and go back to Sydney though.
I think we can show this chart every time an Australian complains about cost of shipping, though
Quality of living
Mercer evaluates local living conditions in all the 420 cities it surveys worldwide. Living conditions are analysed according to 39 factors, grouped in 10 categories:
What I find the most interesting is that while quality of life is pretty much the same everywhere, cost can change so much... I guess you should expect the same quality of life in the western world, but it's still... I don't know, it's like everyone is getting the same thing, but people in Sydney are paying only a third of what people in Tokyo do.
And all of that is big cities, the cost of living is so much lower in smaller places (although to be fair, I'd say the quality of life is, as well, if you follow these criteria: you often don't get very good public transit, you have access to less stuff, etc).
Of course, none of that is really applicable to the "company" part of it, since we don't know what kind of taxes each city has.
And Sydney's low cost of living is quite striking. Seems like Australia would be a pretty awesome place to live, if it wasn't for the few puritanical paranoids who're forcing all that censorship legislation on the poor Aussies. (No, I won't shut up about it, those people are dangerous)
I think a large part of the international variation in cost of living is due to the relative strength or weakness of the currency compared to the US dollar. It's not comparing the cost of living to the median household income in that city, so to be honest I don't think it gives a real indication of how affordable it actually is for most people living there. I'd be very interested to see that kind of data.
If anyone is interested, the 2009 top 50 lists for the cost of living and quality of living indexes are available here and here, along with more detailed info on how they're calculated.
Good point. The cost of living is shown as higher in Paris than San Francisco, but minimum wage is higher in France than the US, for instance. I can't speak about wages in general or on average though.
Then other stuff come into account, for instance you're not allowed to have two jobs or work over 35 hours a week in France except in specific cases (the goal is to reduce unemployment, therefore people have to hire more employees rather than be allowed to make the current ones work more), which can be bad (you'd like to work more so you can pay your bills) but also good (you're obviously less overworked).
Thanks for posting all this data. It's very interesting and is making me think I should move to Australia or Paris.
I kind of like the idea of having maximum work hours in France. That way people can't overwork themselves, and so they will get sick less. It seems like a good idea. Although, I can see the problems if you just don't have enough money to pay your bills each month.
QFT. Call a spade a spade. Call renting a game license a rent and stop charging $60+ for games. Ridiculous. I understand companies need to make money and all, but it is becoming too much. I'd rather not pay so much for something I'm never really ever going to own. I'm glad TTG's games are still pretty cheap. Also, I saw Left 4 Dead 2 in a Gamestop for $29.99 (turns out it's $29.99 on Steam too). It was just $49.99 a couple months ago when I last saw it. And it wasn't used because you can't sell a used pre-HL2 Valve game. Valve at least tries to constantly give deals to their customers to make up for high prices.
Yeah... Because the unemployment was so high they reduced it from 40 (well, 39) to 35. It's not the only such law, either. They're a mix of "trying to help the most people at once" (more people work, even if they work less) and "trying to protect the employees" so they don't get overworked and stuff.
The "not allowed to have two jobs" is a bit different. While technically it's legal as long as both jobs combined don't push you over the maximum hours, in practice most jobs will have a "no other job" clause in their contacts.
I think that one is more for the employer: they don't want you to be tired and cranky from another job and end up less productive or something.
But there are other laws like that that taken together get really annoying. I remember when I tried to get a part-time job, 20 hours over two days. I was told "sorry, the law requires us to spread that over at least four days". So instead of having 5 days to study, write, etc, I'd have 4 days taken out for 20 lousy hours?!
You have other "maximum hours" stuff (no more than 10 hours in a workday, no more than 5 hours without a 30 minute break, no less than 12 hours between shifts). I remember how frustrating it was in McDonald's, when one day I'd end up doing overtime, so the next day even though I was one time I wasn't allowed to work (it hadn't been 12 hours) and had to just wait there. Usually for a couple of hours).
Which didn't prevent them from considering it "showing up late for work), which was the most frustrating part.
Or once I was done eating during my break and decided to get back to work (I had taken my break late so it was the normal time to start work again), but the machine didn't let me because I hadn't taken a full break.
All these things are meant to cause you to overwork yourself less, but in the end it's time you spend at work, not being paid, instead of ether working them or finishing earlier and having more time at home and stuff. It's pretty frustrating. You'd also regularly on Saturdays (the McDonald's weeks started on Sundays) have the machine's alarm because someone had reached 35 hours, and had to stop working NOW. So most Saturdays we ended up short on staff because they had worked extra hours during the week. And Saturday isn't a day you want to be short on staff -_-'.
Anyway, I guess it's nice that your employer can't take advantage of you these ways (oh, you also need your two days off to be in a row) but much too often it comes and bite you in the ass, because the time you would have worked ends up pretty much lost.
I also remember when I worked at the frozen food store, we had 2 hour breaks for lunch. Two freaking hours. Sure, you could go home (and waste an extra hour or so of unpaid transiting) but some people couldn't, and well, you ended up losing 2 hours in the middle of every workday. It was pretty ridiculous, I'd have preferred 15-30 minutes to eat and finishing earlier or starting later, or even working that time and getting paid.
That is very annoying. Especially if you don't work close to home.
A lot of people I went to college with would miss classes because their boss wanted them to cover for someone else's shift. And the boss would intimidate them into staying longer. So although that does seem a little extreme and frustrating, the way it is here in the US is really not good either.
This is a really late reply to this post, but I don't see why it's "OK" for second hand retailers/renters to make money hand over fist on goods they had nothing to do with creating and not giving even a tiny cut to the people who made the goods. It's one thing to sell your own used copy of something on the second hand market, but it's another thing entirely to have a business that exists solely to profit off of someone else's labor.
If you made something and were selling it, would you think it was cool if someone was selling used copies of your product (which cuts into your potential customer base, since they would no longer have a desire to buy your product in a way that provides you, the one who made it and deserves the profits from it, any cut of the profits) and not giving you a dime or even asking you if it was cool?
But if GameStop makes $ without paying anyone in the gaming industry money what-so-ever obviously something is wrong.
They are thinking here about putting tax on CD's and HardDisks' and MP3-players for the music companies because everybody will use them to play illegal music anyway. That's just plain stupid. So why can GameStop do stuff like that without any penalty, like us consumer's are stuffed down the throat by copyright companies (and as a result; infuriate many people)?
There are no "rental copies" for video games.
Although I guess with the easy possibility of burning a disk that's probbably a bad idea. A x days ability to play like some Steam actions probably makes more sense in that regard...
Maybe that's (part of) the problem. If the rental copies were different and you had to pay rental fees and stuff, people would get part of the money.
On the other hand, try finding a rental place for games in Paris. Unless it has drastically changed, you might find one and that's it. It costs so much that nobody wants to risk it, and as a result games are much less accessible. Not only would that mean less gamers (a lot of people started out by renting) but it probably also means more pirating (although I guess you said that's preferable).
Maybe if it's something in the middle? Rental place paying more for games, but not four times the price?
So the following businesses should no longer exist under your theory, since they all make money without reimbursing the original creator :
- Used/rare book stores
- Antique stores
- Thrift stores
- Used car dealers
- Consignment stores
- eBay
Mind you, I hate eBay as much as the next guy, but I respect their right to conduct business.Most of those types of stores don't have brand new versions of the same product sitting 2 inches away from the vastly cheaper used version. If a store deals in only second hand goods, that's one thing, but when they're a retailer of new goods, I don't think it's right to place used cheaper copies directly next to brand new ones in a retail environment.
You can either buy a game new, knowing that it is in pristine condition, has all the documentation, and has a full manufacturer's warranty, or you can buy it used, knowing that it may have some cosmetic damage or wear & tear, possibly missing documentation, and a shorter (if any) warranty. The lower price reflects the lesser quality of the used item. Sounds like a fair choice to me.
New and used cars are frequently sold on the same dealer lot. You can often find a used car from the previous model year that costs half of a new one, and the models may be virtually identical if there have been no major design changes. Should used cars be forbidden from being sold on the same lot as new cars?
Considering the auto industry is crumbling due to a lack of new car purchases, that might be a good idea.
My local Gamestop will gladly show you the used copy before you buy it if you ask to see it, so if condition is an issue, you just ask them to pull it down and look at it before you buy it. Used games aren't typically "lesser quality" than new, unless having some plastic wrap around a case is that important to you.
Gamestop refinishes any disc that has any scratches or anything like that, so there is almost no difference to buying used. I'm fairly certain Gamestop has a 30 day "return for any reason" policy for used games, also, so I think their policy for used games is far more lenient than for new, as I believe for new games, you can only return a sealed copy, or exchange it for a new (opened) copy of the same game. There is virtually no manufacturer's warranty to speak of on software purchases, as any non-working software is typically just exchanged at the store for a different copy of the same software.
It's equivalent to if you went to the auto lot and there was a brand new car with a piece of tape over the door indicating it hadn't been opened, and one with no difference whatsoever, besides the lack of the piece of tape, was sitting right next to it for 10-20% cheaper. You'd have to be an idiot to grab the new one in that situation.
Many of the used games I've examined look like they've been to hell and back. You must live near a Gamestop where games are meticulously cared for by glove-wearing gaming enthusiasts before they're traded in.
How do you know how many times a disc has been refinished?
Nope. Only 7 days to return a used game for any reason, and I believe they track this to make sure people don't abuse it (note in the fine print that they reserve the right to refuse any return!)
Nope again. I finally caved and bought the "opened but new" copy of Vampyre Story from my local Gamestop-owned Planet X I mentioned earlier in the thread, and the manual specifically states:
DreamCatcher may legally restrict that warranty only to the original purchaser. Buying used does not guarantee you'll get that one-year warranty.
Gamestop's used game return-for-defects warranty is only 30 days. Again, you get what you pay for.
You don't know how the used car was treated by the previous owner unless you examine the engine and transmission. You no longer have the manufacturer's original warranty, which for some brands can last as long as 100,000 miles. There's no way I'd buy a used car if it was only 10%-20% cheaper than new. Likewise, I'd never buy a used game that's only $5 less than new.
Bottom line is that if Gamestop can sucker people into buying used, then more power to them. They have every legal right to, and if they can separate that much money from consumers' wallets in the process, good for them. I think buying used is usually foolish, but I'm in the minority.
Some of them, maybe, but any used game I have ever bought in my life was in near mint condition.
Given the nature of a game disc, if you can't tell that it's defective within the first 30 days of ownership, there is no way it is defective.
My comparison wasn't meant to be about engine condition/previous owners etc. as I clearly stated the only difference between the two was the tape on the door, which is 95% of the time the case with a used vs new game purchase at Gamestop, although you apparently live in a place where people violently stomp on their games before trading them in, I guess.
Edit: PS: My car was purchased used and is still covered under the manufacturer's warranty.
I still don't think it's right for a company to offer used products alongside new ones, regardless of its current legality. I don't think it's fair to artists/creators in general to lose sales to the second hand market directly from a first hand retailer.
I said before I have no problem with the second hand market, and I have no problem even with retailers entirely dedicated to selling second hand copies of things, especially if it's something that isn't available new anymore, but I think if a store is going to stock a used, and for all intents and purposes, exactly equal copy of something right next to the brand new copy, a cut of the sale should still go to the developer, even if it's just a tiny fraction.