Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
hmm...all this "used game" uproar
Joshua69
Member UncommonPosts: 953
THQ really isn't happy about used games. Sony has also made statements about future attempts to counter act used games. Apparently what they are going to push is not allowing used games to be played online...
I never buy used games. But I see why people do. I also see why big companies hate used games. So I'm not to sure how to feel about this. Even thinking of it as "less used game sales means more money in company pockets", isn't neccicarily good either. I'm guessing a majority of used game sales are crappy B.S games no one cares about or just really old titles. Used games for recently released titles are only $5 off. A majority of people just get new at the point, IMO.
Comments
Most games require a key these days, and if it doesnt, then how do they know its used?
If they game does have a key and the previous owner used the key, then how can you expect to use it, and then if they didnt use the key, then its a new game.
I guess I'm not really understand what you mean by this because in my head it doesnt work.
It's only 5 dollars off at say gamestop. You can buy used games elsewhere, Amazon has used game selling. Best buy is beggining to join the fray. It's not so much about buying the game used even when they are new but sometimes I'll wait several monthes for a triple A title that may have gotten okay ratings and it's not something I would prefer to just rent to drop in price. So sometimes I'll still get it new if it goes down enough but many times I get it used.
More money in the company's hand is always a good thing. Means better games, more developers, less firing etc. Only thing is, many games are not worth $60. I personally think the gaming industry needs to restructre it's pricing schedule. If a game like GTA4 sells about 2 million on it's opening month across two platforms, why are the other 40-50 or whatever million not buying the game? Probably price. (some it's probably age but only some)
That's just my thought though and as long as publishers keep the current pricing, I'm sure both used game selling and dissapointing first month sales will continue to happen (perhaps unless a drastic change in the economy happens as well).
heres is the sony article
http://www.gamespot.com/news/6274384.html?tag=stitialclk;news
and I think THQ said something about games being locked in some way to the consel *shrug*. That's why I posted, I don't much get what they will do either. but im sure there are ways, they will figure it out.
It's called online pass. Basically you need a to input a code to play online. Used games will (most likely) not have that code because the previous owner used it. You then have to pay an extra $15 to play online. It has apparantly worked for EA and so more companies are following.
hrmm that makes sense. I can see that working. I don't recall buying any games that had that implemented so far. But I don't buy much councel. Just the popular titles such as Gears of War. And thinking about it, that would really put a kill into used games. No online for FPS and Sports games would cripple them horribly.
I think this is totally stupid. I would not buy a Xbox 360, or a PS3 for these reasons. If I want to buy a used game and play it, then I have the right to do so. But I will not support a company that restricts this in any way.
I think the developers are just mad because people dont like a failed game so they go out and get a used game that costs $40 from gamestop for $20 on ebay or something because someone else did not like it.
This used game thing only affects online play right. So if I by a used game like Lord of the Rings Battle of Middle Earth II or World in Conflict used I can still play the campaign and single player or am I restricted there too ? A used key in these games that run Securom or other DRM software will it prevent me from playing it at all ?
Too bad it doesn´t work the other way around. Personally I very rarely play online on consoles, other then sports games, I´d love to get 15$ off the full retail price to skip the key.
All statements I make is from my point of view unless stated otherwise.
Another reason this wont work. When a used game is activiated by PS3, or XBOX360, it activates by console hardware information, or IP/router information from your home. If your xbox 360 goes out, and you change it, and try to play online again, then you would have to pay them $10. Unless they had each user create an account first.
Well 1) Most of the developers that use it are big developers that have published the biggest games.
2) Very few games have it really. Only EA sports thus far and other companies planning it.
3) It doesn't limit you at all if you buy said game NEW.
4) Developers are mad about used games because they get absolutly no money from it. Hence why gamestop wants you to buy games used. They get all the money.
All systems have their ups and downs. PC gaming is pretty much the worst of the bunch, It's impossible to rent PC games. So unless there is a good demo or a good free trial, you can never be sure what you are getting. Consoles at least have a renting possibility. Developers need to see that gaming is expensive! Hence why more and more smaller cheaper titles are popping up. It's slightly less risky and many people buy them just because they are cheaper.
ooo good call. But to play online with 360 at all you need to have an account thats been Xbox live activated. So yea it would save to that Xbox Live account. No idea about PS3.
First Sale Doctrine.
Title 17, Chapter 1, § 109 of the United States Copyright code.
Game publishers are being greedy and unethical.
'Nuff said.
nice. I'm still sideing with the Dev's however. So that says they can't stop used game sales. Fair enough. Doesn't mean they cant "impede upon" the second owners game play.
No, people are cheap and will buy the $5 cheaper used copy, thats why they sell the $5 cheaper used copy.
Apparently stating the truth in my sig is "trolling"
Sig typo fixed thanks to an observant stragen001.
pleh! I suppose you are right. I used to work at Gamestop and their cycling of used games saves people "some" money in the long wrong, I can't deny that. However, I also did netflix. Netflix > Gamestop, totally. Their used games price's are also better.
I also look at it as; if there was no used games then perhaps more piracy and maybe even more expensive new games. But more money in Dev pockets could mean less costly games?
Have you ever purchased a used car? How about a home that wasn't part of a new residential development? The original makers of the autos or homes do not gain from the secondary sales. Can you imagine if you weren't allowed to drive on the roads because you weren't the original owner of the car?
How about stock? Unless you were part of an IPO, you are purchasing "used" stock in a secondary market. Does that mean that you should not be entitled to receive dividends because you weren't the original owner?
The game companies are really beeing greedy right now.
You need to perform maintanence and buy parts for videogames now? no? then i guess your analogy makes no sense then does it?
Car comapnies make money off parts, and repairs, and a house sint a single item you just buy, its just likie a computer, made of thousands of different parts from hundreds of different companies.
Every time a gamer compares a game to a car its just laugh worthy.
Apparently stating the truth in my sig is "trolling"
Sig typo fixed thanks to an observant stragen001.
Oh, sorry for the analagy. Apparently only analagies that fit "exacty" in every way are appropriate. Gosh do I feel silly.
Not to mention that a gamer never owns a game. In fact, nobody every owns any software. You own a revocable license to use it in the manner that was intended. The physical media is just a transportation method. When you buy or sell game, you're simply transfering the license through possession of the media. Whether you should be allowed to transfer the license is the question. For single player games, the publisher made money from the initial sale, but what if the game changes hands several times? That means the publisher won't make any money from those sales when at least some of the new holders might otherwise have purchased a new copy. Also, please remember, SOMEBODY is making money from these sales, just not the people who actually own the games. Instead, it's companies like Gamestop and Best Buy. They're profiting from selling software without passing royalties back to the owners. Would this even be an issue if they were required to do so? What if Gamestop had to pay a % of the used game sale back to THQ (for example).? THQ would make money, Gamestop might make money, player still gets a used game.
~Ripper
theres not fitting exactly, and theres not fitting at all, yours was the second one, used cars are NOTHING like used games, at all.
Apparently stating the truth in my sig is "trolling"
Sig typo fixed thanks to an observant stragen001.
An analogy helps illustrate a point through descriptive comparison - aples to apples. If its apples to oranges, it doesn't really make much sense.
~Ripper
Actually, for used games, the companies tend to not care about PC Games as much, thanks to new DRM and CD - Key restrictions. For PC games, they worry more about piracy. However, for console games, publishers and even developers hate used games. The reason why is simple, though is not necessarily a good thing.
When a retailer sells a new game, funds from that game go to the retailer and trickle their way up to the publisher and the developer. The developer usually gets some kind of royalties on these (very low amount, even for most big time developers... but considering something like 1 million game sales, this adds up). However, when a retailer sells a used game, the retailer purely makes the profit, minus the cost of buying the title from the previous owner. This means that the retailer keeps the funds completely, meaning the publisher, developer, and anyone else up the chain get nothing.
Now, as a developer, I will say royalties for a game can be nice. However, I also believe in consumer power to exchange media for their own prices, as long as it is not purely pirating. And even if a game title sucked a lot, the publisher would still prefer to make money on any sale of the game to recoup cost, rather than let the retailers get all of the money.
I hope this was informative!
This is another example of the short sightedness of video game companies. I can promise these companies that there will be unintended consequences if they make haste judgments. Use games sails actually are good for all parties involved.
Everyone is on a budget and children are only going to be able to get so many games a year. Now If I buy son 4 new games a year he has to make a choice what 4 games he wants. One year it may be Madden and one year it may be an NBA game, who knows.
With used games he has the ability to get the same amount of new games but he also has the ability to get used games and that means he is involved and connected to more series of games. Used games allow people to pick up games and that they would not have normally played and then become a fan of the series. They might be the new one of when it comes out.
It happens for non-sports games too that are in a series. Growing the market is good for everyone. Shrinking the market is bad for everyone. The idea that you can stifle a market and still get grow is fundamentally against economic principles and any MBA can it explain it in length.
Video game companies should be focused on growing the pie even if there section of the pie is smaller because they would make more money in the long run. The inherent problem is their greed and foolishness blinds them from basic economic principles. I have a bad feeling about the way the video game industry right now and it makes me shudder when I think about where it will be in 15 years. The amount of time, money, and effort being devoted to constricting gaming is getting out of hand; DRM anyone. They have never been able to stop the cheaters all they do is waste resources and time. The honest people usually end up getting shafted and that is where they make their money anyway.
The more rules and obstacles the more people rebel and push away. Oh, well not my company and am I getting to old for games anyway. I feel bad for my kids though.
--John Ruskin
Bottom line is that I'm really surprised they haven't done this sort of thing sooner. Offline/SP games remain unaffected anyway, and this, if anything may push more attention to PC gaming if it pushes console users away.
"The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it."
George Bernard Shaw
What is a cynic? A man who knows the price of everything and the value of nothing.
Oscar Wilde
"My thoughts as a dev:
There is another point to make besides the fact that buying used games does not send money to the developer. Unlike the movies, we do not have a theatre release. That boxed copy on the shelf (or digital download) is our only means of revenue generation. This is why we love digital delivery. There are no used games on Steam.
I know you guys catch a ton of shit for talking about topics like this, but if even a small percentage of your readers walk away a little more educated on the subject then it is a big win for everyone (except gamestop)"
"Hey Mike. I worked at a Gamestop for three years in Dixon, CA, and I can no longer support saving $10 on used games after seeing all of the profit Gamestop turns by hurting the very developers that fuel their business. Every used game purchase means another chance to sell Game Informer, which is just a rag to hype GS pre-orders, which just happens to come with a card that entices you to buy more used games and trade in your new games for less than a third of what you paid for them, which in turn will be sold to someone else for 200% markup. I realize that economic times are tough and people need to save money where they can, but buying used is bad for the industry that is providing you with all of this entertainment. No one wants to see the big picture, so now we get these "buy new or get effed" tactics that publishers are pushing.
Here's a suggestion; how about making the new games more affordable? Another advantage of used at Gamestop is that you can return the games if you don't like them. I have a feeling that there's a lot of underrated games that may have sold much better at the $50 price point."
quotes from: http://www.penny-arcade.com/2010/8/25/