Ben-DutkaPublishers really don't like pre-owned games. The game sells again; the publisher doesn't see a dime of that new sale.
So it probably shouldn't be surprising to see the big boys take certain steps, like EA Sports' Online Pass, which requires players to enter a one-time code for certain in-game content and access to online multiplayer. To follow, THQ did something similar and Ubisoft has already publicly supported such ideas. Now, Activision has joined the fray; during last night's Q2 investor's call, COO Thomas Tippl confirmed his company's own unique maneuver to combat pre-owned sales. He says they'll increase the importance of its DLC so as to "limit the supply" of content in pre-owned titles:
"We are still evaluating various possibilities for greater participation in the used-games business. What's been working the best so far is providing additional content and therefore limiting the supply to used games. So that's a proven strategy that we will continue. And any other initiatives, we will be talking about when we get closer to it."
He added that Activision is utilizing "more resources than ever" in creating extra content for the Call of Duty franchise, so one can expect some significant bonus material for the upcoming Black Ops . But at this rate, publishers will take a variety of routes so as to squeeze a bit of money out of a massive pre-owned industry that nets them nothing. We'll have to see what other companies do in the future…
Underdog, it's also not been technologically feasible to track unlicensed use until recent years, that's one of the reasons that enforcement has historically been difficult.
i can see keys being used for games just like they use them on computers.
Best solution for Activision, EA, Ubisoft, whoever…if you want to make money from your games and want to make purchasing new games more enticing than used games, don't sell your games at $60/euro…For the amount of people who will buy their game and all it's downloadable content after the initial sale, they're already making back their money many times over. There's no excuse. Talk as much as you like about licensing and it's legality regarding used games. Still doesn't excuse the greed us gamers have forced on us. I get that these companies are about making money, I speak from a gamers point of view, or at least thats my point of view anyway.
I get that alot of work goes into some games and in some cases we're talking big budget movie money, but big budget movies don't cost $60/euro when they release on DVD/Bluray unless they are special editions and offer more bang for your buck!
Yeah, you're right. But if games only cost $20, GameStop would sell it for $15 used… and lots of people would still opt for the $15 one… I know a lot of Dutch family members that would!
i have moral issues with activision anyway. An Activision games i buy 2nd hand or rent and my moral issues feel better knowing that activision is getting minimal amount of money from me.
With all due respect dude, all that Activision moral stuff is crap. All these game companies are the same. Leave the in-house fighting in-house. Otherwise you'd never buy a game from anyone because there's none of them any different. If they create a good game, I do want to support that company. If they make a bad game I won't support that company. And yes I do think they should see some money coming back from all sales of a game, whether or not it's second hand or new. I just think they're all going about this BS the wrong way.
@Underdog15
And that's around the time I'd start trying to come up with solutions to used games sales problems. As of yet, lowering the prices of games hasn't even been discussed as an option with these companies.
They'd rather leave everything at the same extortionist price and find a way to squeeze more out of anyone who lives for their online gaming.
Then what they'll have is gamers not playing online when they start getting charged for the privilege. But gamers will still be buying games second hand since they'll only be using them for single player games. So they're solving nothing like this.
If they knock down their prices to reasonable used game prices (I won't get greedy, lets say $30euro a game), and still have problems with places like gamestop selling their games second hand, then they can play the licensing card and sue the ass off the retailers like gamestop or whoever forcing them to stop the sales at the source. Surely that'd be cheaper for them than having to go after every gamer who uses a game and violates the licensing law.
Last edited by frostface on 8/6/2010 2:41:43 PM
Yeah, it would be cheaper. Only problem with the porous law as it is now, is that they'll never be able to go after ppl like gamestop. Legally, they haven't done anything wrong due to the bullcrap about the physical parts being separate from the data it contains… (Even if morally, they have.)
I think this topic is so touchy because there isn't a single party involved that hasn't done something wrong. The dev.'s could do much more to prevent it like lowering costs or offering incentives for buying new as opposed to fees for buying used. I'm sure there's more they could do! The distributors are enabling the sale en mass of second hand games. If it was just a small amount, it might not be a big deal… More than half of those stores are filled with a majority of used rather than new. And third, we the consumers are at fault for enabling a market for used games and pretending like we aren't in violation of any copyright laws.
Anyways, in a perfect world, this issue would be solved in a very different way than how it's being solved now. Ideally, it would take a reform of the law to fix it so the consumer doesn't suffer. But there are too many GameStop, Amazon, etc. companies that are huge and would lose stock dramatically which would affect alot of people and cause a lash out at the government. So, because of the hold used sales divisions have on the entire media industry, that law will never change.
maybe the publishers should work with retailers etc to give them more incentive to push new games all the time. Alternatively drop the price and cut out the retailer specific bullcrap pre-order bonu s that have somehow become the norm. Or Give the gamer more incentive to by new. i do like the releasing a standard version and then the special edition for the same price as long as any dlc they offer up in the dlc version is not released to others ie like a year later someone who buys pre-owned can get access to it
I actually support this
I don't get why so many are against it
Because its opening more doors for publishers to gouge the consumer. They don't like Gamestop, they should find away to punish Gamestop, not the consumers who are taking advantage of the options given to them by the free market.
I don't like Gamestop either but by charging us more money for Gamestops misgivings isn't the right way to go about it. I find it hard to take a company like Activision seriously when they whine about not making enough money after charging $14.99 per map pack.
I'm torn, i see both sides of the arguments. My wife and I own our own business and i wouldn't want people duplicating our product(there are copy right laws for that) but i also don't want to tell them they can't resell the original if that's their desire. They bought it, they paid me the money, they don't own the image on the stamp, merely the rubber it's etched on. That said, i still can't tell them what to do with that rubber or image as long as they are not illegally duplicating it.
Copying a movie or game and then selling it is against the law. Selling the original copy to a friend or your local game store, music store etc is not.
Last edited by Jawknee on 8/6/2010 4:11:59 PM
Because right now i can sell a game on ebay and get ~$35 depending on the game. If activision wants to charge $15 to "activate" a used copy then my selling price will most likey drop to $20. That means that my initial purchase is worth $15 less to me because it loses that much as soon as i use it on my console.
It makes the game worth less to the first owner because the resale value tanks. Some games i buy with the intention of selling them as soon as i get through the campaign. Like MW2. I could buy it for $60 on day 1, finish the campaign a few days later because its laughably short, then sell it on ebay for ~$45 probably. But when the 2nd buyer has to pay $15 to activate the game on his console he will likely only spend $30 on it. Meaning i'll play it for a week and spend $30 on the game instead of $15. MW's campaign isnt worth $30 to me, so i'll not bother with the game at all.
It gets really messy really quickly.
I do tend to be a bit old-school when it comes to this. I dont have any DLC at all because its worthless once i'm done with it. For example, i bought a disc copy of Ratchet: Q4B from Hong Kong (which is awesome with the chinese writing on the case). I paid $30 for it. I could have downloaded the game for $15. But if i lose my job a month from now i can sell my copy of Q4B for probably around $20 seeing as its not easy to get them over in the US. But if i had the DLC version i couldnt do anything with it. Granted, this way only amounts to $5 in my pocket, but on a larger scale it can make a huge difference.
Not that i'd ever sell my R&C collection. I'd eat ramen every day before i sell my favorite games 😉
If I see a game I want, I just buy it when it releases or later at discounted prices off the internet, but always new and unopened.
I gave away 2 games to a friend of mine's kid. I didn't like the games, but he didn't have to accept them either. I'd rather do that than sell them to Gamestop.
Somebody has to buy these games new to support the developers or they'll disappear, ( maybe into thin air, who knows?…). That's reason enough for me to purchase all of mine new.
Activision isn't getting any of my money anyway, so this won't affect me. I love being immune to sh**.
i have a answer for that
ill buy a moded xbox 360 and then ill buy cheap games for a single dolar or just download them from the internet and for who are asking in my country there is no law for copyrights of video games
in my country im a doctor and my salary is less than 500 dollars and they are asking me to buy a new game for 120 dollar over here
thats not going right for me
i can only offer used games
and what people buying games when they dont have any internet connection?will the free DLC still be available by then
in the other hand the used games market price for the used games will drop dramatically after downloading the free DLC the are talking about and then maybe we will be able to download that same DLC after BUYING it
but still this is an open market game makers with better offer (better content with less price)will still be seeling more
I mostly enjoy single player games so this does not bother me as much but i do have slight concerns with it.
1. Under this model will devs start cutting content and move it to dlc?
2a. Will companies look at the EA Sports method and start applying it to other games.
b. Will companies expand on this concept and require you to input a code for the single player experience.
I think that if they do go down this road pirating could come back in a big way. I know people might disagree with this since consoles have become more connected and secure (especially PS3) but people want the most bang for their buck and if they think they are getting hosed then they will look towards the hacking and modding community for a solution.
I'm personally surprised that game developers have not tried harder to work with places like Gamestop. In exchange for exclusive pre-order bonuses, beta keys,exclusive in-game content and things like that, developers get 5-10 percent of used game sales of their game for the first 1 or 2 years that the game has been out.
The publishers fail to realise that the used game market does actually help keep the new game market moving…
If I buy a new release game here in Australia it will cost $100. If I knew that this purchase was a one time cost with no possibility of getting anything back from a trade in, this would 1. limit the amount of new games I can purchase in a year and 2. Make me reticent to buy games at full price and make me wait a few months until they are $69 or less.
So buying Red Dead Redemption for $89 on day one and then trading it in a month later for $50 meant I could then buy Demon's Souls BP Edition for $65 on it's day one Australia release.
This cycle will continue between used and new games.
You can't trade in used PC games, so you know what? They are priced at $20 less than the console version of the same game.
Eliminate the used game market and the game publishers will need to drop their new game prices accordingly and I don't think they want to do that!
All Tippl is saying is that they're making dlc for their games which in turns encourages people to keep the game instead of selling it. Isn't that a good thing?
If you hate the game then sell it. But so many gamers buy games they like but then sell them to have money for the next hit. Tippl is hoping good dlc will prevent people from getting rid of their games.
It's certainly a better idea than what they came out with for StarCraft II.
Won't affect game sharers
RANDOM THOUGHT: If it wasnt for pre owned games, I never would of played MW thus never buying MW2 as a day 1 purchase. When I bought MW last june, I found it for $30 when it was still (well over a year after its release) $60 in the stores. Maybe if they lowered there prices slightly people wouldnt buy used. Bioshock 2 was dropped half price at my local walmart (which is when I picked it up), since then they have been selling at a good rate.
Last edited by DeadReaper on 8/6/2010 7:13:50 PM
Pay $60 for an incomplete game? No thanks…
…not that I'd be buying an Activision product new in this current time frame anyway.
Come to think of it, this is just simply encouraging pre-owned game sales. Those who buy it second-hand could be paying around $60 for the game and DLC all-in-all, but those who buy it new will be paying much more. Doesn't make sense to me.
Last edited by 556pineapple on 8/6/2010 8:00:56 PM
I buy Activision games second hand and refuse to support companies who are really just finding ways to steal my money. Penny pinch me, I penny pinch you.
I don't care much about the Used Games argument… I will do what is right for my wallet… selfish I know, but it is a dog eat dog world…
Moving on… This idea that Activision is turning this whole CoD series into a commodious FPS factory line is amusing. These franchised CoD games may be good, and have fairly high production standards, however I will never buy into this continuous stream of CoD drivel being produced. It is the same re-hashed game content over and over again.
I would rather purchase my 2-4 games per year… the best titles I can own and that I will enjoy, rather than building up a collection of shovel ware…
I can see a lot of people "losing" a lot of money in the coming years as they get sucked into this mindless drivel!
Q!
"play.experience.enjoy"
Last edited by Qubex on 8/6/2010 8:58:32 PM
This is what gamers get for supporting DLC so much, companies getting greedy on the dollar. In return, you'll this back fire in the long run for the companies when people start becoming stingy with the dollar.
To be fair it's really only big publishers like Activision and suck ups like Capcom who are gouging us and taking advantage of DLC. A lot of the Uncharted 2 and LittleBigPlanet has been worth it. $14.99 for map packs and $5.99 for content that should have been in the game but wasn't because of the lack of space on the DVD is a joke.
I buy triple A titles and exclusives new (that I want) if it's a game im unsure of then I either wait for a price drop, or I might pick it up used. I blame the developers of the iffy titles for making low quality games, I know they cant all be triple A due to time and money restraints, but there's no reason to reward people for making crappy games. Remember the gimped ports we ate for full price when the PS3 launched? That wasn't fair to PS3 consumers to pay full price for games that were inferior compared to other versions. Take Bayonetta for example.
Let the lawyers and big shot corporate executives worry about the copyright issues and so forth, that is why they make all that money. I mean I agree with artist's being rewarded for their work, but it's not the consumers fault that the artist isn't getting money when a third party redistributes their product, that's the artist's fault, but instead of risking tarnishing the industrie's image by suing companies like Gamestop for royalties, they'd rather take it to the consumers. Why wouldnt they? They could sue a handful of companies and maybe get a new arrangement where they make a percentage off of each resell plus royalties, and risk crippling their image (Gamestop does a lot of advertising, plus it's where suburban moms take their kids to get ripped off on trade-ins) or they could sell something to a couple hundred thousand people for $10 per dlc item per game, where do you think they'll make more money?
Sorry for the long post I had a lot to say.
Naztycuts… length of posts are usually not an issue as long as they are written well and are interesting to read. Most people here, the community at large, write well and are informative… and bring new fresh information to the site. A lot of comments add value to the already excellent articles Ben and the team put up…
Whilst personal views differ, a community like this is vital to the industry at large… giving a shared, and hopefully, balanced view of the positives and negatives we have to deal with every time we part with our hard earned dollars…
No need to apologise I would say 🙂 We all like to rant, we all have good days and bad days and need to get things off our chests… you are no different I am sure…
Q!
"play.experience.enjoy"
Thanks Qubex, I've been around a bit, just not as much lately. As soon as I posted I thought to myself "Why'd I put that I'm not a noob, and I feel like I contributed with most things I said" and just as luck would have it the edit button is out of order, I swear it only disappears when you need it. lol
Well, I understand it, but my dilemma's a lot different than most…..
I'm a gaming collector & I HAVE to buy most of my games used just to try keeping up with my collections.
Plus, even though I'll never play my strategy games, my RPG's, or my sports games, I still needed them in order to complete my never-ending collections. And to top it off, if they are multi-plat games, that means I also need multiple copies to satisfy each consoles format it's on too.
And there's just no way I could have bought my 1500 games ALL new.
Now with that said, I do also buy new games now & then if I really want to play that game, & if there's a good sale or price drop(Ace Combat 1 through Zero).
And I've heard so much great reaction about Fallout3, that I've been on the lookout for a good deal & just bought the PS3 FO-3 GOTY copy with all 5 expansion packs included, for only $39.99 last week ago at Gamestop
(Yes, I did said Gamestop & NEW in the same sentence).
But buying it even for that price scared me cause I've also heard it's an RPG(Isure hope it's just some slight RPG elements to it) Anyway, Once I finish inFamous, I'll pop it in & see if I either spent too much money on a game style I don't like, or it will wind up being an RPG lite, that I can finally sink my choppers into.
***FALLOUT3 SPOILER ALERT****
BTW, I did sample it for a short bit & got as far as to where I made my player as a female, had her birthday party, and had her kick that bully's a$$ in front of his friends in the corrider.
Right now I saved it at the part where she's ordered to go into the classroom to take the big test every citizen supposed to take.
But so far, I'm really not feeling the game too much & I sure hope it get's much better & isn't such a yawner as now.
If not, then I'll never finish it & will always regret not waiting a couple more years till a used copy drops to under $20
Now as for any company that does this, I only do single player mode so I don't think it will affect me, at least at the moment.
But…..if any develop/publisher starts doing this to the SP mode too, then the only thing that they've guaranteed themselves, is that they will NEVER, EVER get 1 dime from me & that I'll only buy it used(and I'll bet that lots of other gamers will start doing so too).
You know something, this is supposed to be the gen where it only get's better for the gamer,and in some ways it is.
But in too many ways its not! Instead, I'm starting to see a bad moon arising, with some company's trying to nickel & dime us with 1/2 finished games, or chopped content made into DLC for more profit.
And I BLAME MS using their immoral tactics for starting this rotten-to-the-core trend, that showed these conniving bastard companies just how they've been fleecing the world for the last couple gens.
And if this keeps up, someday I might just wind up ending my quest for any future games collections for good, & go back to concentrating on just retro-gaming.
I mean, there's still a ton of games I want and still need in my collections, from the most recent PS2/Xbox gen, and going all the way back to my old Atari 2600/Intellivision/Colecovision days
That's "Saint's" law!!!!
Next time this topic comes up I think I shall stay away. I cannot believe that a group of people who appear to be well spoken and educated could hold intellectual property in such low regard and value it so little. Copyright is absolutely necessary in the information age, and with technology providing a convenient method for mass infringement of so much intellectual property finding ways to encourage consumers to pay instead of freeload is vital.
If copyright and Intellectual property rights are the domain only of lawyers and corporations, then we are doomed to a future with no new music, art, theater, movies, TV, books, games or any other intangible product that is considered intellectual property.
Good luck in that future kids, you won't like it very much.
And as for the person who thinks I am somehow backing big business, you're so far off base it's comical. Copyright at it's heart is designed to protect the rights of the creators of content. Corporations don't create these things, individuals do. By an large the majority of copyrights are held by individuals. They are the ones that need protection.
Well, you know as well as I that younger individuals are ALL anti-establishment, anti-corporation, etc, etc, etc. They have to be; look at the environment in which they're raised. It's part of their daily education, for crying out loud. Don't worry. They'll grow up. Pretty soon, they'll be as old as us…and they'll get it. 😉
All I have to say is that anybody who so wholeheartedly backs the "power to the people" ideology should read Ibsen's "An Enemy of the People."
The idea that everyone is qualified to do everything will kill us all.
Last edited by Ben Dutka PSXE on 8/7/2010 12:50:34 AM
Would you agree that its up to the artist's to see that they are paid properly for their work? I mean if I buy a movie off of blockbuster's shelf, wouldn't the studio get a percentage of the money from the rental? They should have seen this coming last gen, and covered their hides before they decided to jack up games another twenty bucks this generation. At this rate PS4 games will be $80, that's outrageous.
You're right Ben, and to be honest, this particular discussion today left me feeling as old as the hills. Ah well, back to my recliner, I'd best get my house shoes and pipe before I retire for my evening nap…
LOL!
Nazty: Outrageous? If you think so. I do the math for my entertainment.
Blu-Ray Movie- $20-$30 for 1.5 to 3 hours.
CD- $15-$20 for 45 minutes to 1.5 hours.
Book- $10-$30 for maybe up to 20 hours.
I'd give up my games before I'd give up my books, but that's beside the point.
Games- $60 for anywhere from 6 (absolute minimum) to 100+ hours. Average of about 20-30 per game for many people. Do the math. In terms of dollar amount per hour of entertainment. Then tell me what's "outrageous."
Ben I was speaking on my opinion I should have said so I guess. I see what you're saying comparing it to other forms of media, but we had ps1 games that were 100+ hours for a fraction of what we pay now, I understand that the technology costs more, but they have to reach a limit right? Otherwise by the time PS8 comes out we'll be paying $180 a game, that's outrageous to me. 🙂
PS1 games weren't any longer at all. We only get that feeling because of the large number of RPGs, and none of those were 100+ hours, either. FFVII can be finished in about 25 hours but we forget that because we all played it longer.
In reality, games aren't much shorter now than they were then. I know where you're coming from, in that $60 is more than the entrance fee for other forms of entertainment. I understand that. But we have to try to be logical, I guess.
@Naztycuts
The price of a PS1 game in 1995 was -IIRC – $35/$40 (US prices). If you apply inflation only to the price, you would end up today with a price between $50 and $60. Which is precisely where game prices are right now.
PlayStation 3 games no more in real terms than game did in 1995. Actually they cost less since they are the best quality games around and in 1995 Nintendo claimed a graphical advantage for the N64 and sold it's games at a monster tag of $75 which today would be more in the $110 range.
Considering that the cost to develop a game for the PS1 was a fraction of the cost to develop a game for the PS3, the $60 price tag for games now is a comparative bargain since development costs are higher in real terms and the cost of the game to the consumer is the same as it was in 1995.
Games are *not* more expensive now than in 1995. Inflation has to be considered when comparing a price from today with one from 15 years ago.
i really can not understand companies logic and attitude lately!
why not just reduce the games by 20 bucks than maybe people wont buy them preowned?
my house is on fire, so im going to solve that by beating it with a 4×4 which is also on fire!
people are pirating our games, so to solve that were going to restrict content and charge them for it!
yea, that should get them to buy it!
*rolls eyes!*
as the saying goes, you catch more flies with honey than vinegar!
this is exactly why i say i can see this gen being my last of gaming.
not only has the quality of games declined the cost has gone through the roof!
ps2 games here use to be 70 AUD now most new releases are 120!
but thats till not enough, now i have to pay if i want to play online?
soon your going to have to pay to open the freaking disk tray!
o, im sorry i cant do that it requires a 2.99 weekly fee!
when will these selfish fat cats stop turning us upside down and shaking the cash out?
NEVER! ill tell you why, because no one has the balls to stand up and do something about it!
they do it, because they can!
why did the rabbit cross the road?
because it can!
why did man fly too the moon?
because we could!
why did man climb the worlds highest mountain?
because he could!
people are going to do whatever they can get away with, until people stand up and say no thats not acceptable its never going to stop!
"———————-", I have to admit that in Australia and New Zealand, your bottoms are being widened… the price of AU$120 is absolutely obscene. Have you thought of ordering the games from New Zealand. You would save 20% on the exchange rate… that may help somewhat.
Re-reading this comments thread, I must say, that the easiest way out would be to simply wait for price drops of the said original titles, then you can still buy original but maybe 6 months later, when you can get it at half price. That way you support the developers but wait to pay what you think the game is worth to you…
Q!
"play.experience.enjoy"
Last edited by Qubex on 8/7/2010 7:41:58 AM
yeah, i only wish i had the Patience to wait 6 months that would save me thousands!
i dont want to import games either because ive had really bad luck with importing games, most ive bought never arrived and the ones that did took over a month to get here!
games seriously need a price drop here, if you buy a game a month than its nothing but i have to buy every game and that gets dam expensive!
dont ask why, i dunno why every game that releases i feel like i have to go play it no matter what!
its really annoying, i wish i could scrub that habit but i cant!
just in may alone i spent 1000 bucks on games!
tell ya what, you dont realize how much cash your blowing till you sit down and really think about it!
Trust me, before getting into this hobby, I already did a financial risk analysis on it… I restrict myself to a couple of games from PSN, and 2 to 4 AAA titles per year… it is more like 4 per year is my going rate… and that stitches me up enough to keep me busy for the year.
I simply don't have the time to play games for hours on end, unlike many here. I am a traveling executive… I don't play on the PS3 most week day evenings, but only on the weekends for the most part… so it is tough for me…
Q!
"play.experience.enjoy"
Last edited by Qubex on 8/7/2010 10:56:55 AM
I can buy used books and use them without trouble. I can buy used DVDs/BDs and use them without trouble. I can buy used CDs, tapes, vinyl records, 8-tracks, SNES games, etc., and use all of them without trouble. Why is the doctrine of first sale suddenly not good enough for game makers? This is what is generally known as Grade-A Bullshit, folks.
Damit Activision. I already won't ever buy an EA games game new again and I've been thinking about this for Activision too…