Ben-DutkaIt seems like every publisher and game maker is looking at ways to turn a profit in the used game market.
We already have EA's Online Pass program, THQ recently announced it would bundle access to online play with new copies of WWE Smackdown vs. Raw 2011 and charge used game players a fee for online admission, and Activision has also expressed a desire to take similar steps. Now, it's Sony's turn. During a recent GamesIndustry.biz interview , SCEE head man Andrew House said the company "supports publisher incentives to monetize the second-hand game market through charging for online play." Said House:
"On the principle of making online portions of the game available or unlocked from the disc-based release for a fee, we're broadly supportive of that. And we're exploring actively the same option for our own content."
Although it has been refuted since, we had heard that Activision would install a subscription service to play their popular Call of Duty franchise online, but House said Sony would have difficulty adopting that method. House makes a point of saying they have a 70% connection rate across consoles concerning the Network, and he attributes that number to the lack of a price barrier. And remember, this only relates to used games, so it won't affect those who typically purchase their games new.
Just make a trophy that pops when you put a new game's registration code into the main menu.
You know how many people buy used and rent games just so they can platinum the thing and move on? If you had to OWN the game in order to get Platinum, then you'd REALLY see new game sales increase.
True story.
geh I still believe that when you own the copy of a game you should be able to do whatever you want with it. Are they going to start implementing lines that dissappear in books once they change owner so that every one buys new books only? XD
Seriously this gen makes me believe I don't own anything I buy and I personnally thinkn it b**w*.
Yes it is sad for them poor rich compagnies to lose a portion of their fortune to people who just can't afford to own 70 games and trade them in to get credit on newer ones… You know I really miss the time when we all purchased a different game on n64 and shared it one with another XD and I don't recall that killing any gaming compagny. And you know the ones who really hurt them are hackers and is that stopping them? lol heck no.
I say s c r e w em! 😀 Give us full rights on what we purchase and stop imposing your stupid activation codes. Seriously starting to p**s me off.
Be fair man, games cost a lot more to make these days and the online portion means someone's got to pay for servers.
Yeah but the games are also more expensive and you got all those add-on map packs to pay for in order to keep playing the game online since if you don't buy em you get left behind by the crowd.
And isnt the ps3 a p2p thing? Thought we were our own servers at the exeption of a few big titles.
And arent we a heck of alot more to buy games these days too? O_O
Because by doing so they will destroy the value of our games. Whats the point of owning any game then? Just make us pay 200$ per year to have access to all games on the network and keep control over us the way they want… And like depending on your subscription you may have access to more or fewer games per year. Not bad huh?
Because paying 67.72 can dollars for a game thats going to be worth not even 20$ once it is opened is kind of sad anyway. Imagine those collector guys also: ''yeah I have that crazy ps3 game from 10yrs ago… Though I'm missing half the content since its a used one I got from ebay 🙁 '' lol
I think that for this gen they should stick to giving us full games that we do whatever we want with ( no copies though lol that IS evil ) and go play at friends houses with em if we want and all that crap. And then NEXT GEN maybe they could consider cloud gaming and subscription and stuff. Because doing the switch halfway isnt really cutting it with me and alot of people probably 🙁
Last edited by Neo_Aeon666 on 8/25/2010 12:39:08 AM
Sorry, you're wrong. Games are less expensive today in real terms than they were 4 years ago when the PS3 launched, and less expensive than they were when the PS1 ruled the roost. People only ever look at the base price. But when you account for inflation, games have in fact come down in price – in real terms. So let's not argue that games are more expensive as an excuse for not paying shall we?
Ok well they SOLD the new game. They got there money. The NEW game gets traded in, now it's used… Gamestop wants to RESELL it but the developers wont get cash. Well they already SOLD it didn't they? Oooh I see 🙂 It's all about the money! Silly me money's are for developers.
I see this as a counteract for what happened last week. that's mean people with limited budget will have to wait for a price drop to buy the games.
It's actually a good point.
the other reason i get used sometimes is coz something aren't worth the money… and im a very skint student.
@Neo_Aeon666 Microsoft uses P2P for online play, Sony uses servers. So WorldEnds has a valid point about the cost of server upkeep.
Last edited by Evil Incarnate on 8/25/2010 8:55:02 AM
In terms of the servers, Neo, even the ones that are P2P often require a server from the dev to evaluate clients or matchmake. True, they require minimal maintenance (if any, in terms of MW2), but they do exist.
I'm not going to get into licensing laws again, this time around. I'll just remind everyone that digital goods are different from physical ones. So stop comparing the data on those game disks to the disks themselves, books, cars, etc. As far as the law is concerned, they aren't the same. If you can't figure it out, I'm certainly not wasting my time trying to help you all out again.
Last edited by Underdog15 on 8/25/2010 9:13:44 AM
Just to pick up on what TheHighlander said about the cost of video games going down over time (in terms of purchasing power); I recently came across a box containing all my old NES games from over 20 years ago. The price right on the box of each of them was $59.99, the price that I know find on new AAA titles today.
You know how many people rent games to see if it's any good before you buy them. Why should we be pentilized for devs that can't make decent games and then charge you $60 bucks you'll never get back.
Anyhow its not about an excuse for anything but diminishing the value of my purchase to such an extent is downright wrong and I wont forgive them for it. That is all XD
@ underdog15 I get what you mean and I know that the law is that way 🙁 but doesn't mean I don't think it is wrong and to me a book is no different than a few data lines on a disc.
And I don't think any of that changes the fact that in the past we were more *free* to do what we wanted with the products we purchased. They are slowly putting a choker around our neck to control us like we are their little money cows XD
Last edited by Neo_Aeon666 on 8/26/2010 12:10:06 AM
Yeah, that's fair. I said at another point a bit about differing moral values for being the reason for heated discussion. I personally have varying opinions that eventually land on just saying each user should contribute to the person that made it. But that doesn't mean I can't respect other opinions.
The only reason I get heated is because people seem to be heavily opinionated while ignoring the facts… Why can't people develop opinions while acknowledging what is fact? Those are the people I get mad at.
But as for you, I fully get what you're saying.
Well, after all is said and done this horning in on the used game market is gonna be good for me. I don't care for online play at all, and there's a chance this might drop prices of certain games on ebay.
I wonder if all of this will stimulate more full price sales, or squash used sales. Interesting. And I doubt Bobby Kotex can resist charging money for a service that EA is making money with for very long. It may not be a subscription, but it'll be something.
These ideas make sense.
I wonder, though. If this sort of measure were implemented, would we see used games drop lower in price than they are now?
That is, if the average used game drops $5-10 to compensate for the lack of online play, I would really like this business model. This way, I could choose whether or not I want to pay extra for online play.
I understand where they are coming from, but I don't see publishers removing songs from used CDs or chapters from used books. For me personally, the fact that it's used is tarnish enough. Most of the used games I buy are older ones, like PS2 and earlier. I like my new games new.
Last edited by 556pineapple on 8/24/2010 10:22:28 PM
I haven't bought a used game in years, like many years.
I know the games I want. I'm well informed.
The only used games I buy for the most part is older PS2 games I lose over the years or missed out on, or PS3 games that at the time it was more economical for me to get used since they were fairly old.
I'm the same, I decide if I want a game b4 it comes out. the last time I bought a used game was a couple of years ago when I had a PS2.
plus I don't play much online, if I do it's for a trophy unless I like it, but the only online experience I liked was COD4:MW(not MW2, the entire game sucks and is way, way over rated) and Dirt 2(which was my first platinum).
The next online experience I will enjoy is GT5 and maybe MOH.
This is a scoash off topic but in the same mileau so perhaps it can be forgiven. I was gone for a couple days but I don't think I saw anything on PSXE about it. Square Enix's now delayed Final Fantasy XIV is going to penalize you if you play for more than an hour per day. Can you believe it!? They have officially lost their minds. I could see if you weren't paying a monthly subscription MAYBE, but this is insane.
Every hour after that first one cuts your XP until it is zero. Then it takes a few days for this "fatigue" to go away.
What? *scratches head*
If you play for 4 hours you will gain no more XP until your "fatigue" runs out. I think it is just a way of keeping the servers unpacked, but SE is saying they are doing it to get people to make more characters and try different classes, etc and so forth.
It is in a Famitsu interview, I'm sure there will be an english translation making the rounds soon.
Last edited by WorldEndsWithMe on 8/24/2010 11:37:19 PM
I wouldn't play an MMO for 4 hours…unless it's one of those crazy nights.
But this is really weird of Square…hmmm maybe they want to encourage people not to spend 24 hours playing this game. Yes…there are people who get addicted badly to these MMOs…
Say what now? Perhaps they're scared of being taken to court by some soft-minded gamer who got hooked on FFXIV?
Still, if they cap the amount of XP you can gain in a session, it will limit the speed with which you can advance your character.
Still, it seems an odd decision…
a few DAYS for the fatigue to go away? What kind of nonsense is this now?
I'd offer you the link, but it isn't work-friendly. Just sit tight, I'm betting Ben will report on it soon.
I disagree with this, it seems like another way to penny pinch the gamer. That being said, I usually buy my games new anyway. I will point out that used games usually cost 5-10 dollars less than the new version and if they start to charging for the online portion in these used games, the price will be just as much as a new game. In other words don't be so cheap and support you hobbie.
Ohhh I just buy used games, and I only buy new ones if they are cheap on ebay =(
Bad news for me, but I don't do much online, just Killzone 2
Every attempt to fight the used game market only end up in failure and only help to fuel the used game market.
If game developers really want curb the used game market(and piracy), then stop bleeding consumers and release NEW games at cheaper/affordable prices.
And then the used game prices would just drop along side and you'd be in the same predicament….
Bleeding gamers? Oh, will you listen to yourself? You're complaining about having to pay a legitimate price for a luxury hobby.
Quite apart from anything else, games are not more expensive now than they've ever been. In fact they're less expensive now (in real terms) than they were 4 years ago when the PS3 launched. Not only that they are less expensive than PS1 or SNES games were (again – in real terms).
@highlander
This guy is forever supporting the “Company†and not the gamer, so take what he says with a grain of salt. Anyways, the reason people complain Highlander is because all games are not created equal. Example: I have spent 125 hours playing RDR @ $60 value…that’s a whole 48 cents an hour. Then you have say God of War III, also $60, but it only takes 8 hours to complete…that’s $7.50 an hour of game play. So the complaint is that all games shouldn’t be $60…they should be 50 cents an hour. And this is why people buy used…they read reviews and find out the game they want is only a 4 hour game play and decide they will wait and buy it for $30 in 2 weeks when it’s used…Is that their fault for being a smart consumer? I think not.
@Deej,
You know, I'm truly sick of people who don't think, blundering into these discussions and making claims about what I believe.
What I believe is that people should get paid for their work. If you can't or won't take the time to consider the topic before responding, then don't respond.
Answer the question I've posed elsewhere. Why is it OK to reward GameStop for gouging the purchaser of used games, but not reward the developer of the game? When you buy a game used you are not paying the developer/publisher anything. They are the ones that worked to make and deliver the game to you. All GameStop did to get you the used copy you buy is pay pennies on the dollar to some other schmuck who was willing to accept their derisory offer. Now after a swift 120% mark-up, they're selling that game to you and keeping every cent they make on the deal. If I was supporting the company, why am I not supporting GameStop? Gamestop clearly are better than the develoers, after all the developers want us to pay them for their work, and GameStop want us to pay them for ripping off someone else. Sure seems like GameStop's used game business is the way to go…
::rolls eyes::
What's wrong with paying the developer for their work? If you don't think the game is worth a purchase new, then rent it.
I'm with TheHighlander! No more schmucks selling to GameStop !
@Highlander
You crack me up with statements like “You know, I'm truly sick of people who don't think, blundering into these discussions and making claims about what I believe.†Yet you are the one who puts your 2 cents in on everyone else’s comments…and if you haven’t noticed, most of your comments get thumbs down. At least on this topic.
It’s funny how you always speak of the developer and how they should be paid for their work. And from my point of view, they are, from those “First sale†of their product that you speak about. So basically they already made their money the first time around and everything else is just greed. Brings to mind Metallica and Napster back in the day. BooHoo the multi-million dollars artist wants more money…ie greed! Yet nobody ever had an issue with people recording songs off the radio…technically the same thing as a download, right? I mean you still weren’t buying it, but you never heard any complaints. Artist’s use to just be happy that people were enjoying what they created…now artist’s (developers) are just worried about the extra money they might be losing from used game sales and profit margins instead of letting as many enjoy the experience as possible. And no, I have no monetary issues with buying as many new games as I want, it’s more of a principle (like the price per hour that I previously mentioned), so I don’t fall into the whole eat or play category.
That doesn’t mean I buy games used from Gamestop that much either. They are usually still way overpriced. But I have no problem with going to a local store like Slacker’s or shopping on ebay. And unfortunately what you want to do would basically put local second hand game stores out of business by cutting their profits in half.
So the day that EA or Activision goes bankrupt from used game sales is the same day that I give a rats ass about the few million dollars lost to a billion dollar company.
To me, it really sounds like this guy is one of those “Let the rich get richer†type of people.
@Deej,
So now I'm a company man, I'm a rich get richer type and if I'm to believe others here I'm something of a socialist and a communist to boot. Wow, I must really get around.
There is an expression that I think covers this entire day's commenting by many on this topic. It goes like this;
There are none so blind as those who cannot (or will not) see.
Last edited by TheHighlander on 8/25/2010 4:18:04 PM
@HIGHLANDER
At least you've let me know that I'm not the only one on this forum who thinks you are a loony tune.
Oh and enough with the philosophical babble bs statements…no one cares that you know how to copy and paste from the web to sound smart…i think you did the same thing when we all were discussing licensing agreements a while back.
Here's how to become a master know-it-all like Highlander…
Control "C"
Control "V"
@Deej,
Sorry, but you are mistaken. I don't need to look up a pithy comment on some wiki and cut and paste. Although you seem very familiar with that procedure.
By the way, you never did answer the one simple question I posed.
Why is it OK to reward GameStop for gouging the purchaser of used games, but not reward the developer of the game?
Last edited by TheHighlander on 8/25/2010 5:24:03 PM
Well I didn't get around to reading everyone's comments but it seems that I semi-agree with Highlander while semi-agreeing with the rest of the herd.
I believe Highlander is right when he says that publishers are losing out on games when people exchange games through systematic means. Returning games to Gamestop puts back games on the shelf that have already been bought by the consumer. Therefore, when a consumer looking for a particular game sees both the used and new game on the shelf, those consumers that purchase the used game give all their money to Gamestop. However, if that consumer were to purchase the new game, the publisher would have received some payment for their work.
Just imagine every time a game is released a guy posts the data for the game online and sells it as a digital download for the world. Everyone decides to pay the online seller because he only charges $25 for a game that would have cost $60 and even sends each of his customers a complimentary bluray disc for their purchases. Basically, the company publisher would only receive $60 for the one guy's purchase while the guy distributing the downloads would reap the benefits of the developer's and publisher's product.
@Highlander
You asked:
"Why is it OK to reward GameStop for gouging the purchaser of used games, but not reward the developer of the game?"
Well, the developer already was rewarded with the sale of the first game and then GameStop is then rewarded for the sale of a used game using their brilliant business sense and ability to find loopholes in the law. And why are you so adamant about this with the “game†industry? Have you never bought a used DVD from Blockbuster? What if when you purchased a used DVD and you were only allowed to watch ¾ of the movie and then had to pay the difference between the used version and the new version of say $5.00 to watch the ending…sounds pretty dumb to me, yet you seem to argue for it. If you are going to argue for one form of media then you have to argue for all forms or you’re a hypocrite. So I’m guessing you’ve never burned a CD from a friend or downloaded a song; borrowed a book from a friend (thief!!!) or hell even borrowed a DVD (also thief, because you should have paid full price at the store so that the movie studio gets their cut)….cause if you’ve done any of these things then your arguments have no ground beneath them and you would indeed be being a hypocrite.
I'm adamant about this with games because games are different to DVDs.
With Movies and TV, the DVD/BluRay sales are pure gravy for the production company. The Movie has already made it's money in the cinema, and the TV show was already paid for by syndication and advertising revenue. the DVD and Bluray sales are additional, they are the icing on the cake.
With games, it's the core revenue stream. They have no alternative revenue stream other than selling the game. The sales of each copy of the game are not icing, they are the cake. The icing is the money from things like DLC. If two people buy and use a game and one of the purchases is 'used, then the producer/developer only ever see's half the revenue for that game disc. One of the users did not pay the publisher/developer for the game.
People continually try to say that someone already paid for the game so it's OK. No it's not. That's like saying that when you go to the cinema, you can take your ticket outside after seeing the movie and resell it at a slight discount to someone else in line for the movie.
You would agree that in that case, the movie theater and the maker of the movie both lose out on the ticket sale, correct? You also have to agree that if you did that, you could actually be arrested for trying to sell your used movie ticket to another customer. But tell me what is the difference between selling a used movie ticket and selling a used game? In both cases the original purchaser has viewed the content, they consumed the product. Now they want to sell it to someone else…
As for the rest of your post…. Borrowing a book from a friend, like borrowing a book from a library is covered, in fact, by both the fair use principle with copyright and the first sale doctrine. Libraries could not exist otherwise. When you are loaned a book, no transaction takes place.
To answer your challenge about burning Cds or DVDs. I've never downloaded and burned a CD from the Internet, or a DVD. Nor have I borrowed a CD or DVD to do so. I've ripped my own CDs that I have purchased and used the MP3s I created, but that is a mode shift that falls under fair use – since I already owned the CD. I can say the same about DVDs.
But the thing is even if I had borrowed a DVD from a friend to view, borrowing someone else's copy is permissible under copyright law. There is no sale, no money changes hands, it's all legal and above board.
You see, I do know about copyright, and I do everything I can, as a consumer, to ensure that I remain within the law and reward content creators for their work.
Last edited by TheHighlander on 8/26/2010 9:52:59 AM
Why is everyone so angry with Gamestop? I love Gamestop – I use them all the time to unload my used games, although only when they have a 50% extra trade-in credit or similar offer going on. I never buy (used or new) from Gamestop, I usually just accumulate store credit until there's enough to just go in and buy hardware tax free. For e.g., I used the 200$ trade-in offer for trading in my 60GB PS3 Phat and got a slim for 0$ out of pocket – just used 100$ of store credit. I still have about 370$ of store credit left which will now help in buying both Kinect and Move (again tax free). Games I buy new but usually after a week or 2 (except for ones I'm really waiting for like GOW3 or Uncharted) of release since they usually dip by 10-20$. The money still goes to the devs, just not the full 60$.
Why is everyone so angry with Gamestop? I love Gamestop – I use them all the time to unload my used games, although only when they have a 50% extra trade-in credit or similar offer going on. I never buy (used or new) from Gamestop, I usually just accumulate store credit until there's enough to just go in and buy hardware tax free. For e.g., I used the 200$ trade-in offer for trading in my 60GB PS3 Phat and got a slim for 0$ out of pocket – just used 100$ of store credit. I still have about 370$ of store credit left which will now help in buying both Kinect and Move (again tax free). Games I buy new but usually after a week or 2 (except for ones I'm really waiting for like GOW3 or Uncharted) of release since they usually dip by 10-20$. The money still goes to the devs, just not the full 60$.
Why is everyone so angry with Gamestop? I love Gamestop – I use them all the time to unload my used games, although only when they have a 50% extra trade-in credit or similar offer going on. I never buy (used or new) from Gamestop, I usually just accumulate store credit until there's enough to just go in and buy hardware tax free. For e.g., I used the 200$ trade-in offer for trading in my 60GB PS3 Phat and got a slim for 0$ out of pocket – just used 100$ of store credit. I still have about 370$ of store credit left which will now help in buying both Kinect and Move (again tax free). Games I buy new but usually after a week or 2 (except for ones I'm really waiting for like GOW3 or Uncharted) of release since they usually dip by 10-20$. The money still goes to the devs, just not the full 60$.
Why is everyone so angry with Gamestop? I love Gamestop – I use them all the time to unload my used games, although only when they have a 50% extra trade-in credit or similar offer going on. I never buy (used or new) from Gamestop, I usually just accumulate store credit until there's enough to just go in and buy hardware tax free. For e.g., I used the 200$ trade-in offer for trading in my 60GB PS3 Phat and got a slim for 0$ out of pocket – just used 100$ of store credit. I still have about 370$ of store credit left which will now help in buying both Kinect and Move (again tax free). Games I buy new but usually after a week or 2 (except for ones I'm really waiting for like GOW3 or Uncharted) of release since they usually dip by 10-20$. The money still goes to the devs, just not the full 60$.
Why is everyone so angry with Gamestop? I love Gamestop – I use them all the time to unload my used games, although only when they have a 50% extra trade-in credit or similar offer going on. I never buy (used or new) from Gamestop, I usually just accumulate store credit until there's enough to just go in and buy hardware tax free. For e.g., I used the 200$ trade-in offer for trading in my 60GB PS3 Phat and got a slim for 0$ out of pocket – just used 100$ of store credit. I still have about 370$ of store credit left which will now help in buying both Kinect and Move (again tax free). Games I buy new but usually after a week or 2 (except for ones I'm really waiting for like GOW3 or Uncharted) of release since they usually dip by 10-20$. The money still goes to the devs, just not the full 60$.
Why is everyone so angry with Gamestop? I love Gamestop – I use them all the time to unload my used games, although only when they have a 50% extra trade-in credit or similar offer going on. I never buy (used or new) from Gamestop, I usually just accumulate store credit until there's enough to just go in and buy hardware tax free. For e.g., I used the 200$ trade-in offer for trading in my 60GB PS3 Phat and got a slim for 0$ out of pocket – just used 100$ of store credit. I still have about 370$ of store credit left which will now help in buying both Kinect and Move (again tax free). Games I buy new but usually after a week or 2 (except for ones I'm really waiting for like GOW3 or Uncharted) of release since they usually dip by 10-20$. The money still goes to the devs, just not the full 60$.
Why is everyone so angry with Gamestop? I love Gamestop – I use them all the time to unload my used games, although only when they have a 50% extra trade-in credit or similar offer going on. I never buy (used or new) from Gamestop, I usually just accumulate store credit until there's enough to just go in and buy hardware tax free. For e.g., I used the 200$ trade-in offer for trading in my 60GB PS3 Phat and got a slim for 0$ out of pocket – just used 100$ of store credit. I still have about 370$ of store credit left which will now help in buying both Kinect and Move (again tax free). Games I buy new but usually after a week or 2 (except for ones I'm really waiting for like GOW3 or Uncharted) of release since they usually dip by 10-20$. The money still goes to the devs, just not the full 60$.