Log in or sign up to comment
177 Comments
  • 177 results
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
Posted by Phished0ne

I never buy used or  brand new anymore, if i get a game relatively new i always wait for the price to drop a bit first.  I usually rent games,  Protip: you can steal these online codes right out of the game boxes at video stores usually.  That's how i got Ruin Mode when i rented the new Red Faction game, and also how i'm involved in the Uncharted 3 Beta. 
 
Although i  dont like this practice, i dont care for the above stated reasons. Also, i really dont play many online games.  But, I see it as a necessary  evil,  the devs and pubs have the right to use whatever incentives they want to get people to buy new.   The people saying it should be some "extra content" are wrong, because any extra content it would add, probably would be so negligible  it wouldn't be a valid incentive.  Couldn't be new maps, because it would split the online userbase. The other stuff that EA tried with Bulletstorm and THQ tried with Red Faction was so negligible i don't think it worked as a valid incentive.
 
Finally, all the people who say it will never happen to 360 games are fooling themselves, the EA online pass is across all platforms so it is only a matter of time before more pubs jump on this bandwagon.  

Posted by radioflyr309

Not sure if anyone has noticed this, but Gamestop has been lowering their prices on used games that require an online code. For instance, most new games that go for $59.99 the first week of release go for $54.99 used at Gamestop.
 
But those requiring an online pass that is $5, Gamestop will sell it for $47.99 and those requiring a $10 pass they will sell for $39.99. So technically, instead of saving $5, now you are saving $7-$10. So nothing has really changed. Gamestop makes so much mark-up on used games that they can play this game all day with publishers.
 
The funny thing is, your regular customer that goes into Gamestop to buy the new Mortal Kombat, but isn't going to play it online; they're now more likely to buy a used game for $39.99 when the new one is $59.99 than if the used one was $54.99. Not sure if publishers thought that one out really, but meh. This will neither hurt nor help either side in the end. Just an annoyance to the consumer.

Posted by Rxanadu

This is the kind of stuff that makes me fear for the longevity of this industry.

Posted by Darkstorn

Not a fan of used game sales, and this sounds like it's been in the works for a while. Not super great for the consumer, but...

Posted by Palaeomerus
@Brodehouse:  
 
Meh. Screw that noise.  
 
There is nothing wrong with people complaining about things they don't like. Publishers need to hear if they are making people angry. Sometimes they even change their mind about things. Capcom has already let it be known that they'll probably not use the save file that can't be reset again. 
 
Nor should anyone be worried about saying something merely because you claim to be sick of it. If you are sick of hearing stuff then close your ears or don't read posts or whatever.  That's no one's problem but yours, and you just ain't that important bro.
Posted by Meowshi
@hollitz said:
Oh no, I hate buying games that haven't been scratched up and shat on that comes with an instruction manual that's always been dunked in fruit punch.
Dumb.  I've bought like...one or two used games that didn't work, and immediately got a refund.   
 
And who the hell reads instruction manuals?
Posted by HarrySound

This is all going to far now. 
They need to figure this shit out, I don't think this is the answer. 
Publishers have been doing it for years now, has it worked?? wheres the evidence .

Posted by Vexxan

Everyone wants their own kind of "pass" these days...

Posted by Damian
What evidence? And why is it growing?
Posted by Brodehouse

@RsistncE: What are you talking about? Giving people a way of 'obtaining' games that has 0 dollars going back to the publishers does not help them whatsoever. There is absolutely nothing about the used game market that 'helps' a publisher. If those people are price conscious, they should wait until the price drop to 40 and then 20 dollars, not buy a used game at launch to save 3 dollars.

Online
Posted by radioflyr309
@Brodehouse: There is absolutely nothing about the used game market that 'helps' a publisher. 
 
Well consider the fact that there are a lot of people that can only afford to buy those new $60 games from the publisher when they first come out by being able to trade their old games in for it. I rarely ever dish out a full $60 cash for a game. I usually trade at least $20-$30 worth of games in towards it and pay for the rest.
 
Publishers would sell at lot less copies week one without people having the opportunity to trade in stuff towards it. Of course, then someone would also have the option of buying it used eventually, but it works both ways. They sell more copies week one because people have that option, and they sell less new copies later on because people have that option.
 
I can guarantee you that with a high profile game such as Call of Duty or Halo, more copies are sold the first few weeks than the next couple months following combined.
 
What this all comes down to is the cost of making a game. Last generation of consoles, this would have been unheard of, even with the light online capabilities of PS2. But now that games are so much more expensive to make, publishers want another outlet to increase their profit. Which is fine, it is a business after all. But the reasoning behind it doesn't add up. And it's an annoyance to the consumer, which any industry should be careful of. I mean.....look at PC games and the music industry. There's an eventual backlash to trying to limit the consumer.
Posted by wolf_blitzer85

Getting oh so much closer to the future of CD-Keys!

Posted by eloj

@Kyle: People who make things and maintain them want to get payed for them. Go figure.

Are you saying publishers make things? Surley you're not insinuating that these monies goes back to the programmers and the rest of the actual talent?!

Edited by heatDrive88

@radioflyr309 said:

Publishers would sell at lot less copies week one without people having the opportunity to trade in stuff towards it.

You're kind of missing the point, but I get where you're coming from.

While that may be true for the given game that you are trading in for, you're forgetting that the premium games that a retailer (such as GameStop/Best Buy/Amazon/etc.) is asking for to be traded in for that discount is what the problem is for the publisher. Just because you got a brand new game for $40 rather than $60, it's the guys who made the games that you just traded in that are getting the screws put to them. Mind you, those games may not even originate from the same publisher as the brand new game that you received discount on.

It's not really about the short-term burst sales boost that you're talking about (which I have not yet seen any data as to just how valuable the second-hand market is to boosting sales), it's the long-tail market life of the game that the publisher sees no monetization from. I get what you're saying, but the problem at hand that the publisher is trying to fix is in the reverse of what you're thinking (which makes sense, as you are a consumer).

The publisher doesn't care that you received a discount on your brand new copy of a game. It only cares to resolve the games that you traded in, because the publisher (and down the business trail, the developer) receive no monetary kickbacks when those games get resold, unless they implement these types of online pass systems.

I agree that video games are expensive, and yes, development costs continue to rise, and that is a whole other compounding problem on itself to the consumer. However, this problem is not about the consumer, at least not quite yet. It's about a business model that is fair and nurturing to the very people who make these video games.

When standard edition SKU's for games start being listed as higher than $79.99 MSRP, then we'll talk again.

If you guys want more information on how all this stuff works, read my blog.

http://www.giantbomb.com/profile/heatdrive88/heated-opinions-the-business-of-used-games-and-online-passes/30-80575/

Edited by heatDrive88

@Brodehouse said:

@RsistncE: If those people are price conscious, they should wait until the price drop to 40 and then 20 dollars, not buy a used game at launch to save 3 dollars.

Conversely speaking to the post I just made - while I agree with your intention, that's an unfair comment for the consumer and his/her free market right to accept and trade tender at their own will based on their own economic condition. A consumer has every right to accept a trade discount. It's not their fault that the business model is skewed, so it's important for people in the business to restructure the model as necessary to be better at accommodating for all parties involved (including the publisher, developer, retailer, and the consumer).

Posted by Keeng

More power to them. I have definitely benefited from trading older games in to get new ones, but I also understand where publishers are coming from. I don't mind that Sony wants retail price for their games, just like I don't mind that EA does. What company doesn't?  
 
Also, why is this news? Socom 4 had this thing already. 

Posted by Cybexx

Sony has already been doing their own Online Pass stuff with the Socom games on PSP.

Posted by allworkandlowpay

The Game industry really needs to toughen up and fight for royalties instead of stiffing the bill on consumers.

You don't like that a business profits off of a used sales, giving you $0.00 in return? Buck up and do what the movie industry did - threaten them not to release your shit to them unless they give you a cut of the action.

How hard would it be? Just imagine it. One week before Madden 12 is released, EA goes to Gamestop and says: "We need a new deal. If you don't give us 20 percent of the profit you make off our games, we aren't shipping any Maddens or future sports titles to Gamestop stores."

What is gamestop going to do? Take the hit? refund all those pre-orders? Hope that they can get enough used copies from thefted Wal-mart shelves to meet the demand? Hell no, they will cave.

But no. Its just far easier to screw over your userbase. Just shovel the cost onto the consumer for your own problem. While your at it, why don't you make us charge our credit card per level.

Edited by Brodehouse

@radioflyr309: Think about this in the long run. EA releases Dead Space 2, Bulletstorm and Dragon Age 2 in three months. Someone buys Dead Space 2 and Bulletstorm new, then trades them in in order to buy Dragon Age 2. That's a sale caused by the used game market! Except now someone else is buying those Dead Space 2 and Bulletstorm copies instead of buying those games new. You've just lost 2 sales to make one. What's worse, somebody is going to return those copies of Dead Space 2 and Bulletstorm soon enough to buy a used copy of Dragon Age 2. And then those copies of Dead Space 2 and Bulletstorm get resold again. What are we at, 5 sales lost in order to get 1?

One step forward two steps back gets you nowhere. One step forward five steps back gets you fucked up.

The thing I feel; I think it's rare that anyone under the age of 35 knows how to spend their money. I don't know if it's the infantilization of modern culture or what, but I see people throw money at things they don't want and then complain that it wasn't something they wanted. Rather than say nothing and wait until the price is dropped until it's a good value, they just throw money at it and then complain when it's not a good value. Or they do things like buy games and flip them a week later, losing usually about 20-30 bucks on average every flip. If that's your plan, why don't you just rent them instead of supporting glorified pawn shops? Even from a consumer standpoint it's completely foolish.

There's a reason why Gamestop reports quarterly profits of a pants-shitting volume; the foolishness of consumers.

@allworkandlowpay: I'm sorry, what cost are they shoveling to their consumers? Their consumers bought the game new, and aren't paying anything. If you bought it used, you aren't their consumer, you're Gamestop's consumer. Period. If you aren't paying for their product, you are not any publisher's responsibility. Why don't you go to Gamestop and ask them to make the games you want?

Online
Posted by RsistncE
@Brodehouse: You do realize that people use the money they get from trade ins to buy new games right? That money comes out of the stores pocket not the publishers pocket. That $40 (or whatever money someone gets for their trade in) subsidizes the price of a full $60 game for many people bring the purchase within their budget. Now imagine what would happen to sales of new games if people couldn't trade in last months hot game to get $40 toward this months $60 game. The result is pretty obvious as it would push many individuals out of the new game market. So what are YOU talking about?
Posted by Shaymarx
While I appreciate the stance of the publishers i do wonder what if this was to be done within the used car industry? Do you get the car home and fine half the boot is blocked off until you pay a premium for a key from the manufacturer? There are a number of games that I like to wait for before buying such as Alice Returns, but if the initial demand was not high it would only be available pre-owned.
Posted by norenewalfee

Since I buy 98% of my games new I don´t care... still better than paying 60$ a year just to be ABLE to play online at all...  Besides Mortal Kombat was just the same way on PS3

Posted by mariussmit

@allworkandlowpay said:

The Game industry really needs to toughen up and fight for royalties instead of stiffing the bill on consumers.

You don't like that a business profits off of a used sales, giving you $0.00 in return? Buck up and do what the movie industry did - threaten them not to release your shit to them unless they give you a cut of the action.

How hard would it be? Just imagine it. One week before Madden 12 is released, EA goes to Gamestop and says: "We need a new deal. If you don't give us 20 percent of the profit you make off our games, we aren't shipping any Maddens or future sports titles to Gamestop stores."

What is gamestop going to do? Take the hit? refund all those pre-orders? Hope that they can get enough used copies from thefted Wal-mart shelves to meet the demand? Hell no, they will cave.

But no. Its just far easier to screw over your userbase. Just shovel the cost onto the consumer for your own problem. While your at it, why don't you make us charge our credit card per level.

yes, yes and yes. I don't buy used games myself nor do I play a lot of on-line multi-player so this trend doesn't really effect me, but this is something that companies need to sort out between themselves instead of both punishing the customer.

Posted by allworkandlowpay

@RsistncE: I think if you'd spend a week at a Gamestop you'd see that is not the case.

I worked at one for a little over a year, and a GameCrazy for almost three.

Trade-ins went to new games usually only maybe 20-30 percent of the time. Most of the time trade-in bonuses were added to equally appealing used game deals (things like buy two used games and get a 20 percent trade-in bump, for example.) Most of the time the money recirculated again and again only in the retailers hands, with the constant recycling and buying of used merchandise.

Its getting to the point now that with the exception for first week sales, the developers will rarely see any other sales for new merchandise.

Posted by supergg2k

I understand the need for third party online-codes. What bothers me about the first-party use of codes is the "double dipping" that could occur for Playstation Plus users.

Player one pays $60 a year for Playstation Plus. That player decides to pick up a used title that requires "PSN Pass" to play online.

Should that player pay an extra $10? If anything PSN Pass should be a part of Playstation Plus.

Posted by bransonhuggins

here's the thing.  Companies like gamestop and the like that sell used games are the thorn in the side of the gaming industry.  The gaming industry makes NO, NONE, NOTHING, money off of used games, that is all profit for whomever is selling it.  Now, is this a bad thing?  No, not to us gamers that don't feel like paying 60 for a game we are on the fence about.  I mean seriously.  
 
I for one don't think this will stick...then again, all the people that bitch, will still pay for it, rather then risk losing there games...so this could be the wave of the future.  I hope not, but I don't know...you guys talk a lot of shit, but then turn around and buy into it.  I for one, will not support this.  I don't care if I want to play a game online.  If I buy it used, and it tries to charge me more, well then I just got a single player game.  Screw that.

Posted by bransonhuggins
@HBK619: First off, waiting for a game to drop in price doesn't mean you are being cheap.  It means you aren't going to spend your hard earned money on something your not sure about.  Sorry, but you can read all the reviews you want, watch all the gameplay footage you want, but until you play a game you won't know if it's for you or not; and some people don't want to spend 60 to find out it's not.