New vs. Used Videogames, and the war on First-Sale Doctrine
Let me get this out of the way by stating that I unequivocally use services like Gamefly and Goozex to stretch my gaming budget as far as possible. I do buy new games, but I also use these services to get a lot of older games, hard to get games, and downright achievement whorable games. Most of these games don’t have a great replay value.
I also understand that video game developers have the right to try to recover their investment in making their game. I understand that video games cost a lot of money to make. They need to understand that not every title is worthy of $60 of my hard-earned money. They also need to understand that once I part with my hard-earned money, if I wish to trade that game back to a brick-and-mortar store, or use a trading service such as Goozex to send that game along to its next happy owner, I am damn well within well-established rights to do so.
I am not opposed at content or extras that might entice me to part with more of my hard-earned money on a well deserving game that I purchased through the second-hand market. In fact, I down-right encourage this practice. However, it seems some publishers and developers are taking a slightly different approach that I have issue with. I don’t think games should now be “crippled” by hiding features that have well established precedent for being included in rental and used copies. Yes, I’m talking about Online play.
Games like skate. 3, UFC 2010, and all of the upcoming EA sports titles have announced this feature. These features were perfectly accessible in previous year’s titles to patrons of the second-hand market. This is not a well-incentivized plan to get me to part with my hard earned money. This is a tax on the second-hand market, and more of a direct attack on Gamestop’s business model.
While I cannot recommend Gamestop as a retailer I would send my friend’s to for video games, I do recommend Goozex. Goozex gives gamers a fair deal for their used games, and is an exchange marketplace for other gamers who wish to get rid of some of their games while getting more games in return. I recently received The Saboteur from Goozex, and while the single-use code had already been used, I have the option to purchase that bonus content as a used-game patron. I may do this when I finally tackle this game, as I feel the price of 240MSP is a fair shake.
I don’t feel the price of 800MSP ($10) is a fair shake for online features for sports games that already have a short online life. These games are yearly installments, and rarely have much use into the next year. Even skate. 3’s 400MSP ($5) for the online community features feels like a bit of a rip-off when the previous two titles were perfectly accessible from used-market titles. I even purchased every DLC for skate. 2 and I don’t own the game. Give me a reason to give you more of my money, don’t just simply setup a toll-booth for online play.
And while we are talking about me giving you more of my money, let me take this opportunity to also turn the tables on the Rockband forked games. I want to give someone my money very badly, to be able to export Lego Rockband songs, but since I don’t have the pack-in code, I can’t even PURCHASE the token to do this. I understand there may be more legal complications on this, but seriously, I want to give you more of my money, and there is no way for me to do this.
In conclusion, I do see a market for incentivizing used-market gamers to make additional purchases. But entice them with content; don’t simply setup a toll-booth for these gamers. Don’t take away features we have come to expect from previous generations of games. Give us something more. Reward the people who purchase your game on release day, but also give us the opportunity to buy that content from you if we choose to stretch our gaming budgets to the max. I will part with my money for QUALITY content. I won’t part with my money for a toll-booth, no matter how many achievements you hide behind it.
Is the car business model different than the videogame model? When I buy a $20,000 car I have the right to sell it. No features are lost with that car during the sale. It seems like car dealers have a lot more at stake with expensive cars, then $60 videogames. How awful would it be to buy a used Ford and then have to take it to the dealer and pay $5,000 unlock the steering wheel becaue they put a one time use code on it or something. Its mind boggling. Good read op, i agree with you.
While I do agree that the DEVELOPERS (not publishers mind you) deserve to get paid for their hard work, I find their arguments about the used game market to be B.S. as well. With any piece of hardware (car, computer, furniture) you can buy used and sell your old stuff without any issues. I haven't herd the Chair Manufactures of America complaining how they are loosing revenue over yard sales. Yet with games, you keep hearing how they are loosing money on their products due to used games. While I think they will always be a market to buy used, perhaps one way of getting people to buy more games is to sell them for less? $60 is really a lot to pay for a game, and there is no way the more mass-market crowd would deal with that price to too long.
Developers make their profit when they sell the game the first time, that is how the economy works. Games are not a special case. Does anyone actually think they sell games for a loss? It is different if they make a loss on the the game, but that is their fault as it simply wasn't popular enough - make a better game and/or market it better. Developers crying poor is the biggest load of nonsense ever. They are a business. Companies fail all the time. It is like we should just keep giving GM money every time we resell their cars because they need - make better cars.
" While I do agree that the DEVELOPERS (not publishers mind you) deserve to get paid for their hard work, I find their arguments about the used game market to be B.S. as well. With any piece of hardware (car, computer, furniture) you can buy used and sell your old stuff without any issues. I haven't herd the Chair Manufactures of America complaining how they are loosing revenue over yard sales. Yet with games, you keep hearing how they are loosing money on their products due to used games. While I think they will always be a market to buy used, perhaps one way of getting people to buy more games is to sell them for less? $60 is really a lot to pay for a game, and there is no way the more mass-market crowd would deal with that price to too long. "This guy has it right.
I don't mind the policy. I buy all of my games new. I don't always get them on day one, but I do buy them all new. A lot of the titles I buy are kinda niche so I feel like if the small group of people that want and enjoy these games don't buy them, they won't get made.
Also, the EA thing gives you a 7-day free trial so you can play online if you rent it.
It's purely a business practice designed to generate more income on a market which currently generates no income for developers/publishers. If this does not work out for them, I wouldn't be extremely surprised if the next generation of consoles offers a 'cd-key feature' to publishers- thereby completely eliminating the used market.
Call it unethical if you want, and believe me we bitched some when it happened to the PC market; all the dev's see is a growing number of people buying used or pirating (yes, consoles too). If they can't find a way to capitalize in a new way, they'll go to what they know (sort of) works.
EDIT: removed sarcasm for clarity
There is a slight difference, here. Online play requires an ongoing financial commitment from the company, and so adding new users through used games does create some additional overhead. However, since the game is sold, it means that the previous player will no longer be using the game. So the additional overhead is small. But it's still real. On the 360, we already pay a premium for online play, so it shouldn't matter. We already pay to play online, so to play again is simply wrong.
I don't mind day-one DLC so long as the game as delivered in the retail box is complete. If they want to entice people to buy on the first day, that's great. More content (especially free content) is always welcome. I wonder, however, if developers won't eventually be seduced into holding back core game content in this way. I can understand why they're going this route, but I think it's a mistake. In the end, any measure publishers take is only going to be a stopgap. The true solution is digital distribution. Of course, that means the used game market will be gone forever.
I buy most of my games used. You already pay for XBox Live so this is complete bullshit.
Not that I would buy a sports game in my life anyway.
Wait wait wait, if I bought Skate 3, I would have to pay to play online!?
Fuck that. No more Skate 3 for me.
" There is a slight difference, here. Online play requires an ongoing financial commitment from the company, and so adding new users through used games does create some additional overhead. However, since the game is sold, it means that the previous player will no longer be using the game. So the additional overhead is small. But it's still real. On the 360, we already pay a premium for online play, so it shouldn't matter. We already pay to play online, so to play again is simply wrong.
I don't mind day-one DLC so long as the game as delivered in the retail box is complete. If they want to entice people to buy on the first day, that's great. More content (especially free content) is always welcome. I wonder, however, if developers won't eventually be seduced into holding back core game content in this way. I can understand why they're going this route, but I think it's a mistake. In the end, any measure publishers take is only going to be a stopgap. The true solution is digital distribution. Of course, that means the used game market will be gone forever. "
If EA has such a problem with the costs of maintaining their online severs, by all means, stop doing it. I'm sure just about everyone that plays their games online wouldn't mind if Microsoft ran the matchmaking like every other game.
I can't really blame most of these companies though, just about all of the major publishers have been posting losses over the last year, and they are just scrambling to find a way to increase revenue without raising game prices to $70. The problem is that most of these online games don't have necessities that they can offer as DLC, like the map packs for Halo 3 and MW2.
Hopefully they come up with a better way to increase their revenue on each game sold without raising the price, because this war on used games is a joke.
Also, we are so far away from digital distribution being viable at all. If I remember correctly, even those GTA DLC packs did awful. People just don't like spending that much money on something intangible.
" I don't mind the policy. I buy all of my games new. I don't always get them on day one, but I do buy them all new. A lot of the titles I buy are kinda niche so I feel like if the small group of people that want and enjoy these games don't buy them, they won't get made. Also, the EA thing gives you a 7-day free trial so you can play online if you rent it. "i wasn't bothered by this code thing at all, i buy almost all new games, same as you.
But, i wasn't aware about that 7 day free trial thing. You whiners are ridiculous if you get 7 days to try it out on a game, that's plenty of time for a rental. So stop you're bitching and moaning about how it should be illegal.
Ultimately, this is about changing games from being a product to being a service. This is just the first step of many that will eventually take us there. Maybe that's what people want to happen, I don't know, but I know I don't want it to happen.
Today it's a one-off fee for used-game buyers to access multiplayer, tomorrow it's a one-off fee for all buyers to access multiplayer (on top of the regular purchase cost), the day after that it's a monthly fee to access multiplayer, and finally you're just paying a subscription to access the game in the first place, and games will have become a service.
i agree. they say it cost the same to make a game as a big budget movie, yet i can go to a theater for $5 and see it or buy the dvd later for $20 or less. now i do not know how main steam video games are compared to movies, but if movies are doing fine with all the bootleg movies which im sure is easier then to pirate a game, has no other source of aftermarket income like DLC, and im sure is more freely available to rent/watch for free on tv then games, why the hell should i be giving game companies more money then movie companies?" While I do agree that the DEVELOPERS (not publishers mind you) deserve to get paid for their hard work, I find their arguments about the used game market to be B.S. as well. With any piece of hardware (car, computer, furniture) you can buy used and sell your old stuff without any issues. I haven't herd the Chair Manufactures of America complaining how they are loosing revenue over yard sales. Yet with games, you keep hearing how they are loosing money on their products due to used games. While I think they will always be a market to buy used, perhaps one way of getting people to buy more games is to sell them for less? $60 is really a lot to pay for a game, and there is no way the more mass-market crowd would deal with that price to too long. "
they really should try and bring the price down and not milk there customers and im sure they can get a bigger piece of the market.
Wow, telling people on the internets to shut up, you're so cool.i wasn't bothered by this code thing at all, i buy almost all new games, same as you. But, i wasn't aware about that 7 day free trial thing. You whiners are ridiculous if you get 7 days to try it out on a game, that's plenty of time for a rental. So stop you're bitching and moaning about how it should be illegal. "
I support EA, and any other company for that matter, trying to increase their revenue by offering services. But do it smart. Their sport games are not exclusively online like MMO's so if they're managing online conectivity as a service rather than a feature, how about charging 50 bucks for the games and offering their online game service for the extra 10 dollars? This way, if one doesn't want or just can't play online he has an option of not paying for it. People who buy new and play online will pay the same and get the same; people who buy new and on don't play online will pay less and get the same; people who buy used and play online will pay the relatively the same and now EA gets money for the service.
I don't buy EA Sport games because their games become obsolete in about a year so could just as well say "It doesn't matter to me so screw you guys". But being ok with this that just sets a bad precedent as Jimbo put it.
I'm a renter so this especially pisses me off. (I know EA has the 7 Day Pass, but do Ubisoft or THQ?)
Also this is clearly headed to the inevitable Madden subscription service, and from there it will seep into everything else. The best thing is to not support this trek headed down a slippery slope. But gamers have a piss-poor track record during pivotal shifts in the games industry.
" Ultimately, this is about changing games from being a product to being a service. This is just the first step of many that will eventually take us there. Maybe that's what people want to happen, I don't know, but I know I don't want it to happen.
Today it's a one-off fee for used-game buyers to access multiplayer, tomorrow it's a one-off fee for all buyers to access multiplayer (on top of the regular purchase cost), the day after that it's a monthly fee to access multiplayer, and finally you're just paying a subscription to access the game in the first place, and games will have become a service. "
We already pay a subscription to play games online on the 360. There is absolutely no way that you will ever have to pay a game specific fee to play online unless it's an MMO like FFXI. Companies just don't do enough of the actual online work for this to ever happen. Not to mention if they ever tried to pull that, you can bet your ass there would be an absolute outrage against it.
I think the furthest it will go in the foreseeable future is the one-time fee to play online for new games, and even that might be pushing it. This is just the slippery-slope fallacy, we aren't even close most of the stuff you mentioned happening on consoles. A huge number of people who own 360s and PS3s don't even use the online portions of the console, for that reason alone it wont happen.
" As I have said before I don't mind companies putting in ADDED content as a code for the the original buyer, And charging any secondary users for it.But that content should be ADDED content, NOT main parts of the game itself. "Can you think of any examples of that? It's a hard line to toe, because if you create some kind of extra mode that's awesome, I think companies would rather just stick it in the main game in an attempt to sell more copies. That's why we always get crap like some special gun in ME2 or costume RDR.
" Ultimately, this is about changing games from being a product to being a service. This is just the first step of many that will eventually take us there. Maybe that's what people want to happen, I don't know, but I know I don't want it to happen.A service model wouldn't be all bad. Perhaps in the future there could be a division of services for each game. For example, if you're not interested in COD 8's multiplayer for fear of nagging 8 year-olds/lousy internet/etcetera, you would only have to purchase the campaign, and whatever content you wanted.
Today it's a one-off fee for used-game buyers to access multiplayer, tomorrow it's a one-off fee for all buyers to access multiplayer (on top of the regular purchase cost), the day after that it's a monthly fee to access multiplayer, and finally you're just paying a subscription to access the game in the first place, and games will have become a service. "
DLC stuff,
An extra MP map in a FPS, A track in a racing game, An extra dungeon in a RPG, Costumes in a Fighter, ect, ect...
Just that kind of shit, Stuff that lots of people would pay the extra money for but stuff that won't make a huge difference in the actual gameplay.
Honestly even the online features I wouldn't mind being a one time code, or download But $10 is pretty steep almost 20% of the games retail value is bullshit.
" @sixghost: DLC stuff, An extra MP map in a FPS, A track in a racing game, An extra dungeon in a RPG, Costumes in a Fighter, ect, ect... Just that kind of shit, Stuff that lots of people would pay the extra money for but stuff that won't make a huge difference in the actual gameplay. Honestly even the online features I wouldn't mind being a one time code, or download But $10 is pretty steep almost 20% of the games retail value is bullshit. "
All that stuff is perfect except for a couple catches. 1) It all requires an internet connection to unlock or download. 2) All that stuff could easily be construed as removing content instead of adding content. It seems like just another application of EA's philosophy, but instead of cordoning off online only things, you'd be doing it to single player stuff as well.
Also, you'd have to consider how much the locked content is actually worth to people. If the new-game bonus is 1extra track or map, but the game already has tons of those, is it really going to be enough to convince the consumer to buy the game new when the used version is $10-20 cheaper?
One clever example that I think people are overlooking is Dragon Age and Awakening. What better way to combat used sales than to require the disc of the original game to actually play the expansion.
Today it's a one-off fee for used-game buyers to access multiplayer, tomorrow it's a one-off fee for all buyers to access multiplayer (on top of the regular purchase cost), the day after that it's a monthly fee to access multiplayer, and finally you're just paying a subscription to access the game in the first place, and games will have become a service. "Yup, the ol' slippery slope.
The thing that really sticks in my head whenever this is brought up is this:
When the publishers bring up this issue (and let's be clear, it's the publishers not the developers) it's always brought up as a "keep our heads above water" issue.
If this is true, if EA is really "just keeping their heads above water" with their Madden sales then fine - this is a necessary measure.
But I personally have trouble believing that EA is just trying to "keep their heads above water" and can't help but think this is more about how they can make more surplus.
So people really believe that John Q. Developer is all of a sudden get some huge raise because EA increased annual profits by 10%?
I don't, maybe that's the disconnect.
I buy 90% of all of my games new. I do it as a CHOICE to help support game developers that make good games, I just purchased a new copy of RDR. But that is a choice I make and I do not like what EA is doing with this one time code thing and I have bought Madden new 3 out of the last 4 years and I will not be purchasing it this year for the first time because I feel that giving them my money says it is OK for developers to do this in the future for all games. If you do not like the practice then say so with your wallet. If EA makes more money with this model than they did last year then guess what, they(and others) will continue it. If they make less money then they will have to rethink it. I am not calling for a boycott I think the premise is stupid but think and then decide for yourself what is important.
" @JCGamer said:That's the thing about movies though. They have the box-office, the movie tie-ins (like games, and gear), and the DVD/Blu-ray market. Movies have a lot of ways to make money, not to mention that their audience is so much larger than games. Games have the retail sell through as their only source of income, and that is why that are trying to get more with DLC and other things. I still think that games could be cheaper though.i agree. they say it cost the same to make a game as a big budget movie, yet i can go to a theater for $5 and see it or buy the dvd later for $20 or less. now i do not know how main steam video games are compared to movies, but if movies are doing fine with all the bootleg movies which im sure is easier then to pirate a game, has no other source of aftermarket income like DLC, and im sure is more freely available to rent/watch for free on tv then games, why the hell should i be giving game companies more money then movie companies? they really should try and bring the price down and not milk there customers and im sure they can get a bigger piece of the market. "" While I do agree that the DEVELOPERS (not publishers mind you) deserve to get paid for their hard work, I find their arguments about the used game market to be B.S. as well. With any piece of hardware (car, computer, furniture) you can buy used and sell your old stuff without any issues. I haven't herd the Chair Manufactures of America complaining how they are loosing revenue over yard sales. Yet with games, you keep hearing how they are loosing money on their products due to used games. While I think they will always be a market to buy used, perhaps one way of getting people to buy more games is to sell them for less? $60 is really a lot to pay for a game, and there is no way the more mass-market crowd would deal with that price to too long. "
Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment