The next Xbox's rumoured move to block used games would be "a fantastic change for our business," says Volition designer Jameson Durall.
Writing via the AltDevBlog, the Red Faction: Armageddon man claims the general public don't appreciate how much pre-owned game sales are hurting developers, and welcomes rumours that the Xbox 720 could introduce a platform-wide online pass system - throttling the pre-owned market.
"There's another big rumor about the next Xbox console that could really start to shake things up... it won't play used games at all," Durall writes.
He adds: "The system is already there for Microsoft, all they'd have to do is use the DLC and codes model they have to tie a game to your Xbox live account.
"Each retail disc would likely need that unique key somewhere in the code so the account would be able to link it properly. Ideally it would tie a full version to the console it is registered on so family members can play even if the main account isn't signed in, but this is exactly how their model works now anyway."
The designer admits the proposed system would have faults, but goes on to suggest issues such as game rental and lending games to friends could be ironed out by Microsoft.
"I could see Microsoft implementing their own rental service which would maybe give them a code that activates the game for X days and they are charged a small amount," he says.
"This could work when you borrow the disc from someone or even with digital download of the full version. It would also send a percentage of the rental to the Developer with each rental... likely improving the overall revenue we would receive from it."
He concludes: "In the end, I fully believe that we have to do something about these issues or our industry is going to fall apart.
"People often don't understand the cost that goes into creating these huge experiences that we put on the shelves for only $60. They also don't seem to realize how much they are hurting us when they buy a used game and how pirating a copy is just plain stealing."
"I know that some will say I'm not considering the retail games stores and the impact something like this would have on them...but remember they were doing fine well before the Used Games market became such a staple of their business.
The truth is, they aren't concerned with how this business is affecting us so why should I care how these changes will affect them?"
Last week THQ CEO Brian Farrell said the seemingly inevitable wave of new consoles represent a "tremendous opportunity" for the publisher.
Comments
111 comments so far...
Sentinator on 6 Feb '12 said:
"Personally I think this would be a fantastic change for our business and even though the consumers would be up in arms about it at first... they will grow to understand why and that it won't kill them."
This has to be the best joke I've read this year.
lonewolf2002 on 6 Feb '12 said:
I have said this all along, work a deal with game shops etc to get a cut of used games sales. Publishers etc still get a cut the shop gets one and the people that need to buy 2nd hand still get their games.....simple really.
rjdjones on 6 Feb '12 said:
If I can only buy a brand new game without being able to rent or buy used then I will just save my money for the best and will wait until all bugs and glitches have been identified before even considering buying (yes Skyrim, hang your head in laggy shame).
If they expect to continue providing the same poor service - rushed games, poor game testing, DLC which should have been included on release saved just to make more money etc. then I'm more than happy to wait until the inevitable price drops of both the new consoles and the games.
spunwicked on 6 Feb '12 said:
So basically, we pay through the nose for software we can only use on one system? No sell-on value at all?
Hopefully this loon will have to eat his words. I know that I will buy a system that doesn't enforce this over one that does. I have pretty much boycotted EA because of their idiotic EA pass system.
Maybe if developers/publishers lowered the cost of their games, people would always buy new - but it's a risky business this gen, what with broken games being shipped to meet deadlines and please stockholders, why should we take the risk buying new if we aren't sure of the quality?
JD_Method on 6 Feb '12 said:
If anything, this would probably actually lead to LESS sales for them.
People aren't going to want to pay to borrow a game from a friend to try it. If Microsoft did a rental service it would most likely be overpriced. If people can't trade in old games to fund new ones, people aren't going to be so willing to drop forty quid on your games.
Personally, I rarely ever buy used. The majority of my games I bought new, but this pre-owned games block would just be ridiculous.
buffig on 6 Feb '12 said:
I hope ms do implememnt this. All Sony would need to do to shift more units would be to not do this. The dev would sell hardly any copies of the xbox version and the idea would die a rapid death. But it hasnt happeded yet.
slatters on 6 Feb '12 said:
More like Microsoft will be ironed out. If this ever comes to fruition, I will not be purchasing it, or any console that follows suit.
Humans sell things, it's the way it's been since man sold axe to man to chop down tree to build house.
Caveman talk intended.
ricflair on 6 Feb '12 said:
It's within THQ's power to put it's money where it's mouth is, isn't it?
Release a game and have it not work at all unless you put in the one use code in the box. See what the response is, check out various branches of Game, Cex etc and see how many copies are on the shelves.
I rarely buy used, but I do trade some older games, but I boycotted Arkham because of the code, and I think the EA pass takes the p**s on the games they release annually, like FIFA.
Beetle Bum on 6 Feb '12 said:
if they want me to purchase games at £50 retail price then I expect the game to be of exceptional quality with plenty of replay value. No longer am I paying full price for a s**tty poor quality game cause I have been burnt many times before and never again.
Consistency is the key. If the game isn't quality consistent through-out ie a tiniest slightest annoying section of any game then I'm not buying it. It has to be spot on 1000%. I expect nothing less. Otherwise they can f**k of and not take my good earned money.
Black Mantis on 6 Feb '12 said:
I agree with this guy, especially that last bit aimed at retailers. Whilst I'm unlikely to be negatively impacted by such a system (don't buy used/rarely borrow), if Microsoft were to go ahead and do it with the features he's described, it could work out.
ricflair on 6 Feb '12 said:
But would the publisher then be inclined to release a 'lesser' version for the PS, or not release a copy at all?
wellb_b on 6 Feb '12 said:
So these people are telling me my son carnt bring his games round when he comes to stop the weekend because these greedy bastards want MORE money. Even more laughable than UDraw. I would love to get hold of these people round the neck f88k888 w88ke88
moogiesboy on 6 Feb '12 said:
Sony and Ninty must be rubbing their hand together in anticipation of MS going through with this.
Normally to take the position of market leader you have to do something special to win the cusumer. Rarely doe the current market leader simply jump on its own sword like this.
If this makes it to xbox at all - I give it 3-4 months max b4 MS pulls the plug and strips it out of the console.
slick loose on 6 Feb '12 said:
I love how they seem to think that everyone who buys second hand will now buy brand new games. People buy second hand games because they refuse to spend £40 on something they will be done with, within a week.
If retailers are unwilling to drop the prices (which to be fair, they have been doing) all that is going to happen is that customers get alienated. For instance, if the 720 is Digital Distribution only and the games are still £40...people will simply not buy them. It may even encourage people to turn to piracy or even worse, off gaming all together.
I'm not saying pre-owned gaming isn't hurting the industry but to just to completely obliterate it could be even worse.
theaface on 6 Feb '12 said:
This man lacks credibility and his point is moot.
dannyraven1 on 6 Feb '12 said:
I won't be buying the Nextbox then, £40+ quid for a game that lasts 5-8 hours and they think you wanna keep it on a shelf somewhere collecting dust.
This won't only affect people buying used, what about the people who trade them against other purchases, because they don't have the money/space to keep all these games.
I'm starting to get sick of these games companies, DLC every other week, bug ridden games and now this s**t . I need a new hobby.
volatilis on 6 Feb '12 said:
Ha ha ha ha ha ha. Its how he is telling them.
If Microcox do go down this route with the 720, which would not be surpising, expect this feature as an update, not a U.S.P. at launch. But I digress....ha aha haa ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha, so on and so forth.
Fr33Kye on 6 Feb '12 said:
He makes a compelling argument. No one really seem to be concerned with his side of the industry. Which is odd because developers are what's most important. I can't say i like the idea of such a convoluted system and cd keys annoy me, but i see where he's coming from. I still think more emphasis on digital download and some better business models from publishers could do wonders for some cases. There has to be other, less cumbersome options but to be fair why should a developer be concerned with the convenience of gamers or the revenue of retailers?
I doubt it's that easy. If it was as easy as calling gamestop and asking them i think it would be done already. The retailers dont really have much incentive to cut the publisher/developer in unless the publisher's do things to change the status quo.
YouStoleMyKill on 6 Feb '12 said:
Maybe if most of THQ`s game weren't s**te then people might not trade their games in ? WWE series , Red Faction Armageddon and Homefront spring to mind
Yellowstreak on 6 Feb '12 said:
I really can't see this happening. The answer to pre-owned is cheaper digital distribution. Faced with the option of buying a new Xbox with no pre-owned or a PS4 with pre-owned MS would lose millions of sales! I'm a die-hard Xbox fan - haven't touched Sony since the PS1. But I would seriously consider switching if this became a reality.
mkwuk on 6 Feb '12 said:
It's this kind of attitude that has got THQ into so much financial trouble; they have a complete inability to see the bigger picture or to think outside of the box.
As an example; Johnny Customer has £100 to spend on games. He buys a new copy of Call of Duty for £50, then he buys three pre-owned games with the remaining £50, one of which is your THQ game.
Johnny Customer has now played your game. If he likes it, he may buy another of your games, or pay you £10 for an online pass to play the multi-player portion of your game.
He probably won't though, because your games are usually rubbish.
THQ: Make Better Games.
Zubee on 6 Feb '12 said:
All purchases I make I keep in mind the resale value. And most purchases I make I only make because they are cheap as preowned games. It would hurt devs to take away preowned as they probably wouldn't get the sale from people relying on preowned to get money back, and definately wouldn't get the exposure from the preowned browser with only a few quid in their pocket. Maybe I'm a cheap bastard or maybe devs think they are the only ones without unlimited money.
DAEDALUS79 on 6 Feb '12 said:
Im not particularly bothered about pre-owned games as I dont buy them but not being able to sell games on or trade them with friends will only damage the industry, people will only buy the games they know they will like. What happens with refunds too? If its implemented, the backlash would be monumental, smaller developers would go under and the number of new IP's would drop off a cliff. Companies are scared to back them now, whats gonna happen when people refuse to buy games because they cant return/trade/swap them. This fella needs a smack round the head for this rubbish.
trekerie on 6 Feb '12 said:
Maybe the devs at THQ should first worry about making a game actually worth paying full price for at launch. I have yet to actually buy a THQ title at launch or even new for that matter simply because they typically take little time to play (Homefront & Red Faction Armageddon were one-sitting beats).
WHERESMYMONKEY on 6 Feb '12 said:
well its all bacoming clear as to why THQ are losing money now. This would be disasterous for the industry. the sooner people come to realise that lending things to people and word of mouth are the most powerful marketing tools they have the beter.
There's a reason that sequels sell more than the first iterations in series. Its because people lend them to others after they've finished them and then they go. well that was great nad buy the sequel and so on and so faorth.
I understand that used sales don't get any money back to the publishers. therefore the devs suffer because of poor numbers.
But in order for this system to become even vaguely feasable and for consumers and retailers to not simply ignore or actively boycott both the hardware and software is to drmatically and i mean cut by at least half the price of games for it. Especially from suppliers to retail chains. At present new software has a market of literally a couple of quid for retailers so it is no surprise that they heavily back trading in and used sales as there is no money in selling new games. Make it worth retails while and they'll back it.
So far it seems the console that begins to abandon these draconion and needless to say desperate attempts at controlling what we as users can and can't do with our own purchases will be the winners of the nest gen.
StonecoldMC on 6 Feb '12 said:
Cant really argue with that. Ive always been an advocate of having to do something about the Used Games industry, this might not be the solution, but something will happen, eventually. trust me.
drpunk on 6 Feb '12 said:
The industry screwed itself up.
It's a shame that the solution is always to screw over the customer.
Meanwhile, selling 99p games kills it. Where's all those Apple users crying over wanting 40p to give their 99p game back?
svd_grasshopper on 6 Feb '12 said:
if it's brand new or nothing, then for lesser games like saints row - it will be nothing.
then you can kiss goodbye to possible DLC and online pass purchases from second-hand customers.
MJ-Thriller94 on 6 Feb '12 said:
Now, i would agree with this guy completely, if games were £20-25. The fact that games are being priced at £40-50, and that they are being released full of bugs (Skyrim), parts cut out of them (a-la Deus Ex), or games that last a few hours (too many to mention) makes this guys argument non-existent. Like many have already said here, people buy games pre-owned because they don't wish to pay such high prices. If they want to kill the pre-owned market, then the industry must cut the prices of its games.
I myself buy games pre-owned, alot. I only ever buy games brand new if it is something that suits my taste or is part if a series that i love (Metal Gear Solid to mention one). Only then am i willing to pay said prices for such games. The Online Pass system i can understand, and to an extent it works. The only reason i think people are so against it is simply because the prices of games are too high.
The industry wants to sort out the pre-owned problem. Well if they sort out their pricing down to a respectable £20-25, along with online passes, then BANG! PROBLEM SOLVED!
TheLastDodo on 6 Feb '12 said:
"Personally I think this would be a fantastic change for our business and even though the consumers would be up in arms about it at first... they will grow to understand why and that it won't kill them."
I agree that it definitely won't kill them but asking for them to understand it?
If this ever happened, two things would happen.
1. Big franchises go unaffected: FIFA/CoD/Halo/Gears/BF/Uncharted would still sell at current prices.
2. Everyone else will have no choice but to release games at lower prices
Majority of people these days stick to their comfort blanket games (see above list) as they know what they're getting with them, people deem original games (Shadows of the Damned) a risk at 40 quid but would give a try at 15-20 quid, the second hand market gives us the opportunity to alleviate that risk with for ex. Shadows of the Damned by trading games against it, without the second hand market to lessen the risk, games like Shadows of the Damned would have no choice to be released at a lower price.
That is if the publisher has brains.
RavenxPrime on 6 Feb '12 said:
I'm sure when nobody stumps up 50 quid on release date or for 3 or 4 weeks after, then the games get discounted down to 20 quid, that the developers, studios and publishers would be exstatic with the idea of a console not playing pre-owned games
STE MO on 6 Feb '12 said:
If this goes ahead then I'm gonna play PC games. What a stupid idea.
TOKEN on 6 Feb '12 said:
Devs should charge twice as much for a copy then retail should gain back for multiple sales selling preowned at new price
but then i would like to see better games that the resale becomes more important.
stop selling dlc as full retail games as well.
roynluc on 6 Feb '12 said:
This was supposedly a feature that was going to be implemented on the PS3, while it was still in development.
KMakawa on 6 Feb '12 said:
Blocking 2nd hand games isnt the way to fixing the second-hand industry, partially ruining the games industry.
The way to fix it is to make online passes for every single secondhand game that exists, and if that user wants to play it online (or even have achievements tracked) then you need to buy an online pass for it.
If every publisher and every developer got behind Online Pass systems, 2nd hand gaming wouldnt be an issue.
svd_grasshopper on 6 Feb '12 said:
that's a very interesting idea - and one that retailers couldn't really complain about, they would have no option to buy at a higher price, otherwise NO profit at all. after all, it is the retailers who are shafting publishers supposedly.
big stores like GAME, stores known to profit from second-hand sales could have their prices bumped up accordingly.
billysastard on 6 Feb '12 said:
the sooner this company completes its rapid decent to bankruptcy the better.
locking out LEGAL preowned games would not only most likely lead to several lawsuits but if it succeeded would pretty much guarantee a last place / exit from the videogame market for whichever maker allowed this on their system, i mean just what kind of moron would by a system that couldnt play borrowed, rented or purchased pre owned titles.
the only way i'd buy console that locked out used games was if it was hacked to within an inch of its life so i didnt have to buy ANY games for it and i wouldnt feel any guilt at all for pirating anything produced for it that used the feature.
this is like taking that evil online pass system one stage further and is the kind of thing the greedy scum who use them and the braindead morons who believe their bulls*it and support it would love, whilst at the same time do they really care if it destroys the entire industry they will kill with their short term greed?
billysastard on 6 Feb '12 said:
there is no need to fix the preowned games industry any more than there is the need to "fix" the second hand market in any other product from cars and houses to books and dvd's.
the only thing that needs fixing is the greed of these scumball publishers and the best way to fix that is to bankrupt them by never buying anything they produce.
much better to loose a few greedy bastards and the idiots who support them than to loose the entire industry, unless of course supporters of these online passes are really wanting a second atatri era style market crash?
beckerist on 6 Feb '12 said:
Well I refuse to buy the XBOX 720 if Microsoft decides to go that route. The developer won't care as I wasn't going to buy his crappy game new anyway....Red Faction was a pile of linear "let's try to rip off Gears" boringness...
Microsoft might care that I am not buying their console/paying xbox live/buying DLC though. I'm definitely 100% not buying it on launch unless I hear complete confirmation that this will not be a "feature."
theideal on 6 Feb '12 said:
Blocking second hand games would be a stupid move, let me just say that up front.
But I can see their point. The problem isn't people putting their games up on ebay or craigslist, the problem is game stores actively pushing used over new, converting guaranteed new sales into used sales at the counter. I've seen it a million times with my own eyes. There hasn't been a single time that I've been to buy a new copy of a title a few weeks or more old from Gamestop/EB where I haven't been offered a 'pre-owned' version instead at the counter... "You'll save five bucks". Now I don't buy used unless I have no other choice - I'd rather pay five more bucks and have some of my money go to the people that actually made the game I want to play than all of the money going to people that have done f**k all and who are actively trying to bring down the industry they rely on - but I've seen people in front of me in the queue take them up on it.
Now they were guaranteed new sales, they had the new copy in their hand and took it to the counter to buy it, they were 'converted' to the used copy by the staff at the counter, robbing the publisher of any return.
That's the sort of stuff that p**ses publishers off and that's the stuff that needs to be addressed, not punishing the customer.
nb_nmare2 on 6 Feb '12 said:
The developers and publishers wouldn't care less about such a discount, since they would have already been paid in full by the retail store.
Except the majority of PC games can't be bought or sold second hand either, since when you first install them they're permanently linked to an on-line account (e.g. Steam or EA Origin). Basically, PC gamers have had the exact problem that console gamers are up in arms about now for nearly a decade
.
Sleepaphobic on 6 Feb '12 said:
Making games worth the price tag would be fantastic too.
If 1 console does this and the other doesn't they'll pretty much be hanging themselves. Would be rightly deserved too for being that stupid. It would also be funny if there's more piracy as well.
Jeez even retail PC games aren't this restrictive. Steam is more restrictive in a way but I buy games at meaningless prices so the fact it can't be sold means nothing.
Mmmmgrolsch on 6 Feb '12 said:
Not necessarily, I don't bother redeeming my online passes in most cases as nearly all games have p**s poor online features.
LordVonPS3 on 6 Feb '12 said:
I hope Microsoft does it. I really, really do. It's about time gaming went back to being £1.99 or £2.99 for a budget game and £7.99 or £9.99 for a full priced game. Add these pre-owned / anti-piracy / no-rental game protection features and lets see a mammoth price drop for all games!
Eh? What do you mean - "NO"?
Oh you still expect punters to pay you £50 every time you release a shameless rip-off annual repeat version of the same game? Oh so you say the game costs this much because of what it takes to make it and that it's nothing to do with losing money to pre-owned / piracy / rentals or general profiteering? Oh well in that case I don't believe you at all.
I'm down with the renaissance period, DIY indie coders for the win. There was a time when people who wrote games - wrote games and publishers like Imagine, Ocean and Gremlin were so slim they were based in cottages.
Corporate publishers are the BLOAT in the video game industry, just as per the equivalents in the music industry and er - maybe every industry! The reason companies like Tesco do so well is by sourcing directly and cutting out the middle man. The sooner coders out there go indie, team up and start releasing their own stuff - the better it'll be for those actually responsible for making the games and for gamers. The irony is that most people don't see the mess they're involved in, feeding the fat cats - they cling to their "safe jobs, perks and pension schemes" even when none of it is really "safe" at all.
KingPepper on 6 Feb '12 said:
Coming from a person who has been made redundant yet again 4th time now!!!
I can't afford full price games, hence why the second hand market is good for people like me, who have too much time on my hands at the moment, but lack of money, i would love to be able to walk into a games store & purchase the top 10 games all at full price, and helping the games developers, but in fairness its NOT the developers who get this money its the Publishers like EA, Activision, Ubisoft, Etc Etc, who keep a huge percentage of all takings, rather than giving the money to the real talented Programmers / Graphic designers / Music composers who deserve it.
I hope that Micro$oft learn a lesson from this!!!, if they do indeed go down this road, that we all boycott them, and buy only from other sources.. IE Sony, Nintendo.
The Living End on 6 Feb '12 said:
I don't buy used games, I don't lend my games to friends, I don't sell or trade in my games. And I don't buy into the argument that some people can't afford new games. If thats the case get another hobby. I can't afford to burn ferrari's... so i don't
alan666 on 6 Feb '12 said:
well any developer or publisher that comes out & spouts crap like that will be boycotted it's as simple as that.
power to the people
Fr33Kye on 6 Feb '12 said:
He's a designer not the publisher. He doesn't make those business decisions. And making "better games" is not a good argument. Good games sell badly, great games sell badly, sometimes bad games sell well, and alright games sell really well.
gmcb007 on 6 Feb '12 said:
Of course he says it! Red Faction has probably sold more as preowned than new!
@The Living end
What about game rentals? Should we all be forced to buy games at full price just to see if it's good? Why should a household have to buy numerous games so everyone can play them on their accounts. Its pure greed and they're acting like they're the victims here yet they have the nerve to churn out all of this game content that is made before the game's release. (Saints Row 3)
Stop acting like such a high horse arsehole.
Mmmmgrolsch on 6 Feb '12 said:
And people giving up their rights like your good self will benefit because..... erm...... erm...... no you won't.
Why do you agree to have less power over your purchases?
Fr33Kye on 6 Feb '12 said:
How would small developers die and new ip's drop off a cliff when we would have even greater emphasis on digital download? Smaller developers could self publish or if they dont publisher's dont have to pay the cost of getting the games to the store. New ip's die all the time NOW because they dont sell enough New copies. New ip's are more likely to be bought used, wouldn't a publisher support more new ip's if all sales were new sales? That's not a very good argument. Your ignoring a problem that exists now for a problem that MIGHT arise if there is a change. I'm not supporting the idea completely but i think consumers will probably react the way this guy says they will.
lordirongut on 6 Feb '12 said:
Three words adequately describe this man. The first two are 'What a...' - I'll leave the other to the imagination.
LordVonPS3 on 6 Feb '12 said:
How many games do you think these two have written?
* Brian J. Farrell (Chairman, CEO, President).
* Ian Curran (SVP Int'l Publishing).
How much money do you think they've made?
C-LOVE on 6 Feb '12 said:
ya that would really help everyone not buy a xbox thats for damn sure we support the devs that make good games worth 60$, to many games are going for 60 that are complete junk, i am the consumer u have to make the games i want to play and make them properly or else i wont buy it and just wait till i can get it cheap to try it... or make a demo to get me interested... that just my input but the ps4 or what ever it will be called should not go this route... o yea if this did happen it would get hacked so fast its not even funny then u wont get a dime how does that sound????? ya thats wat i thought no comment right!
Fr33Kye on 6 Feb '12 said:
The guy in the article addresses all of that. And dont pretend like THQ is somehow ripping people off with saints row 3 lol. So the f**k what if it's made before release? If saints row 3 was lacking in value before dlc then you would have a point. Is it?
Fr33Kye on 6 Feb '12 said:
What if a game doesn't lend itself to a sequel? What if a developer didnt want a sequel? What if a game doesnt sell enough new copies in the first place to afford a sequel? That's not a great argument either.
And the winners of next gen will be the ones with the best marketing and smartest gimmick. The masses aren't boycotting anything.
gmcb007 on 6 Feb '12 said:
They are ripping people off. Personally it is lacking in value. It feels like half the game SR2 was. So you think it's all right to make content before release? It's hardly value for money. DLC should be content made a few months after the game's release to freshen it up, not some quick buck scheme that it has become in recent times. The whole game feels like a shell that will be filled by these monthly content releases. (Like those subscription magazines you see on TV)
Fr33Kye on 6 Feb '12 said:
No what's more likely in the case of shadows of the damned, is someone picking up a used copy months later rather than trading in games for it. People likely buy familiar names new, and then buy the unknowns later and used. They may trade in games to they can buy skyrim on launch day, but rarely so they can get shadows of the damned.
theideal on 6 Feb '12 said:
If people stopped buying it publishers would stop making it. We have no one to blame but ourselves.
jukkiz on 6 Feb '12 said:
Lending a game to my friend is stealing?! Selling stuff that's mine is stealing??!
Erm planet Earth calling, please call a doctor and have your brain checked. There must be something seriously wrong with it. Maybe a tumor pressing on the part that deals with reality?
If a game is great, I would never sell my copy. I still got my Morrowind for Xbox and I would never sell it.
But nah, nowadays games developers are not in the business to make great games. They're in to get a quick buck for any old rubbish they churn out.
And then they complain that people pirate their games that are not worth the disc they come in.
Make better games and stop speaking nonsense.
The Living End on 6 Feb '12 said:
Ok i'll get off my high horse. I have no problem with rentals or even pre owned as long as the people that should be are recieving something from it. But the situation we have at the moment is ridiculous. If you buy a game second hand and i just straight pirate it... aside from the legal standpoint, whats the difference to the developer? Ok so your conscience is clear but you did just as much damage as i did...
And to the guy calling me a simpleton? Because I respect people's intellectual property? I don't want less power over my purchases, but i also don't want big budget games to disappear because they don't sell enough new copies... I played angry birds, i didn't like it, i don't want the entire games industry to end up like that.
dicky1993 on 6 Feb '12 said:
f**k off THQ you haven't done anything decent in ages you pile of dicks
Fr33Kye on 6 Feb '12 said:
Dlc is supposed to keep a game relevant. A lot of games with big marketing budgets are being released and games are easily forgotten so if you wait a few months people have already either forgotten about your game or traded it in. I dont think there's anything wrong with making content before release. I do think they should be priced correctly and developers should be wary of what they are leaving out. Not only that but just because something is made before launch date doesn't mean it could easily have been on the disc.
As for the argument that SR3 is not worth the money, any idea how much SR2 cost to make in comparison to 3? I cant say if SR3 feels like it's lacking because i haven't played it and i cant say if that's just the way it is or if the game has an entire schedule of dlc already finished that will make it whole because i dont work for thq, but i do think the value of games has been distorted a little. Think about movies for a minute. For me movies cost $11 for probably around 2 hours of entertainment maybe less. I can watch that movie once. That's all. Games provide many more hours of entertainment, and you can replay it anytime you want. Not to mention it being an interactive experience. Developers aren't paid well and dont have great hours so to them gamers complaining about $60 for all of their work probably doesn't mean much. That being said i do think games should be priced better rather than setting 90% of retail games at $60.
sid77 on 6 Feb '12 said:
Im sorry but this is the the worst idea ever in the history of gaming! How can this idea even be conceived? Open trade between one person and the next on any commodity item is the backbone of human civilisation for gods sake. I certainly won't be buying any system with this built in. I would rather give up gaming altogether if it became the norm, i feel that strong about it. Then again i guess its the next evolutionary step after the EA online pass idea, another invention i absolutely loathe. Come on Microsoft get real, wake up and smell the coffee.
woodins on 6 Feb '12 said:
The main point that was highlighted to me was when he mentioned the rising development costs. People like him in the roles they currently hold have no interest in dev tools becoming streamlined and the games being made cheaper - it would adversely effect his job and those of his immediate superiors (never mind your run of the mill coder who is sleeping under his desk come "crunch time" - the burn out rate for those jobs is akin to London bus drivers. Soon as the finance sector becomes healthy again, you watch the number of programmers jump ship in the coming years). People in his position will pay lip service to Carmack who shout on and on about making games quicker and cheaper to make, but they really have no interest in changing the status quo.
This whole arguement about pre-owned gaming is as tired and predictable as that of religon vs atheism. The pro-pre-owned group will shout loudly that "I can sell a car without giving Ford/VW etc. any money, so why can't I sell on my game? And the anti-preowned will argue that the comparison isn't valid as other industries, like cars and films, have had almost 100yrs to streamline their manufacturing process. I can see both sides of the arguement, although I will say that after 40yrs, the gaming industry is being forced to evolve, and the genius' that supply the market what it wants instead of enforcing its own vision will eventually win. Its found to its own great cost that it isn't as "recession proof" as it boldly claimed back in 2009 and the pendulum is going to have to swing back at least a little in the consumers favour.
This digital lockdown on content is coming whether we like it or not. Glancing into my broken crystal ball, its just going to raise the prices of supposed "AAA" games as the dev costs are going to get even higher, and the consumer is going to be ever reluctant to spend. The downside might be a gaming world that is an even more extreme version of what we have now, with only Sports franchises and CODXXVIII/Mass Effect 25 being the order of the day. Even if we still own a piece of silicone under the TV, I can imagine cloud computing being used as a constant revenue stream that can also be used to kill piracy once and for all (To play COD 25, sign up for our cloud network for the extra processing power you need, just £5.99 per month!).
Probably gonna get laughed off the forum, but future initiatives like Apple TV suddenly seem like an interesting alternative. Maybe getting too old to care about graphics (31, been here since the C64), but I am amazed at how quickly the Smartphone/Tablet market has come on. I'm not interested as yet, but I can see its potential. If they mimic the pricing and delivery structure of Apple, a small team of talented devs can do some surprising stuff. Yeah, theres alot of crap on the iphone/pad market, but also some stunning gems starting to come out too. If they are not careful, the classic "AAA" market is going to eat itself, just like the music biz.
liveswired on 6 Feb '12 said:
Perhaps that t**t from volition should make a decent game first - then I'll listen.
The main reason Red Faction doesn't sell is because it is average tosh - nothing to do with preowned sales.
Even if it was available from 59p I wouldn't purchase it.
gobbybobby on 6 Feb '12 said:
Did she say Timesplitters???
gmcb007 on 6 Feb '12 said:
@ The LIving End
You make a fair point and I apologise for calling you an arsehole. Just sometimes you get people on here that like to act like they are better than others.
@Fr33kyle
Good point as well. It's not that I don't support DLC but just how some publishers recently have been using it to exploit us. I mean apparently the DLC for Deus Ex was removed from the original game and then sold back to us. It's actions like that p**s me off and in my opinion I personally feel like SR3 is being used as an experiment for THQ's DLC strategy. Like you said, I don't feel like I got my value out of the game when they already announce that there's a lot more content that will be sold seperately. If anything the base game should have been sold at a cheaper price.
KingPepper on 6 Feb '12 said:
It seems Sony is also going down the DLC side of things as i read just yesterday, that Ridge Racer on the PS Vita has only 3 tracks & 5 cars, and the price of said game is still high, i would call that a demo of the game NOT a full game, which means there will be tons of pricey DLC on its way after launch, GREEDY BASTARDS.
solamon77 on 6 Feb '12 said:
I will never buy used again as soon as MS and Sony are able to work out a system of digital delivery akin to the way Steam works. It's total BS that games over 2 years old still go for $40 in the Xbox store when I can go buy them used for under $20. If these guys are really serious about taking a bite out of used sales, why not do it with clever business practices, not heavy handed and draconian limitations.
theideal on 6 Feb '12 said:
Ridge Racer is Namco, not Sony.
dwhlufc on 6 Feb '12 said:
well said slick,I think alot of devs and publishers forget that they probably would lose a huge percentage of new game sales if people couldn't trade in games against new purchases.
KingPepper on 6 Feb '12 said:
Don't Sony own Namco, as they always have the same launch titles, my BAD if not........still GREEDY BASTARDS
console_whore on 6 Feb '12 said:
Nah
xxx128 on 6 Feb '12 said:
Since these games wont hold any value anymore i would find it "fantastic" if we would get them for free. Or in other words keep your s**tty games dear s**tty publishers.
Sleepaphobic on 6 Feb '12 said:
Good for you, I do all of those except for burning ferraris (That would be sick though).
Like pretty much every single other business used sales should be factored in when making the product. If they can't do that then there's nobody to blame but themselves and in the end all this whining just makes me want to buy used.
ladycroft142 on 6 Feb '12 said:
If pre-owned games were blocked it would certainly spell the end for specialist retail stores as they may have been able to get by before the establishment of the pre-owned market, but that was before the loss of sales through internet sites, as well as downloads, forced them to rely heavily on the sale of pre-owned games for profit. A much better solution would be to keep the pre-owned market but make retailers give a share of the profits to publishers. That might mean a slight rise in pre-owned prices, but it's better than abolishing them completely and it still means more money for publishers to invest in the production of more games.
flyfletch on 6 Feb '12 said:
This is the reason why it wont happen, MS are not stupid, and even in the small chance that it happens, it will be implimented in a way that MS can remove it with an update, if it starts to affect sales which i dont believe it will (all i will do is be a bit more careful about what i buy) then they will just put out an update and remove it
Ali_ on 6 Feb '12 said:
Quite simply, this would destroy the XBox brand and any chance it has in the next generation.
TheLastDodo on 6 Feb '12 said:
I'm talking about in a world where the pre-owned market doesn't exist, which is basically what this pre-owned blocking system would create.
If Shadows of the Damned was released on Xbox 720 at 40 quid, very few would buy it especially when Halo 5 is also 40 quid.
You can't trade in your completed 720 games against it to lower the risk as they're now worthless.
If it's 40 quid it's dead on arrival, if it's 20 quid more people will give it a try.
Mastermue on 6 Feb '12 said:
The full retail price is only an issue to people who HAVE to have the new thing straight away. I rarely pay more than £20 for a game which I get from Amazon about 12 months after release.It saves having to keep waiting for patches to fix busted games on release too.
I've seen many comments stating how if Microsoft implemented this 'solution' then everyone would buy the next playstation, but who is going to make the games? If the second hand game business is hurting them so much do they keep going until they go bankrupt? (Remember Team Bondii) How many studios have closed over the last 12 months? How many have lost their jobs?
There is the other solution of course. With games so expensive to make then they just jack up the 'new' price. Will you pay £100 for the next Call of Duty? £150? If not, how many people will pay that much so you can buy it 2nd hand?
It's very easy for everyone to sit self righteously and say 'I don't like that', but are you going to like it any more when fewer and fewer games are released which are then mainly published by EA and Activision as the other publishers go out of business and then set their own prices as there will be very little competition?
Don't take these comments the wrong way. I personally believe the second hand market should remain. I just want to open your minds to a possible future instead of just jumping to the whole 'I have a keyboard and going to state my disgust' internet thing where people jump up and down without really seeing all the consequences.
vitorfernandes83 on 6 Feb '12 said:
As long as the piracy continues that's great. I'm definitly not paying 40pounds for a game, especialy with the state of gaming nowadays, they're becoming movies, and with 40pounds I can get a few movies instead. If there's no second hand, I am all for piracy.
vitorfernandes83 on 6 Feb '12 said:
As someone stated on the comments, if everyone does second hand, many will loose their jobs, and to be honest I allways thought there's far too many games coming out. If they would concentrate in making good games instead of rushing them because of the competition and to make as much money as they can, then more people would buy them. If there's 1 good game per month, it would sell more than each of the 5-10 games. I would gladly pay 40pounds for a well worked game, no, uncharted 3 is far from it. I am saying something really big, perfectly crafted and with lots of replayability. The closest thing I've seen was Mario Galaxy 2 and Skyrim (but the bugs destroyed it). Games that give your moneys worth. I remember Metal Gear 4, with a little push it would have been a masterpiece and well worth 40pounds, the game was huge, full of possibilities but not as fun or memorable as the first metal gears, too many videos, no one buys a game to have to sit trough hours of videos, I'd rather read a good book with a really good story. Call of duty is the worst example of videogames, 40 pounds for a game that you finish in 4 hours and is not really memorable or fun at all.
With all this said, I either buy them cheap second hand or pirate them, until they really start making good games.
Fr33Kye on 6 Feb '12 said:
Yea when thq originally announced a strategy like this i thought it would be a pretty good idea because they intended to sell the base game at 2/3 of the price and the dlc would really be extra stuff for those that really liked the game...
Fr33Kye on 7 Feb '12 said:
Well i would think they wouldn't be launching at the same price if there was a one use code. And a digital version would have to cost even less than that. Now it's unlikely that the publishers would cut their prices, they want to have their cake and f**k it too, but this is all conjecture anyway. If the preowned market did not exist, shadows of the damned wouldn't be worse off, but that statement is operating on a lot of assumptions. There's no way of knowing how retailers would react or how publishers would behave. We can only guess.
If there was no used market retailers might have to drop prices on new games faster, so you cant really say shadows would be worse or better off.
arobbins2011 on 7 Feb '12 said:
I think the man is a total idiot, why would I want to pay 50 plus on games that have SO many glitches to them, and not to mention are total crap, my husband I do trade/buy used/and buy new, if this were to go into affect, HELLO PS3! I will NEVER OWN a xbox360 again! They are trying to hurt companies that sell and buy used games because they are greedy and want MORE money! They need to leave the sell/buy used games system alone!
KK-Headcharge78 on 7 Feb '12 said:
Yep I bet he wishes there was no pre-owned then games like Homefront wouldn't so quickly be exposed as utter turd typified by shelves full of 2nd hand copies not too long after launch.
Make some good games THQ before sniping at gamers.
KK-Headcharge78 on 7 Feb '12 said:
Yes and when everyone follows your example there will be no gaming industry
ps3james on 7 Feb '12 said:
Great for their business... Bad for my pockets!
agentxnofx on 7 Feb '12 said:
That is just a terrible idea, basically saying that someone NEEDS an internet connection to play a game. I know plenty of people that have never taken their consoles online and do not plan to... especially on 360 where they have to pay money for the pleasure of online MP.
THQ, kindly f*ck off. The only thing they're going to do is make people more reluctant to spend their hard-earned cash on your games. I'm sure they'd like to blame pirates and used games for their steady decline (check their stats), but in all honesty they've just made a bunch of s**tty business moves and even this wouldn't trick any sane people into buying Homefront or Red Faction. They should just include online-passes for their own games instead of trying to tell other successful companies what they should be doing.
Joe90_Remy700 on 7 Feb '12 said:
well, of course thq would say this, seeing as homefront was possibly the most traded in game within a week of launch
Old Skool Gamer on 7 Feb '12 said:
If this happens for real then piracy with go ten fold, people have had enough of being ripped off from devs such as his, that is why people trade or sell their games.
lonewolf2002 on 7 Feb '12 said:
I don't think (think) that it would be impossible to work out and could be quite workable, I was implying the idea was simple not the actual reality/execution.
gayrath on 7 Feb '12 said:
Here is the fault with his argument. I won’t pay £45 for Red Faction: Armageddon. I’m just not taking the risk that it is going to be really p**s poor. However I might pick it up for £20 pre-owned, enjoy it, and then spend money on DLC for it. So he will create a world where I am only going to spend my money on games that I know I will enjoy and take no risks, ultimately removing money from his pocket.
What is worse then all of that is the lack of innovation that it might create. There are very few new IPs these days. What do you think it will be like when developers won’t take any risks because they know that people will not take a gamble on a game that might be awful and have no resale value.
richomack360 on 7 Feb '12 said:
I'm sure under some obscure trade law somewhere they couldn't do this.
Why would I want to spend £50 on a game, knowing that if it's rubbish then I am lumbered with it and can't lend it to a mate or sell it on ? If I buy a car then sell it on I am pefectly entitled to do so as it's my property, so why couldn't I do this with games ?
Doubt I will get another Xbox if this is the strange $$$ throttling scheme comes in.
Stupidest idea since the Syndicate remake
karlrobert23uk on 7 Feb '12 said:
Now people lets not forget you do not own the game that you purchase, all you own is a license to use the code(as in program) to play the game.When we move to total digital distribution, which will happen in most western countries within the next ten years, you will not be buying second hand physical media for your current console. As an example how many of you have ever traded in an app on your phone or tablet... .Do i like this no, do i think that if you buy a physical product you should be able to trade and sell it as you see fit, yes.Can you imagine not being able to buy a second hand telly because the makers didn't get another cut of the cake, or a second hand car, from whoever and being told you had to pay the original manufacturer a percentage because he was upset that he never got anything. When somebody buys the game new, the producers get paid, when that person sells the game and the game goes second hand why should the producer get paid again ?
jsb115 on 7 Feb '12 said:
STFU, VolitionMan and bloody well get on with making a new Summoner game.
Or else.
jmslovatt on 7 Feb '12 said:
I hear ya mate, but I buy loadsa games on steam every day and never trade a single one (although I believe they have now made some sort of trading system), the reason I don't mind? Cos they are reasonably priced, and the price drops quickly after release. The only way the 720 could do this without totally alienating a large portion of the market would be if retailers took a leaf out of steam's book and had aggressive and frequent sales.
Likely to happen? Doubt it. glad I'm not a kid in this day and age, would be a nightmare getting games
Paul_27 on 7 Feb '12 said:
this move would ruin the xbox 720 as a gaming console
the move would only work is
1. developers bring out a complete game with no glitchers and bugs
2. put some software from hackers gaining entry into the multiplayer part
3. release the game between £19.99 and £24.99
if this does go through then i can see google or apple or even sony bringing a new console to the table and microsoft these and these developers that support it will end up broke
flyfletch on 7 Feb '12 said:
What if the game came with a code for you to use it, when you decide to trade it in, the retailer would have to enter that code again to activate it for a second use, and so on, then the publisher could see how many times its been resold, and then take their slice from the retailer. Works for me anyway lol Only thing i could poss see coming out of this is even more expensive 2nd hand games. Especially if Game are anything to go by.....so might not work...could be worth a try though!
havoc33 on 7 Feb '12 said:
I don't mind the 720 blocking pre-owned games, it would be a welcome injection into a faltering industry. Where it has gone wrong is that everyone takes it for granted that they should be able to buy every bloody game they want. People are just spoiled. Back in the SNES days, I used to save up for half a year to get my hands on ONE freakin game, as they were twice as expensive as they are now. And now the games cost way more to produce, yet are cheaper, and people still complain. Go figure.
TheBusterMan on 7 Feb '12 said:
Greedy capatilist dog.
Soviet1918 on 7 Feb '12 said:
I can see me console days coming to an end... RIP
mkwuk on 7 Feb '12 said:
Making better games is absolutely the arguement here - along with pricing them accordingly. I traded in Homefront after finishing it in under five hours. I don't usually trade games in, but it was shorter than most XBLA games and I had paid £45 for it and that annoyed me. It's this reason I haven't bought a THQ game since, as their standards of quality are generally lower than that of their competition.
If they take away the option of buying pre-owned without significantly adjusting their prices, even less people will be willing to take a chance on buying a brand new game from a publisher or a developer with a low-quality track-record, and the THQs of this world will just be crushed by the likes of EA and Activision.
It makes no difference if it’s a developer saying it or a publisher – getting rid of pre-owned will only ever work if they start pricing their content accordingly. THQ need to take a look at their business model (which to be fair to them, they are doing) before blaming all their woes on the pre-owned market.
sonic_uk on 7 Feb '12 said:
I only buy secondhand ("preowned" is just a word places like Blockbuster and Game made up to make it sound better) games if they are out of print and there is no possible other way to get them. However, this is completely against every consumer right in the book, not to mention morally wrong and for those reasons I will not be buying into this (I highly doubt its true anyway, I can't see something like this ever being given approval - its corporate suicide and very possibly illegal). Also, as I buy a lot of retro games what happens when the next xbox is old and there are some games I want to collect on it that I can't get new anymore? Stupid, brainless, nonsensical idea dreamed up by greedy over zealous corporations that are out of touch with reality.
NakaruHizashi on 8 Feb '12 said:
With out the ability to try a game beofre i buy it i wouldn't have half the games own now, all the games i bought i did buy new though after renting and trying them. Also what are we to do when the time comes that the games from this consel are old and not store avaliable any more? or they jusst stopped producing new coppies of the game (say like those of us who play origonal Xbox's SWTOR, not produced any more can only buy it used) honestly a majority of game circulation would down right stop, and in a state like mine where some of us, even the most hard core of gamers learn about an amazing game like Okami and want to buy it up years after it has stopped being produced (At least in my city a majority of us are trying to get that game and it doesn't exist except used any more due to age) So what are we to do? buy 2 or 3 coppies of every game and when time for them to become archaic comes sell them as new and unopened just so that the Dev can revel in their greed? ill gotten wishes for money due to greed annoys me, but killing basically an entire market just for one greedy lust of money, now theres one thing that can actually anger me to a point of actually boycotting
sonic_uk on 8 Feb '12 said:
Fully agree mate, and welcome to the site.
Feds on 10 Feb '12 said:
He tells the truth.
T4ln0y on 2 Mar '12 said:
If this ever happens, any games I want will end up costing me a leg, a hand and an eye.
biron_w on 16 Apr '12 said:
I remember reading that new games are the price they are because of used games, yet this guy is saying new games would stay at their current price even if used games went. To me this says publishers only want used games to go so they make more money.
And saying "only" cost $60(or £45 in the UK) proves how out of touch they are and shows they don't really know why people buy used games - most people can't afford to buy a lot of new games.
nb_nmare2 on 16 Apr '12 said:
Why are you paying £45 for new games? Amazon, Play.com, or shopto.net typically sell them for at least a fiver less than that.
If you're prepared to wait a few months, you can get them for even less. For example, the PS3 and 360 versions of MW3 are £25 on Amazon right now,which AFAIK is cheaper than the high street stores are selling them for second hand.