There have been plenty of Xbox 720 rumour reports this year, but one in particular has sparked controversy amongst the gaming public.
Some game designers have come out to support the proposed move, but today's soapbox developer believes it would be very unfair to block the public's right to used games.
Saber Interactive CEO, Matthew Karch, who's currently heading up promising shooter Inversion, and whose studio built the Halo: Combat Evolved Anniversary campaign, argues that a different approach to the problem is needed.
Writing for CVG, Karch shares his thoughts on Xbox 720's rumoured pre-owned prevention...
Inversion is due to release on Xbox 360, PlayStation 3 and PC in early 2012. Read our latest impressions.
"I don't think we should prevent people from playing used games. I understand why they would want to do it, but I think the approach should be different.
"$60 is a lot to pay for a game and if a player buys a dud and is stuck with it, then that's just not fair to force him to keep it. If people buy Inversion and it's not for them, then why should they be forced to turn it into a drink coaster?
"Publishers feel that reviewers have too much control now and if games can't be traded then reviews will become gospel. This doesn't serve anyone's interest.
"For me the approach is to bring the cost of games down and to sell them as digital content where they can't be bought and sold. If someone pays $15 for a game, then it's less painful if they need to keep it.
"If people buy Inversion and its not for them, then why should they be forced to turn it into a drink coaster?""Last time I spoke about this, some people misconstrued my comments to imply that I didn't think that games should be "full-length". This isn't the way I feel about it.
"A $60 game has about $30 of waste in it in getting the game to retail. I really believe that with digital distribution you can get that same full-length experience for $30.
"With Inversion (or games like Battlefield or Gears), for example, you could break that experience into two components - single-player and multiplayer - and sell them for $15 each or sell them combined for $30. If someone spends $15, then the trade-in value would be minimal anyway even if it were permissible.
"I think thats the way to go - lower the costs for the same access by bringing them to market digitally. Then a no-used solution is fair."
Disagree with Matthew's comments? let us know in the comments below.
Comments
26 comments so far...
jdkoke on 8 Feb '12 said:
I agree
kirankara on 8 Feb '12 said:
bloody heck, never thought id see a positive to digital distribution lol
most of what he says makes sense.
c3dpo on 8 Feb '12 said:
^^
I'm on the fence, until developers can ensure a solid game via boxed product methods, I dont want this rushed..
Back when Xbox 1 came out and the ability to patch, we've seen some much more serious bugs get out under the "patch it later" promise.
Now, all those haters of Activsion read this bit carefully. The EVIL EA, known for their shoddy online aspects due to boycotting Xbox live, has recently deployed a 2.0 GB patch!!!!
What the flying f**k could you miss that equates to 2GB!!!! even taking EFIGS into consideration, this is disgusting!
Further to this, I was unable to join any games without the patch!
Fine on 50mb F/O, but I have a mk1 with no need for a mega harddrive (I prefer to play it as a console should be IMO with no frikken installs, heck I have a pc already)!
With full digital distribution, I honestly expect even more quick to release games with disgusting bugs!
Remember developers / publishers, shocking bugs could kill your franchise before it gets off the ground (even though nobody has the balls to do a new IP in this day and age)!
But inversion looks sick!
TheDragonDoji on 8 Feb '12 said:
This man makes a fair point. I for one have barely touched the Battlefield 3 campaign whereas am close to clocking 200 hours on the multiplayer alone (I am unemployed OK!). On the flipside I really want to play Uncharted 3's main story but couldn't care less for the online aspect of it.
If developers and publishers go down this route I'll dip a tentative toe in the pool. If we start getting ripped off left, right and centre I'll just have to go back to reading books and masturbating incessantly...even more.
gmcb007 on 8 Feb '12 said:
Remember that this is a RUMOUR and not fact so I wouldn't bother with it so much. It's a bit sad how they're are milking this rumour.
WHERESMYMONKEY on 8 Feb '12 said:
I totally agree. I think there's a rant somewhere in a thread a couple of weeks ago where i said pretty much the exact same thing. Good to know i'm not the only one.
As far as EA and collosal patches go they're not the only ones. If you had a PS3 stupidly large patches are pretty much par the course. I think my hard drive is more full installs and patches then games i've bought off PSN its that bad.
Metagen on 8 Feb '12 said:
It may just be rumour but it's an interesting thing to consider in my opinion.
STE MO on 8 Feb '12 said:
I feel a trip to the European courts coming on if it goes ahead. If I buy a it is my right to sell it, the ECJ would agree with it
dicky1993 on 8 Feb '12 said:
i like this man, if your games good it will sell well new day 1, if not they will all trade in resulting in cheap preowned prices which people lap up
kmcroc on 8 Feb '12 said:
I use to trade my games in after having beat them 3 days after release , but realized i was getting shafted by gamestop on trade value. How's this for f**ked up you pay 59.99 + tax ,play for 3 days maybe 4 go to trade & all they want to give you is 20.00 to 25.00 dollars on it. Then they turn around & sell it for 55.99+ tax, since my rude awakening i now have green case kosters. So either the industry come up w/ something better or a ton of us will have kosters or continue getting shafted by gamestop.(JMO)
kmcroc on 8 Feb '12 said:
You own the packaging & cd , but it's contents belong to the delvelopers & publisher.
gmcb007 on 8 Feb '12 said:
Yes, it's a very debatable subject but CVG are treating it like it's offical and seem to be asking everybody in the industry.
Sleepaphobic on 8 Feb '12 said:
Not so sure about this so if it's bs somebody plz say but I heard that in the US once you buy something you can indeed sell it even if it's copyrighted. Have no idea what the rules are in europe so that may mean nothing here.
1Nightmare1 on 8 Feb '12 said:
Yeah but rumor can turn into a fact. And since the developers are now talking about it, it has to be more serious than "just a rumor". Sometimes it's best to take actions early, because if you just sit there and do nothing then typically opposite of what you wanted happens.
Of course rumor or not, I doubt MS is going to fall trough it. If they do, and Sony and Nintendo don't, then they can kiss their console and hardware/software sales goodbye.
a3HeadedMonkey on 8 Feb '12 said:
Agree 100%.
If CVG could at least come up with some sort of loose theory, on exactly how this might be implemented, I'd give it more credence.
Until then, it's just another red top, daily rag, bulls**t story to grind some hits out of. What a joke this site is.
toaboa on 8 Feb '12 said:
But that particular future will never come to pass; once the hardware owners has the marked corned by limiting second hand usage, and pushing DD they'll control the prices. There'll be no competition, and you and I will not see a dime of the extra sales garnered and the cost reductions. We'll all be treated to $60 games come rain or shine.
Why, that's just human nature and the way of business once they get monopolies and control the supply chain completely.
WHITEyy118 on 8 Feb '12 said:
I agree and disagree.
Blocking used games is totally the wrong idea. Yes used games do put a huge dent in the gaming market but without it gaming would become worse off. But then I don't agree about SP and MP becoming seperate parts to a game although he does offer some valid points.
alan666 on 8 Feb '12 said:
digitally distributed games will never be $15 though, most of the older full games available on PSN or LIVE are full price anyways, if they want to get more people downloading games they will have to lower the prices, but we all know that once 70%-80% of games are sold digitally only they will just put the prices up.
blu-ray discs are more than capable of holding enough data for even the biggest of games for the next ten plus years.
sepewrath on 8 Feb '12 said:
Not my approach, but a solid enough compromise if you ask me. Not like publishers who think they are entitled to 60 bucks, just because they put the game out. Their not entitled to anything.
LordVonPS3 on 8 Feb '12 said:
Not bad, not bad... I think the problem is that retailers make too much money out of selling pre-owned video games. Customers feel hard done by and so do games developers.
My idea for a solution then would be to stipple the pricing to make reselling a less profitable / less attractive proposition whilst also giving everyone more purchasing options and enabling more students and the like to get into gaming.
Here's some pricing options...
* A full price single player game on Blu-ray should sell for £14.99.
- Trophies / achievements are built in.
- You'll also pay £14.99 to download the single player game on SEN / XBox Live.
- If you then want to play multi-player online, you'll pay £6.99 for the download / unlock code.
- Total = £21.98.
* An all inclusive full price single + multi-player download experience should sell for £19.99.
- All of the single player trophies / achievements would be available.
- No trophies / achievements for multi-player at all.
- Total = £19.99.
* Additional DLC should then sell for whatever it's realistically worth by comparison.
- Say up to £5.00 for a multi-player map pack, a car pack, track pack, additional single player missions, etc.
* Patches should remain free.
Therefore...
* Gamer saves a couple of quid buying single + MP.
* DLC is only worth creating if MP sales are high. Would save unnecessary development effort.
* Developers can take more risks on interesting ideas. A game could just be single player initially and expanded upon / MP added later if it's successful. The game doesn't have to be as 'full' to go on sale.
* Resellers will struggle to buy for less than £5 / sell for more than £10. Retailer profit margins on pre-owned will drop. Retailers won't be able to sell the likes of "Call of Duty: Modern Warfare" for £35 and keep a new copy on sale for £45.
* More people will buy games due to lower prices. Gamers who aren't online are more likely to buy for the single player. Lower prices means less people waiting for prices to drop = more marketing buzz at launch. More sales = good for industry. More likely to sell more hardware with a bigger range of interesting games.
* Doesn't kill pre-owned, but creates a measured solution to MP + DLC development vs revenue.
* Gamers who really want to take a full price plunge will benefit from a no disc option and all game features off the bat.
furry_gizmo on 9 Feb '12 said:
Allowing second hand sales works for the car industry. It allows people to buy something that would otherwise be out of their reach and allows people with limited funds to own a car.
If I can't buy used games, I will buy less games. If a game goes out of production, how else can you buy a copy. Try finding a new copy of the original DiRT that isn't overpriced. The developer isn't making the profit, it is the seller exploiting the market. I'm happy to pay £10 for a used copy of DiRT, but I'm not paying £25 for a new copy of a game that is several years old.
Used games also let people take a punt on a game. £50 to buy a game and find it's a stinker is not a risk I'll take. But £15 for the same game second hand, and I might give it a go.
Killing off the used games market is a very bad idea, and is just being led by the greed of the games houses!
Old Skool Gamer on 9 Feb '12 said:
Nobody wants this and MS will most likely see sense and draw a line over this rumour.
rmorgan779 on 9 Feb '12 said:
if microsoft take this step to the dark side u can count one sale lost i however doubt they would dare as this would upset alot of gamers iam one of the few who believe the next gen cant come soon enough as the current crop of console are hampering the industry by being so dated if the ten year life cycle is the future we need upgradable machines its that simple
gypsygib on 9 Feb '12 said:
I'd love $30 AAA games new.
Bring on DD if that is the case.
neon32 on 18 Feb '12 said:
I cant believe trying to do something like this isn't illegal.
effing microsoft and their greed...
The sooner they're beaten out of the industry the better.
balitix on 2 May '12 said:
it might not be too bad if your american and only have to pay $60 for a new game, but in Australia new games cost $120 day one and for the next year or two cost $100. If they block used games, i guarantee you, %80 if Australian gamers, won't get the next xbox, and will probably just get a wii u.